OT Dodge's New Super Bee

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> 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.

Interesting point. BTW, there were ads in last Sunday's paper for
GT500s at a local dealer. I think the ad price was around 50k+ or
something.

>>> 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.

IMO it's a balance that has to be maintained. Makers have to know
what's currently selling and what's going to sell next year. I'd
imagine it's the same in your field, Michael. Your designs have to be
current (i.e., what works) but timeless to the point where they'll still
be popular and functionally viable in 5 to 10 years.

>>> 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.

If it stays relatively close to what we've already seen, it will be a
runaway hit.

> 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.

I'd have to think that Cerebus took care of all that stuff with the
buyout. So far, Chrysler's design team's doing just fine IMO.
Certainly no worse than anything Ford or GM is coming up with.

"My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in
news:VEDGi.1742$A72.1630@trnddc08:

>
> "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...

I don't either. That's why I primarily drive a truck now. I've been
hit in both cars and trucks; I can tell you first hand that the trucks
hold up much better...

>>> 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.
>
>

wrote in news:1189816092.574526.54860
@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> 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

For all our sakes, I hope you're wrong, Patrick. Now, the SSR has come
around these days. It's still a toy, but at least it's now got a decent
engine...

wrote in news:1189816270.729259.320480
@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> 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

The Cobra drivetrain could've ended up in the Maurader. Automatic
could've even been an option. Everybody's happy.

"My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in
news:QXAGi.583$ec2.223@trnddc03:

>
> > 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...

The SHO was neat for sure, but IMO you're being a bit too harsh on the
Big3. There were certainly cars that "got it right". The most obvious
examples are the Mustang and Corvette.

Joe > wrote in news:Xns99ABE5B38134Dnospamforme@
216.77.188.18:

> wrote in news:1189816092.574526.54860
> @o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
>> 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
>
> For all our sakes, I hope you're wrong, Patrick. Now, the SSR has
come
> around these days. It's still a toy, but at least it's now got a
decent
> engine...

BTW, here's an interesting Challenger link..
http://www.dodge.com/en/2008/challenger/

"Joe" > wrote in message
...
> "My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in
> news:QXAGi.583$ec2.223@trnddc03:
>
>>
>> > 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...
>
> The SHO was neat for sure, but IMO you're being a bit too harsh on the
> Big3. There were certainly cars that "got it right". The most obvious
> examples are the Mustang and Corvette.

Yes, but what else have they done right since the Corvette in the 50's and
the Mustang in the 60's?

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :
>
>> 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.
>
> Interesting point. BTW, there were ads in last Sunday's paper for
> GT500s at a local dealer. I think the ad price was around 50k+ or
> something.

Ford has lost me as a loyal customer. Their greed regarding the GT500
has turned me off to the entire brand. There is a 90% chance our next
vehicle will be a Toyota and a less than 2% chance it will be a
Ford/Lincoln/Mercury. Ford can take the GT500 and shove it up their
collective assholes.

>>>> 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.
>
> IMO it's a balance that has to be maintained. Makers have to know
> what's currently selling and what's going to sell next year. I'd
> imagine it's the same in your field, Michael. Your designs have to be
> current (i.e., what works) but timeless to the point where they'll still
> be popular and functionally viable in 5 to 10 years.

The 300C is one hell of a car. It was a real breath of fresh air when
Chrysler put it out to the public. I hope they have a plan to refresh
it within the next couple of years. I would hate to see the car get
axed because Chrysler got lazy on keeping it fresh.

>>>> 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.
>
> If it stays relatively close to what we've already seen, it will be a
> runaway hit.

I think it will if it comes in at a decent price.

>> 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.
>
> I'd have to think that Cerebus took care of all that stuff with the
> buyout. So far, Chrysler's design team's doing just fine IMO.
> Certainly no worse than anything Ford or GM is coming up with.

My thinking is that Chrysler may not have the in depth knowledge to
manipulate the design because the engineers that created it are at MB.
It might be like GM taking the Camry and updating it without the tooling
or engineers that did the original design.

I am anxious to see the first new car from Chrysler under Cerebus
management. I think it will tell a lot about the direction of the
company, in general. I really don't think the Challenger will see
production.

"My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
news:k9JGi.1557$re2.164@trnddc02...
>
> "Joe" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in
>> news:QXAGi.583$ec2.223@trnddc03:
>>
>>>
>>> > 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...
>>
>> The SHO was neat for sure, but IMO you're being a bit too harsh on the
>> Big3. There were certainly cars that "got it right". The most obvious
>> examples are the Mustang and Corvette.
>
> Yes, but what else have they done right since the Corvette in the 50's and
> the Mustang in the 60's?

The Pinto. Especially the hatchback model that I had. A wonderful car to
drive and a great all-purpose utility vehicle.

Got my first speeding ticket in that car.

dwight

"dwight" > wrote in
:

> "My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
> news:k9JGi.1557$re2.164@trnddc02...
>>
>> "Joe" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in
>>> news:QXAGi.583$ec2.223@trnddc03:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > 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...
>>>
>>> The SHO was neat for sure, but IMO you're being a bit too harsh on
>>> the Big3. There were certainly cars that "got it right". The most
>>> obvious examples are the Mustang and Corvette.
>>
>> Yes, but what else have they done right since the Corvette in the
>> 50's and the Mustang in the 60's?
>
> The Pinto. Especially the hatchback model that I had. A wonderful car
> to drive and a great all-purpose utility vehicle.
>
> Got my first speeding ticket in that car.
>
> dwight

Yeah, I owned two of them. Wagons. The first one was a 4-cylinder
automatic woodie with skinny bias-ply white walls that I eventually sold
to my mother. She ended up selling it because the performance was even
too anemic for her. Next one was a V6. Power Plus, baby!