2007 Dodge Charger 2.7

[Will123w]

So the wife's 2007 Cobalt was hit while parked by a drunk driver the other night and the left rear wheel was bent all out of whack and what not. The drunk girls 91 Sable's front right wheel had been completely ripped off the car so fortunately when she tried to run alls the car did was rev and not go anywhere.

So We headed up to Enterprise to get her a rental and all they had available was a red 2007 Charger. At first I wasn't all that excited because from pictures of the car and what I had seen when driving by one I was not very impressed.

First Impressions-

Exterior- I really think this car was designed as the SRT-8 model and then dumbed down from there. Whenever I look at it I think how much nicer it would be with a spoiler and hood scoop. Overall I think it is rather plain looking, though the front end looks sorta mean like most dodges.

Interior- I was actually quite suprised with the interior of the Charger. Most of the plastics were very nice and soft, though some like below the steering wheel and around the radio were hard plastics (they still felt nicer than the hard plastics in the Cobalt). I'm 6'2 280 and I felt perfectly at home in this car. It's absolutely huge inside and I was very comfortable. The seats were power adjusted and had good support for my back. The instrument cluster was pretty cool looking with the white background and lit up a very bright and readable teal at night.

Driving Impressions-

When I heard we were getting a Charger I had hoped for the 3.5L but assumed correctly that it would have the 2.7 which it did. The engine starts up very quickly and isn't abnoxsiously loud at idle. It also had a nice v6 sound to it while driving.

The big problem though, is this is just not enough engine for this car.
It feels good till about 15mph then goes rather limp. There doesn't seem to be much of a powerband with this engine, though that is probably attributed to the fact this car is a tank. 190hp would be nice in say the Avenger, but for this car the 3.5L should be standard.

The transmission was also a let down for me. The 4 speed always seemed to be hunting for gears, and wasn't eager for 3-1 downshifts and would normally just do a 3-2. I'm thinking the 3.5L would be a better match, because again the transmission is always trying to get you in the right gear but the engine just doesn't have enough grunt.

The brakes seemed adaquate for the job. Suprisingly body roll wasn't that bad, and the car felt more athletic than I would have expected. It soaked up the numerous potholes and bad roads that Cincinnati has an abundance of (where do those tax dollars go again?) with ease, and never seemed to unbalance the ride.

Overall I came away liking a car that I wouldn't have given a chance before. I really want to test drive a 3.5L version of the car as I wouldn't mind owning one if I felt more confident in the amount of power it had.


Ratings-
Looks-5/10 (Kind of bland, needs some exterior jazz)
Ride/Handling-8/10 (Couldnt expect much more out of a base model with a beefy curb weight.
Power-3/10 (The biggest downfall of the car, the cobalt could tear this thing to pieces, and its slow too.)
Interior-8/10 (Though it is somewhat bland it has a classy feel to it. Not too flashy but comfortable and decently thought out, with good materials inside)

Overall I'd give it a 6.5/10 due to the fact that the 2.7L coupled with a 2.73 ratio was lethargic at best. If the 3.5 feels better I'd definately consider this as my next car.

[Chaz_23]

Thanks. I rented a full size at Thrifty recently, which means Charger 2.7, but was a upgraded to luxury (Chrysler 300 3.5). I've always wondered what the 2.7 would be like.

[coaster.n3rd]

What the hell is it with drunks hitting parked Cobalts? Ours was hit just before Christmas. Sorry to hear it.

[Will123w]

Originally Posted by coaster.n3rd

What the hell is it with drunks hitting parked Cobalts? Ours was hit just before Christmas. Sorry to hear it.

Thanks and yeah thats odd. The adjuster is taking a look at it tomorrow.

[Will123w]

Originally Posted by GMCSonoma

Your experience was more pleasant than mine:

Rental Car review: 2007 Dodge Charger 2.7 V6


but I'm evil, biased & *****!

That was one thing I forgot to mention. The cruise control arm is in a stupid position.

[Buick61]

Originally Posted by Will123w

That was one thing I forgot to mention. The cruise control arm is in a stupid position.

They moved it for 2008.

[mikmak]

Thanks for the review, but as I said in GMCSonomas review, the interior quality looks very ordinary. Here's a base Commodore for comparison:



Whilst it isn't exactly top of the pops, hard plastics have been reduced to a minimum and it really feels a whole (perhaps 2) generations above its last iteration (the VZ 2004-2006).

Then again it may just be local tastes, but perhaps in a few years time, my NA friends will be looking at those interiors and wondering why it took so long. I found the Caliber interior particularly offensive.

[CheetahDC]

Naw, most Americans as far as I know (me being one of them) find the cheap Caliber interior pretty cruddy, too. I think it sells just because it's an inexpensive crossover.

[EldoFan]

Before my brother got his Grand Caravan, he was always renting cars for out of town excursions with the family. I happened to ride up from Lincoln (about 50mi) with him in a Charger and save for the seats, your comments seem spot on.

The seats themselves may have been supportive, but they felt hard as bricks and the fabric seemed rather rough. Was perfectly satisfied with the rest of the interior though (I can be more forgiving than others, but still....)

[Neanderthal]

Good brief. I wish Chrysler still made the Intrepid class, but the Charger/300 look like nice cars.

I realize corporations have reasons, or political constituencies, for everything they do. The 2.7 must have quite a strong supporting cast because IMO it's been a misallocation of funds and energy since birth.

Apologies for this hijack regarding the heart of the car, but the 2.7 is an issue.

It's as if the clique that liked the underpowered and underMPG'd 2.5 V6s of the 90s got a new lease on life with the Sludge Express 2.7.
Chrysler did not take care of business, and left many (now permanent former customers who have gone over to the Asian side, never to return) ex-Chrysler owners swinging in the breeze for repair bills that would often hit $6,000 or more when their not-trusty 2.7s ground to a halt.
And by producing an engine that is not remarkable or even above average MPG-wise or HP/TQ-wise, ChryCo has chosen the worst of all possible worlds.

Using either the now-abandoned 3.2 (version of the 3.5) or the 3.8 as the base engine instead of the dread 2.7, methinks Walter P's scions would have done much better in the market. The cars would drive better, and far more importantly they would not have driven away customers in droves R/T unreliability issues of the metal and the human variety.

I know OHVs are passe`, unkewl, and "coarse and vulgar" to quote CR, CD, MT, and other members of the flock. Nevertheless they have the best torque characteristics this side of a diesel, they make power over 4000 RPM to boot, and since many drivers rarely see the Far Side of four grand the 3.8 would have made a good base Charger, 300, etc. engine. Just the thing to haul around their near-2-ton weight.
But a 3.8 Chrysler "minivan motor" would never do for the middle school atmosphere of automotive writers, where "uncool" stuff (no matter how well it works) is down there with body odor, green teeth, and getting along with your parents as far as unacceptable teen behavior is concerned.
Not to mention it would leave many wondering why the hell they should pay more for a 3.5.

So we're left with a good base car with a poor base motor that appears to have "eternity" stamped on it, right next to "underpowered."
Why anyone in their right mind would have kept this peaky, sickly problem child when superior choices are under their noses speaks a lot of chronic Chrysler mismanagment and an apparent lack of understanding or interest in doing their duty regarding customers.

Is the money they think they saved with the 2.7 worth the customers who will never return and who told dozens of people of their engine and their customer service problems?
Only Cerberus knows for sure.

[mikmak]

Ouch!^^^ Nice post.

[Neanderthal]

Originally Posted by mikmak

Ouch!^^^ Nice post.

Thank you. It hurt me more than it hurt Chrysler or their daddy Cerebrums.
And I hope people understand that a lot of my perceptions and scrollings originate somehow from my remarkable physical resemblance--from the cap brim north, anyway--to Tom Sellik.

Mikmak, you're always getting the last word in these Charger threads. Now you're getting married.
Coincidence, or conspiracy? Hmmmm??

[KingElvis]

I have a 2006 SE 3.5L

Something to remember: the V6 is only 3700lbs - not all of the geegaws and gadgets of the R/T and the Hemi block is iron.

I was surprised 2.7 wasn't more lively. They have a 3.92:1 axle - something like a Ram Air IV GTO would run - you'd think sheer leverage would take over there.

Surprised you liked the handling. I think the roll center is too low and has that 'wobble' - though I'd be happier if it was EVEN softer sprung because of the terrible Chicago roads.

I think with a 3.92:1 and the 3.5L you'd have a real sleeper on your hands. But as it is, the 2.87:1 rear gear doesn't have enough punch at low speeds - although 'mushy' transmission and electronic throttle are worst offenders.

I too think a 4 liter ohv might be better - the 3.5 has 250hp - but that's only if you're willing to wring it out to 6500rpm. I dont' think it's a 60 degree because it really buzzes like a marital aid above 5000.

Main overall gripe: "Disconnected" feel of controls. Electronic throttle and mystery slushbox don't jump at your command. Rather you 'request' power and the trans eventrually shifts and the engine eventually revs up.

By the time you've wanted to zig something else zagged, the engine kicks way down but then you let you're foot off the throttle so it's all for naught. The 'bumpstick' auto is no help. Bump it and it takes just as long to downshift as flooring it .3 seconds. I've taken to running in 2 or 3 if I want immediate response.

There's a .3 second delay in everything. Notice even the door locks hesitate before coming up when you press the key fob.

This is the car for people who love to push buttons - again and again. Annoying 'luxury' feature is it locks the doors above 15mph. I don't even lock my door when I park on the street. But I'm always annoyed I have to push the unlock button once for every door.

Also annoying 'luxury' is the lights that stay on. I've NEVER wanted lights on when I leave the car. As with the door locks, you must turn the lights off twice - thanks Chrysler.

All that said, the SE is (actually WAS) a great buy. Big car with 250hp for 24G. Unfortunately they make you buy the $28G SXT to get the 3.5 now - although dealers may be able to order the SE with a 3.5L

Recently I decided I wanted synthetic oil and discovered the Charger has nifty 'belly pan' under the front third of the car - must explain low air drag yet 'aggressive' grille.

Car also has like the world's biggest driveshaft hump - it's like a foot tall.

The car comes into its own in highway travel - base level trim is still VERY quiet and you can run up to about 90mph before noticing any road vibration. It's like what a Buick once was - big and stylish and with a soft ride.

[roteague]

Originally Posted by Will123w

Interior-8/10 (Though it is somewhat bland it has a classy feel to it. Not too flashy but comfortable and decently thought out, with good materials inside)

Well, don't look at the cupholder then. The one I drove, seemed to have a rubber one. Horrible, not acceptable on any car (except a Toyota Turda).

[Neanderthal]

Interesting additional comments, King Elvis.
BTW, how're things at Graceland?

Good point regarding the 4.0. Build it with a 4.0 + 6-speed, as they do with the Pacifica, and this should be a whole new animal.