Sure they are retro, but there is a reason for that apart from nostalgia for the boomers.

Some things just look good. Angles and edges and curves give character and good aesthetics. When the wind tunnel chased those away in favor of the jelly bean look, cars began to look more generic and ugly. Cars aren't really designed to look good anymore, they're designed in the wind tunnel.

I say can that crap and bring us back to designs that are meant to look good in the first place.

ianc

Nice looking car! Much better than the Camaro concept....

I'd hit it. In the back seat.

Until '89, the 911 was more or less the same car with a bigger engine and some other updates, n'est ce pas? It was a brand new classic car in the '80s.

At least these only have retro skin.

Yes, hence the term evolution. In 1989, the 911 Carrera was still one of the top sports cars money could buy. They had no reason to start from scratch.

I still think "evolution" means more of a 911-to-964 step, or a 964-993 step. A distinct change takes place, while still keeping the basic concept intact. Producing a new car that looks like an old car is retro...since the 911 looked the same for so long, how could it not have become a retro design in terms of styling? No doubt the car was awesome underneath, but I think even the factory realized it needed to be restyled if it was to stay in the lineup and not be replaced by the 928 and 944.

I've been talking purely stylewise, just to clarify once again. The 911 looked good, but it was an old design by the '80s. At a glance, not much had changed on it, besides chrome and turn signals.

I'm watching these pretty close because, to paraphrase an old commercial, I'm gonna put a Dodge in my garage, honey.

Addressing some earlier comments:

Pistol grip? Well that little thing in the concept car is their modern version, and carries the same name. Personally, I like the "real" pistol grip from back in the day.

426 horsepower? Nope... try on 510hp for size! Courtesy of the 6.4L Hemi. Initial plans are to make the first year a limited production run of only 10,000 cars. All will have 6-speed manuals (a la Viper) and the 6.4L, 510hp Hemi. This may drop a notch, as the concept car is fitted with the 430hp 6.1L hemi of the SRT-8.

Subsequent years would be available with your choice of a V6, 5.7L Hemi, or the 6.1L Hemi. And your choice of 6-speed or auto. This alone is a setup that would make the 1st year cars extremely collectable in the future. Kinda like owning an original 1970 Hemi Challenger, as they too are the most collectible of the originals.

This is not on the exact same platform as the Charger, but nearly. The Charger is platform LX and the Challenger will be platform LY. Mechanicals are the same, but the wheelbase is shorter and the platform is lighter.

The Challenger designer stated that this rendering went through some evolution before the concept came out. They turned down ideas that made it a sports car, in favor of having a true "muscle car".


Oh, yeah..... I'm definately making plans for this one!!

I think revolution would better cover the jump to the 964, 993, 996, etc. In those cases the better part of the 911 was both re-designed and re-styled. Up until '89, they made small changes to keep the car mechanically and stylistically up to date. This, I believe, would be evolution.

Regardless, what I think is just tacky is taking a modern car, like the previous Mustang, and making it look 30 years old. To me it says that they don't have any good modern designs, so they just rip off the past.

I don't agree. If you have a good iconic design, stick with it. Dodge didn't, but there's nothing wrong with recognizing a winner in the past and resurrecting it. I agree about the good modern designs, but when have we seen any modern designs to equal those of the past?

ianc

The old muscle cars weren't superior designs, the only reason they sell is they make people nostalgic for their younger years. They were cool cars for their day, but lets not overly sugar coat the past.

ummm, yeaah..... Can't say I agree.

Not superior designs? By what standard?
Muscle cars did very well what they were designed to do, utilizing the technology of the day, and working within the constraints of manufacturing a car that would appeal to a mass market at a median price level.

Nostalgic for younger years?
I've owned 4 Challengers. If I want, I'll go buy another. That's nostalgic yearning. But I like the new Challenger. Not because of nostalgia, but because I LIKE THE CAR. It looks good. It will have loads of HP. It will have modern braking, computers, fuel injection, and other modern systems.

And just like the original, it will probably corner like poop unless an enthusiast reworks the suspension. But light to light will be a smokin' ride!!

As for designs... Nothing much these days really catches my eye. I don't know if the design schools are full of idiots, or if everything is just watered down due to DOT and insurance regs. But I know nothing appears to have the soul of the hot-rods of yesterday.

As for your "cool" comment... I find the 540 to be a bland little box. Coolness is in the eye of the beerholder.

Yeah, I agree with cashflyer. They may not be 'superior' technically, but that's only because of the huge technology gap.

What I'm referring to is aesthetic design. There haven't been any real standouts in a long time. When have we seen something along the lines of a 911, a Lamborghini Miura, a Ferrari 308 in recent years. We haven't, because the wind tunnel has stolen that all away...

ianc

I was looking at it from a sports car sort of perspective, as most modern cars are expected to handle as well as they accelerate. Put them in the strict context of a muscle car, and they're fine being mediocre. I agree that styling is subjective, opinions are like a$sholes don't you know.

That is a beautiful ride. I love the retro look cars. I think that the Charger missed the mark though.

David

wow...well said. who says a beautiful shape must be streamlined and super aerodynamic....the original charger and challenger are beautiful in their stance and presence, even though at the same time that gaping hole that is the front grill must be about as aerodynamic as a brick wall. but who cars! it just looks meanacing...

i don't believe that the charger is or was intended as a "retro" design. It is a modern design (a 4-door magnum sedan) with a retro name.....why they did this? who knows....but the challenger looks like it will redeem them!

also....guys guys, it's not lime green, it's SUBLIME! ;)

It looks like a Challenger, unlike the Charger. I like that color too

That's as much a Charger as the Challenger branded Mitsubishi import was in the early 1980's.... not at all.
Well.... ACTUALLY.... It depends upon the year and the division.

1970 was the year that Mopar made their big muscle car push with the introduction of the E body platform. The Barracuda, now in it's 3rd generation, would be the mopar to have. Not to be left out, the Dodge division created the Challenger which would share the platform and most of the same options. Along with the new platform came the introduction of some catchy paint names, aimed directly at the youth market.

In 1970, paint code J5 was "Sublime Green" on the Dodge and "Limelight Green" on the Plymouth. Same color. And 1970 was the only year for code J5.

Other 1970 colors:
J6 = Go Green (Dodge) or SassyGrass Green (Plymouth)
Y1 = Top Banana Yellow (D) or Lemon Twist (P)
K2 = Go Mango Orange (D) or Vitamin C Orange (P)
V2 = Hemi Orange (D) or Tor Red (P)
E5 = Bright Red (D) or Rally Red (P)
M3 = Panther Pink (D) or Moulin Rouge (P)

And the "Plum Crazy" (C7) that so many associate with Plymouth was never a Plymouth color - it was Dodge's. Plymouth called it "In-Violet"

The new Challenger is a boring design. It's TOO close to the original. The new Lamborghini Miura redo is the same deal. They both look like ChipFoosePimpMyRide versions of the originals.

Guess I'm not the only one. Here's Peter Delorenzo's take on it from the AutoExtremist:

It was a good run, but Chrysler's role as industry design leader officially comes to an end in Detroit. It seems like we have been talking about Chrysler design excellence for a long time now - and we have. From the glory days of the product renaissance led by Bob Lutz and Tom Gale to as recently as two years ago, Chrysler could always be counted on to deliver great stuff for the major auto shows - no matter how mediocre and uninspiring their street vehicles were. But as in all great runs, nothing lasts forever - and the wheels came off Chrysler's golden design era with a thud at the 2006 Detroit Auto Show.

First of all, the Challenger, though obviously calculated to be an improvement on the original in every respect, was far too literal in the flesh. Yes, it was cool and everything, but Chip Foose could have easily created something just like it in his shop. And the fact that Chrysler designers went around "fixing" all of the things that were wrong on the original and stopped there, left them no room to take the car further or "reach" with it in the future. The Challenger garnered lots of attention for Chrysler in the weeks leading up to the show, but by the time the actual media days arrived, it came off as a one-off custom hot rod designed to add a little eye candy to the Dodge display - and nothing more.

Best Face-Plant into the Sea of Mediocrity and Biggest Fall from the Top. The media darlings formerly known as the "geniuses" at Chrysler Design imploded at Cobo Hall in an embarrassingly overwrought performance that won't soon be forgotten. It wasn't just the monumentally silly Imperial, which will go into the Toon Car Hall of Fame - with the five-year qualification period being waived immediately. The Challenger could have and should have been relegated to an after-school project and given to a junior college to flesh-out instead of being called a "concept" - because any hot rodder worth his or her "car guy" credentials could have done that car in their sleep - in their garage.

I emailed Diamler/Chrysler a week ago about the Challenger concept. I just made a few comments about it.

I got a reply email this morning with one, simple line (plus a couple of paragraphs of legal disclaimer).
Duh.