300C vs Monaro vs Jag S

"General Schvantzkoph" wrote:

>Sorry I take that back. I was looking a a tiny picture of the Charger and
>it looked like a two door. When I found a big picture it was clear that
>it's a four door. However it looks like it has small windows like the 300.

What's wrong with smaller windows? My Pacifica has smaller windows that my T&C
LXi and they have caused no problems in the year+ I have owned it. Besides,
smaller windows were the norm prior to 1955.

General Schvantzkoph > writes:
>
> The Charger is a two door which is even less interesting than a station
> wagon.

No, a Charger should be a two-door; this one is, however, a four-door
sedan.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer

General Schvantzkoph > writes:
>
> The Charger is a two door which is even less interesting than a station
> wagon.

No, a Charger should be a two-door; this one is, however, a four-door
sedan.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 02:45:16 +0000, RPhillips47 wrote:

> "General Schvantzkoph" wrote:
>
>>Sorry I take that back. I was looking a a tiny picture of the Charger and
>>it looked like a two door. When I found a big picture it was clear that
>>it's a four door. However it looks like it has small windows like the 300.
>
> What's wrong with smaller windows? My Pacifica has smaller windows that my T&C
> LXi and they have caused no problems in the year+ I have owned it. Besides,
> smaller windows were the norm prior to 1955.

No seatbelts were the norm in 1955 also, as were unpadded dashes, tires
with inner tubes, crappy brakes, mushy suspensions, filthy exhaust. Which
feature of a 1950s car are you most nostalgic for?

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 02:45:16 +0000, RPhillips47 wrote:

> "General Schvantzkoph" wrote:
>
>>Sorry I take that back. I was looking a a tiny picture of the Charger and
>>it looked like a two door. When I found a big picture it was clear that
>>it's a four door. However it looks like it has small windows like the 300.
>
> What's wrong with smaller windows? My Pacifica has smaller windows that my T&C
> LXi and they have caused no problems in the year+ I have owned it. Besides,
> smaller windows were the norm prior to 1955.

No seatbelts were the norm in 1955 also, as were unpadded dashes, tires
with inner tubes, crappy brakes, mushy suspensions, filthy exhaust. Which
feature of a 1950s car are you most nostalgic for?

"General Schvantzkoph" wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 02:45:16 +0000, RPhillips47 wrote:
>
>> "General Schvantzkoph" wrote:
>>
>>>Sorry I take that back. I was looking a a tiny picture of the Charger and
>>>it looked like a two door. When I found a big picture it was clear that
>>>it's a four door. However it looks like it has small windows like the 300.
>>
>> What's wrong with smaller windows? My Pacifica has smaller windows that my
>T&C
>> LXi and they have caused no problems in the year+ I have owned it. Besides,
>> smaller windows were the norm prior to 1955.
>
>No seatbelts were the norm in 1955 also, as were unpadded dashes, tires
>with inner tubes, crappy brakes, mushy suspensions, filthy exhaust. Which
>feature of a 1950s car are you most nostalgic for?

Congratulations - you responded exactly as I expected you would. I, personally,
prefer the smaller windows as I feel safer and more secure when I have more
metal surrounding me (case-in-point, I feel considerably more safe and secure
when in my Pacifica vs. my T&C). I also feel more rigidity is added when the
windows are smaller. But, alas, I am merely one person speaking my opinion.
However, as the 300 and Magnum are so popular, others may (note I say may not
must) feel the same way. Also, because of their popularity I don't expect DC to
change the styling becaus you don't like small windows. As for your questions
regarding nostalgic features? Probably filthy exhaust is what I miss most.
Nothing like the performance of a vehicle without emissions devices, computers
to control them and catalyic converters to make one appreciate what once was
and never will be again.

"General Schvantzkoph" wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 02:45:16 +0000, RPhillips47 wrote:
>
>> "General Schvantzkoph" wrote:
>>
>>>Sorry I take that back. I was looking a a tiny picture of the Charger and
>>>it looked like a two door. When I found a big picture it was clear that
>>>it's a four door. However it looks like it has small windows like the 300.
>>
>> What's wrong with smaller windows? My Pacifica has smaller windows that my
>T&C
>> LXi and they have caused no problems in the year+ I have owned it. Besides,
>> smaller windows were the norm prior to 1955.
>
>No seatbelts were the norm in 1955 also, as were unpadded dashes, tires
>with inner tubes, crappy brakes, mushy suspensions, filthy exhaust. Which
>feature of a 1950s car are you most nostalgic for?

Congratulations - you responded exactly as I expected you would. I, personally,
prefer the smaller windows as I feel safer and more secure when I have more
metal surrounding me (case-in-point, I feel considerably more safe and secure
when in my Pacifica vs. my T&C). I also feel more rigidity is added when the
windows are smaller. But, alas, I am merely one person speaking my opinion.
However, as the 300 and Magnum are so popular, others may (note I say may not
must) feel the same way. Also, because of their popularity I don't expect DC to
change the styling becaus you don't like small windows. As for your questions
regarding nostalgic features? Probably filthy exhaust is what I miss most.
Nothing like the performance of a vehicle without emissions devices, computers
to control them and catalyic converters to make one appreciate what once was
and never will be again.

General Schvantzkoph wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:57:55 -0500, Steve wrote:
>
>
>>General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I only wish
>>>that Chrysler would offer a more attractive body style
>>
>>
>>They do... its called 'Magnum.' :-)
>>
>>The more Magnums I see, the better they look. The low rakish look WORKS
>>with the Wagon body lines much better than with the notch-backed profile
>>and big-mouth grille on the 300.
>
>
> I do like the Magnum better than the 300, but it's a station wagon. If
> there was a sedan version of the Magnum I'd be interested.
>

There is (or will be in a few months) It's called "Charger" (yeah, wrong
name for a sedan. The sedan should be 'Coronet' and a coupe should be
'Charger' if they're going retro). Not sure when they're supposed to be
hitting showrooms, but pretty soon now.

General Schvantzkoph wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:57:55 -0500, Steve wrote:
>
>
>>General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I only wish
>>>that Chrysler would offer a more attractive body style
>>
>>
>>They do... its called 'Magnum.' :-)
>>
>>The more Magnums I see, the better they look. The low rakish look WORKS
>>with the Wagon body lines much better than with the notch-backed profile
>>and big-mouth grille on the 300.
>
>
> I do like the Magnum better than the 300, but it's a station wagon. If
> there was a sedan version of the Magnum I'd be interested.
>

There is (or will be in a few months) It's called "Charger" (yeah, wrong
name for a sedan. The sedan should be 'Coronet' and a coupe should be
'Charger' if they're going retro). Not sure when they're supposed to be
hitting showrooms, but pretty soon now.