Dodge Challenger: The Retro-Flop Has Landed

By Frank Williams
May 1, 2008 -

In 1970, gas was cheap, horsepower was king and Dodge introduced a slightly stretched rebodied Barracuda they called Challenger. It offered huge engines that delivered pavement-scorching acceleration. After just four model years of poor sales, The Dodge Boys pulled the plug. Fast forward 38 years. Gas is expensive; the average car buyer is more interested in fuel economy than horsepower. Dodge has introduced a slightly cut-down Chrysler LX they call the Challenger. It offers a huge engine, pavement-scorching acceleration and they've pre-sold the first 6.4K. The Detroit News– and practically every other automedia outlet– have lavished the Challenger redux with praise. But then again, the media loved the big-engined 1970 model when it first hit the market. I predict the same rapid demise for the new Challenger. There are just so many baby-boomers wanting to relive their 20s; a 34-year gap means the model has no relevance to younger buyers. Even with a V6, demand will be extremely low. In fact,should Chrysler avoid C11, I give the Challenger two years. Good for collectors, bad for Chrysler. They failed to learn from Ford's "re-imagined" Thunderbird and direct their time, talent and money into developing a small car– instead of trying to recapture past glory they never really had. Next up: the Camaro!

Detroit News »

Email This Post

Subscribe to Newsletter

End of Comments

58 Responses to “ Dodge Challenger: The Retro-Flop Has Landed ”

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 » Show All Reverse Order

Mike Solowiow :
May 1st, 2008 at 9:40 am

I wonder when Toyota will do a retro Supra, complete with “wedge” styling, and pop-up headlamps…

or how about a retro Audi Quattro, with e-brake style levers to lock the rear and center differential locks and “we don’t do curves” styling…

or a retro Prelude, or a retro Ford F-100, or a Vw Scirocco (oh wait…..)
menno :
May 1st, 2008 at 9:43 am

Cereberus was caught between a rock and a hard place. These hard boiled finance guys knew very well that the Challenger was a money loser, I’m betting, but that if they came alongside and took over the reins then pulled the plug on the upcoming Challenger, the “devotee press lap dogs” at certain car magazines would have had a field day trashing them.

So I suspect they are using the losses on the Challenger as a tax write off under “PR expenses.”
bunkie :
May 1st, 2008 at 9:46 am

I owned a ‘71 Challenger with a 440. It was a terrible car. I traded for a Triumph GT-6+ which was actually a better car.

I compeltely agree that the new Challenger is doomed. As a V6 coupe, it makes no sense whatsoever and there are only so many people who want modern versions of muscle cars.
skor :
May 1st, 2008 at 9:58 am

They failed to learn from Ford’s “re-imagined” Thunderbird and direct their time, talent and money into developing a small car– instead of trying to recapture past glory they never really had. Next up: the Camaro!

Yup.
gamper :
May 1st, 2008 at 10:00 am

I am not a huge fan of the Challenger, retro is so hit or miss, but I can see relatively strong sales initially. Agree that it holds little appeal to most younger buyers.

The Camaro on the other hand looks thoroughly modern with hints of retro. Again, I dont see really broad appeal to younger buyers, but I think the Camaro has a better chance at sustained sales than Challenger.
ctoan :
May 1st, 2008 at 10:00 am

Man, juxtaposed to the old one, that thing is chunky.

Do they need all that bulk to meet safety standards, or are Dodge’s designers just trying to be “manly”?
Corto :
May 1st, 2008 at 10:05 am

I’m new to this blog. It’s nice to read…the truth about cars, for a change. The Challenger has as much chance of succeeding as Ralph Nader becoming president. And that’s a good thing…as far as the Challenger is concerned at least.
AGR :
May 1st, 2008 at 10:06 am

Its an exceptional “halo” car for Chrysler which will be a “player” in the modern “pony car wars” between Mustang-Challenger-Camaro.

40 years ago gas was inexpensive and the fuel economy of the versions with 400HP was horrendeous somewhat similar to today.

It was never destined to be a volume car from the outset.

Boomers have off springs that have been influenced by American Muscle from their parents.
Steven Lang :
May 1st, 2008 at 10:06 am

Hmmmm… I do still see a nice large opening for a full-sized luxury oriented coupe.

But if this model has an interior like the rest of today’s Chryslers, it’s done. The interior materials that Chrysler is using for their line-up right now is simply the absolute worst in the industry. I’m willing to bet that they lost at least 100k sales on the Journey and Grand Caravan thus far due to the plasticized interiors.

It would be interesting to see how this model compares with the Mustang. As of now there simply isn’t anything that has truly taken over the luxury side of the equation and obviously Chrysler is more interested in following a Muscle car orientation with the Challenger due to it’s history.

As far as luxury goes, I’m willing to bet that some folks who drive the Accord and Altima coupes would disagree at this point. But I haven’t driven either one of the vehicles so I can’t say yes or no to whether they qualify. Last I heard the Accord is actually very luxurious while the Altima is more of a classic Japanese GT car (think late 80’s Supra).
Redbarchetta :
May 1st, 2008 at 10:07 am

This development money would have been smarter to invest in the other Dodge turds, you know the bread and butter ones like the Caliber and the rest of the sad Chysler lineup. I can’t believe how bad that car is. I borrowed a coworks just an hour ago to run down the block and I thought I was going to be killed trying to merge into traffic. My 1981 Honda Prelude was a better built better performing car, and mine was a lemon. There was something wrong with this relatively new car too, brakes or tranmission were making this odd noise.