OT Dodge's New Super Bee

"John B." > wrote in news:1189705994.684582@nfs-
db1.segnet.com:

> What's worst than a four-door Charger?

The 2 door, 4 cylinder 1980s version?

--
A: Because it disturbs the logical flow of the message.
Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Ooooooooooooo - yes. And the Plymouth version was later a Duster. I had an
'86 Plymouth Turismo, which was basically a Horizon 2-door fastback.
Actually kind of a fun car with the 2.2L and 4-speed. I especially liked
the sunroof, which you could completely remove. Got rid of it before it
blew up, though, as it was burning gallons of oil - heh.

John B.

....with a MUCH nicer 2005 Mustang GT now.

"elaich" <|@|.|> wrote in message ...
> "John B." > wrote in news:1189705994.684582@nfs-
> db1.segnet.com:
>
> > What's worst than a four-door Charger?
>
> The 2 door, 4 cylinder 1980s version?
>
> --
> A: Because it disturbs the logical flow of the message.
> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

I consider "four-door muscle car" to be an oxymoron. I thought the whole
point of such a car was to be a bit of a rebel, etc. A rebel with four
doors? Doesn't work. (OK, so Rambler/AMC made one. But they ALSO made a
TWO-DOOR model!) I can ALMOST understand something like a BMW or Audi
luxury sports car, but not this - so sorry. I think Dodge dropped the ball
not by coming out with something "retro" earlier. [As he points to his new
Mustang-->] And isn't the production Challenger up in the air now with all
these fuel requirements that will be upcoming?

"Joe" > wrote in message
...
> I can't believe you guys don't like that kind of performance simply
> because of the number of doors. I'd love to hear your opinions if that
> same kind of performance with 4 doors were added to Ford's current
> lineup. You're saying you'd diss a 450hp Grand Marquis, or a RWD 450hp
> Taurus? Hmm..
>
> To attempt to answer your question, John, the reason Dodge doesn't make
> a 2-door Charger is probably because the Challenger will take over that
> spot.
>
>
> "John B." > wrote in
> :
>
> > I'd have to go with MJ above. What's worst than a four-door Charger?
> > A four-door Super Bee! This may be a dumb question, but why can't
> > they make a two-door version of this and/or the Charger? I've seen
> > some aftermarket Chargers customized into a two-door and they're WAY
> > cooler, as far as looking like a muscle car.
> >
> > So, four-door - thumbs down.
> >
> > If they came out with a two-door - thumbs up.
> >
> > John B.
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >> Thumbs up or thumbs down?
> >>
> >> Take a look.
> >>
> >> http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=5279
> >>
> >> I vote: Thumbs up!
> >>
> >> Sco 1 up / 0 down
> >>
> >> Patrick
> >>
> >
> >
>

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> news >
>> wrote:
>>> On Sep 13, 6:22 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>> Don't get me wrong, I love a good thundering V-8 as much as the next
>>>> guy. IMO, the reason Chrysler had to give it all that horsepower
>>>> and torque is because it weighs over two tons.
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> Remember, the beloved Hemi 'Cudas of yore also weighed about 2 tons.
>> Sins of the past don't justify sins of the present. Chrysler had
>> little to do with the design of the 300C's bones. It was a MB
>> brainchild which is why it is heavy. It is also, IMO, the main reason
>> it is a good solid car.
>
> I see this as a good thing. Maybe I'm old school, but I like mass and
> weight for safety. If a 300C meets a Mustang in a collision, which
> car's occupants will come away with fewer injuries? Sure, that's a
> glittering generality, but I'd rather put my wife in an SUV than a Honda
> Fit.

In the computer age we should be able to have our cake and eat it too.
I think the larger luxury cars need the weight to provide sound
deadening, allot for all the options etc. If a 300C collides with a
GT500 I don't think we can call a winner as they both weigh damn near
the same.

>> For whatever reasons it seems most automakers
>> have trouble putting full sized cars on a diet. Just look at the
>> Mustang, it is a relative pig for its size.
>>
>>>> I'm starting to look at the
>>>> 300C platform as Chrysler's new K-car chassis. They at least need a
>>>> two door variant of it to give us a different look.
>>> I'm afraid many enthusiasts won't know how good these 300Cs/Chargers/
>>> Magnums are until they're gone.
>
> They're very popular around here, although a lot of them sport 22" dubs
> and whatnot...
>
>> I hope Chrysler replaces them with something better when they do give
>> it the axe.
>>
>>> Everyone who says they don't like them need to rent one (with a Hemi)
>>> for a weekend, put it on the highway and then eat up about a 1,000
>>> miles. Try it, and I'll guarantee you won't want to take it back to
>>> the rental company.
>> I have no doubt it is a nice car. It just seems to me that Chrysler
>> is letting it get dated and not improving it in any substantial way.
>
> I see it as: Why mess with a good thing?

The trouble is that they need to do this to keep the public's interest
and to not get left behind as technology advances. The Big Three tried
this approach before and damn near became extinct back in the 1980s.

>> Maybe the car is too heavily dependent on MB R&D to modify in any
>> meaningful way. This is also one reason I think the Challenger will
>> never see the light of day. I hope I'm wrong.
>
> Same here. The market needs that car.

I think it would sell. I just think Chrysler doesn't have the money or
the ability to bring it to reality. The 300C is a MB design and I
wonder if they have the in-house ability to redesign it or even the
legal rights to do so.

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Sep 13, 4:41 pm, Joe > wrote:
>
>> I can't believe you guys don't like that kind of performance simply
>> because of the number of doors. I'd love to hear your opinions if that
>> same kind of performance with 4 doors were added to Ford's current
>> lineup. You're saying you'd diss a 450hp Grand Marquis, or a RWD 450hp
>> Taurus? Hmm..
>
> Excellent point! I have to ask how many Charger haters liked or loved
> the Maruader?
>
> Patrick
>

The Marauder sucked. It was too big, way too under-powered, and priced too
high. Nice idea, done just as poorly as Dodges attempts...

The closest thing any of the BIG-3 have gotten to getting it right in the
last 20 years was the 5.0 mustang eating 1988 SHO, this car caught everyone
else flat footed, no one offered anything close for years, but of course,
Ford screwed that up too...

"Joe" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> news >
>> wrote:
>>> On Sep 13, 6:22 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't get me wrong, I love a good thundering V-8 as much as the next
>>>> guy. IMO, the reason Chrysler had to give it all that horsepower
>>>> and torque is because it weighs over two tons.
>>>
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> Remember, the beloved Hemi 'Cudas of yore also weighed about 2 tons.
>>
>> Sins of the past don't justify sins of the present. Chrysler had
>> little to do with the design of the 300C's bones. It was a MB
>> brainchild which is why it is heavy. It is also, IMO, the main reason
>> it is a good solid car.
>
> I see this as a good thing. Maybe I'm old school, but I like mass and
> weight for safety. If a 300C meets a Mustang in a collision, which
> car's occupants will come away with fewer injuries? Sure, that's a
> glittering generality, but I'd rather put my wife in an SUV than a Honda
> Fit.

That is why I drive a 10,000 pound F-450. You don't buy a sporty car to be
a tank... Well you might, but I do not...



>
>> For whatever reasons it seems most automakers
>> have trouble putting full sized cars on a diet. Just look at the
>> Mustang, it is a relative pig for its size.
>>
>>>> I'm starting to look at the
>>>> 300C platform as Chrysler's new K-car chassis. They at least need a
>>>> two door variant of it to give us a different look.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid many enthusiasts won't know how good these 300Cs/Chargers/
>>> Magnums are until they're gone.
>
> They're very popular around here, although a lot of them sport 22" dubs
> and whatnot...
>
>> I hope Chrysler replaces them with something better when they do give
>> it the axe.
>>
>>> Everyone who says they don't like them need to rent one (with a Hemi)
>>> for a weekend, put it on the highway and then eat up about a 1,000
>>> miles. Try it, and I'll guarantee you won't want to take it back to
>>> the rental company.
>>
>> I have no doubt it is a nice car. It just seems to me that Chrysler
>> is letting it get dated and not improving it in any substantial way.
>
> I see it as: Why mess with a good thing?
>
>> Maybe the car is too heavily dependent on MB R&D to modify in any
>> meaningful way. This is also one reason I think the Challenger will
>> never see the light of day. I hope I'm wrong.
>
> Same here. The market needs that car.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:20:26 -0700, wrote:

:>On Sep 13, 4:41 pm, Joe > wrote:
:>
:>> I can't believe you guys don't like that kind of performance simply
:>> because of the number of doors. I'd love to hear your opinions if that
:>> same kind of performance with 4 doors were added to Ford's current
:>> lineup. You're saying you'd diss a 450hp Grand Marquis, or a RWD 450hp
:>> Taurus? Hmm..
:>
:>Excellent point! I have to ask how many Charger haters liked or loved
:>the Maruader?
:>
:>Patrick

My ex has a 2003 Marauder, stock for now, and he loves it. I've
driven it and for the size and weight it's quick off the line and
performs well at highway speeds. Is it a match for my Mach 1 or
Corvette? No, but its comfortable and quick enough to be a fun
luxury ride. I'm told there are as many Maurauder folks doing gear
changes, headers, exhaust, and supercharging as there are Mustang
folks doing the same.

And to answer your question Patrick instead of the Charger he says
he'd rather have the GT 500 or an 03/04 Terminator. Right now he
has three other Mustangs besides the Marauder so I doubt anything new
will be added anytime soon.

On Sep 14, 7:20 am, Joe > wrote:

> > Maybe the car is too heavily dependent on MB R&D to modify in any
> > meaningful way. This is also one reason I think the Challenger will
> > never see the light of day. I hope I'm wrong.

> Same here. The market needs that car.

I think our expectations are too high for the Challenger. I hope I'm
wrong, but I get the funny feeling we're in for a letdown -- much like
what we received with SSR -- too pricey, limited numbers, too heavy
and I'm afraid the Challenger's roof top was compromised for
styling.

Patrick

On Sep 14, 7:24 am, Joe > wrote:

> > On Sep 13, 4:41 pm, Joe > wrote:

> >> I can't believe you guys don't like that kind of performance simply
> >> because of the number of doors. I'd love to hear your opinions if
> that
> >> same kind of performance with 4 doors were added to Ford's current
> >> lineup. You're saying you'd diss a 450hp Grand Marquis, or a RWD
> 450hp
> >> Taurus? Hmm.

> > Excellent point! I have to ask how many Charger haters liked or loved
> > the Maruader?

> As a follow up, I have to ask how many would've liked a 450-hp Maurader?

Nice follow up!

Love to hear some comments.

Patrick

On Sep 14, 10:15 am, "John B." > wrote:
> I consider "four-door muscle car" to be an oxymoron. I thought the whole
> point of such a car was to be a bit of a rebel, etc. A rebel with four
> doors? Doesn't work. (OK, so Rambler/AMC made one. But they ALSO made a
> TWO-DOOR model!) I can ALMOST understand something like a BMW or Audi
> luxury sports car, but not this - so sorry.

Rebel? The muscle car concept was take plain ol' pedestrian sedan and
add some excitement by dropping in a potent motor. Not until the
latter 60's did the formula get altered to a rebel theme with the
swoopy body styles, big scoops and wings. If anything, the current
340 HP 4-door Hemi Charger is closer to the original idea than say a
'69 Daytona Charger or '70 GTO Judge.

> I think Dodge dropped the ball
> not by coming out with something "retro" earlier.

I think they all did. IMO, the current Mustang look should have been
out in the mid 90s and upcoming Camaro look by the late 90's.

[As he points to his new
> Mustang-->] And isn't the production Challenger up in the air now with all
> these fuel requirements that will be upcoming?

Nope. It's still coming. But hopefully Chrysler didn't pin it's
recovery hopes on the Challenger's fortune.

Patrick