LexFather

For backup, here is MMarshalls Magnum review (the same thing pretty much)
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/sho...hlight=charger

So I've seen the ads for the Charger and you know, Dodge can back it up. RWD, avail AWD, a strong V-6 and an awesome V-8 and then a SRT-8 version. So, IMO, the marketing is right, this is a MANLY car, its tough, its got the goods and the looks.

So I see the ad for the new Chevy Impala. The one with the damn goats running when the guy goes on the roof to get his car? Well first off, the car is a cross between bland and ugly and rental, which is not a good combo to real enthusiasts (but it seems to be to 200,000 knuckleheads a year). Then yes, it has a V-8, with 303hp, so not as close as the Charger V-8. Then in a symbol of G(ghey)M (motors) it powers the front wheels.

Didn't you asshats learn that lesson with the FWD, V-8 Caddys? Guess not.

These cars are mareketed the same but could not be further apart. I'll take my Charger in black please, I'll drop the Impala rental off on the way

flipside909

In my opinion when the Impala turned into this:



then this...



it buried itself into a pathetic rental grade car.

GFerg

Nope, definitely not the only one. The new Charger blows the Lumina away. Matter of fact, ever since the Lumina was introduced in the mid to late 90's its always been a step behind the competition. A big V8 and front wheel drive do not mix. Ive seen a few running around, and as usual it does nothing for me.

mmarshall

Well, flip, you can thank skyrocketing truck and SUV sales in the 1990's for the front-drive V6 Impala (and now front-drive V8 Impala SS). Until the end of 1995, GM built the large, V8, body-on-frame rear-drive Caprice, Impala SS, Roadmaster, and Fleetwood in the Arlington, TX plant, but then in 1995 GM management decided that the plant could be better used to build pickups and SUV's. The core customer groups who liked the full-size rear-drivers.....police, taxi drivers, senior citizens, Impala SS enthusiasts, and those who just liked a big, soft-riding car in general were virtually ignored...and Ford gained their buisness with the Crown Vic, Grand Marquis, and Town Car. The Mercury Marauder was briefly marketed as a offer to the Impala SS people ( it had dynamite looks, and I did a review on it before I joined CL ) but its performance could not match that of the rear-drive SS......the engine just did not have the same torque.....and it was more-or-less a flop in the marketplace.

So, in a nutshell, in 1996 GM replaced true full-sized body-on-frame rear-drivers with what were essentially stretched front-drive mid-sizers....and the rest, of course, is history.

mmarshall

Now....as to the question of Impala vs. Charger.......yes, the Charger ( and Magnum ) have rear-drive for enthisiasts and some pretty impressive engine, brake, paint / graphic and suspension options, especially in the SRT8 versions (see my review of the 340 HP Hemi Magnum R/T)

https://www.clublexus.com/forums/sho...e+magnum+r%2Ft

but when you see and feel the junk that Chrysler uses for doors, trim and hardware on this car you may not be so thrilled with it. The Impala, while of course not Lexus / Acura-grade, has noticibly better fit-and-finish and quality of materials than its Dodge competition.

jet864

I couldn't agree with you guys more. While the Impala is an improvement over it's 4 barreled tail light, supercharged V6 ancestor, the SS name is used inappropriately. Rather than sticking what they did best, GM had to deviate to follow a trend, making the rest of their line up suffer. I have no beef with Chrysler for going back to their muscle car roots, ditching the Jelly Bean King 300 and replacng their lackluster passenger cars with beefy rear wheel drivers. Just look at how they've caught on, people snatching up the baby (2.7L?) V6, slapping on some 20's and calling it a day.

As a GM fan I was saddened when I learned the Impala SS was only made for 2 years and replaced by the Herz-only version, then, to top it all off, ditched the F-bodies. While they lacked in build quality and were prone to rattles, they did their job well. An affordable hot rod that had looks, muscle, and went fast for cheap.

While GM trys hard to revitalize their lineup (and they're trying with SS SUVs, compacts, super Vetttes, Cadillacs, and cheap roadsters), DC is dumping off cars like it was no one's business. Iacocca said it best, "if you can find a better car, buy it." And people have been listening.

James

mmarshall

The odd thing here, Jim, is that the mid-late 60's Impala, ( the inspiration for these 4-barreled lights ) along with the Caprice, had 6 round taillights instead of 4. The 4-barrel lights back in the 1960's were reserved for the cheaper Biscayne and Bel Air.
The Chevy marketing folks have not come up with a reason for this on the present Impala.....4 taillights instead of 6.......my guess is that it was just the bean counters trying to save a little money on each car.

jet864

That's an excellent point, I didn't even put that together! I love the rear of the 60's impala. The 6 rear lights are just another sign of the beautiful American excess from those car days along with the (perfect) 1957 Chevy models.


turned into this




James

Coffey454

The Impala has basically no merit at all - it is a complete embarrassment. GM is cornering the market of disturbingly gimpy cars, they are all just suck total poop. 300 hp? Guess what NO-ONE CARES because you have attached the power to the wrong end of the car again you assclowns! Of course the Charger "owns" the Gimpala, even the lowly Ford 500 owns it. And don't even get me started on the new Sonata - this is the car to beat in the family cruiser class now. Sure the Charger is cooler - way, way cooler, but really I think the Charger is being purchased by people who don't want just a family cruiser. The only car that GM makes that I'd let park in my driveway is a C6 - Sad, because I used to be such a GM guy (hence the Coffey454 moniker - '454' signifying the greatness that was the SS454 Chevelles of '70, '71and '72).

LexFather

Damn good post.

Ice350

iTrader: (1)

That Charger is growing on me just a bit. It has these very muscular haunches that can handle 20's with some big wide meat. The truck-like grill has to go but it looks better everytime I see one. They should definitely have made it a coupe, though. Would have sold like hotcakes.

mmarshall

No arguements there, reggie....the 4-door Charger IMO was definitely a mistake. I told that to the local Dodge people at the dealership and I will tell that to the corporate Dodge people when I visit the Washington, DC Auto Show in January.

Inabj2

Ill be noting the superior trim and finish quality as I deal with way premature understeer and torquesteer

Coffey454

I disagree. The 4-door Charger sells better than a 2-door would have. It would have avoided the initial shock of "WTF, the Charger is a 4-door??", but being a 4-door widens the appeal to family type guys who couldn't handle a 2-door for thier routine. No worries though, DCX is seriously looking at a short wheelbase LX car to compete with the Stang for '09. Could be called the Challenger or the 'Cuda and should make everyone who wanted the Charger to be a 2-door more than happy.

mmarshall

Each car, of course, has advantages and disadvantages.....and that is the purpose of this thread...to compare the two.