Why didn't Chrysler push the best-looking car in America?

I just don't get it. Chrysler Corporation comes out with the best styled car since...well, the 70s-namely the new Dodge Challenger, because it looks ..well,just like a 70s Dodge Challenger. I've said many times, if anyone were to come out with a car that looked on the outside exactly like a 1967 GTO, for example, that they'd sell every one they could make. Ford jumped on this somewhat finally by making a Mustang that came close to the 67-70 Stang, but the Challenger beat it out by being nearly a carbon copy of its former self, even down to the crooked 'shotgun' floor shift. Yet-I wasn't even aware this car existed until about the middle of last year-and it's been out for several. I notice they show it briefly in some commercials, but they neglect to even say what it is, and instead push that God-ugly Chrysler 300. I know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and some of you may like that abortion, but I think the heads at the company should be shot for resurrecting the name Chrysler 300 and putting it on this thing (a FOUR-DOOR, yet).

And you can talk engineering all day long, but-I will forever hold the opinion that STYLING is the primary thing that sells cars/trucks, regardless of how practical that is. So why did Chrysler drop the ball?? I'd bet most people aren't even aware the car is made-and after restructuring, it may not be any longer. They could have had a bazillion sales here, and yes, I'm sure it's expensive-but surely no more so than the one they push (Chrysler 300). Any ideas why they committed the blunder? That's an awful lot of trouble and millions to dump for something you don't even intend to promote, but are just going to let die in the marketplace.

No votes yet



'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

Don't know if it's a money thing or what, but I really think they should advertise the Challenger more. It is a gorgeous car.

Dark, have you ever checked out www.jaylenosgarage.com ?
He's got a Hurst Challenger and an SRT8 Challenger. The Hurst is a monster, 575hp.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

Pfft...silly americans...you will love your new fiats...or else....

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

If Crysler is partially owned by an Italian car company, does that mean union hacks will start protesting the company that they work for?

BUY AMERICAN! And let Fiat (AKA Jeep) move back to their own damn country!

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

I have family members who worked for Jeep. They always were very adamant about not buying a Honda or Toyota even if they were made in America. Their claim was the bottom dollar always went back to Japan. Now it will be interesting to see if they protest buying a Chrysler (Jeep) just as much since the bottom dollar will now be going to Italy.

If they do not complain then it is obvious that they are not interested in Buy American out of Patriotism, rather they are only looking out for their own self interests.

If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

....When I owned a used acura, it was one of the only cars made like 90+% in America...

Wasn't Chrysler, in effect, owned by German Daimler for a decade or so? They talked about "merging", but it seemed like Chrysler was the little brother in the deal. Were there problems with "buy american" then?

Darkseid to answer your question it's because gas is $2 plus a gallon and mysteriously on it's way back up.

When you look at MSRP on the vehicle it's $22,945. It gets 25 MPG (highway). So with a fifteen gallon tank you can drive 375 miles for $30.

Now compare that to to a Toyota Corolla which starts at $15,350. It gets 35 MPG (highway). Again we'll assume a fifteen gallon tank. So for the same $30 we can drive 525 miles and do it for a payment $125 less (based upon a 60 month financing before interest).

If you bought both vehicles and drove them each 62,500 miles the Challenger would need 169 fill-ups while the Toyota needs 119. At $30 a fill-up (assuming gas price is always at $2) you would pay $1,500 more for just driving the Challenger. Add in the $7,595 in up front cost difference and all told your Challenger will cost you $9,000 more.

Now I agree the Challenger is a nice looking car but you need to consider many things when buying a car and not just looks.

I've said the American car companies by in large didn't produce cars Americans wanted. It is probably partly because they couldn't afford them also.


MikeyA must consider all costs when considering a Toyota Corolla. According to the website http://www.toyotaproblems.com/ the Corolla has a extraordinarily high complaint/problem listing. If you buy the problematic Toyota you must consider the dependability of this vehicle. What are the true costs of owning such a vehicle?

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

To be fair to both I used costs that come with every vehicle. I did not use costs that may come. Likewise to be fair I used the begining MSRP. While each could have been more expensive. So I used guaranteed costs for every vehicle sold.

Additionally the Challenger is sold in so few numbers it's also less likely that there will be more complaints. So unless you have a equal breakdown on the percentage of complaints on both vehicles it is an unfair comparison. I did look for a comparison though... I could find a consumer reports rating of the Corolla which scored it as one of their most reliable. They did not rate the Challenger yet. When they do there will be some objective data on which to compare.


By and large the Iraq war was a mistake of colossal proportions, and based on lies and deception as well. I believe the American military establishment has sucked America dry of cash needed for roads, infrastructure, and rebuilding our cities. I believe that by and large it has served as a de-facto jobs program due to the rapidly disappearing industrial jobs, which used to be plentiful. I believe America would be just as safe if the military budget was drawn down by fifty percent, and that money used to apply to schools, roads, infrastructure, and the rebuilding of America.

Perhaps more Americans would be employed in the auto industry if more Americans would consider an American or Canadian made vehicle made by Ford, Chrysler, or G.M.

Perhaps those who do simple math equations would be better served to calculate and investigate the two trillion dollars reported missing from the Pentagon budgets on September 10th, 2001. Instead of quibbling over the price of a few tanks of gasoline drawn up in a lopsided and unfair homemade comparison chart, why don't you ask your superiors where the two trillion dollars went? This would seem to be a larger amount than a few tanks of gas over the lifetime of vehicle ownership. A more realistic comparison would be the Dodge Caliber to the Toyota Corolla.

The Challenger is a different class of vehicle entirely. Next time you do a simple comparison chart please do it fairly with two vehicles of comparable class, weight, horsepower, and price range.

cmantyla45, Since you took us on a tangent irrelevant to the point I will too. The Dept of Defense is the NATIONS LARGEST EMPLOYER OF WOMEN employing over 500,000 (371,000 civilian 195,000 military) http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/poprep2002/appendixb/b_32.htm So if we draw down the budget by 50% we'd have to cut jobs... and that means more unemployed women.

What do you have against working women?

"Instead of quibbling over the price of a few tanks of gasoline...why don't you ask your superiors where the two trillion dollars went?"

Well because the post is about why every day Americans don't by Chryslers. If the 2 trillion was set aside to buy Chryslers then I'd agree with you. But one is gov't and the other is business.

Gov't doesn't manage their money well. I expect them to do "bad business" because that is what they do. However a private company should be expected to manage their money. Chrysler does not.

So since you asked about the Caliber let's look at that. It starts at $17,090 and gets 30 MPG highway. That means over the life of the loan the Toyota is still up front about $2500 cheaper. Plus now if you own any Chrysler vehicle the tax money that has been spent on them just pushed what you paid even higher. Enjoy!

BTW - the reason I chose the Corolla is because Darkseid believes it would be a high sellar. The Corolla is one of Toyota's best selling vehicles. While it's not Toyota's best selling vehicle it still outsells all of Chrysler's vehicles http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2009/05/top-10-bestselling-cars-april... with only the Dodge Ram coming close.



BTW - the reason I chose the Corolla is because Darkseid believes it would be a high sellar.

What? Mike, I never even mentioned Toyota.


'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

I meant the Challenger would be a high seller. The Corolla already is a high seller. I was comparing what it would need to surpass.

I do understand the confusion and apologize.


"I believe America would be just as safe if the military budget was drawn down by fifty percent, and that money used to apply to schools, roads, infrastructure, and the rebuilding of America."

Here is a list of things that were developed because of the US military:
Calculators, Regular phones, Cell phones, 4 wheel drive, GPS, The magnetic strip on your credit card, Flight, fax machines, Radio Frequency ID's, Cassette Tapes, Record Players, Nuclear Generators, Jet propulsion, synthetic rubber.

Also: Computers and the internet... so without the US military you wouldn't have been able to put up your crappy post.

It is the expensive development of the US military that allows private businesses to take that development and turn it into private uses at a cheaper expense. The military does the hard expensive work and then everyone else benefits primarily schools, roads, infrastructure etc.

In 1990 they even formalized it http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/01/business/industry-group-formed-to-expl...

And to further relate it to the thread in the coming years UAV's technology will allow our cars to drive themselves and IED blocking technology will help prevent ID theft just to name some benefits from that war you hate so much.


I actually never said that I hated the Iraq war. I just said it was a colossal mistake, and history has not yet written a defining verdict on that. As far as military budgets, the point being made was that there would not be enough decent, family supporting jobs for everyone in our new economic model. I have nothing against the military. I know full well the benefits that are made for our nation and the world. The internet, for one obvious choice. I believe their budgets have become overblown and wildly out of proportion to actual real threats faced by our country.

I come from a long line of military veterans dating back to a Colonel Greene on my mother's side who fought in the Revolutionary War, so I do support the military. Most of the men and some women in my family have served in the military honorably.My brother-in-law currently serves in the U.S Navy. My first cousin serves as an officer in the Marine Corps. I'll have two ex-Marines, and a Naval officer staying at my home during the mothers day weekend.

Your post was very crappy, and compared two vehicles that are in different categories and intended for different buyers. That was another point I chose to make.

You acknowledged that government doesn't manage their money well, and that is another point I made. When two trillion dollars disappears down a rathole somewhere, then I personally consider that to be slightly more than loose change.

I actually thought the post was about Chrysler not promoting the Challenger enough, although it is a beautiful car.

You proceeded to do a comparison test showing the Corolla was cheaper to operate than the Challenger, which I took issue with as being an unfair and biased comparison.

I believe that the comparison would be more relevant if you had chosen another competing vehicle such as the Ford Mustang, or the new Chevrolet Camaro.

The point you made about Chrysler not managing their money well is also partly invalid. All the auto companies are in a rough patch right now, due to economic factors partially beyond their control. It's hard for any company to manage their money well, when the customer base itself has no money.

So basically, thanks for agreeing with me.

First, I suggest you talk to your cousin about cutting the military budget. Being that it's your cousin's benefits and pay that will be the first to be cut I'm sure they'll have an issue with it.

You believe the military's budget is overblown? Well guess what. It does the research with the high price tag so that the rest of the country doesn't have to. Had we not let the military use it's overblown budget in 1962 to start a space program then today our schools would still be using slide rules.

While you argue that the Challenger and the Corolla are marketed to different groups I challenge you that that is why it doesn't sell. You offer Mustangs and Camaro's but where is the Toyota version? The Camry Solara... no wait... the Venza?

This all goes back to my original point. The Challenger doesn't sell because it wasn't marketed. It doesn't sell because it's marketed to a small group who can't afford it. The Corolla however is marketed to a large group and easier to afford. When you sell to more people you will sell more to people.

BTW I still don't know what the hell the Iraq War has to do with why Chrysler hasn't marketed the Challenger.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.