Quote :

"if someone cracks mopar's engine management system i'll purchase one but it hasn't happend yet and i won't ever leave a car stock so if i can't put some flavor of forced induction on it i don't want it."

Yeah you'll be singing a different tune when you're staring at the dotted line of your powertrain warranty conditions. Hope you like taking your turbo/charger off every time you have to go into the dealer for scheduled maintenance.

11/27/2005 8:41:04 PM

turbo/charger [/cool]

11/27/2005 8:48:51 PM

turbo and/or supercharger

or any other kind of forced induction device.

cripes give me hell for making a typing shortcut.

go kill yourself now.

11/27/2005 8:58:19 PM

now that everyone else has stated they like this car, i rescind my similar comment. it is no longer cool.

11/27/2005 9:32:17 PM

It never was.

It's a Charger/Magnum/300, only with two doors and lamer styling.

11/27/2005 9:51:55 PM

No, the magnum with its hearse-inspired look gets the award for the worst styling.

11/27/2005 10:58:53 PM

what's so hearse like about it? most hearses have tall windows and purple lights

oh wait, you mean because its a wagon

11/27/2005 11:06:54 PM

can we just all agree that its an awesome thing the cab forward design has died

11/27/2005 11:19:50 PM

Its called practicality. Its one of those advances they've made since the 70s.

11/28/2005 1:07:17 AM

never going to come out or come to production as cool as the concept. there's also rumored to be GNX rebirth using the new gto chassis with an awd setup and a twin turbo 3.8L v6, but that'll never see production either.

11/28/2005 1:48:42 AM

Quote :

" Yeah you'll be singing a different tune when you're staring at the dotted line of your powertrain warranty conditions. Hope you like taking your turbo/charger off every time you have to go into the dealer for scheduled maintenance."

hahah no offense dude but you really think anyone who will build their own turbo kit gives a fuck about a powertrain warranty?

what you break you upgrade any car guy knows this.

+ i don't trust dealerships anyway the ONLY thing i'd want them to fix is climate control or sat. nav anyway... that stuff is voodoo to me & i'll keep my fingers out of it.

11/28/2005 1:53:17 AM

Quote :

"twin turbo 3.8L v6, but that'll never see production either"

i heard a rumor that GM had already ordered the 3.8l in ANY form officially dicountinued, beacuse it was the most reliable pushrod v6 of ALL TIME and it was TOO GOOD

11/28/2005 2:08:29 AM

why cancel a motor that costs them virtually nothing in warranty work?

11/28/2005 3:23:43 AM

Quote :

"can we just all agree that its an awesome thing the cab forward design has died"

Hi. I'm what some people call a "Civic."

11/28/2005 6:18:59 AM

^kinda funny, I like the new civic for being the polar opposite of what the challenger will be. I just went in sat in one the other day out in cary, and that flat windshield and opposite-sweeping wipers is coooool. it's an egg, and damn good at being an egg. 140 hp with 40 mpg? on gas? I wish honda brought their diesel over here. Appeciate a car for what it's intended to be. cab-forward is nice for a transportation-pod, bad for characterful styling.

11/28/2005 11:45:17 AM

The B pillar is the pillar that comes between the first door's window glass and the glass after it. As the Challenger has two different window panes and no pillar between them, it is B pillar-less. Whoever said the CLK is b pillar less is correct. So is the CL-series.

This car looks awesome!

11/28/2005 1:55:09 PM

Are you including the CLS in the CL-series? If so, that's the first honest-to-God 4-door hardtop I've seen in a long damn time. Most of those were killed off in the late 70's by safety regulations.

Nope, just checked mbusa.com, the CLS has a "concealed" b-pillar. Technology has certainly advanced to the point where one could build a true hardtop with sufficient rigidity; I wonder why it hasn't been done? One would think there is a regulatory issue, but the saturn coupes and extended cab pickups get away with it, albeit with little rear-hinged doors...

[Edited on November 28, 2005 at 2:11 PM. Reason : d]

11/28/2005 2:04:14 PM

I like a few of the concept pics but the actual orange one under the trees looks like a bloated pig to me

11/28/2005 2:11:01 PM

That's because it is a bloated pig.



[Edited on November 28, 2005 at 3:17 PM. Reason : .]

11/28/2005 3:16:51 PM

I don't really see what is so special about it. What is going to make this more popular than say the GTO?

11/28/2005 3:45:25 PM

It looks cool, but I hate the idea of a car of these proportions being produced in this century. New models are supposed to be futuristic and fresh. American manufacturers need to build a sports car that sells itself instead of relying on "retro" coolness.

11/28/2005 3:47:55 PM

^^ Well even I'll admit that the concept looks like 100x cooler than the GTO

11/28/2005 4:04:14 PM

Quote :

"It looks cool, but I hate the idea of a car of these proportions being produced in this century. New models are supposed to be futuristic and fresh. American manufacturers need to build a sports car that sells itself instead of relying on "retro" coolness."

American manufacturers need to build what the public wants to buy.

Also, it's not a sports car.

Also. How are you so sure of the proportions? And what makes a large coupe such as this any different from the new Mustang (almost as big), GTO (heavy fugger itself, though perhaps it's more "modern"), or even any of a host of hefty sports sedans? Cars in general are getting bigger and heavier, due to safety regulations and luxury/convenience features. Perhaps you don't like the trend, but I don't know what your point is by singling this one out.

11/28/2005 4:14:45 PM

Quote :

"Are you including the CLS in the CL-series? If so, that's the first honest-to-God 4-door hardtop I've seen in a long damn time. Most of those were killed off in the late 70's by safety regulations."

The CLS is based on the E class sedan, and barely has anything in common with the CL. The CL and CLK are indeed B-pillarless coupes. (why did you post as if you didn't even read the 2nd half of the previous post)

11/28/2005 7:06:44 PM

Quote :

"This car looks awesome!"

i'm proud, pat. i figured you'd hate on it just because it's detroit iron.

11/28/2005 7:09:49 PM

More "news" about this car.....

http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=747

I really hope this makes it into production though, I would most likely make that purchase.

11/30/2005 8:41:06 PM

imo the mustang looks nicer

11/30/2005 8:44:42 PM

IMO everybody and their mom has a fucking Stang.

11/30/2005 9:18:12 PM

fuck a mustang, this challenger is way nicer

and it comes with a 425hp 6.1L Hemi

12/5/2005 11:46:07 AM

the current mustang has an ass only its mother could love. Everything from the C pillar back on that car sucks ass.

12/5/2005 1:07:11 PM

Challenger back in the News:


http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/funonwheels/01/04/dodge_challenger/index.html

1/4/2006 6:38:17 PM

Word around Dodge is that it will be released as a 2007 or 2008 model, more than likely with a 5.7 and a manual transmission option...on a chassis that is a altered version of the LX... better pictures can be found at dodgeboy.net

1/4/2006 9:22:32 PM

bttt

1/15/2007 9:56:31 PM

^thanks

has anyone seen when dealers will be accepting orders? googling hasn't turned up anything so far. i've called hendrick and southern states. i might as well have called a honda dealer for what they knew. the person at southern states didn't even know anything about a new challenger coming out.

1/15/2007 10:11:15 PM

maxxed out works for a dodge dealer i think

1/15/2007 10:17:16 PM

yeah, i already sent him a pm.

1/15/2007 10:18:32 PM

production for the challenger is scheduled to start the first week of april. With only about 30k being made (another 20k might be CUDA) the dealers likely won't know all that much, at least for the next couple of months.

1/16/2007 9:27:31 AM

It's still a Dodge. The engine will be blowing smoke at 80k.

1/16/2007 9:41:23 AM

shut the fuck up.

I've got a 318 sitting downstairs with 140k miles that starts right up, no smoke, no hesitation, great oil pressure.

and no, that isn't a lot of miles. Just pointing out a personal example.

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 10:26 AM. Reason : ]

1/16/2007 10:14:51 AM

Here's my personal example. 1998 Intrepid with 80k on the 2.7L engine. Well taken care of. The crank bearings went and the short block had to be replaced. The engine was not sludged up as is the case with many other Chrysler/Mitsubishi engines of that era. Many other problems occurred with that car.

There are several class action lawsuits regarding Chrysler/Mitsubishi engines.

Some of the new models do look sharp, but I wouldn't take my chances with poor mechanical quality. Dodge has converted me into a Japanese buyer for life.

1/16/2007 10:59:17 AM

you know that mitsubishi is japanese, right?

1/16/2007 11:14:41 AM

i had similar experience with eagle vision (dodge intrepid twin), but i think newer dodge cars are built way better due to benz influence. they are still not hondas, but...

main thing that turns me off is resale value. challenger is hot as hell, it will be very tempting especially if they stuff some monster V8 with 420+hp

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 11:17 AM. Reason : f]

1/16/2007 11:17:15 AM

it'll have the 6.1l 425hp hemi in it, with a 6.9 (426) possible a few years later. There's also a 6.4l (392) w/ 500+hp in development, but it may be a crate only motor.

1/16/2007 11:41:13 AM

i realize production will have to be starting within the next 3-4 months in order for it to be released in 2007 as a 2008 model. that's why i figured dealers would be starting to take orders now, but i guess not. i don't care to take my chances on finding the particular one i like on a lot with the low production numbers.

Quote :

"Here's my personal example. 1998 Intrepid with 80k on the 2.7L engine. Well taken care of. The crank bearings went and the short block had to be replaced. The engine was not sludged up as is the case with many other Chrysler/Mitsubishi engines of that era. Many other problems occurred with that car."

every manufacturer has had certain engines or other major components that are problem/failure prone. to discount a whole company based on your single experience is just ignorant.

the problem with the 2.7 was also fixed after the design flaw was realized (pcv system). problems were drastically reduced on later/current models. furthermore, DC has repaired MANY of these motors at no cost. sure, there are some cases where people probably got screwed by bad dealers themselves, not DC.

a large majority of the people that have jumped on the bandwagon bashing DC and these motors did not follow the reccomended oil change intervals. just because most engines may be just fine going longer than 3k miles between oil changes doesn't mean it's okay to expect all of them to. if that's what the manual calls for, and you don't follow it, that's your problem.

Quote :

"Dodge has converted me into a Japanese buyer for life"

lol, that makes alot of sense. the 2.7 is a mitsubishi designed engine.

in any event, quit hijacking this thread. it's about the dodge challenger, not your misguided views of DC.

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 12:10 PM. Reason : .]

1/16/2007 12:09:29 PM

looks sweet as hell

1/16/2007 12:09:55 PM

Everything about this car turns me on except the weight. But what can ya do...especially for that price.

1/16/2007 1:18:51 PM

what's wrong with the weight? it's not a sports car. i'd say ~3600 is very reasonable for a 2 door 4 seater sedan of that size.

1/16/2007 1:24:02 PM

Quote :

"Dodge has converted me into a Japanese buyer for life"

LOL. Yep, you're right. I should have said Honda/Toyota and maybe Nissan instead of Japanese. I wouldn't consider anything made or designed by Mitsubishi or Isuzu. Subaru and Mazda don't really appeal to me.

1/16/2007 1:37:20 PM

what's wrong with isuzu? other than the few models gm molested with their motors.

honda/toyota/nissan have all had their major problem models just like everyone else. i'll be happy to list them if you like.

1/16/2007 1:43:33 PM

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 3:06 PM. Reason : .]

1/16/2007 3:06:35 PM