Ironically, it was in Hawaii when I first saw the gen 3-3.5 Camry. Looked like a much more expensive vehicle than the $21,000 tag indicated.

Not to forget the Charger, I find this argument kind of funny — comparing the old with the new, specifically these two cars. I am a fan of the new Charger, didn’t have a big problem with the 2.7 rental I drove a few years ago. I never dreamed that a Chrysler product would grab me that much. There is something a little desparate about this car and the 300 as being too little too late — as if Chrysler is trying to reward us for being patient for all those years but still not committing to making these cars their flagships.

I wonder why they didn’t go all the way with a turbo-diesel, considering the German side of this car’s heritage?

Anyway, I do agree about the reference to comparing the 93 Camry to the current models. The older Camry could steal the ES300’s thunder. The new one aspires to be an upscale Corolla. Too much plastic, no personality.

I’ve gone around to a few “Sunday Sales” new and used lots just to check up on some of the Chargers, Challengers and Lexus out there. Then I look at my car as if it was one of the bunch. and ask if I would buy this car if I didn’t know the owner and saw it on the lot.

W-124 DNA in the Charger? Yes. The triple-flashing turn signals and the cruise control that will downshift the transmission on downhill grades. Unfortunately, three flashes aren’t nearly enough for changing lanes with the poor visibility in the Charger. But, there’s no ABS, no side airbags, and no skid control.

The base Charger clocks in at 3,727 lbs.

Let’s try and be a little accurate.

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.

An excellent book on development of a significant / important product, similair in tone to Kidder’s “The Soul of a New Machine.”

For me, the ominous moment in Walton’s book was when the man responsible for the Taurus had to first fight for space for his team, and ended refinishing old basement offices. This for the vital revision of the car that saved Ford’s bacon in the 80s. Do you think the project manager for the Camry had to go and find office space? Or do you think they gave him keys to the executive washroom and said, “Succeed or we’ll take these away.”

All that said, the second generation Ford Taurus was frankly a success and, as my kids approach driving, age, I can see myself with a small fleet of wagons purtchased at a whopping 2k each and with parts both plenty and cheap in supply. Quality can be judged in different ways. For effective transportation (not car lust), it’s either frequency of breakdown or cost to repair if breaks down. One hopes the imports don’t breakdown; one expects the american cars to. But a Taurus will be cheap to keep going.

This from a guy who has both ends of the spectrum- A Chevy Venture people hauler (five kids) and an Audi A8. $50 to fix a busted power window in the Chevy, and I pray the power windows don’t go in the Audi.

Old Chrysler V6’s

3.3L/3.8L
2.7L/3.5L/4.0L
3.7L

Phoenix / New Chrysler V6’s

3.0L/3.3L/3.6L/4.0L

3.0L is for export only (markets with displacement tax), 3.3L is for passenger cars and minivans, 3.6L is for just about anything bigger than D-segment. As of right now, the 4.0L is only rumored for marine use… Very strange.

Here’s the full list and page with info:

http://allpar.com/mopar/phoenix-engines.html

As far a not wanting a 93 Camry, college kids still buy them

At least they did the Challenger justice as I know that they realized their mistake with the Charger.

Oh, the last car I rented was a strip down Mustang. While some young male family members thought it was cool, being strip down it was not at all what Ford should have built!

I object to you putting the 2.7L charger against the Camry.

First of all, the 2.7 is obviously a gas miser – Its designed for maximum fuel consumption. I know cause I own an S550 and a 2.7 Chrysler 300. The 300 and the Charger are the same virtually.

In my city (NYC) where there is maximum traffic, you aren’t racing anywhere. Getting on the highways, the car is slow up until 4000RPM and then it is fast enough to 65mph (the speed limit) to be ok. My only problem is the transmission which feels unrefined.

I think Chrysler should have skipped the 2.7 altogether and gone for the 3.5 and up.

Thus far, my 300 has been a solid car and when I get rid of it in a few years for the new E-class, I will miss it.

You compared a Charger to a Japanese econobox?

The interior space of this car ALONE is enough to make me take it over the Toyota.

WE AREN’T ALL RACING AND BREAKING SPEED LIMITS YOU KNOW…

SOME OF US JUST NEED A CITY CRUISER THAT ACTUALLY LOOKS GOOD.

I even put 22’s on my 300 to make it EVEN SLOWER HAHAHAHAHA

I ask this becuse I drive a Golf, which has wonderful driving dynamics, is perfectly sized and useful to boot. However, it is not the prettiest car I have ever seen.

Mustangs are sexy, this car is too. Lotus, ahhh. A few others. But is it better to be in a car that actually fits what you need and let the outside styling be second place, or do you buy the charger or the mustang, and look cool.

sigh.

Speaking on the 2.7 V6 I can still remember Dodge’s early commercials regarding “cab forward design” and how their then spokesman Edward Herrmann lauded how they were able extract “200hp from a mere 2.7 liters.”

Boy have times changed.

Not surprising the much older Camry beat out the Charger. My mother has owned nothing but Toyotas (mostly Camrys…or Camries?). Her previous Camry was a 1995 LE I4 model and it ran great for over 200k miles. And even then it still rode and sounded like a Lexus (even being deceptively quick) and the interior/exterior materials held up well, even after my kid brother used it for college.

1) With Chrysler in the trouble it is in now, is there not a greater risk in buying one, no matter what third party warranty you are sold

2) As someone said, choosing the rental engine option on a performance car means you are brain dead

3) The 93 Camry was soul and body, the 08 Camry has the soul part removed

4) The R/T Charger is all about the perception of power, forget how it is delivered or packaged. If you cared about these why buy any Chrysler.

5) Almost everyone would agree that comparing a V6 classic to a V6 toad, is a foregone conclusion

I would rather have seen an article comparing the 93 Camry to the gutless wonder that Toyota produces today and what happened to Toyota in between. As far as 6cyl Charger of the muscle car era, to one of today, both bad, and we all know what happened inbetween at Chrysler, more bad.

Sounds to me like they should have stuck with one engine across the line like Honda did with the 1st Gen CR-V. You get the basic version with the basic necessities and if you want the fancy one you get ABS, better trim, better audio, etc.

Oh wait – they made a four door didn’t they??? Wonder why they made a four door muscle car wannabe??? VBG!

Anyhow one engine and make it a damn good engine…