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.
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 The venerable Hemi V8 has been replaced by the new Hurricane twin snail inline six (for now….).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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Right, let’s put all this into GIFs so you can see the changes I’ve made more easily.
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.
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.
- Mopar Fans Freak Out (In The Worst Way) After Dodge Posts Electric Charger Fake Exhaust Sound
- The First Electric 2024 Dodge Charger Daytonas Will Be More Expensive Than The Old Gas Models: Report
- You Can Now Buy A 707-Horsepower Supercharged Dodge Charger Hellcat For Less Than $40,000 And That’s Nothing To Be Scared Of
- Why This Cars And Coffee Just Permanently Banned All Modern Muscle Cars Like Camaros, Challengers, And Mustangs
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.
Yes. Same body in white, different body side stamping and doors.
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?
The VW Golf in 2 and 4 door versions is an example.
I’ve always wondered where the term “body in white” came from. Any chance you can provide clarification, Adrian?
Primer white bodies before painting.
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
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.
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.
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
One of these studies needs to be done on the new Prius
I think the new Prius is excellent:
https://www.theautopian.com/heres-what-a-professional-car-designer-thinks-about-the-stunning-new-2023-toyota-prius/
I’m having trouble getting that throbbing-front visual out of my head. You don’t have to answer…
Have fun trying to sleep tonight.
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.
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.
Yeah, I never ceases to amaze me how badly some companies fumble this. I get that media outlets might like studio shots on plainish backgrounds, but seeing these are all done digitally these days it’s not hard to churn out some cool action or atmospheric shots as well.
I feel like if they had used the 3rd gen Charger as a base design theme it would work a bit more cohesively
Ugh I hate those. The Plymouths were so much better.
This needs to be a proper rant
Said no one ever.
“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”.
Thanks now I have the theme tune in my head.
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.
You can bet the mortgage some kid in the studio sketched it up.
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.
Ideally the two door would have two or three inches chopped out from behind the B pillar.
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?
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
The changes I made to the door frame shouldn’t prevent either window dropping although the leading of the front might need a cheater panel, which would be a compromise worth making.
They could cheat it by having the actual B pillar on the Body in White more upright, but changing the doors as I have, because the door frames are not structural.
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.
Possibly. One of those things you’d need to see to decide. I’m away at a media event this weekend otherwise I’d knock it up and drop it in the Discord.
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.
It’s not a big enough of a change to make much difference to any of those things really.
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.
Ped impact is more centered around hard points under the hood, radiuses on openings. Size of openings and collapsibility of the nose.
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.
They won’t. They’re designed to break. Would it stagger you to learn the mesh grill on Bentleys is plastic?
Pedestrian standards don’t force pickups to have sloping hoods.
I wish it had a fast back with a liftgate(is that the right word?)
It is a hatch/liftback.
Oh it is? My mistake. Or are you just answering my question?
The whole rear opens, including the glass. Tailgate/liftback. You say tomato…..
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!
Plymouth was always my favourite.
I never cared for the original Challenger, yet I always loved the ‘Cuda.
71 GTX, 71 ‘Cuda, 70 Super Bee would probably be my top three.
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).
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.
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.
The roofline is the same for both cars. The reason the two door is a little odd is because they probably did the four door first, and then the two door.
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.
It’s not a hard and fast rule, but where possible yes they should. Obviously some cars it’s not appropriate or possible (SUVs mainly).
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.
Bologna. The 4-door looks better than the 2-door.
Well in my opinion, any time there’s a chunk of black plastic pretending to be a window – it’s dumb.
Glass is heavy, expensive and needs sealing. I would need to see this in the flash to see if it’s particularly bad.
Or just leave it painted metal – like the coupe.
The black panel – as so many – adds nothing.
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…
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.
That’s not the reason because on the two door the pillar is much further back.
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.
They’re exactly the same. Different body side, glass and doors, but everything else is shared.
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.
No it could slide down and forwards using the frame as a runner. You might need a cheater panel on the leading edge, but it would be worth it.
I suppose you’re right. My money is still on an engineering or beancounting compromise.
Difficult to say, because we don’t know what hidden parts, the window regulator for instance, are carry over. And that might have driven this.
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.
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.
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.
Yes it’s always better to make evaluations in the metal.
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.
I considered tweaking it as well, including more aggressive and visible headlight graphics. But they’re deliberately referencing the second gen which had hidden lights so I left well alone.
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.
Agreed. That is my problem with the whole design. The front bend is just awkward.
They should hire you!
I like what you did there.
Somebody needs to hire me. Sadly visa issues and Brexit have helped make that very difficult,
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.
Yes, the Autopian do pay me. Unfortunately most companies, in Europe and the US require you to have the right to work in the country. I applied for a lot of jobs immediately after leaving Land Rover, but none offered visa sponsorship. Sadly for me I have no Irish grandparents and was born in the UK, so my British passport doesn’t get me anywhere. Before Brexit I would have been able to live and work in Europe without a visa, but no longer. I need an American girlfriend again, something I joked about in my Jeep YJ piece.
If it’s any help, having an English accent is very popular in the States. So there’s still hope 😉
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.
I’d be interested to look under the hood and see how the I6 is packaged. In theory it’s a bad idea for a modern engine because they’re much longer, but I would want to know how it compares in length to the V8.
Regarding the Durango that will have much more upright seating positions for passengers than this will, which means more length.