OT Dodge's New Super Bee

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Thumbs up or thumbs down?
>
> Take a look.
>
> http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=5279
>
> I vote: Thumbs up!
>
> Sco 1 up / 0 down
>
> Patrick
>

You wrap an OK Mexican engine up with ****, and you end up with ****.
These near window-less Rodger Rabbit like Chrysler sedans are BUTT-UGLY.
Have you driven one, might as well be driving a panel van, the visibility is
nearly non-existent.

TWO THUMBS DOWN!

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..

To attempt to answer your question, John, the reason Dodge doesn't make
a 2-door Charger is probably because the Challenger will take over that
spot.


"John B." > wrote in
:

> I'd have to go with MJ above. What's worst than a four-door Charger?
> A four-door Super Bee! This may be a dumb question, but why can't
> they make a two-door version of this and/or the Charger? I've seen
> some aftermarket Chargers customized into a two-door and they're WAY
> cooler, as far as looking like a muscle car.
>
> So, four-door - thumbs down.
>
> If they came out with a two-door - thumbs up.
>
> John B.
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Thumbs up or thumbs down?
>>
>> Take a look.
>>
>> http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=5279
>>
>> I vote: Thumbs up!
>>
>> Sco 1 up / 0 down
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>
>

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..]

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. 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 starting to get the impression that all they think they need to do
is slap a Hemi in the car and everything is good. The four door sedan
market is flooded with good cars that perform. If Chrysler shortened
the chassis for a two door variant and cut some weight they could
probably shave 400-600 lbs. off the car and then things would be real
interesting.

> To attempt to answer your question, John, the reason Dodge doesn't make
> a 2-door Charger is probably because the Challenger will take over that
> spot.

I have a feeling that car is still born. I hope I'm wrong.

> "John B." > wrote in
> :
>
>> I'd have to go with MJ above. What's worst than a four-door Charger?
>> A four-door Super Bee! This may be a dumb question, but why can't
>> they make a two-door version of this and/or the Charger? I've seen
>> some aftermarket Chargers customized into a two-door and they're WAY
>> cooler, as far as looking like a muscle car.
>>
>> So, four-door - thumbs down.
>>
>> If they came out with a two-door - thumbs up.
>>
>> John B.
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> Thumbs up or thumbs down?
>>>
>>> Take a look.
>>>
>>> http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=5279
>>>
>>> I vote: Thumbs up!
>>>
>>> Sco 1 up / 0 down
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>
>

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.

>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.

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.

Patrick

On Sep 13, 4:17 pm, "My Name Is Nobody" > wrote:
> > wrote in message

> oups.com...

> You wrap an OK Mexican engine up with ****, and you end up with ****.
> These near window-less Rodger Rabbit like Chrysler sedans are BUTT-UGLY.
> Have you driven one, might as well be driving a panel van, the visibility is
> nearly non-existent.

I rented a Hemi Magnum, drove it over 2,00 miles and absolutely loved
every minute of it! It was the most comfortable car I ever taken on a
long trip. I made MI to FL in one clip and if it wasn't for being up
for so long I could have turned around and drove back. My only
complaint was a lack of the manual trans.

Patrick

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

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. 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.

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. 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.

"WindsorFox" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> Thumbs up or thumbs down?
>>
>> Take a look.
>>
>> http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=5279
>>
>> I vote: Thumbs up!
>>
>> Sco 1 up / 0 down
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>
>
> Up, I love it.
>
> --
> "....a couple of belts of .50 BMG individually
> engraved "Unsubscribe" - Cadbury Moose
If the top dropped I would buy it with 6 doors but ... no convertible ... no
buy.

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.

> 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:1189736426.944303.316350@
22g2000hsm.googlegroups.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

As a follow up, I have to ask how many would've liked a 450-hp Maurader?