New Charger, 4-door, WHY?

Can someone tell me why the MoPar boys just don't get it?

In the 80's they stuck the proud names of Charger and Challenger
on the front drive four banger Mitsibishi import otherwise known
as the Omni.

Now they're slapping the Charger name on a FOUR DOOR SEDAN!

That's nearly as horrid as when Oldsmobile "revived" the 442 as
a front drive sedan.

Daimler-Chrysler really needs to make a 2-door version of their
300-Magnum-"Charger" platform.

Think of the possibilities. A Charger that deserves the name,
a sporty 2-door wagon, another restyle and bring back the
famous Hudson Hornet name. How about the first true hardtop
in decades?

Then there's the new Mercedes four door "coupe". No, it's
not a coupe. Coupe = TWO DOORS and a definite break between
the rear window and the trunklid.

The car style it most resembles is the 1948-53 Hudson 4-door
brougham body, but even that had more of a break in the
rear body line than the new Mercedes.

They can't just go changing what a body style is just because they
say different.

VW Phaeton? Does the roof fold down? No. So it ain't a
Phaeton.

Remember the Audi Coupe? Audi wanted people to believe
it was a coupe so much that they embossed COUPE into the big
reflector panel on the rear. Unfortunately for the style
concious, it was a 3-door HATCHBACK.

Corvette is also guilty of calling it by the wrong name.
For many years, the closed car has been a SEMI-FASTBACK
with a hatch, yet Chevy calls it a "coupe". Then they
came out with an actual COUPE design but called it a
"hardtop". Nice design, but the "hardtop" is the real
COUPE.

About the only designs the industry gets the right name
on anymore are convertables/dropheads and four door sedans.

GAlan wrote:

> Can someone tell me why the MoPar boys just don't get it?
>
> Now they're slapping the Charger name on a FOUR DOOR SEDAN!

Some will say that 2 door cars are impractical.

They are right - in the case of Chrysler/Dodge where car models have
been reduced significantly over the past 5 years. Chrysler/Dodge just
doesn't have the necessary variety of car models to be able to offer a
2-door car (the Cross Dresser being an exeption, but then again it's a
novelty car, like the Prowler and Viper).

I rented a GM car a few weeks ago - I think it was a Monte Carlo.
What-ever it was, it was a 2-door car. Which I think points to the
fact that if you have a healthy variety of models in your lineup, then
offering a 2-door car is viable.

Back in the 60's, Chrysler/Dodge had 2 and 4-door versions of the same
cars (Monaco/Polara/Newport, I think too the Fury, maybe others).
Where did that concept go? With the modern manufacturing processes
that we have now, plus the sheer production numbers (car models are
turned out by the hundred-thousand per year - not the several thousand
as was the case 30/40 years ago) we should be seeing more variety of
body configurations today. Instead, we have a huge contraction (at
least from Chrysler).

Considering the axe that the Germans have been wielding on
Chrysler/Dodge, Dodge is lucky to be getting something to replace the
Intrepid. It's a no-brainer that it's going to have to be a 4-door.
The Charger name is nothing more than the result of marketing research
that shows there is a benefit for using names from the past.

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, GAlan wrote:

> Can someone tell me why the MoPar boys just don't get it?

I'm not sure they're the only ones.

> In the 80's they stuck the proud names of Charger and Challenger on the
> front drive four banger Mitsibishi import otherwise known as the Omni.

Looks like you don't, uh, get it. Those who don't know history are doomed
to repeat it.

"GAlan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Can someone tell me why the MoPar boys just don't get it?
>
>
> Now they're slapping the Charger name on a FOUR DOOR SEDAN!

I agree with you, the name was a bad choice. Really, though, 300 was a bad
choice for a FWD six cylinder 4-door. So at least they got rid of some of
that.

They must think 2-door cars that size don't sell, which is probably true.
They have to be careful. They replaced the four models in the LH lineup,
which was very popular, with the 300 and a station wagon. I mean, Dodge
dealers didn't even get a FOUR DOOR SEDAN out of that deal. Station wagons
are even worse than 2-doors. It was risky, and they have to have something
to sell.

GAlan wrote:
> Can someone tell me why the MoPar boys just don't get it?
>
> In the 80's they stuck the proud names of Charger and Challenger
> on the front drive four banger Mitsibishi import otherwise known
> as the Omni.

I agree that the new Charger is nothing like the new Mustang as far as
being true to the heritage. However, it looks as if you are not very
clear on Chrysler's history yourself.

The Omni/Charger twins were nothing in the least to do with Mitsubishi.
They were started by the English firm Simca and brought over from
Chrysler's European division. They were also sold in Europe as Talbots
(Talbot Horizon) but with different suspension and lighter bodywork.
For the US market Chrylser developed their own four cylinder engine
which was a development of their legendary slant-six. This engine, the
2.2/2.5 was produced in enormous numbers for over a decade and is
extremely robust. Chrysler and Caroll Shelby turbo'd it in 1984 and
Chrysler went on to become the largest producer of turbocharged road
vehicles in the world. Today, hot-rodders routinely tune these engines
to in excess of 300hp with factory un-modified block and internals.
These are all-American engines that saved Chrysler's bacon in the 1980s
and routinely even today put the hurt on the Honda/Toyota crowd at the
drag strip, road race and autocross.

The Omni itself may not be all-American but neither is it even one bolt
or washer in common with any Mitsubishi. It's roots are in England and
in America.

Sam

>Chrylser developed their own four cylinder engine
which was a development of their legendary slant-six.
********
I thought these engines were made by Volkswagon? I distinctly remember at
least *some* of the Omnis having VW *on* the engine...
BTW; what about all the "SUVs" being made today? People they are STATION
WAGONS!!! (some of them)
~ Paul
aka "Tha Driver"

Easy on the Giggle Cream!

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, it was written:

> I thought these engines were made by Volkswagon? I distinctly remember at
> least *some* of the Omnis having VW *on* the engine...

Early Omni/Horizon cars were available with a 1.6 litre VW or a 1.7 litre
Peugeot (Renault?) 4-cylinder engine block and head, fitted out with
Chrysler induction and exhaust, ignition, accessories, etc.

The 2.2 that was introduced for 1981 was an all-Chrysler design.

Almost. Try French :-)

http://www.allpar.com/model/simca.html


DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

> wrote in message
ups.com...
[...]
> They were started by the English firm Simca
[...]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 05:04:43 -0500, "ThaDriver"
<imangeloneAThotmailDOTcom@> wrote:

>>Chrylser developed their own four cylinder engine
>which was a development of their legendary slant-six.
>********
>I thought these engines were made by Volkswagon? I distinctly remember at
>least *some* of the Omnis having VW *on* the engine...
>BTW; what about all the "SUVs" being made today? People they are STATION
>WAGONS!!! (some of them)
>~ Paul
>aka "Tha Driver"
>
>Easy on the Giggle Cream!

The "little" engines were VW/Audi units. The later 2.2 and 2.5 were
chrysler's own engine - but how anyone can say they were a development
of the slant six totally escapes me.
Even the bore and stroke were totally different. They were all OHC
engines, while the slant six was OHV. I think even the bore spacing
was different.
Possibly a development of the Ausie OHC six, but most definitely a
totally different animal than the american "leaning tower of power"

The 2.5 was built in an effort to free Chrysler from Mitsubishi. The
balance shafts were moved to the pan area instead of high in the block
to get around the Mitsu patent. The balance shafts were fairly
effective in eliminating the "big 4 buzz" so common on engines over
2.0 liter.