Discussion in '2005 - 2009 Specific Tech' started by Benny02GT, Feb 27, 2004.
Looks boxy to me and way low on horsepower unless it weighs 2100 lbs........
I belive that McPhearson was Ford's chief engineer at the time, which was the late 1940's.
I hope they don't over do the Hemi deal...I mean most of the time people will say HEMI! HEMI! HEMI!!!!! DUDE HEMI OWNZ JOO!!! you ask them "Do you even freaking know what a Hemi is?" their response "uhmm...no...a really powerful engine"? as long as they don't over do it...
it looks good I think...
Seems unclear. This sites says he was with GM when he invented it, but then helped put it into production when he went to work for Ford in England.
"Potted history of MacPherson: Earle S. MacPherson of General Motors developed the MacPherson strut in 1947. GM cars were originally design-bound by accountants. If it cost too much or wasn't tried and tested, then it didn't get built/used. Major GM innovations including the MacPherson Strut suspension system sat stifled on the shelf for years because innovation cannot be proven on a spreadsheet until after the product has been produced or manufacturered. Consequently, Earle MacPherson went to work for Ford UK in 1950, where Ford started using his design on the 1950 'English' Ford models straight away. "
I'd love to see a sharp high HP charger on the road. I'd still be in a mustang, pretty much always have been. But, to me let me see some SUPER BEES, CAMARO SS, FIREHAWKS, CUDAS (How have they avoided making one of these witha hemi), IMPALA SS, and everything else that means AMERICAN MUSCLE. Hell I even have respect for some of the top rice out now (Amazing what they can do with 4 cylinders). This is the GOLDEN AGE of fast cars and as far as I'm concerned the more the merrier.
So true. I can't stand the Hemi commercials where the Dad is teaching his kid how to say Hemi, but you can tell that he is just lame when it comes to cars and really has no idea what the term even means. It's just a name drop.
I think this is the best rendering!
It just looks mean!
So far it looks like they will have suicide doors to make it a 4-door. Chances are slim it will be similar to that rendering.
its like the new 2.4 MAGNUMS .... what a 'Kiss Me''Kiss Me''Kiss Me''Kiss Me'in joke lol
I know, it's sad. They would probably sell a lot of them if they make them look like that though.
Yep i would consider buying one as my next vehicle if it looked tough and had a larger v8 like the 5.7L hemi...but id still keep the stang. Its been too good to me for me to get rid of it.
Where did you find the picture of the one posted above here? The rear end looks too short. The side of the car looks nice, but I cannot rate the front end without first seeing how the front facia of this car is going to look like. The same goes for the rear facia.
Do you have any other pictures of the Charger? Ones which have the entire front and rear end fully assembled with the same exact body style as the one above in the pictures?
It's rear end looks a little short, they could stretch it a bit to give some additional trunk space, but it looks better then the Crossfire. That car suffers from "Noassatall". The front end has that "Dodge" look with a four sections but it does look somewhat different then most Dodges. My only problem with its appearance is that it is so low to the ground but I seriously doubt that they would release a production car that is that low. Of course, if they go with these concept pictures at all they will probably water the whole design down to, as some before have said, it looks like an Intrepid or Stratus. I got that pic from http://www.popularhotrodding.com/features/0404phr_dodge/
I like the Charger in Hot Rod Magazine. The only thing that I think that Dodge should do is make the front end of the 2006 Charger look like the 68-70 Charger's front end. Then it will look a whole lot nicer and more like a Charger.
Actually, McPherson struts were designed in 1949 by a Chevrolet engineer for the Chevrolet Cadet, a sub-compact car that was never produced. They would up being used on many cars, but it is an American design. There was an article in Hemmings about that car several years ago.
Thanks for the corrections folks
Chrysler and Ford both started using unibody construction in the late 1950's. The original design work was probably much older.
As for MacPherson, he did work for GM, but his strut suspension was never developed for a production car until he went to work for Ford.
The point I was trying to make was that U.S. engineering is typically not the issue with most car design problems. The bean counters tend force the lowest cost option into production. Example, the Fox platform hanging around for 25 years.
Please no boos of hisses... I love the lightweight Fox platform, but they do leave a bit to be desired in the handling department "stock".