2015 SRT Barracuda- who is saving up for one?
1) new challenger looks like a slab sided caricature of the original. it's fat, it's boring and the *** end looks like the styling guys called it quits somewhere around the rear wheels :tongue2:
2)it's still better than this:
http://www.amcarguide.com/muscle-cars/dodge-challenger-1978-1983-2nd-generation/ the 2nd generation "challenger".
3)they can put any name they like on something, (insert new dart here :protest: ), and it don't make it one...
haven't been any new cuda's or challengers since 1974
1: while I kind of share your opinion, not truly in love with the car, it does, IMO, still look good. You just appear to be one of those guys unhappy with anything Chrysler tries to do.
2: I could not agree more. Wrong design in the wrong time as well as being vastly under powered. Now, IF it ran 12's OOTB.......
3: this is another problem many are having. Your making a direct appearance comparison of the cars and not what they are/were.
Ask your self honestly. What was the old Dart? If you did not come up with an answer like this:
"A basic transportation car that started with a base engine and no frills."
Then you have totally missed it. The old Darts were nothing more than that with a few performance versions made. Remember, adding to the old Darts check list added price from the base as we all know. Se of the most popular upgrades were:
Carpet instead of rubber mats
Power steering and brakes
A/C
Added drivetrain power ment a upgrade to a 318 as the first step, sometimes the only step up.
If you can not make a direct compare from the above
To today's Dart, a basic people mover that starts with nearly no options and is being sold dirt cheap, you have and will continue to miss it and
Probably will never get it.
If ya don't like the car for another reason, looks, a Fiat intervention/Dodge in Fiat clothing, to small, ugly, what ever, that is fine.