Charger fans upset over new model

http://www.mysanantonio.com/business....b5326336.html

Charger fans upset over new model?

And speaking of reviving popular old car names, Chrysler group is
doing that with a new Dodge sedan based on the also-new Chrysler 300
sedan chassis.

But calling it a Charger apparently is upsetting some of the diehard
Charger fans who revere the muscle cars from the late '60s and '70s.

The industry weekly Automotive News reported recently that Chrysler is
even getting "hate mail" over the plans to call the new sedan a
Charger, primarily because the car will be a sedan, and not a coupe as
the original Chargers were.

Still, Dodge plans to roll out the new Charger in January as an early
2006 model, and it will sit in the lineup beside the Dodge Magnum,
which essentially is a wagon version of the new Charger (even though
the Magnum came first).

One thing that will remain true to the early Chargers is the
availability of a Hemi V-8 engine in the new model, as is offered in
the Chrysler 300 and the Magnum.

The car will get the same 5.7-liter, 340-horsepower Hemi V-8 that is
used in those cars as well as in the all-new 2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee.

As with those other cars, the Hemi in the Charger will have the
cylinder-deactivation feature that cuts out four cylinders during
highway cruising to increase fuel economy.

That was definitely not offered on the early Chargers, which could be
notorious gas-guzzlers.

<< Charger fans upset over new model? >>


____Reply Separator_____

Interesting article, especially the pictures. An article about the Dodge
Charger was accompanied by a picture of a Saturn coupe and a Pontiac Solstice.

<< Charger fans upset over new model? >>


____Reply Separator_____

Interesting article, especially the pictures. An article about the Dodge
Charger was accompanied by a picture of a Saturn coupe and a Pontiac Solstice.

Is that so? Would the weight really be that much of a hindrance here?
I would think the shutting down of 4 cyl while on hwy would work due to
the high gear. It seems it wouldn't work as well on the city, but on
hwy it seems as though it would be fine. I am looking at the magnum
right now, I like it. I also think the new charger looks alright.

Is that so? Would the weight really be that much of a hindrance here?
I would think the shutting down of 4 cyl while on hwy would work due to
the high gear. It seems it wouldn't work as well on the city, but on
hwy it seems as though it would be fine. I am looking at the magnum
right now, I like it. I also think the new charger looks alright.

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:30:33 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio >
>Didn't GM try that on a Cadillac and it came up short? Idling four
>cylinders will not overcome friction losses, dead weight, and high octane
>fuel requirement of these behemoth V-8s. Chrysler had a more elegant
>solution with the turbo-supercharger.

GM was using electronic actuators to stop the valves from working when
the cylinders were deactivated. It was actually a pretty good idea
but the technology just wasn't where it needed to be yet. There are
many enthusiast that still have these systems and keep them operating.

Chrylser has taken a different approach and the hemi deactivates the
cylinders hydraulically. Simialrr to the approach Honda is using with
V-tec I have heard but don't really know for a fact to be true.

>
>A turbocharged 4 banger engine has lots of advantages over larger
>displacements for same max. power. They're lighter and more efficient at
>lower outputs, where most driving is done. Regular grade gasoline can be
>used when the spark is retarded a few degrees from spec., with little
>penalty as a result. About the only drawback is torque at breakaway, but
>aren't our teenage days long past when we got our jollies out of patching
>50 feet of rubber to the delight of Good'n'Rich Tire and Rubber?

In a word..... No

The engine is intended to attract "car guys" and car guys like power
torque burning rubber and all that other fun stuff. If it didn't do
all that stuff I'd just as soon have a Kia


>
>And one more very important point to make: Those big V-8s may be great at
>sea level, but going over those mountain passes, they have no chance
>against a turbo'd I-4. The only thing that can keep up with a turbo is
>another turbo. It has to do with power-to-weight ratio. That's a fact.

My LT1 hasn't met a mountain its scared of yet :-)

Steve B.

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:30:33 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio >
>Didn't GM try that on a Cadillac and it came up short? Idling four
>cylinders will not overcome friction losses, dead weight, and high octane
>fuel requirement of these behemoth V-8s. Chrysler had a more elegant
>solution with the turbo-supercharger.

GM was using electronic actuators to stop the valves from working when
the cylinders were deactivated. It was actually a pretty good idea
but the technology just wasn't where it needed to be yet. There are
many enthusiast that still have these systems and keep them operating.

Chrylser has taken a different approach and the hemi deactivates the
cylinders hydraulically. Simialrr to the approach Honda is using with
V-tec I have heard but don't really know for a fact to be true.

>
>A turbocharged 4 banger engine has lots of advantages over larger
>displacements for same max. power. They're lighter and more efficient at
>lower outputs, where most driving is done. Regular grade gasoline can be
>used when the spark is retarded a few degrees from spec., with little
>penalty as a result. About the only drawback is torque at breakaway, but
>aren't our teenage days long past when we got our jollies out of patching
>50 feet of rubber to the delight of Good'n'Rich Tire and Rubber?

In a word..... No

The engine is intended to attract "car guys" and car guys like power
torque burning rubber and all that other fun stuff. If it didn't do
all that stuff I'd just as soon have a Kia


>
>And one more very important point to make: Those big V-8s may be great at
>sea level, but going over those mountain passes, they have no chance
>against a turbo'd I-4. The only thing that can keep up with a turbo is
>another turbo. It has to do with power-to-weight ratio. That's a fact.

My LT1 hasn't met a mountain its scared of yet :-)

Steve B.

Are the 2.2 liter 1983 Charger owners going to revolt as well?

Are the 2.2 liter 1983 Charger owners going to revolt as well?

Steve B. wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:30:33 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio >
>
>>Didn't GM try that on a Cadillac and it came up short? Idling four
>>cylinders will not overcome friction losses, dead weight, and high octane
>>fuel requirement of these behemoth V-8s. Chrysler had a more elegant
>>solution with the turbo-supercharger.
>
>
> GM was using electronic actuators to stop the valves from working when
> the cylinders were deactivated. It was actually a pretty good idea
> but the technology just wasn't where it needed to be yet. There are
> many enthusiast that still have these systems and keep them operating.
>
> Chrylser has taken a different approach and the hemi deactivates the
> cylinders hydraulically. Simialrr to the approach Honda is using with
> V-tec I have heard but don't really know for a fact to be true.
>

Similar, but not quite the same as the Honda. Yes it is hydraulic- the
lifters on the deactivated cylinders are switched to "no lift" mode
hydraulically. The Honda system is hydraulic and works by locking the
cam follower for the "high RPM" cam lobe to the rocker arm or unlocking
it and letting the rocker follow the milder profile at low RPM. The
Cadillac V-8-6-4 was all electric and operated at the rocker arm
fulcrum. letting the deactivated rocker ride up without activating the
valve.

Of the 3, the Chrysler system is probably the least complicated, and we
already know that the Honda system was plenty simple enough to be
reliable. 99.9% of Chrysler owners will never even know its there.