Challenger in 18 to 24 Months??
1/15/06, 11:27 PM
#1
Closet American
Thread Starter
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From Autoblog:
If this happens, count on serious competition for the Stang sooner than any of us anticipated.
Dodge Challenger to hit the road in 18 months?
It could happen. DaimlerChrysler staffers are being quoted as saying it would only take 18 to 24 months to get the Challenger into showrooms once management gives the go-ahead.
Given the overwhelmingly encouraging response that the company received after the concept car's unveiling at the Detroit Auto Show (including its victory over the Camaro in our head-to-head reader poll!), it's hard to imagine that DaimlerChrysler would turn down the opportunity to one-up Chevrolet, whose Camaro concept is said to be three years away from production.
Of course, DaimlerChrysler has a huge advantage over Chevy, in that the Challenger is based on a shortened version of the LX platform already in production for the Chrylser 300, Dodge Charger and Dodge Magnum. Add to that a full line of platform-compatible powertrains, and a 2008 model-year Challenger looks like a slam dunk.
It could happen. DaimlerChrysler staffers are being quoted as saying it would only take 18 to 24 months to get the Challenger into showrooms once management gives the go-ahead.
Given the overwhelmingly encouraging response that the company received after the concept car's unveiling at the Detroit Auto Show (including its victory over the Camaro in our head-to-head reader poll!), it's hard to imagine that DaimlerChrysler would turn down the opportunity to one-up Chevrolet, whose Camaro concept is said to be three years away from production.
Of course, DaimlerChrysler has a huge advantage over Chevy, in that the Challenger is based on a shortened version of the LX platform already in production for the Chrylser 300, Dodge Charger and Dodge Magnum. Add to that a full line of platform-compatible powertrains, and a 2008 model-year Challenger looks like a slam dunk.
1/16/06, 03:19 AM
#4
Cobra Member
Join Date: April 7, 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 1,452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Key phrase: "once the management gives the go-ahead".
Should that happen in 2006, the Challenger will only come out 1 year earlier than expected (2008 instead of 2009). Somehow, I doubt that will happen.
Still, a great-looking car! I can't wait to see some more performance figures.
Should that happen in 2006, the Challenger will only come out 1 year earlier than expected (2008 instead of 2009). Somehow, I doubt that will happen.
Still, a great-looking car! I can't wait to see some more performance figures.
1/16/06, 03:37 AM
#5
Banned
Join Date: September 19, 2005
Posts: 1,897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by AFBLUE@January 16, 2006, 12:09 AM
Competition is good for everyone. Puts pressure on Ford to keep the Mustang exciting
Competition is good for everyone. Puts pressure on Ford to keep the Mustang exciting
Exactly!!! The Challenger will turn out to be the Mustang Enthusiast best friend! Once that car comes out, it just may prompt Ford to either give us the 5.4L DOHC in an SE, or as an option to any Mustang which is ordered through a dealer... Or, if we are extremely lucky, and I mean seriously lucky, it may allow us to get a 5.0L Cammer as another option... Not sure which you guys feel would be better.. However it would be nice if Ford allowed Mustang GT's to be ordered with any engine choice..
What I think would be great is for the current 4.6L GT to have its base price dropped to that of a current V6... Of course this would lower the cost of the V6.. Then, they could introduce the 5.0L Cammer option at the current GT's price, and for about $1500 to $2500 over that introduce the 5.4L option..
That would give the Mustang a choice of 3 V8 engines.. Surely that would be more than enough to keep the Challenger from intruding on any Mustang owners.. That type of selection would promise Ford that they would not lose any Mustang enthusiast over a Challenger release..
I sure hope Ford reads this!
The 5.0L Cammer would have to be created emissions legal...
1/16/06, 06:47 AM
#6
Cobra R Member
Join Date: February 22, 2004
Posts: 1,564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure why they would need to drop the GT's price to the V6. That would make them lose money would it not? I can see them throwing an SE with the 5.4 between the GT and Shelby. That would cover the complete price range that the Challenger would be coming in around.
I do like the multiple engine options as well, however I'm pretty sure that we will not see the Cammer ever in a daily driven Mustang. It does not meet emission standards I believe. That said a 5.4 N/A SE would be a great fill!!
I do like the multiple engine options as well, however I'm pretty sure that we will not see the Cammer ever in a daily driven Mustang. It does not meet emission standards I believe. That said a 5.4 N/A SE would be a great fill!!
1/16/06, 10:36 AM
#7
AKA 1 BULLITT------------ Legacy TMS Member
... including its victory over the Camaro in our head-to-head reader poll!
Those guys at Chevy guys have a lot to learn. They will screw up a wet dream if given the chance.
Who in their right mind would take their product to such an event and introduce an exciting well designed high performance car with a luxury sedan dull color?
Pity. They had a world wide audience and wasted the opportunity.
1/16/06, 11:33 AM
#8
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: October 15, 2004
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Cammer is a 15,000 dollar engine. By itself.
There's a reason Ford puts it in a 100,000 dollar plus race ready Mustang.
As much as we would all love so many different engines choices...keep dreaming MSP. While I wish it were true, it's never gonna happen. Especially at the prices you suggested.
There's a reason Ford puts it in a 100,000 dollar plus race ready Mustang.
As much as we would all love so many different engines choices...keep dreaming MSP. While I wish it were true, it's never gonna happen. Especially at the prices you suggested.
1/16/06, 01:42 PM
#10
I'm people, and I like.
Join Date: March 13, 2004
Location: PDX
Posts: 9,239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 1 BULLITT@January 16, 2006, 9:39 AM
Those guys at Chevy guys have a lot to learn. They will screw up a wet dream if given the chance.
Who in their right mind would take their product to such an event and introduce an exciting well designed high performance car with a luxury sedan dull color?
Pity. They had a world wide audience and wasted the opportunity.
Those guys at Chevy guys have a lot to learn. They will screw up a wet dream if given the chance.
Who in their right mind would take their product to such an event and introduce an exciting well designed high performance car with a luxury sedan dull color?
Pity. They had a world wide audience and wasted the opportunity.
My brother went and took some pics... I'll download them in a few. Is there any pics of the L.A. Maro around?
Found a pic at Serious Wheels\
http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2006/200...ow-1024x768.jpg
1/16/06, 07:00 PM
#13
AKA 1 BULLITT------------ Legacy TMS Member
Originally posted by thezeppelin8@January 16, 2006, 4:45 PM
They had a red one here in L.A.
My brother went and took some pics... I'll download them in a few. Is there any pics of the L.A. Maro around?
Found a pic at Serious Wheels\
http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2006/200...ow-1024x768.jpg
They had a red one here in L.A.
My brother went and took some pics... I'll download them in a few. Is there any pics of the L.A. Maro around?
Found a pic at Serious Wheels\
http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2006/200...ow-1024x768.jpg
Thanks Lalo.
1/17/06, 01:55 AM
#14
V6 Member
Join Date: January 15, 2006
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you believe that history will repeat it's self, take a look at what Mustangs cost in 1970
Convertible, std……………$3,025
Coupe, std………………….$2,721
Coupe, Grandé, std……….$2,926
Fastback, std……………….$2,771
Fastback, Mach 1………….$3,271
Special, Boss 302………….$3,720
Special, Boss 429………….$4,928
GT350 Convertible………..$4,753
GT500 Convertible………..$5,027
GT350 Fastback……………$4,434
GT500 Fastback……………$4,709
Look closely and you'll see that the Big Boss was a little more than the GT500. I can see Ford doing the same today. The car everyone wants is bigger 'n badder than any other production car, so I expect it to command the most money, not less.
I also thought it was strange that in 1970 the GT500 cost 44% more than the Mach 1. Taking today's GT (as the Mach 1) $28,000 and adding 44% you have a price of $40,320. Maybe history does repeat itself.
Convertible, std……………$3,025
Coupe, std………………….$2,721
Coupe, Grandé, std……….$2,926
Fastback, std……………….$2,771
Fastback, Mach 1………….$3,271
Special, Boss 302………….$3,720
Special, Boss 429………….$4,928
GT350 Convertible………..$4,753
GT500 Convertible………..$5,027
GT350 Fastback……………$4,434
GT500 Fastback……………$4,709
Look closely and you'll see that the Big Boss was a little more than the GT500. I can see Ford doing the same today. The car everyone wants is bigger 'n badder than any other production car, so I expect it to command the most money, not less.
I also thought it was strange that in 1970 the GT500 cost 44% more than the Mach 1. Taking today's GT (as the Mach 1) $28,000 and adding 44% you have a price of $40,320. Maybe history does repeat itself.
1/17/06, 10:35 AM
#15
1: I have never understood why, when people on this forum wish for a DOHC 5.0L production mod motor, they always reference the Cammer to determine the probability of the same occuring. The Cammer is a crate engine, and would be quite different than a production-ready 5.0L DOHC V-8. The emissions of this motor are totally useless in any discussion regarding the possible production of a 5.0L DOHC V-8.
2: We may not know the specifics of the Challenger, assuming it even gets built, but the one thing we do know is that if built this is going to be one porky puppy. Some of the same people screaming bloody murder over the concept of a 3,900lb GT500 have no qualms with what is assuredly an even heavier Challenger. Dodge would do well to get any V-8 Challenger to weigh in at 3,900lb.
2: We may not know the specifics of the Challenger, assuming it even gets built, but the one thing we do know is that if built this is going to be one porky puppy. Some of the same people screaming bloody murder over the concept of a 3,900lb GT500 have no qualms with what is assuredly an even heavier Challenger. Dodge would do well to get any V-8 Challenger to weigh in at 3,900lb.
1/17/06, 12:16 PM
#16
GT Member
Join Date: July 21, 2004
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like that Challenger, and hopefully it will put pressure on Ford to add HUMPS to the rear quarter panels! This is all I ask- and imagine how much MORE impressive it will be with that little design flourish!
It's kind of funny, but when reading about Dodge's cars and our new competition, I am intrigued. Excited. But when reading about GM, I am nearly angered.
DCX's crew is so innovative and cutting edge. A lot like Ford. GM is lost in the dust of the new muscle car movement.
Regarding the engine options: it probably won't happen. They have to pay the EPA to get them all to pass emissions- and not just the engine, but the whole setup- rear end gear and all!
So having a v-6, 4.6l, 5.4l NA, and 5.4l supercharged is all we are probably going to see. But who says thats bad? the 5.4 liter is a GOOD engine!
It's kind of funny, but when reading about Dodge's cars and our new competition, I am intrigued. Excited. But when reading about GM, I am nearly angered.
DCX's crew is so innovative and cutting edge. A lot like Ford. GM is lost in the dust of the new muscle car movement.
Regarding the engine options: it probably won't happen. They have to pay the EPA to get them all to pass emissions- and not just the engine, but the whole setup- rear end gear and all!
So having a v-6, 4.6l, 5.4l NA, and 5.4l supercharged is all we are probably going to see. But who says thats bad? the 5.4 liter is a GOOD engine!
1/17/06, 06:48 PM
#17
Closet American
Thread Starter
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by chris8519@January 17, 2006, 12:19 PM
So having a v-6, 4.6l, 5.4l NA, and 5.4l supercharged is all we are probably going to see. But who says thats bad? the 5.4 liter is a GOOD engine!
So having a v-6, 4.6l, 5.4l NA, and 5.4l supercharged is all we are probably going to see. But who says thats bad? the 5.4 liter is a GOOD engine!
1/17/06, 06:55 PM
#18
Closet American
Thread Starter
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
And I can't believe all the Camaro bashing I'm hearing on this site! I, for one, think it looks great. Sure, it needs a nip and tuck here and there...but who here really believes it will be produced as shown in Detroit - any more than the Mustang concept was?
Let's not take our disdain for GM's management decisions out on this concept. I see lots of evidence that GM is really TRYING to make an effort. The new Yukon and Tahoe models for example. Has anyone seen the interiors on those? They're getting rave reviews! Critics are saying the interiors are as good as ANYTHING out there. They're even using electroluminescent gauges, like Lexus! That's a QUANTUM leap beyond last year.
Plus the Solstice...the Z06...the Caddy XLR-V...the Buick Enclave - all demonstrate significant advancements in design and quality.
What GM must do now is consolidate their assets and shrink the company size down to two or three divisions. For example, the problem is not with the Yukon and Tahoe...the problem is that GM doesn't need TWO versions of basically the exact same vehicle. THAT'S where the company needs to get its act togehter. And in the structural heirarchy of the way the company is run, of course.
Let's not take our disdain for GM's management decisions out on this concept. I see lots of evidence that GM is really TRYING to make an effort. The new Yukon and Tahoe models for example. Has anyone seen the interiors on those? They're getting rave reviews! Critics are saying the interiors are as good as ANYTHING out there. They're even using electroluminescent gauges, like Lexus! That's a QUANTUM leap beyond last year.
Plus the Solstice...the Z06...the Caddy XLR-V...the Buick Enclave - all demonstrate significant advancements in design and quality.
What GM must do now is consolidate their assets and shrink the company size down to two or three divisions. For example, the problem is not with the Yukon and Tahoe...the problem is that GM doesn't need TWO versions of basically the exact same vehicle. THAT'S where the company needs to get its act togehter. And in the structural heirarchy of the way the company is run, of course.
1/17/06, 11:32 PM
#20
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 23, 2004
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by BC_Shelby@January 17, 2006, 7:58 PM
And I can't believe all the Camaro bashing I'm hearing on this site! I, for one, think it looks great. Sure, it needs a nip and tuck here and there...but who here really believes it will be produced as shown in Detroit - any more than the Mustang concept was?
Let's not take our disdain for GM's management decisions out on this concept. I see lots of evidence that GM is really TRYING to make an effort. The new Yukon and Tahoe models for example. Has anyone seen the interiors on those? They're getting rave reviews! Critics are saying the interiors are as good as ANYTHING out there. They're even using electroluminescent gauges, like Lexus! That's a QUANTUM leap beyond last year.
Plus the Solstice...the Z06...the Caddy XLR-V...the Buick Enclave - all demonstrate significant advancements in design and quality.
What GM must do now is consolidate their assets and shrink the company size down to two or three divisions. For example, the problem is not with the Yukon and Tahoe...the problem is that GM doesn't need TWO versions of basically the exact same vehicle. THAT'S where the company needs to get its act togehter. And in the structural heirarchy of the way the company is run, of course.
And I can't believe all the Camaro bashing I'm hearing on this site! I, for one, think it looks great. Sure, it needs a nip and tuck here and there...but who here really believes it will be produced as shown in Detroit - any more than the Mustang concept was?
Let's not take our disdain for GM's management decisions out on this concept. I see lots of evidence that GM is really TRYING to make an effort. The new Yukon and Tahoe models for example. Has anyone seen the interiors on those? They're getting rave reviews! Critics are saying the interiors are as good as ANYTHING out there. They're even using electroluminescent gauges, like Lexus! That's a QUANTUM leap beyond last year.
Plus the Solstice...the Z06...the Caddy XLR-V...the Buick Enclave - all demonstrate significant advancements in design and quality.
What GM must do now is consolidate their assets and shrink the company size down to two or three divisions. For example, the problem is not with the Yukon and Tahoe...the problem is that GM doesn't need TWO versions of basically the exact same vehicle. THAT'S where the company needs to get its act togehter. And in the structural heirarchy of the way the company is run, of course.
Some people forget that the Mustang isn't the only car on the Ford car lot. I'm not saying all GM cars are great, or the majority of the cars are great. Like you I'm seeing too much hating going on. :nono:
For some people it seems to be more of a personal vendetta than basing their decision off of factual points. Ex.....I hate GM so all their cars suck, or Chevy guys are jerks so all their cars suck.