Talk:Dodge Charger

Comments

This article says "recessed headlights." Does this mean hidden? (Which the Charger did have, '66-'72.) Never saw this phrase before.

"Recessed" would be more like "inset" or set deeper than the surroundings. In a recess. I'd understand hidden to mean the turning ones in the electric razor -type front.

Also, I question the line about "re-branding into the personal luxury segment, like many of its muscle car compatriots." I can't name another single model that morphed from performance to personal luxury. I think the Charger was unique in that regard. RivGuySC 00:21, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

... "and a flush mounted 1969 Coronet grille was used. The rear bumble stripes would also have a "500" cutout which would help to identify this new Charger. These changes would help the car aerodynamically." :-D I'm sure they did a great deal.

There are a few more odd sentences there and the text it not quite fluid. Several typographical and spelling changes were made. "It's" in particular where it wasn't.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.216.199.14 (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2005

What about the 1999? natural gas prototype? Not even mentioned.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.242.32 (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2005

The '99 concept is now mentioned. But someone should finish up that section by mentioning why the car was not built. I think the acquisition... errr "merger" by Daimler had something to do with it, as did the ending of that platform, whatever platform that was, and I think some important CEO guy (Tom Gale?) left that had something to do with that prototype and the 300 Hemi-C concept that was built on the same platform as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by FastbackJon (talk • contribs) 07:37, 18 December 2005

Check the torque output figures for the 2006 R/T. According to the Dodge website, it is at 390 lb.ft. rather than the stated 350.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.218.60 (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2006

Okay, the Charger nameplate returned in 1981 as an option package. In 1983 it became a model. So why are the 1983-1987 reconized and not the 1981-1982? Those are Chargers as well and remember that the GTO was reduced to a option package in it's last years (same as Charger) and yet those years are formally reconized. So why not expand it to 1981-1987? Thoughts? KLRMNKY 01:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"This power rating makes the 2006 SRT-8 as powerful as the largest of the legendary Hemi engines of the muscle car era." I think more so. The 425 HP is SAE NET on the 2006. Back in the day that measurement was gross HP.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.13.17 (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2006

I think a lot of people dont know the history of the dodge charger for example in the shoe the dukes of hazzard they used a 1969 dodge charger named the general lee. (user:wildfire1127) 01:18, 25 february 2009

Why this needs to be cleaned up

I put a cleanup tag on this article because I think it needs to be better organized, and it sounds unencyclopedic in some places (such as the first-to-last paragraph of the "1966-1967" section). --ApolloBoy 02:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and seperated the Birth of the Charger from the 1966-67 section. Is there just one big template that we can use for ALL automotive sections? I noticed that if you go to Pontiac GTO for instance all of the years are seperated into their own yearly paragraphs but if you look at Dodge Challenger it lumps all of the years together into one. So can we get one template? Please? KLRMNKY 02:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

1966-1967 section sounds encyclopedic to me. I also cleaned up the general layout, added years, some information. Pictures were all messed up, but not anymore.

FastbackJon 06:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)FastbackJon

Looks a lot better FastbackJon. KLRMNKY 01:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Split it up

This page was WAY too long, with three entirely different cars. If ever a car page demanded splitting up, this was it. So I've done it. --SFoskett 16:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Police Edition

Dodge Charger is offered as Police Editon. This is fact. some users seem too think that facts are usless, and have no place. if they arnt intersted, then nobody is intersted. Some may find the facts usefull. People come to these pages for facts.Angela2109 (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Posted here for the benefit of other editors:

Yes, it is "fact" but that paragraph adds no value to the page as it is simply an exceptionally unclear and poorly written duplication of information already available on Dodge Charger (LX). Secondly, the "Police Edition" thing is total rubbish, nowhere else is the police package Charger referred to as that (and neither are the Impala and CVPI, which were also erroneously referred to as such). And, to boot, the prose is unencyclopedic and barely comprehensible.

I'll leave this alone and let some other editors weigh in on this. --Sable232 (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Because this information is only about the LX version of the Charger, that information should be moved to that article and removed from this one. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, information about the police versions exists within the Charger (LX) article (see: here). This information should not be duplicated here. The purpose of this page is to serve as a list of related items that share the same name. Readers can be guided to the particular articles. Moreover, the police versions of the LX Charger are not in a separate article; therefore, they do not need their own section here. CZmarlin (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)