Chrysler rolls out new models

I have really been impressed with a lot of the cars that Chrysler has come out since the mid-90's, especially their mid-full-size sedans. But their new C300 and Dodge Magnum both look like one giant step backward into their stodgy, unpopular past. The C-300 looks like a brick cross-bred with a Rolls Royce and the Mgnum is only available in a wagon! Despite their impressive drivetrains I don't see these cars helping Chrysler retain what market share it has left. I have't met anyone yet who has liked the way either car looks and I have even spoken to one Chrysler faithful who said that his next car will now be a Buick. But most of all, 3 very important questions emerge from the release of these ugly ducklings:

1. What is Dodge thinking by dropping the Intrepid-sized sedan body-style??? ain:
From my understanding the sedan is still the most popular body style available. Full-size wagons died out 10 years ago for a reason--they are awkward, ugly, and thirsty. They aren't at all popular. Sporty wagons are only now starting to become, in manageable compact portions, based on cars that are paired with popular sedan counterparts. Releasing a full-size wagon in this day and age is a huge risk. Releasing a full-size wagon without a sedan counterpart is tightrope walking!

2. Whatever happened to the Charger??? :huh:
In 1999, Dodge revealed the stunning Charger concept that they promise would be the Intrepid replacement. It was gorgeous, sporty, and popular. The Charger surely would have been a sales success and really would have given the Grand Prix and Bonneville a run for their money.

3. Do these cars spell the end of Dodge in NASCAR??? <_<
This is the question I would really like to get an answer to. Their current entry, the Intrepid, is a modern and aerodynamic sedan that slips easily into the NASCAR mold. The Magnum is a brick. Unless they plan on strapping jet engines onto these beasts I don't see how they could ever stand a chance of keeping up with the Monte Carlo. Well, for that matter, the blocky Ford 500 doesn't appear to stand a chance either. Glad I'm a Tony Stewart fan.

what the hell are you talking about? The LX cars are WAY above the former cab-foward cars it replaces. The 300C looks sweet, as does the Magnum, but opinions varry. The Magnum is getting a sedan version, you didnt think they were just gunan make wagons did you? The LX chassis will probably produce a small coupe too. If Dodge had any brains that is. They preach this Hemi as the next coming and talk about its killer power....and its in a truck. They have the RWD chassis, they have the engine, they have the drivetrain.... DO IT! Do it before the Mustang rapes the land with its hidious looking body.
You do know that the 99 charger was RWD, and not fwd? The LX platform is a great platfrom to build off of, much like the Zeta chassis GM has. I dont see this as a sign of dodge getting out of NASCAR?? If anything, its moving back to its roots on the NASCAR track with a hemi powerd coupe and sedans. Dont know where you got that idea. The Intreped body style is old and outdated. Time for new blood. And yeah. like NASCAR takes the exact dimensions from the real car and puts them into the mold for the cars. Id pick up a magnum coupe before I stepped foot into a Mustang. I just hope they can make a mid 20's hemi powerd coupe witha 6spd. If Ford can go off an bring back old design, I cant wait for what a hemi magnum would look like in lime green, with the flat black hood with shaker, and flat black stripe down the side.

And how come the Magnum isnt in that list? They just listed teh 300C? 9 cars over 3 years? psshh. Weak. I expected more from a bunch of anal Germans.

Originally posted by paul8488+Mar 4 2004, 08:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (paul8488 @ Mar 4 2004, 08:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-stewacide@Mar 4 2004, 08:36 PM
I'm thinking it's the Mercedes influence. They think because RWD cars work in Europe where it barely snows they'll work in the much harsher climate or North America. The Sweeds know better...

I suppose they figure they covered their asses making it AWD, but there's still a cost issue.

Click to expand...

is adverse-weather driving really THAT big of a deal with RWD? i'm only 24, and have grown up with FWD's for the most part, but have also driven RWD (learned stick on a 5.0L mustang, drove pa's aerostar tons). i have always managed quite nicely, though it definitely takes a different style of driving.

mmmm... perhaps therein lies the problem... so many people are "get in and drive" drivers, who don't understand their vehicle or the signs it gives them as it approaches its limits of traction and adhesion. so maybe throwing joe q. public in a RWD after decades in a FWD in michigan in winter isn't such a good idea. we need smart cars because drivers are becoming dumb, for the most part. with the exception of the fine members of GMi, of course! [/b][/quote]
That's exactly right. FWD is just easier to drive (point it where you want to go basically) and 90% of people aren't skilled enough to push a RWD car to its limits anyways. There's also the fact that many aspects of RWD driving are very counter-intuitive (e.g. throttle up to steer sharper rather than brake, steer into skids... or is that away?, etc.). That, combined with the poor RWD traction, will make this a coffin on wheels for many folks.