cretinx: so who in their right mind would buy this over a Ford Mustang GT?

It’s not quite as bad as all that. The Challenger SRT-8 is targeted at the Shelby GT500 market while the Challenger R/T is the competitor for the Mustang GT. The prices for comparable cars aren’t that far apart.

Likewise, although the base V6 Challenger will be more expensive than the V6 Mustang, the V6 Challenger gets an automatic as standard equipment (it’s extra cost in the V6 Mustang).

So, the competition is welcome and there ‘will’ be some Challenger sales. Still, as bloated as the Challenger is in comparison to the Mustang, Chrysler will need to do some immediate heavy-duty promoting/discounting to unload as many Challengers as they can before the Camaro arrives on the scene (as well as the updated 2010 Mustang at the beginning of 2009). When the inevitable Mustang/Challenger/Camaro comparisons start rolling in, I suspect that the Challenger will be dragging up the rear.

so who in their right mind would buy this over a Ford Mustang GT?

You’ve bashed the car for being weak, heavy, ugly, poorly-designed and for it’s ‘questionable’ lineage.

Are you forgetting this is an everyman’s coupe?!? This is a large RWD coupe(in it’s base model) for marginally more than a Civic Si.

That is all.

FWIW, it’s worth noting that, unlike the original E-body, the rear quarter windows of the production Challenger are fixed (whereas the concept was a true hardtop), meaning it’s, again, much closer to just being a Charger sedan. Even though the original Challenger was derived from the B-body intermediate car, it was difficult to pick up on that in the E-body’s all-new body or interior. This is not the case with the new Challenger. It’s all too obvious that it’s derived entirely from the LX-series Charger.

Ironically, Chrysler would have been much better off if they had saved the Challenger development money and simply made a two-door version of the Charger using something resembling the well-styled ‘tunnel back’ rear window of the ‘68-’70 Charger, arguably one of the best looking cars to ever come out of Detroit, in addition to using an updated version of the great ‘hidden’ tail-light treatment of the ‘69-’70 Charger. In fact, the Intrepid-based Charger concept from a few years ago had exactly that.

As pointed out, the new Challenger will likely follow the path of the car it’s based upon, in that it will be discontinued within four years due to poor sales.

I highly recommend people read it.

http://www.topgear.com/content/features/stories/2008/04/stories/06/1.html

Some notable paragraphs.

There are those who don’t like muscle cars, who can’t understand their appeal and frown at them in confusion and bewilderment. They will not like the new Challenger. And we should pity these people – pity them, but not fear them, because they are spineless and have no soul.

There will be a 3.5-litre V6 version next year, for idiots to buy. Why would you want that? It’s like popping into the dragon shop for a pet and coming out with a poodle.

Sometimes the outright disdain for distinctly American rides like the Challenger and the lack of appreciation for them here surprises and disappoints me.

One thing is for sure, some of us will enjoy it before it’s gone again.

But why all the harping about the interior? It’s nice for this type of car and frankly nobody buys this type of car for the latest gizmos or finest leather or soft-touch plastic. That’s not what these cars are about. Nicer interiors matter in less focused, high-volume stuff like the Avenger and Sebring.

I might be the exception, but I am in my 20s and this car has relevence to me. I think it looks incredible and I’ve been following it since it was a concept.

This car was produced in direct response to consumer demand after the concept was shown and the success of the Ford Mustang.

This summer Chrysler is releasing vastly more affordable models of this car. Chrysler feels they have a much hotter potato here than virtually everything else they sell, and I they’re right. People will buy cars like this and the Charger from Chrysler because aside from the Wrangler and Ram it’s the only thing they do right. And in this case the execution is virtually flawless considering what they had to work with.

The Challenger is one very bright spot in an otherwise very dark product portfoilo at Chrysler. It also didn’t cost them an arm and a leg and a whole lot of time to come up with it considering it’s an LX car variant that currently has all the parts and plant to run it out.

This car and the Mustang are proof GM never should have discontinued the Camaro years ago. That was as massive a blunder as discontinuing their fullsized, RWD cars which ceded the market to Ford alone. They also ceded the muscle car market to Ford exclusively and Ford has profited handsomely.

The Camaro is still nearly a year off, it required an all-new structure made out of the Holden Commodore and it required GM to retool a plant to build it as well as unique interior parts. GM’s investment in this segment is much more substantial than Chrysler and Ford’s. I think it will be reflected in the Camaro’s overall quality and price.

People may think muscle cars aren’t relevent, but there’s a lot of people like me out there that would rather buy a ride that’s distinctly American and charasmatic from the Big Three than their latest boring, Japanese me-too car.

I am not against car projects like the challenger, but I agree with many of the other posts. The domestics really need to concentrate on the meat and potatoes before spending a lot of money on how to build the best dessert.

GM and Ford are doing better with the Bu and Fusion, they need to just drop anything else that isn’t profitable or necessary and keep improving those while upping the ante with stronger subcompacts.

Chrysler just needs to start all over again.

Hey TTAC, how about this for a “question of the day” , What car would you like to see a “retro” of?

Alex Rodriguez: I’m looking at both interiors right now on the website:

The seats are different, the door panels are different (softer materials in Challenger), the center console is different, the center stack is different, the guage housing is different, the dash is different, not to mention a manual and pistol shifter for the Challenger.

How is that Identical again?

The mere fact that you mention a manual and “pistol” (I can only assume you mean “Pistol-Grip”) shifter suggests that you’re looking at the concept car’s interior. It’s well known that all production 2008 Challenger SRT-8 are automatics. None will have a manual or “pistol” shifter. They have the standard automatic shifter and console from the Charger.

All of the photos of the production car’s interior are the ones that are identical to the Charger SRT-8. I suggest you check some of those out first before you make any attempts at correcting anyone on the obvious similiarities between the production Challenger and Charger interiors.

Now Camaro is going to be the only North American GM product built on a brand new platform. There is a reason GM killed the Camaro and Firebird several years ago, and the reasons haven’t change. The two door mid-sized coupe market remains tiny. The nostalgia buyers are getting a strong dose of reality checking thanks to a tough economy. Camaro will do well to outsell the revival Thunderbird, the just-stupid SSR or the long-forgotten Crossfire. Crossfire was aimed at the same market but without the nostalgia factor and I think you can still buy three year old new ones!

As for the Challenger, it is doomed and will probably sell less well than the Magnum wagon did. It is also kind of creepy that Challenger was also the name of the Space Shuttle which broke up 73 seconds after it’s final launch.

Don’t get me wrong I like retro so I’m not bashing any of these retro-cars. They at least are different from the cookie cutter modern car. They’ve got style.

Will I buy one? No. I like them but I don’t want to feed one at the pumps.

This is 1973 all over again – cool muscle cars in a time of rising fuel prices… VBG!

1978 must be right around the corner again. Could it be time for the second coming of the Mustang II and the FWD Shelby?

Technically correct, but both the Barracuda and Challenger used slightly cut-down versions of Chrysler’s mid sized Satellite/Coronet body.

The original Barracuda was built from Chrysler’s A-body, also used for the Plymouth Valiant and Dodge Dart. In 1970, and concurrent with the debut of the Challenger, the Barracuda was moved to the E-body platform, which was shorter and wider adaptation of the B-body (Satellite/Coronet) and considered a separate platform. The Barracuda was built on a 108-inch wheelbase variant of the E-body while the Challenger got a “slightly stretched” (when compared to the Barracuda) 110-inch wheelbase version.

The most notable part of the original Challenger’s failure is that the Plymouth Duster, a hastily contrived fastback version of the Valiant, outsold BOTH the E-bodies by a significant margin. The Duster, which was done on a shoestring budget (and apparently largely under the radar), was cheaper, lighter, handled better, and got better gas mileage. It was easier to see out of, had more useful space, and, if you ordered the 340, was as fast as any Challenger except the 440s and Hemis.

(The irony, of course, is that the Duster was essentially a reinvention of the ‘67-’69 A-body Barracuda. Plymouth couldn’t give the ‘Cuda away, but the Duster sold like mad. Go figure.)

Technically correct, but both the Barracuda and Challenger used slightly cut-down versions of Chrysler’s mid sized Satellite/Coronet body.

You beat me to it, Paul. The Challenger was slightly longer than the Cuda, but the E-body (Challenger and 1970+ Barracuda) was new for 1970 and was based on a cut-down B-body.

It would be more correct to say, in 1970 as now, that the Challenger was made from a shortened Charger.

I don’t understand people that say that the new Challenger is a direct knock-off of the 1970-74 Challenger but the new Camaro is somehow more differentiated from the first-gen (1967-69) Camaro.

PS: In the picture that accompanies this article, I’ll take the red one on the left. :)

The review tells me that they were able to drive it 160 mph. It doesn’t negate any of Mr. Williams’ prognostications about its likelihood to succeed in the marketplace.

I concur that this is doomed to be a low seller. This promises to be GTO Revisited and the Son of Solstice — the initial rush and flurry of high prices will quickly die off within a year or so, once they have sold them to the few buyers who want one.

The world has changed. There just isn’t much demand for a pricey American muscle car. The sooner that Detroit realizes this, the better for them.

I’d still pick the Honda or Lexus as my daily driver, though, especially if I had much of a commute. But I don’t play golf, I don’t gamble, or have any other hobbies. Cars are my only “vice”.

Problem is, I don’t know how many people like me there are. Myabe just enough for Chrysler to not take a bath on this model…maybe not. But I’m selfishly glad Chrysler built it.