DSkippy

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,2314580.story

Man, this guy writes well! Good article.

[quote]
Dodge Challenger: A blast from the past
As a reborn pony car, the fuel-inefficient Challenger is a retro stallion
By Dan Neil
May 14, 2008
» Discuss Article Let's get the unpleasantries out of the way: The Dodge Challenger is to our current economy-and-energy nexus what a bull fiddle would be to Nero's burning Rome. This reimagining of the Chrysler's E-body classic, the 1970 Dodge Challenger, is very close to the last thing the world needs right now, as instantly ludicrous as a campaign to repeal the 22nd Amendment (presidential term limits) or a health-and-beauty book by Amy Winehouse.

Behold a $40,000 muscle car that gets single-digit fuel economy when your boot's in it -- and, come on, your boot is always in it -- aimed at upper-middle-class to wealthy males between ages 45 and death. Not exactly the car of tomorrow. Last week, when the first production cars began rolling off the line in Brampton, Ontario, the average price for a gallon of sweet petroleum liquor was $3.61 a gallon -- oh, sorry, that was for regular unleaded, whereas the Challenger's 6.1-liter, 425-hp V8 would much prefer to burn premium. Meanwhile, the economy could give the Everglades lessons in stagnation. If that weren't enough, looming on the horizon are tough new fuel economy standards that will make snot-flinging V8s like the Challenger's "Hemi" the stuff of history books.



* 2008 Dodge Challenger SRT8
Photos: 2008 Dodge Challenger SRT8
* Dodge Challenger SRT8 by-the-numbers
Photos: Dodge Challenger SRT8 by-the-numbers

In other words, the Dodge Challenger is brilliant. Here's a short list of reasons why:

If ever a genre of automobiles needed a last hurrah, it's the pony car. In the next two years, the Challenger and the coming-soon Chevrolet Camaro will re-create the pony car wars of the late 1960s and early 1970s, and then go away for precisely the same reasons they did in the early 1970s: increasing fuel economy standards and the price of gas. I'm fascinated by the symmetry of it. Watching Camaro and Challenger go at it will be like watching the misty, misguided nostalgia of Civil War reenactments, except here both sides lose.

As for these cars' environmental irresponsibility, sure, some, but it will be largely symbolic and notional. Sold in relatively low numbers and left to slumber in garages for most of their lives, these neo-pony cars' greenhouse impact will be a rounding error compared to the giant fleets of right-sized commuter cars like the Saturn Aura or the Honda Accord.

The Challenger is a cheap program: Before Chrysler can get to the business of building greener cars -- and on this score it's the most backward of all the auto companies -- it has to stay in business. To that end, the Challenger offers a huge rate of return in publicity and street cred. The car is essentially a rebodied Chrysler 300 (the same as the Dodge Charger, minus 4 inches of wheelbase), built on the same assembly line. According to the Detroit News, Chrysler spent a mere $151 million on the program, going from concept car to Job One in fewer than 21 months. Chrysler could never make a dime off the Challenger program and happily write it off as a marketing expense. And that's almost certainly what will happen.

Recession-proof: The relative handful of geezers who buy this car -- the 2008 model year run of 6,800 units has already been sold -- will not be fretting fuel economy, the price of gas or the perspiration of polar bears. The car is aimed like a Hellfire missile at the emotional groins of boomers who have loads of cash and empty nests. They just won't care about other considerations. The car will sell like mad for a year or two and then fall off a cliff. That will make it relatively rare, enough to give it the cachet of a collector's item. C

lear4406

Only time will tell if this man's premonition is true or just an opinion, like noses...everyones got one. He makes perfect sense, but thats not always the trend. Beta cassets made better sense, but VHS won out. So common sense is thrown out the window and what will be... will be.

RLSH700

Good overall; however, he is underrating the fuel economy. I am yet to read a review where it hit one digit fuel economy. Lower teens perhaps but not signal digit.

mopar2ya

I bet one could summon up the power to dip into the single digits with the proper amount of foot applied...

dodgebrothers

Cleverly written, and mostly on point in my opinion. We all know slapping a thirsty 6.1 Hemi in a muscle car is not real vogue these days...but who cares. Muscle cars were always "anti establishment" Motor on!!

Jeremiah 29:11

He forgot shortage of gasoline, insurance rates were rising, and safety standards were changing.


I am not sure I agree with all of that. The Ford GT40 and GT, my favorite of all cars but too expensive for me was built in 15 months totally from scratch and normally that would take 50-55 months. About the only thing that was somewhat designed was the 5.4L engine but only in basic form. There were still major changes done to it. As for development time reducing weight, the 1967 Ford GT40 weighed 2,505 and the new 2005 Ford GT weighed 3,350 or basically gained 845 lbs. So even with all of that weight reducing technology
in materials and manufacturing you factor the safety standards and daily reliability and it still gained weight.

Dodge worked on it for 21 months and still did not take the weight out of it from the concept but did base it on a proven but heavier platform obviously for time to market and cost savings in development. They could have worked on it for another 6 months and still not reduced anything because they never planned to and because they couldn't without a major redesign of the basic LX platform.

Bottom line is muscle cars were never meant to be light cars but the pony cars were the ligthtest of the bunch for sure. Dodge just wanted to reintroduce a Challenger on a proven reliable platform without having to spend an lot of R&D and just put a big engine to make up for the weight. That is what muscle cars were all about anyways but I like the new Challenger better because it will be good on the drag strip and on the curved roads.

In all it was a good article and he has a great writing style.

RLSH700

Well, it depends how you drive it and where you drive it. I hardly consider C&D to be drivers who like to feather cars (especially muscle cars) and they did very well with it at 19mpg. The truth of the matter is you can get the worst mileage with anything if you drive it to do so.

Point well made. The issue is that a car of this size that is going to be this safe for this price is going to be heavy and there is no way around it. The fact is Chrysler deserves credit for making it as nimble at driving despite the weight. They made a muscle car and marketed it as a pony car with the capability to compete against pony cars. That is quite an accomplishment.

Jeremiah 29:11

Yea, but when I get finished with mine everybody will know it is not a pony but a stud ready to roll.

Maybe instead of pony car we should call it a stud car.......Na...I think it is getting too late. Good night everyone.

Billionaire

High performance cars ARE GREAT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT because most of the time they are kept in a garage!
$100,000+ cars like the Ferrari F430 and Ford GT are rarely driven! Seems like the more expensive the car, the less it is driven.
So I think the government should allow an unlimited number of cars to be built which have over 400 HP and cost over 40K.

RLSH700

I actually skimmed over it as I do most of these articles since I read so many of them that I didn't notice it before. Now that you mention it, this guy does sounds pretty prejudice, and rude.