My remedy for advanced bailout fatigue (and looming cold December): two weeks in Hawaii. I decided to leave the choice of rental cars in the hands of the island gods. And they spoke, with more wisdom and prescience than I might have imagined. Turns out that escape from the bitter truth about The Big 2.8’s death rattles is impossible, even on the most remote islands on the globe. How else could I be comparing a Dodge Charger with a fifteen-year old Toyota Camry?
For our first week on the Big Island, I made a reservation with Thrifty for the “wild car” option. My teenage son’s imagination ran wild; I harbored dread. The outcome fulfilled both of our expectations: he imagined our Charger to be a snorting, bitchin’ beast. I didn’t. Despite my relief at having escaped the Sebring bullet.
Our “wild car” was anything but. The 190hp 2.7-liter V6 and four-speed automatic was completely overwhelmed by the Charger’s 4,000lbs of pretense. Rarely has a car suffered from such a profound personality disorder: all show and no go. Under the hood of this vehicular version of “The Hulk”: the same sort of crude engine and spastic transmission as my former 1992 Grand Caravan. But nothing to show for all the noise and fuss.
Whereas the minivan and the Charger have the same horsepower-to-weight ratio, the 3.3-liter Caravan had a much better torque-to-weight ratio. It felt a lot quicker than the Charger, and didn’t need to grab two gears on every downshift.
It’s utterly inconceivable that Chrysler would build a 2.7 equipped Charger– let alone that anyone would actually buy one. Apparently rental companies are the obvious exception. Chrysler’s torquey 3.8 pushrod V6 would have been a much better choice for an entry/rental-level Charger, and undoubtedly cheaper to build than the DOHC 2.7.
The stalactite-hard, all-black cave of an interior and the gun-slit windows soon had me wishing I had scored a PT Cruiser. After all, we were here for the sight-seeing, not spelunking. The jail-cell windowed back seat is undoubtedly perfect for a police cruiser, right down to the already-broken kiddie-door lock that had my family banging on the window at every stop for release from the Charger’s clutches.
On the slow and narrow island roads populated with the locals’ Toyota 4×4 pickups and Corollas, the beamy Charger felt as out of place (and welcome) as Captain Cook’s three-masted brig, The Endeavor. Only at the big resort parking lots did the Charger feel at home, among the other Chrysler rental jetsam that had washed upon the islands.
The Charger is emblematic of everything that went wrong at Chrysler. Sure, a HEMI Charger RT is a trifling amusement. But a V6 Charger is essentially useless as a practical every-day car. I desperately searched for some remnant of the DNA that made the W-124 Benz such a perfect sedan, but to no avail. The Charger merely is a pathetic mutation, a gutless Frankenstein.
Since rental rates on the small island of Kauai were three times higher than on the Big Island, a web search led me to Island Rentals. The tiny operation’s motto is “don’t look like a tourist.” I was more than ready for that. Our serendipitous ride for $28/day (cash or check only): a somewhat clapped-out 1993 Camry V6 with 174k miles. The radio was MIA, and one door panel was attached with dry-wall screws. We were definitely going to fit in with the locals.
The Camry instantly impressed us with its laid-back island personality. The ride was as smooth as a well-made Mai Tai, the seats as comfy and relaxing as a hammock, and the silky engine inaudible over the warm breezes and crashing surf. But the 185hp 3.0-liter V6 was deceptively quick; the svelte 2900lb. Camry could easily have run rings around the (non) Charger.
The exquisite refinement of the Toyota’s engine and transmission, the brick-shithouse solidity of the aged and abused body structure, and the quality of the interior materials (no hard plastics) were still enhancing the reputation for this particular generation of Camry as the “Lexus of mid-size cars.” No wonder they’re such sought-after used cars, and still earning their keep as rentals on distant tropical islands.
And where will our rental V6 Charger be in fifteen years? On the ash heap of history, along with the (once proud) company that made it. To pawn off this larger-than-life sized Hot Wheels toy with a feeble old K-car drive train and a taxi-cab interior on today’s hotly-contested mid-large sized sedan market is (was?) utter suicide.
Exploring Hawaii was an exquisite escape from winter’s dismal grip and the relentless rattling of The Big 2.8’s begging bowls. But unless you’re among the few remaining naked hippie cave dwellers in remote Waipi’o Valley, the truth about cars is inescapable.
79 Comments on “Review: 2008 Dodge Charger V6 vs. 1993 Toyota Camry...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
My friend recently rented an ‘08 Charger, optioned the same way as yours. The engine was exceptionally bad; I actually think my Volvo is quicker. The thing that bothered me the most, was just how uncomfortable the seats were. They were flat as can be, my butt was constantly going numb.
It was also extremely oafish, he was constantly having issues driving it in Philly and NYC. It didn’t seem to fit anywhere.
The only thing that made the car worse was the droves of racers who kept trying to race him. That got old quick.
The Charger is one of the few products Chrysler makes that I would buy. Just not the rental car versions they sell to Thrifty of course like Edward drove.
The car is all about the HEMI, the performance and the style. The V6s are for girls and airports. No different than the Mustang except this is a muscle car that can haul your whole family and all of their stuff. I can’t fault Chrysler for it, it fits the mold and it’s a distinctly American car which I appreciate when most American cars have been neutered of their style and heritage or built to try and me-too the Japanese. All wrong IMO.
A complete redesign has been under way for many years now. Whether or not Chrysler will survive to produce it is another story but I hope they do.
The only Charger to get is a black SRT8 with the Hemi. The black nicely hides the ugly sheetmetal and obviously the Hemi isn’t overly burdened by the weight.
If you visit the island of Maui, I think you’ll see that the Ford Ranger rules. And appliance-grade Toyotas, of course.
Paul-
You seemed to like the Camry that Island Rentals provided you, how was the customer service? I was just looking online for a cheaper rental alternative during my Kauia vacation, and Island Rentals appears to be a good choice. It’s serendipitous that you’ve provided feedback on the rental vehicles I was just considering.
I have always thought that Chrysler would be well served to dump its mid level V6 as it offers nothing to the lineup. I suspect its only real purpose, aside from plaguing unsuspecting rental customers, is to keep the lights on at an unnecessary assembly plant rather than pay the cost to idle the workers who build it.
Was this an extra cost “wild car” option? If so, I’d have asked for the extra back.
The Charger might actually make it 15 years, since it was engineered for police duty. Well, most of the car anyway. I’m not sure about the 2.7, which the cops are spared. And I’d have more faith in the five-speed auto that attends the V8 and AWD V6.
Not that I have much cause for concern in the data. The 2005 LXs had a somewhat rough first year or so. But recently the 2005, 2006, and 2007 have all had roughly average repair rates in TrueDelta’s Vehicle Reliability Survey. (Not enough participants with the 2008 and 2009 yet–not as many enthusiastic owners online now that the new is gone.)
http://www.truedelta.com/latest_results.php
TriShield: Check the first name there. I’ve never been to Hawaii, nor rented a Charger.
Dave Skinner, Island Rentals treated us just fine. It’s very small. They picked us up at the airport in our rental Camry, and we dropped their driver off at the their office/shop nearby.
Michael Karesh: no extra cost.
I encourage every TTAC’er to read the Mary Walton book CAR, where the author was given inside access and documented the development of the 1996 Taurus. There is a chapter devoted to the project manager’s first drive of the then new 1992 Camry and his realization that the Toyota is big trouble for the Taurus four years away. The conclusion is that Ford was simply unable to produce a car as good as the Camry for various reasons – it seems that may still be true today for some of the Detroit 3.
Paul-
The 2.7 is in no way related to the 3.3. The 2.7 is an overhead cam engine, while the 3.3 is pushrod.
Sorry, I’m guilty of skimming the article while at work. My apologies. It also wouldn’t let me edit my first comment.
The stalactite-hard, all-black cave of an interior and the gun-slit windows quickly had me wishing I had scored a PT Cruiser. After all, we were here for the sight-seeing, not spelunking.
Fun review. Loved this line in particular. I hate those gun-slit windows. What a stupid design.
This Dodge Charger is the spiritual successor to the Blues Brothers’ 1974 “Shitbox Dodge” Monaco. For that reason only, I allow it to survive. Just not with the 2.7, with only belongs in the Avenger – which should be dead. Yuck.
Buying any Chrysler Co. product built since 2004 without a HEMI, Cummins, SRT, Stow-n-Go, or Trail Rated badge is not a great idea.
However, buying the base version of any Chrysler product is totally insane.
Droid800: Paul-
The 2.7 is in no way related to the 3.3. The 2.7 is an overhead cam engine, while the 3.3 is pushrod.
According to allpar.com, the 2.7, 3.2 and 3.5 were developed as a higher output family of the 3.3 V6, and that the 3.3 was a starting point in the development process. Exactly what aspects survived, I’m not sure. But in any case, the 2.7 sure sounds like the 3.3, and it has a peakier torque curve.
Was this based on the W124 they stopped building in the US in 1995, or the W210/211?
The rental chargers are putrid – we had one in LA, and while I still like the looks, siting inside the car was sad (and even more so because the sheet metal is semi exciting…)
These cars belong 5 years from now, with Large hemi engines supercharged within an inch of their life (after the depreciation has taken the teeth out of voiding any kind of factory warranty.)
My company car is a 2008 Charger 3.5 plus with 4 speed automatic. After 10000 miles, I am getting really tired of the small windows. Going to the drive in window at a bank is a chore. Visibility out of the windshield is horrible. The car is too wide and I am still getting used to parking it in tight spots. The trunk opening is worthless for carrying anything of size. Most of my driving is on interstates in TN, IL and MO so it is not bad on open stretches of road, but it is really clumsy in urban traffic, slow to respond to steering and the accelerator at lower speeds. On the contrary my wife’s 04 Taurus SEL with the 24V v6 has great visibilty, feels much lighter on its feet, great trunk and rear seat access and has a better ride. The Charger is very stiff at speeds under 70-75 mph. Yes I know the Taurus is old but it looks and drives better than this Charger. I am still scratching my head over why the company chose this over a 2008 Taurus with the same MSRP.
Not fair man – the 93 Camry was a ringer. Even against a modern-day Camry. :)
The Charger becomes merely adequate with the 3.5L V6 in SXT trim (you can at least
smokespin tires), although the Auto-Stick slushbox is just as schizo. The 2.7L and steelies with plastic caps is about as demoralizing as a Dodge gets… unless you’re in a Caliber of course. I’m sorry for your pain.“And where will our rental V6 Charger be in fifteen years?”
In the junkyard, partially stripped out, piled into a giant row of Chargers just like it.
And in the import section, there sits 10 Sonatas and two Camrys.
NANANANANANANANA
That V6 has no business being in a Charger :(
OTH, I drove 3000 miles in my Daytona (5.7L Hemi) over the holiday, with a stuffed trunk, two adults, two teens and two drop kick dogs. Oh, and I have the Predator PCM tuner installed. Not only did we ride in comfort, but got 25mph at 80 mph, and the best part, I can smoke the tires from a 20 roll :) Try that in your rental Camry :)
doctorno, strictly speaking, the LX cars received some components from the MB W210. Of course there was still a lot of W124 DNA in the W210, especially the multi-link rear suspension.
I got stuck with a Dodge Magnum in Vegas a while back (I had reserved a compact and was “upgraded”). I couldn’t stand the visibility in that thing. I can only imagine how bad a Dodge Nitro is. I never even thought of trying to push its “capabilities” as I was certain it had none. By the end of the first day, I was wishing we had tried to trade with a family of four that had been given an “upgrade” to a Jeep Wrangler. It was obvious that there was not nearly enough room for them and their luggage in that vehicle; so, we might have been able to get them and the rental company to go for it.
Was this based on the W124 they stopped building in the US in 1995, or the W210/211?
It has a transmission (the five-speed), and a few rear suspension bits, from W210/211. That’s it. The “rebadged E-Class” is a meme started by lazy auto journalists and repeated throughout the internet—and it could die any time, thanks.
The LX cars were more or less already done when the merger happened and share only a few components that were cheaper to obtain from Daimler (because they are old) than to engineer from scratch. They’re used as a way to say “Look, Mercedes did right by Chrysler” when in fact the Chrysler products that Daimler had the most say in were the Compass, Patriot and Caliber.
If it (or any car) is available with a stonking great V8, then in my mind there is no V6 variant. I simply will it out of existence, my mind blocking out the lower price tag and presence of ex-rental shitboxes in the classifieds. I do the same with 4 cyl midsize cars, or non-turbo VWs and Subarus. See no evil, hear no evil, buy no evil.
With 10K or less Hemis on the used market (you’d be clinically insane to pay MSRP and buy one of these new), why on god’s green earth would you even acknowledge the existence of a V6 Charger/300/Magnum/Challenger etc. ?
(after the depreciation has taken the teeth out of voiding any kind of factory warranty.)
Driving it off the lot will do that job.
While I find the Charger abhorrent, it’s not fair to accuse it of ungainliness relative to a car that doesn’t meet existing federal regulations.
JEC:
As the former driver of an Eagle Talon Tsi AWD and current driver of a Magnum R/T I couldn’t have said it better myself.
cardeveloper:
Isn’t variable displacement great? I get about 24-25 mpg on the highway no problem. That’s the same number I used to get with my 1998 Subaru Forester S.
@ Paul
No, its not.
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/new6.html
The 2.7, 3.2, and 3.5 were all new designs. The development designs WERE based on the 3.3, but Chrysler did not use them for the production engines.
I’d like to know where these “10K or less Hemis” are. Because they’re not on AutoTrader
I’d be tempted to get a used V6 Charger if the price were right. I’d like a larger car than I have now someday.
plee : Taurus is old but it looks and drives better than this Charger. I am still scratching my head over why the company chose this over a 2008 Taurus with the same MSRP.
That’s because the old, beancounted-to-death, Taurus came from the Mary Walton Book, when Ford tried to have the kinds of goodies that was offered in the Camry. And your company probably bought the Charger over the new Taurus because Chrysler dug deeper into their profit margin just to dump the things.
And for everyone who says the Charger is much more acceptable with a HEMI, an engine does not make a car. The motor is great, but its still wrapped around an LX-car.
… an engine does not make a car. The motor is great, but its still wrapped around an LX-car.
I personally disagree.
For me, the engine is the biggest factor in why I buy a vehicle. It might be a stupid way to purchase a car, but I would take a Charger R/T over something like the Sable Premier every time.
I’d pick the Five Hundred/Montego/Taurus/Sable over any of the LX cars. I said that back in 2005 even when the Five Hundred had its 3.0L V6 and CVT trans
A couple of comments:
* The 1993 Camry was a much better car than the 2008 Camry *is*. It was possibly the best Toyota vehicle ever produced that didn’t feature an instant-rust pickup bed.
* Two posters have referred the Mary Walton book. It’s worth noting that the end of the book arrives as the highly-contented, art-car, $20,800 Taurus GL prepares to face off against the newly-decontented crapmobile $15,990 ‘95 Camry. We all remember how that story ended. Ford was too ambitious and paid for it with their marketshare.
* Remember, everyone, the V6 Camry was the hot rod of the day, and the 2.7 Charger is the cheapest/slowest variant possible. If you inflation-correct a ‘93 Camry XLE V6, that money buys you a Charger R/T, which utterly and completely rapes this or any other Camry in history in a straight line.
Chrysler’s 2.7L? Oh God, that thing should have been killed years ago. That’s the infamous sludging engine in old Intrepids/Concordes. I am pretty sure the only reason it still exists is because it is Flexfuel compatible (Read: CAFE credits)
On Chrysler’s V6 lineup: In the beginning (1990), there was the 3.3L, 3.5L, and 3.8L. They were used in the LH cars (Intrepid/Concorde) and the minivans. The 3.5L no longer exists, but a severely updated version of the 3.3L and 3.8L soldiers on in the minivans and the Wrangler (I don’t know either). They’ve got timing chains and are OHV. Nothing fancy, no doubt, but easy to maintain.
The 2.7L, 3.2L, and 3.5L were designed to REPLACE the old V6’s. They didn’t come from the old 3.3L/3.8L any more than any other manufacturer probably reuses designs from their old engines in their new one. The 2.7L, yeah, generally sucks. It’s not big enough for the LX cars (300/Charger), and used to have sludging issues. Apparently it’s a good option in the Sebring/Avenger because it offers a good fuel economy/power balance, and since World Engines suck, it’s probably a good option. The 4.0L V6 that’s in the minivans and the Nitro is also based off this series, but for whatever reason production of this engine is very, very limited, hence why we have seen so little of it. Sucks, because it’s probably Chrysler’s best V6 too.
http://allpar.com/mopar/new6.html
Have a blast.
* The 1993 Camry was a much better car than the 2008 Camry *is*. It was possibly the best Toyota vehicle ever produced that didn’t feature an instant-rust pickup bed.
I was really surprised by this too. Toyota and honda especially jumped the car during the late 90’s. Instead of making their midsize cars into cheap eurocars, they turned into reliable buicks.
It’d be interesting for TTAC to do new vs old model comparison. Kind of like motivemag, but in the take-no-prisoners TTAC style.
If you inflation-correct a ‘93 Camry XLE V6, that money buys you a Charger R/T, which utterly and completely rapes this or any other Camry in history in a straight line.
- Jack Baruth
That’s great! If I drag strip enough stop lights on the way home I can stay late to collect the overtime and pay off the extra cost of gas, and still get home in time to shampoo my chest hair!
If it (or any car) is available with a stonking great V8, then in my mind there is no V6 variant.…
There is a very good reason for these V6 variants. Fifteen years from now when its time to restore that HEMI Charger, the garden variety variants provide a great source of cheap body parts. Option laden six cylinder cars are like hitting paydirt.
Too bad it wasn’t possible to nominate a specific model/engine combination for the 10 Worst list. The Charger 2.7L would have made it as it seems to be a fleet/rental special that no one in their right mind would ever want to actually own/drive for any length of time, i.e., one of those vehicles that are only bought by people for someone else to drive (like that Chevy Express 3500 commercial van that was reviewed a while ago).
It would be interesting if Chrysler decides to come out with a Challenger 2.7L, a la the old slant-six, E-body “Deputy’ model.
Anything is better than the Avenger.
ajla : However, buying the base version of any Chrysler product is totally insane.
So true, so true. Learned the hard way for me.
doktorno :
Was this based on the W124 they stopped building in the US in 1995, or the W210/211?
Yes, the W124 was the 1986-1995 E-Class.
The W210 came along next, and that was the basis for the current 300/Charger.
Thought I would share…
I have a 2004 A6 2.7T S-Line. Some middle-age former mullet wearer tried to drag race me off the line at a light in a shiny new Charger R/T. I beat him, by god knows how much. I know he tried because his tires were SQUEALING like pigs…and there was all the posturing, reving and grinning at the light. Lets assume that conditions were perfect and he got a run like consumerguide auto gets. 0-60 in 5.8 seconds. I have seen an avg 0-60 of 6.3 seconds for the A6 2.7T S-Line. Audi says its 6.0 flat…and I have no problem believing them. So 5.7 liters of displacement in the charger vs 2.7 liters in the Audi = a 0-60 time difference of less than half a second? They both weight 3000 pounds and the Audi has an AWD system on top of that which can lower the 0-60 time.
Yeah, there IS a replacement for displacement. It’s called good engineering. The modern muscle cars are such a bore.
AWD often helps 0-60 times.
And the best is displacement with good engineering. :)
AWD often helps 0-60 times.
Not really. It’s not just the extra weight, but also worrying about the drivetrain when you dump the clutch/mash the gas/etc.
And the replacement for displacement? It’s called forced induction …
Your 6 cyl red Charger reminds me of an earlier experience of underpowered Chargers. In about 1978, my best friend’s dad found a 4 yr old red 74 Charger with only 10k miles on it. This was the last year of the real muscle Charger (to the extent such a thing still existed in 74). The catch: It was totally base. 225 ci slant 6, 3 on the tree, no radio, rubber floors, bench seat and fixed rear side windows. Heater. That was it. This was the most miserable old mopar I ever drove (and I LOVED old mopars). The poor engine was completely overmatched by the weight of the car and the too-tall gearing. Trying to get away from a stoplight without killing the car was a tough job. The car also cried out for power steering. This was the car that had muscular college students grunting with wide eyes while trying to park it. Miserable, miserable car. But drop dead reliable, which I suspect is the only significant difference with your test subject.
I saw a green ‘93 Camry (V6, leather, alloys, etc.) over the weekend, that looked like it had just rolled off of the assembly line. I almost wanted to carjack the guy to get that car. I’ve pondered buying one of those to replace my 13mpg pickup, but of course I’d miss being able to haul stuff.
The last time I looked, older used Camrys were actually selling for less than comparable year Corollas.
My dad drives a Camry of this vintage and I must say for what it is, it’s an excellent car. Easily over 150k miles on the clock and the only sign of its age is some slight fade in the paint and some chassis fatigue. The engine is still golden, unbelievably. I think this car was the tipping point for Toyota in the US, it hasn’t looked back since.
As for the charger, I didn’t even know they came with a 2.7. I’ve only seen them with 3.5’s. In fact, I can’t believe they come with 2.7’s because the 3.5 isn’t exactly a hard charger (haw haw). I can only imagine how excremental the 2.7 must be.
Well written, btw
The 2.7 V6 is fleet only
CommanderFish- Any reason why the 2.4L GEMA engine “sucks”? It’s numbers seem to be as good as any other 4 cylinder DOHC VVT engine.
The 93 Gen Camry was the last wagon sold in the US too.
I test drove a 94 Camry wagon a couple years back. It had the 3.0L V6 and gold trim. I forget how many miles were on it. It was up there, but not excessive. The car was really nice and would scoot like a scalded cat. Factory radio was utter garbage though.