Traveler

Chrysler was the original company that entered into this retro-modern era with the others following. I'm not a Mopar cheerleader necessarily (no more than Ford), but it was the Viper that kicked it off with comparisons of it to the Cobra and the Viper GTS to the Cobra Daytona. Then came the Plymouth Prowler and the PT Cruiser. To me, this is a perfect place for the Challenger to pick up again. It has an interrupted history, not to mention a short-lived one. Ironic actually that the fuel problems of the '70s ultimately killed off cars like this and here we are entering yet another. This car is a great idea for Chrysler in my opinion. You've already got the platform and many shared components and the Magnum was sputtering in sales. They didn't need yet another sedan, so a large coupe make sense and I suspect that it will be more successful than the Magnum right from the start. The styling is on the money. It will find appeal to the "muscle car" set and those in need of a mid-life fix. Ford will lose a few sales to it, I'll bet but like I said before...I think Ford's V6 sales and Shelby sales are safe. Dodge, I believe, is primarily targeting Mustang GT sales and that is where the Challenger R/T will do the most damage.

Looks like Tungsten to me, too.

That's what I was getting at. I think the Challenger really needs to be quicker than the Charger for its image and perhaps it will be. I believe that either the production car's weight will be lower than that of the concept AND/OR the Challenger may be geared more aggressively. Maybe not, but I definitely think it would be a mistake for the Charger sedan to be as quick as the Challenger coupe from a marketing point of view.

"Watch your head, sir!" The cabbies will either need to verbally warn passengers or perhaps a warning label on the C-post of the Chargers. That sharp coupe-like drop will result in a few bumped noggins for sure. I've said all along that Chrysler should have produced a fleet version of the LX that incorporated a Dodge front and rear but retained the 300 roofline. The Charger roofline is fine for individual/personal use, but the C-post is a great compromise for those not sure on how to enter the backseat without receiving a mild concussion.

Ford is a little late to the game with a Hemi fighter. Here Chrysler is saying that the Hemi's days are numbered and Ford still hasn't got their engine out on the market yet. I will say this though...a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Even if the Boss is as great as they say, its not here yet. If I were buying a half-ton next year, I'd likely go Ram Hemi again.

That G8 styling looks B-L-A-N-D next to the Challenger. I don't really think you're going to have that many folks doing General Lee knock-offs on a the Challenger. The older Chargers and Challengers were two different cars entirely.

There could be some variables there that aren't being seen, such as the gearing. Remember that the first batch of SRT-8s will have the autostick. It could be that the Challenger will have an aggressively low axle ratio to give it more oomph off the line. People are going to judge the Challenger on its performance right off the bat. It wouldn't do if the Challenger is barely quicker than the four door Charger SRT-8. Another thing is despite the supercharger, the Shelby motor is smaller...6.1L vs. 5.4L and most large cube mills will drink gas. For me, personally, if I were looking for a top-end performance coupe I'd probably go with the Shelby. Of course, the Shelby is one heavy pony car. While the Challenger really isn't a pony car, because its built on the LX platform. Its more like a two door sedan with a coupe body. If the Challenger weighs in at around 4000 pounds, the Shelby isn't far behind it at around 3800-3900 pounds. The Challenger will appeal to the purists who don't care for the forced induction or have plans on building it up themselves. It'll likely gets down the quarter mile in the mid 12s on all motor...and no supercharger whine!

Sharp eye! I didn't even see the Cobra behind the veil.

Looks sort of "Boss-like" on the front with the parking lights moving up on the inside side of the headlights. Still have some doubt about those taillights.

Well, yeah I guess I do speak as a satisfied Ram owner but that's really all I have to offer opinion-wise. Of course, I am not familiar with the MDS system, because as you probably already know, the '03 didn't come equipped with it. Frankly from the EPA estimates, it doesn't seem that the MDS does that much for the truck, because I'd guess the Hemi really isn't that inefficient as far as a truck engine goes. Its just like you said, pushing that mass up to speed is what get you and if you do a lot of stop and go, your mileage drops. Of course, on the other hand, aerodynamics is the other enemy of most trucks and you run into that at about 70 mph on the Ram. I guess better gearing can help there some, but my mileage takes a considerable drop above 70. It seems most efficient at about 60-65 mph.

I noted that for the effort more so than the 4% gain. In the truck, the Hemi is going to get worse gas mileage than a car. For the record, the Charger 5.7 w/ MDS gets about the same mileage as a Crown Vic. That certainly means it is rated higher than the Tahoe and only marginally less than the Impala. I don't really see the Charger as being superior to the Crown Vic as a police car, but its the best alternative available as I see it. As for the mileage in the Ram, I've said it before that from the get-go the Ram has show comparable fuel economy to that of the 5.4L in the F-150...even in '03-'04 without the MDS. The exception being that the Hemi has always produced better performance and more horsepower than the Triton. Now, the gearing of the '09 F-150 may improve those numbers to be better than the Ram. We'll just have to wait and see, however its pretty much assumed that the Hemi will still make considerably more horsepower and notably more torque.

The Rambox I think is intended to be utility-minded, but not at the expense of compromised bed space. I don't think you're going to find a lot of service companies using the Ram box as a substitute for a heavy-duty tool box. However, I think it can represent more than just a football or basketball storage. Trucks have a wide range of usage. I have a Ram Sport. I don't like dents and scratches (although I have a couple here and there) but I do use it for work as well as for family/recreation. Half-ton trucks are like that. I think a lot of folks have a misunderstanding about how trucks are used. If you saw me tomorrow driving my truck, you might assume that it was just used for a family/personal vehicle. For tomorrow, you might would be right. However, the next day, I might be hauling work materials 200 miles away that would be cumbersome in a car trunk. Trucks can be flexible use. They still aren't any better on gas mileage, but more justifiable because they now offer both car-like comfort with traditional truck-like capability. Now as for the Rambox, I wouldn't be too comfortable with the idea of storing anything of value in there much, unless it was as durable and secure as a car trunk. If it was, then its definitely functional, because obviously trucks don't have trunks.

In a way, bringing the Charger into the discussion does bring in its primary fleet competitor into the mix in some way. For one, you state that the achilles heel for the 5.7 Hemi is its fuel economy. Yet, the Charger R/T's EPA fuel mileage rating is about the same as the 4.6L engines with help of the MDS. Furthermore, the 5.7 Hemi has already been stated to be improving its fuel economy by 4% in the Ram. That fuel mileage improvement should carry over to the Charger.

I imagine that the expectations are that post 2020 mandates will have serious consequences on gasoline V8 engines in general. The Hemi isn't going anywhere any time soon. Its the foundation for both the Ram and the LX platform...especially the Dodge Charger and new Challenger. Unless Ford can deliver near magical results from the Boss engines, they will eventually meet the same fate I suppose. I feel that the industry is probably expecting diesels to become the backbone of the truck market and high-perfomanance, small displacement engines will replace gasoline V8s unless alternative fuels become more widely available.

Personally, I don't have anything against the D3, except for the standard drive wheels and a few exterior cosmetics. Everything from the windshield back is too dull for me. Of course, doors are not that big a deal, but specifically I don't like the eighties carry-over C-post, the short rear deck, rear taillights. The general layout and the interior is fine. Theoretically, if the car was standard RWD and addressed the styling of the rear half of the car, it would be more appealing. Honestly, I like the side profile of the Chevy Impala better than the Ford Taurus.