Rich

One parked next to my Mach-1 tonight. It's at least
(the door sills) about 6 inches higher than my car.
Muscle car? Not really. Especially since the latest
comparison I saw of it was against a Cadillac. They know
the audience buying this vehicle has NOTHING in common
with people who bought the Charger in the 1960s and early
1970s.
-Rich

Ritz

Rich wrote:
> One parked next to my Mach-1 tonight. It's at least
> (the door sills) about 6 inches higher than my car.
> Muscle car? Not really. Especially since the latest
> comparison I saw of it was against a Cadillac. They know
> the audience buying this vehicle has NOTHING in common
> with people who bought the Charger in the 1960s and early
> 1970s.
> -Rich


It's certainly a bit portly, but the SRT-8 version sports 425hp and 420
ft/lbs of torque. With the extra set of doors, I don't think they're
after the "pony car" segment. If I was in the market for an American
"sport sedan", I'd have to consider the Charger as one of the best bangs
for the buck. 0-60 is just a tad over 5 secs. That's faster than a
Mustang GT. Yow!

Cheers,

Michael Johnson, PE

Ritz wrote:
> Rich wrote:
>> One parked next to my Mach-1 tonight. It's at least (the door sills)
>> about 6 inches higher than my car.
>> Muscle car? Not really. Especially since the latest
>> comparison I saw of it was against a Cadillac. They know
>> the audience buying this vehicle has NOTHING in common
>> with people who bought the Charger in the 1960s and early
>> 1970s.
>> -Rich
>
>
> It's certainly a bit portly, but the SRT-8 version sports 425hp and 420
> ft/lbs of torque. With the extra set of doors, I don't think they're
> after the "pony car" segment. If I was in the market for an American
> "sport sedan", I'd have to consider the Charger as one of the best bangs
> for the buck. 0-60 is just a tad over 5 secs. That's faster than a
> Mustang GT. Yow!

I agree. If DC would give that car two doors and a six speed manual I
would give it a serious look if I were in the market for a pony/muscle
car. As far as it going up against the GT500... forget about it.

Joe

"Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in
news:9d2dnbQcOLoS8qreRVn-hw@giganews.com:

> Ritz wrote:
>> Rich wrote:
>>> One parked next to my Mach-1 tonight. It's at least (the door
>>> sills) about 6 inches higher than my car.
>>> Muscle car? Not really. Especially since the latest
>>> comparison I saw of it was against a Cadillac. They know
>>> the audience buying this vehicle has NOTHING in common
>>> with people who bought the Charger in the 1960s and early
>>> 1970s.
>>> -Rich
>>
>>
>> It's certainly a bit portly, but the SRT-8 version sports 425hp and
>> 420 ft/lbs of torque. With the extra set of doors, I don't think
>> they're after the "pony car" segment. If I was in the market for an
>> American "sport sedan", I'd have to consider the Charger as one of
>> the best bangs for the buck. 0-60 is just a tad over 5 secs.
>> That's faster than a Mustang GT. Yow!
>
> I agree. If DC would give that car two doors and a six speed manual
> I would give it a serious look if I were in the market for a
> pony/muscle car.

The Charger is more along the lines of a 4-door GTO than a Mustang GT.

> As far as it going up against the GT500... forget
> about it.

Nothing under $45k will go up against the GT500.

Ritz

Joe wrote:
>
>>As far as it going up against the GT500... forget
>>about it.
>
>
> Nothing under $45k will go up against the GT500.


Now all you have to do is be one of the "lucky" folks to bribe your
local Ford dealer and pick up a GT500 or wait for the inevitible crush
of low/no mileage cars being hawked for $10-15k over MSRP on Ebay.

Being fast is nice....if you can actually find one to buy.

Cheers,

WindsorFox[SS]

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
> Ritz wrote:
>
>> Rich wrote:
>>
>>> One parked next to my Mach-1 tonight. It's at least (the door sills)
>>> about 6 inches higher than my car.
>>> Muscle car? Not really. Especially since the latest
>>> comparison I saw of it was against a Cadillac. They know
>>> the audience buying this vehicle has NOTHING in common
>>> with people who bought the Charger in the 1960s and early
>>> 1970s.
>>> -Rich
>>
>>
>>
>> It's certainly a bit portly, but the SRT-8 version sports 425hp and
>> 420 ft/lbs of torque. With the extra set of doors, I don't think
>> they're after the "pony car" segment. If I was in the market for an
>> American "sport sedan", I'd have to consider the Charger as one of the
>> best bangs for the buck. 0-60 is just a tad over 5 secs. That's
>> faster than a Mustang GT. Yow!
>
>
> I agree. If DC would give that car two doors and a six speed manual I
> would give it a serious look if I were in the market for a pony/muscle
> car. As far as it going up against the GT500... forget about it.

And I think if Ford brought back the Falcon and added it as a "4
door Mustang" they would sell at least as many as Dodge does the 4 door
Charger.

--

"Gullible is a misdemeanor - stupid is a felony...
clueless gets you committed..." - JG

Rich

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:53:44 GMT, Joe <avoidingspam@nospam.com> wrote:

>"Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in
>news:9d2dnbQcOLoS8qreRVn-hw@giganews.com:
>
>> Ritz wrote:
>>> Rich wrote:
>>>> One parked next to my Mach-1 tonight. It's at least (the door
>>>> sills) about 6 inches higher than my car.
>>>> Muscle car? Not really. Especially since the latest
>>>> comparison I saw of it was against a Cadillac. They know
>>>> the audience buying this vehicle has NOTHING in common
>>>> with people who bought the Charger in the 1960s and early
>>>> 1970s.
>>>> -Rich
>>>
>>>
>>> It's certainly a bit portly, but the SRT-8 version sports 425hp and
>>> 420 ft/lbs of torque. With the extra set of doors, I don't think
>>> they're after the "pony car" segment. If I was in the market for an
>>> American "sport sedan", I'd have to consider the Charger as one of
>>> the best bangs for the buck. 0-60 is just a tad over 5 secs.
>>> That's faster than a Mustang GT. Yow!
>>
>> I agree. If DC would give that car two doors and a six speed manual
>> I would give it a serious look if I were in the market for a
>> pony/muscle car.
>
>The Charger is more along the lines of a 4-door GTO than a Mustang GT.
>
>> As far as it going up against the GT500... forget
>> about it.
>
>Nothing under $45k will go up against the GT500.

Well, I read again that Chrysler is bringing out a
two-door Challenger to compete against the Mustang,
but if it's a clone of the Charger, it's not the kind
of car a Mustang buyer will buy instead. The Charger
needs to be sleeker and on a diet to compete.
-Rich

Spike

Is the Charger a hearse or a hisss? : 0 )

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:10:27 -0400, Rich <none@none.com> wrote:

>One parked next to my Mach-1 tonight. It's at least
>(the door sills) about 6 inches higher than my car.
>Muscle car? Not really. Especially since the latest
>comparison I saw of it was against a Cadillac. They know
>the audience buying this vehicle has NOTHING in common
>with people who bought the Charger in the 1960s and early
>1970s.
>-Rich

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

Gad what fools these morons be....
Children are obscene but should not be heard
Give me a peperoni pizza... or give me a calzone!

Joe

Rich <none@none.com> wrote in news:iekgj11a85p3kmm3r83qpq83tfjnhqabh1@
4ax.com:

> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:53:44 GMT, Joe <avoidingspam@nospam.com>
wrote:
>
>>"Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in
>>news:9d2dnbQcOLoS8qreRVn-hw@giganews.com:
>>
>>> Ritz wrote:
>>>> Rich wrote:
>>>>> One parked next to my Mach-1 tonight. It's at least (the door
>>>>> sills) about 6 inches higher than my car.
>>>>> Muscle car? Not really. Especially since the latest
>>>>> comparison I saw of it was against a Cadillac. They know
>>>>> the audience buying this vehicle has NOTHING in common
>>>>> with people who bought the Charger in the 1960s and early
>>>>> 1970s.
>>>>> -Rich
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's certainly a bit portly, but the SRT-8 version sports 425hp
and
>>>> 420 ft/lbs of torque. With the extra set of doors, I don't think
>>>> they're after the "pony car" segment. If I was in the market for
an
>>>> American "sport sedan", I'd have to consider the Charger as one of
>>>> the best bangs for the buck. 0-60 is just a tad over 5 secs.
>>>> That's faster than a Mustang GT. Yow!
>>>
>>> I agree. If DC would give that car two doors and a six speed
manual
>>> I would give it a serious look if I were in the market for a
>>> pony/muscle car.
>>
>>The Charger is more along the lines of a 4-door GTO than a Mustang
GT.
>>
>>> As far as it going up against the GT500... forget
>>> about it.
>>
>>Nothing under $45k will go up against the GT500.
>
> Well, I read again that Chrysler is bringing out a
> two-door Challenger to compete against the Mustang,
> but if it's a clone of the Charger, it's not the kind
> of car a Mustang buyer will buy instead. The Charger
> needs to be sleeker and on a diet to compete.
> -Rich

Comparing the Charger to the Mustang is ludicrous. The Charger,
Magnum, and 300 all share the same platform, which is a lot bigger than
the Mustang's.

So where'd you see the Challenger thing? I've heard that rumor but I
haven't seen anything that would indicate that it's anything but.

Rich

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:48:28 GMT, Joe <avoidingspam@nospam.com> wrote:

>Rich <none@none.com> wrote in news:iekgj11a85p3kmm3r83qpq83tfjnhqabh1@
>4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:53:44 GMT, Joe <avoidingspam@nospam.com>
>wrote:
>>
>>>"Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in
>>>news:9d2dnbQcOLoS8qreRVn-hw@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> Ritz wrote:
>>>>> Rich wrote:
>>>>>> One parked next to my Mach-1 tonight. It's at least (the door
>>>>>> sills) about 6 inches higher than my car.
>>>>>> Muscle car? Not really. Especially since the latest
>>>>>> comparison I saw of it was against a Cadillac. They know
>>>>>> the audience buying this vehicle has NOTHING in common
>>>>>> with people who bought the Charger in the 1960s and early
>>>>>> 1970s.
>>>>>> -Rich
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's certainly a bit portly, but the SRT-8 version sports 425hp
>and
>>>>> 420 ft/lbs of torque. With the extra set of doors, I don't think
>>>>> they're after the "pony car" segment. If I was in the market for
>an
>>>>> American "sport sedan", I'd have to consider the Charger as one of
>>>>> the best bangs for the buck. 0-60 is just a tad over 5 secs.
>>>>> That's faster than a Mustang GT. Yow!
>>>>
>>>> I agree. If DC would give that car two doors and a six speed
>manual
>>>> I would give it a serious look if I were in the market for a
>>>> pony/muscle car.
>>>
>>>The Charger is more along the lines of a 4-door GTO than a Mustang
>GT.
>>>
>>>> As far as it going up against the GT500... forget
>>>> about it.
>>>
>>>Nothing under $45k will go up against the GT500.
>>
>> Well, I read again that Chrysler is bringing out a
>> two-door Challenger to compete against the Mustang,
>> but if it's a clone of the Charger, it's not the kind
>> of car a Mustang buyer will buy instead. The Charger
>> needs to be sleeker and on a diet to compete.
>> -Rich
>
>Comparing the Charger to the Mustang is ludicrous. The Charger,
>Magnum, and 300 all share the same platform, which is a lot bigger than
>the Mustang's.
>
>So where'd you see the Challenger thing? I've heard that rumor but I
>haven't seen anything that would indicate that it's anything but.

Could very well be rumour, especially three years out.
I've seen it repeated at least five times in different
sources, all seemingly fed the story by Chrysler.
Testing the waters???
Tell them what; Bring back the 1971 Challenger/'Cuda
in near identical form (or something along the lines of the
new Mustang in terms of cleaving to the 1970s design)
and I'll buy one. If it looks like the Charger (a melted 300
with a truck grill on the front) I'M NOT INTERESTED!!!!!!!!!!!!
-Rich