Home » Why The 2024 Dodge Charger Doesn’t Quite Look Right And How To Fix It

Why The 2024 Dodge Charger Doesn’t Quite Look Right And How To Fix It

Altered Adrian Charger Ts
ADVERTISEMENT

Is there any vehicle more quintessentially American than the muscle car (alright, maybe pickup trucks)? The Italians make fantastic small cars, the Germans have their bank vault bahnstormers, the British are good at the gentlemen’s club on wheels, and the Japanese got famous for taking whatever everybody else was doing and building it better. But there’s something uniquely American about taking a two-door family sedan, dropping in a racing-adjacent V8 motor, and then splashing the whole thing in lurid colors (with better brakes and suspension pieces as optional extras).

The late sixties and early seventies were a golden era for the American performance automobile. The cars were accessible and the sales literature was hallucinogenic. It was a glorious final LSD freakout before rising insurance costs and emission legislation brought about the paranoia-riddled hangover of the Malaise Era. In the early nineties, before my free time became filled with beer and alternative music, I built loads of Revell and Monogram muscle car plastic kits. They captivated me because somehow they epitomized the best and worst of American cars all at once. I liked Ford and GM offerings, but it was Mopar that really did it for me – they just seemed that much cooler than their cross-town rivals. Who else would have the audacity to offer a hot pink as a factory paint option? It remains a crime a new version of FM3 Moulin Rouge hasn’t been offered on the Challenger since its 2009 re-introduction.

Vidframe Min Top
Vidframe Min Bottom

That car, along with its four-door platform-mate, the current Charge,r is finally dead after fifteen long years on sale. In a weird kink of history being repeated, emissions legislation and the consequent EV transition are forcing Stellantis to ditch the old stager for a new model to replace both cars, built on a bang-up-to-date platform that can accept both BEV and ICE powertrains. The venerable Hemi V8 has been replaced by the new Hurricane twin snail inline six (for now….). I first wrote about the design of the new Charger when it was revealed in concept form, nearly two years ago.

Although shown in two door form, the uncomfortable and slightly hunched proportions appeared to me to be a four-door car in disguise, and so it has been proved – the new Charger with be available in either form. This is sound from a business point of view: a two-door and a four-door with essentially the same sheet metal, just like how it used to be when we got two-door versions of four-door cars. The SRT Charger Daytona Concept didn’t quite work for me then, and now we have the official production car it still doesn’t quite work for me now. Let’s see if we can figure out what’s wrong and try to fix it.

Charger1

ADVERTISEMENT

Why The Challenger Is So Good And The New Charger Less So

One of the reasons I think the 2009 Challenger is so good is because it doesn’t exactly copy the 1970-74 car line for line – something that would be impossible with twenty-first-century hard points. Rather, it hints at the memory of the original while being modern in execution. The new Charger is a lot less subtle in its approach. Because Dodge have built their whole brand around bubblegum nostalgia, moving into the EV era they can’t afford to frighten customers off, so they have to offer something warm and familiar. The trouble with that is, the 1968-70 Charger is one of the absolute masterpieces of late twentieth-century car design. And this remember was a time when Bill Mitchell was churning banger after banger out of the GM tech center. Nonetheless, the second-generation Charger is a copper-bottomed classic, and any attempt to try and copy it so closely is only ever going to come up short. This is one reason I think the new Charger doesn’t quite work: you cannot improve upon perfection.

Charger2

Charger3

Charger

Charger13

Pillars And Proportions

Starting off with the straight-on-side view, part of the problem with images like this is the way they are created. They are taken (or rendered) with a long lens, zoomed in from a long way out. This dials out the perspective and flattens the image, providing you with an accurate and undistorted side view. The flat side view is useful during the design process to evaluate your design, but less helpful for showing the car off in a flattering way. This is because the human eyeball never perceives a car like this in real life, so it’s important to keep this in mind.

Charger10

ADVERTISEMENT

Charger4

First of all, I want to look at the glazing and the side pillars. The two-door (I know it’s a hatch but calling it a three-door feels wrong) as shown here doesn’t look too bad. But the four-door, yikes. Because the sheet metal is shared, the cant rail and the roof line on both versions are identical. The two-door gets away with it but on the four-door the B pillar is all wrong. The high point of the roof is the header rail (where the windshield meets the roof) and then dives down towards the rear of the car. The B pillar is too upright which looks awkward and makes the rear side windows look much bigger than the front ones. The B pillar should angle towards an imaginary convergence point with the A and C pillars. Tweaking the B pillar so it leans back solves this imbalance in size between the side windows and looks much more harmonious.

Charger5

Charger7

Charger6

ADVERTISEMENT

The second main issue I have that affects both the two-door and four-door is the dodgy proportions: the Charger just looks a little dumpy. I convinced myself that part of the problem was the new car was much taller than the Challenger, but a dive into the press kits for both cars told me the Charger only has an extra inch in height. What’s more, the new car is a whopping 8 inches longer, four inches wider, and has a five-inch longer wheelbase (most of which has gone into giving back seaters more room). So what is happening here? The problem I think is the nose is too low and the front overhang is too stubby.

Charger11

Charger12

I’m not saying this because the ’68-’70 Charger had overhangs that would blot out the sun as it rounded a turn. It’s all about visual balance. At 206.5” (5247mm) long the new Charger is a big old bus. As the size of a car goes up and the wheelbase increases you need to keep everything in proportion. The extra sheet metal between the wheels needs a little extra visual maas outside of the wheels to balance it out. The fender line taking a step dive as it passes forward of the front wheel arch doesn’t help because it’s making the hood look too short. This effect is exaggerated in the front three-quarter view, making the fender line look too high and truncated. Nudging the front wheels back would take away some critical dash-to-axle ratio, so let’s see if tweaking the nose itself helps.

I’ve pulled the whole front forward a fraction, to give a little more front overhang, and lifted the leading edge of the hood up slightly, to flatten the line of the front fender. Small changes, but I think they make a big difference. The aggressive plunge of the fender line no longer foreshortens as much in the front three-quarter view and helps make the hood look longer, helping to balance out the overall proportions.

ADVERTISEMENT

Right, let’s put all this into GIFs so you can see the changes I’ve made more easily.

Charger1

Charger2

Charger3

Car design is an art of nuance, and intimately understanding the category of vehicle you are working with. A low nose and short front overhang might be appropriate for a smaller sports sedan like a 3-Series, but as you go up in size you need to consider what looks right for the dimensions of the car you are actually designing. It’s not necessarily about right or wrong according to a set of rules, but what is appropriate for the car in question.

ADVERTISEMENT

The new Charger is frustrating because it’s so nearly pretty decent. It was never going to match up to the seminal second-generation car, but as designers we need to keep our rose-tinted glasses in the drawer and judge the new one on its own merits.

One thing I do have to commend Dodge for is not redoing the Challenger all over again – which is the trap Ford and GM have fallen into. The Mustang and Camaro are fixated on their first-generation cars: making a copy of a copy of a copy that loses fidelity and clarity with each redesign. The new Charger brings a welcome dose of extra practicality to the market, but I can’t help but wonder if they’ve hedged their bets even further and made sure the Hemi V8 will fit come facelift time. If they have, it’s not hard to imagine this being on sale for fifteen years hence either.

All images courtesy of Stellantis Media.

Relatedbar

ADVERTISEMENT
Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on reddit
Reddit
Subscribe
Notify of
112 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lockleaf
Lockleaf
3 months ago

Is the 2 door and 4 door intended to be the same length and wheelbase? Is this like a 50’s or 60s model where the only signficant body different between them is the door post gets moved back for a longer door on the coupe?

Also, the changing of the B pillar line really makes the whole 4 door seem more rakish and fast, which really I think should speak directly to their target demographic.

Last edited 3 months ago by Lockleaf
Lockleaf
Lockleaf
3 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Clarke

Interesting. Thanks for answering. Perhaps I am wrong, but I feel like we haven’t seen that body in white sharing mainstream for quite some time. If I am wrong, what other vehicles are doing that?

Nathaniel
Nathaniel
3 months ago
Reply to  Lockleaf

The VW Golf in 2 and 4 door versions is an example.

SubieSubieDoo
SubieSubieDoo
3 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Clarke

I’ve always wondered where the term “body in white” came from. Any chance you can provide clarification, Adrian?

Tinctorium
Tinctorium
3 months ago
Reply to  SubieSubieDoo

Primer white bodies before painting.

SubieSubieDoo
SubieSubieDoo
3 months ago
Reply to  Tinctorium

Tinctorium – apologies, but my question was poorly written. I was curious about what car manufacturer first used the term? How has it developed over time?

I first ran into “body in white” by watching a mini documentary from James May and a couple others showing how the cars were made. The whole thing isn’t on YouTube, but here’s a link to part of it.

https://youtu.be/0r8xWSY8dWw?feature=shared

Bucko
Bucko
3 months ago

I agree with the rake of the B-pillar on the Charger. I’m not so sure that the ..ahem…aroused look of the front end in those gifs really enhances anything. I personally think the Charger looks okay, but I don’t really like the Challenger. Two doors work great on a Porsche, Ferrari, Mustang, Camaro, or Corvette. The Challenger has too much wheelbase and is too upright. So it whispers Cordoba or Miranda (or Thunderbird or Monte Carlo)….basically an old-man’s car. Ironically I don’t see that in the four-door.

What I think is off-putting is the mail-slot for the headlights/faux-grille. It needs something to frame it. Old Challenger quad-headlights did it. So did the chrome bumper of the General Lee, but then again I never really liked the hidden headlight look of that one. I realize that the deeply inset headlight/grille is supposed to play homage to the old ones, but it just doesn’t translate in my eyes.

Andrea Petersen
Andrea Petersen
3 months ago

The droopy front end was my biggest problem with the car. To my wildly untrained eye, I just imagined it being lifted a smidge, rather than lengthened.

Ranwhenparked
Ranwhenparked
3 months ago

I think the gas powered version might look slightly better, since it will obviously have a grille instead of that front spoiler thing, so the hood will be flatter and extend all the way to the plastic nose instead of sloping down so substantially. Not hugely noticeable in the side on profile of the EV, but I think it does still make some difference

Ottomadiq
Ottomadiq
3 months ago

One of these studies needs to be done on the new Prius

Loren
Loren
3 months ago

I’m having trouble getting that throbbing-front visual out of my head. You don’t have to answer…

Rollin Hand
Rollin Hand
3 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Clarke

Now we just need Adrian’s avatar pic to do the same for these articles. I might only laugh once if they do it, but I WILL laugh.

VS 57
VS 57
3 months ago

I’m still trying to get past the half assedness of the press kit images and scenes. The colors are muted, the backgrounds suggest no excitement, the car seems to not want to be seen right now. Not ready for prime time as presented.

Arch Duke Maxyenko
Arch Duke Maxyenko
3 months ago

I feel like if they had used the 3rd gen Charger as a base design theme it would work a bit more cohesively

Arch Duke Maxyenko
Arch Duke Maxyenko
3 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Clarke

This needs to be a proper rant

EvilFacelessTurtle
EvilFacelessTurtle
3 months ago

Said no one ever.

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
3 months ago

“the sales literature was hallucinogenic”

No, they’re just trying to accurately represent what that car is going to look like after jumping a few broken bridges while escaping the local “law”.

Last edited 3 months ago by Cheap Bastard
Mike TowpathTraveler
Mike TowpathTraveler
3 months ago

Overall, I love it. But….. that rear side glass looks awkward, at best. Why oh why did they not go hard after taking the 68-70 C pillar design and incorporate it in the 2 door version? (the 4 door: we’ve grown so accustomed to the old 4 door Charger’s side glass look that it’s easier to take on this new 4 door design; but the 2 door begs for the second gen treatment.) I’ll take it up a notch and ask why not incorporate some kind of flying buttress C pillar treatment that was another hallmark design cue of the second gen Charger?

Kudos to the people left at Dodge who had the courage and vision to swim upstream and bring the world a new Charger. Now Adrian, let’s go with the assumption that Dodge and the parent owner somehow decided to get back into the Nascar wars again with this new Charger. Far fetched, I know. I think the next logical design step in a special edition Charger would be…..a remake and modern take on the 69 winged warrior Daytona. Imagine a winged warrior running on the high banks of Daytona, Talledega and other superspeedway tracks….. I want to believe the people at Dodge who gave us the new Challenger, Hellcat and other variations would be crazy enough to try. I don’t believe Tavares and Stellantis are up to it.

Citrus
Citrus
3 months ago

I also think that the 2-door looks weird, mostly because there’s more visual mass in the C-pillar than any other part of the car.

Twobox Designgineer
Twobox Designgineer
3 months ago

I wonder whether the reason for the more vertical B pillar on 4-door is structural, for roof support during rollover. Adrian, have you ever run into a circumstance where you had to make that particular compromise?

Peter Andruskiewicz
Peter Andruskiewicz
3 months ago

The roof structure will play a large role in that, as will the ability for the windows to actually roll down and fit into the doors

Goose
Goose
3 months ago

I always thought the roof should be flatter and more sqaured off at the C pillar. In my non-expert opinion, it’s why the retro Challenger design looked so much better than the Charger, its roofline is way better. Trying to replicate/recreate the 2nd gen Charger slightly sloping roof on a modern 4 door is kinda weird looking to me (at least in this instance making it a parts bin 2 door didn’t help it any) and I think both 2 door and 4 door would be better suited to a more square/flat roofline similar to a Challenger. But who knows, maybe I’d regret that choice if I saw it.

Last edited 3 months ago by Goose
Adam Shadowchild
Adam Shadowchild
3 months ago

My theory about the B post line on the sedan: increasing the lean would make the door corner very pointy and possibly more dangerous for children and short people (personal injury lawsuits). It also makes it harder for those with short arms to swing the door open because now they have to either let go of the handle and/or lean way back while opening the door to aintain control of the door and avoid it’s corner. I apologize for my verbiage. I’m an engineer on a fire truck, not a real engineer.

Ben
Ben
3 months ago

Definite improvement from a couple of small changes. I think the pinched front end has been my biggest objection so raising that up a bit is a big win. That said, I can’t help but wonder if part of the reason for the low front end is pedestrian impact regulations. I know that has been behind some previous unfortunate front end designs.

Twobox Designgineer
Twobox Designgineer
3 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Clarke

I have wondered about the leading edge on some Mazda SUV hoods, which together with the inset of the grille look like they’re designed to penetrate and slice a torso.

EvilFacelessTurtle
EvilFacelessTurtle
3 months ago
Reply to  Ben

Pedestrian standards don’t force pickups to have sloping hoods.

John in Ohio
John in Ohio
3 months ago

I wish it had a fast back with a liftgate(is that the right word?)

John in Ohio
John in Ohio
3 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Clarke

Oh it is? My mistake. Or are you just answering my question?

Last edited 3 months ago by John in Ohio
IRegertNothing, Esq.
IRegertNothing, Esq.
3 months ago
Reply to  John in Ohio

I’ve wondered if they could remake the 2 door as a fast back and call it the Barracuda. Let Plymouth rise and walk the earth again!

Cerberus
Cerberus
3 months ago

I never cared for the original Challenger, yet I always loved the ‘Cuda.

Cerberus
Cerberus
3 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Clarke

I’ll trade the ’71 ‘Cuda for a ’70, but that’s a great list. In between other books and projects, I’m working on a novel with a ’70 440 in In Violet driven by the baddies (weapon smuggling clowns), though the title is Plum Crazy after the unreliable narrator with confabulation’s self assessment. I do that fully knowing that any nerds seeing the cover will call out that it’s a Dodge color name, but it always had to be a ‘Cuda, so there’s nothing I can do about it (the image of the car racing through the rain at night with a haggard clown screaming out the window haunted me for years before the story finally started rolling in).

StillNotATony
StillNotATony
3 months ago

I wish it had more of a face, y’know? As it is, it’s just a slot. If thats all the features it’s going to have, fine, but it looks like it could be about 50% taller, and it would loom much better. Don’t make the hood line higher, though.

BolognaBurrito
BolognaBurrito
3 months ago

Improvements for sure, but I feel like you didn’t touch the issue of whatever is going on with the roofline heading towards the back and the 3/4 rear view of the thing.

The 4-door looks better proportioned than the 2-door, and I think it’s because of that but I’m not really sure why.

BolognaBurrito
BolognaBurrito
3 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Clarke

That might be it. It’s like one of the few cars where I feel the 4-door looks better than the two.

There’s something else about it that just seems off about the car; both 2 and 4-door variants. I can’t put my finger on it.

You’ve certainly improved it though. And not only does your door-pillar change make it converge, but it also follows the door seam which looks better. I don’t know if that’s some sort of rule, but it looks better here.

Urban Runabout
Urban Runabout
3 months ago

The pillars not converging also explains why Dodge chose to black out part of the C Pillar behind the rear door glass…
….which makes the 4 door look dumber too.

But we know why they didn’t extend the nose: The last thing that monster needs is more length.

Last edited 3 months ago by Urban Runabout
BolognaBurrito
BolognaBurrito
3 months ago
Reply to  Urban Runabout

….which makes the 4 door look dumber too.

Bologna. The 4-door looks better than the 2-door.

Urban Runabout
Urban Runabout
3 months ago
Reply to  BolognaBurrito

Well in my opinion, any time there’s a chunk of black plastic pretending to be a window – it’s dumb.

Urban Runabout
Urban Runabout
3 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Clarke

Or just leave it painted metal – like the coupe.
The black panel – as so many – adds nothing.

Really No Regrets
Really No Regrets
3 months ago
Reply to  Urban Runabout

This thing is 17 inches longer than my 2017 Subaru Outback, which is a big car!
When does a two-door ‘muscle’ car become too long?

And, while his nose job helps, Adrian makes it even longer…

IRegertNothing, Esq.
IRegertNothing, Esq.
3 months ago

Raking the B pillar back a bit on the 4 door also keeps it on the same general line as the edge of the front door, which to me at least is more pleasing to the eye than having an abrupt change of angle where the pillar begins. I wonder if they did it that way for roof strength compliance since US market cars have to be able to support their own weight when they rollover.

IRegertNothing, Esq.
IRegertNothing, Esq.
3 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Clarke

It doesn’t make any sense to me then. Not unless something about the slightly different curvature to the roof made the same angle as the coupe unworkable. Even then, I would think they could find a way to make it all compliant without the visual disruption you get on the sedan.

Edit: I zoomed in and it looks like the roof lines are the same. Hard to tell with little pictures on a phone. The coupe probably looked shallower at a glance because that’s how 2 doors usually look compared to a 4 door version of the same car.

Last edited 3 months ago by IRegertNothing, Esq.
Rad Barchetta
Rad Barchetta
3 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Clarke

I’d bet it has something to do with how the windows would lower into the doors. The rear wouldn’t be a problem, but the front would either interfere or require some kind of mechanism to rotate it a bit before moving down, otherwise the trailing edge would end up inside the rear door. Which would be bad if you opened the rear door while the window was down.

Rad Barchetta
Rad Barchetta
3 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Clarke

I suppose you’re right. My money is still on an engineering or beancounting compromise.

10001010
10001010
3 months ago

I know the original had curves and character lines but it always struck me as a big flat slab that you could camp on. This new one is too curvy, down pointed, and stubby, it looks like when a dog gets stung by a bee. Maybe it’s due to aerodynamics but they need to bring back the slab.

Hoonicus
Hoonicus
3 months ago

Fondly hold the 1969 in memory, as they were my first, and second car purchases at 15. This is too fat from the side view, doesn’t look right till you trim off the bottom to the hub line.

Canopysaurus
Canopysaurus
3 months ago

I wonder if going full 2nd gen Daytona aero nose would’ve worked here? Certainly created some front overhang on the original. But, then I’d want the giant staple wing in the back, too. My first two cars were a ‘68 Charger and ‘69 Super Bee, so this new Charger is messing around in my history. Not certain I like it (though I applaud the return of the 2-door style). I’m going to need to see it on the road before making a final judgment.

Andrew Wyman
Andrew Wyman
3 months ago

Adding the length helps, but that bulge on the hood plus the downturn on the nose makes me see a giant forehead (fivehead?) on the car. I do not love that front end look they gave it.

Andrew Wyman
Andrew Wyman
3 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Clarke

I think they did a great job with the grill, lights area, and to be honest, my guess is that it is mostly the low angle of that grey version shot. Because the blue version is shot from a higher angle and looks totally okay to me. Your fix definitely improves on the visual though, and bring it more in line with what the car was, a massive moving slab that looked powerful.

Last edited 3 months ago by Andrew Wyman
Chronometric
Chronometric
3 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Wyman

Agreed. That is my problem with the whole design. The front bend is just awkward.

My 0.02 Cents
My 0.02 Cents
3 months ago

They should hire you!

I like what you did there.

My 0.02 Cents
My 0.02 Cents
3 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Clarke

Somebody other than the Autopian? I assume they are paying you? I guess you could be freelance.

Not wanting to be to personal, but what visa issues? I thought you only needed a work permit or to be sponsored by the hiring company?

I married a US citizen, during the process of getting my greencard my wife had to support me financially (well technically not my wife but NOT the US government) if I wasn’t working.

My 0.02 Cents
My 0.02 Cents
3 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Clarke

If it’s any help, having an English accent is very popular in the States. So there’s still hope 😉

JaredTheGeek
JaredTheGeek
3 months ago

I agree the proportions are a bit weird but not terrible. I also don’t think that light gray does it any justice. Its wild how long this thing is. It has a longer wheelbase and greater overall length than a Durango.

Last edited 3 months ago by JaredTheGeek
112
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x