8th Jun 2008, 22:04
I drive a 2007 2.7 V6 Dodge Charger. and I love it. It is pretty slow, but I was not expecting it to be fast with such a tiny engine, but if you're looking for speed get the hemi, I'm sure the 3.5L is sluggish if the car you're used to driving is a tiny 2 seater.
The stereo is amazingly awesome for a stock system, plenty of trunk space, and sure there is blind spots, but no more than to be expected for a tank like this car.
Out of any "car" I've driven, I feel the safest in this car, it has front side and rear airbags.
There's plenty of room in the back seat; people riding in the back say they feel like they are riding in a big luxury car.
It is a big car, and if you don't want to deal with the blind spots, I would not suggest this for you, but if you're looking for a car that performs great, and don't mind driving a tank, this is the car for you.
The mpg on the sticker is 18-26mpg, but I also have the smallest engine possible for the Charger.
The interior design is pretty plain, not much to it.
There is A/C in the back seat also, which I thought was pretty cool, also has lights in the back seat too, well that's my review on my car.
7th Jul 2008, 13:23
I wish Dodge had come out with a 2-door coupe Charger. It just simply is not in the same league as the 2-door sporty coupes or the old 2-door Chargers. With that said, it is really a great car, and my experience with Chrysler products has been 100% good.
My last Dodge was sold in near-perfect running condition at 240,000+ miles. It had never had any problems, used not a drop of oil, and had never even had freon added to the A/C (which still worked perfectly).
I'd have seriously considered a Charger if it had been available in a 2-door coupe. I opted for the Mustang instead due to the styling. Mechanically they are both really good cars.
27th Aug 2008, 16:49
I recently rented a 2008 Charger for a week while on vacation. The initial review pretty much agrees with my position. I like the car's styling, but it drives too much like my old Lincoln. The view is very restrictive. I found the steering way too soft for my tastes.
I would not buy this car.
8th Sep 2008, 11:19
The 3.5 ltr H.O. has plenty of power. Once up into the RPM'S it's a screamer. The Magnum has the same platform (lx) as the Charger and 300. Parts will not be a problem. Although it appears that these cars are developing some issues with the front suspension. Most of the problems are inexpensive to fix.
10th Sep 2008, 16:07
I had the pleasure of checking out the new Challenger today, and I have to say, I'm very much impressed. It is just as true to the "retro" look as the new Mustang. The shape and profile view are very characteristic of the older ones. My family has a '70 Challenger R/T and I was impressed with how the look of the older car was captured, yet with a modern turn, just as Ford has done. I am far more impressed with the Challenger than the rather spacey-looking Camaro, which is a far cry from looking remotely like the older ones.
I like the 3.5 V-6, and it would be my engine of choice, however I'm a little confused as to why, with 40 more horsepower, it is a full second slower 0-60 than the V-6 Mustang. I suppose it is the gearing, and hopefully that will be a plus in fuel economy.
My impression at this point is 1) Nothing will ever be a threat to Mustang 2) The Challenger is a well-designed hit, and 3) The Camaro is a goofing looking flop.