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 The venerable Hemi V8 has been replaced by the new Hurricane twin snail inline six (for now….).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
Until I saw the gifs of the before after I had no goddamned idea what you were getting at.
I get it on the B pillar of the 4 door, the other update is nitpicky but an improvement.
It just feels so stubby in 2 door form for how shockingly long it is. I imagine some of this is necessitated by the batteries needing to be in the floor creating a height that they couldn’t get away from? Yet the 4 door somehow feels sleeker which doesn’t make any sense-as a buyer if I’m going to give up 4 door practicality for a 2 door it better have road presence-and maybe this has it in person in a way it doesn’t in renderings.
This is what I thought until I researched the dimensions. The new Charger is only about an inch taller than the old Challenger. It’s the stubby nose foreshortening the whole car.
“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”
Actually i always thought the 2009 Challenger looked a little too stubby and the new one actually looks better.
And I like that last GIF… looks like the Charger is twerking…
That front fender has bothered me ever since the pics of this car dropped. The line just felt so overly tense and added height where it was really noticeable. Nicely fixed Adrian
It’s crazy that this new model is wider because it looks a hell of a lot narrower! That’s what the graphics do (or do not), I suppose? I agree with you, Adrian: Seeing a design get *this* close to being great and missing out on what basically boils down to paying attention to the details is annoying as hell.
Great analysis, I agree with your ideas!
Adrian, that last GIF was nightmare fuel. I love the article and what you do, but a throbbing nose on that car, yikes.
I’ve been wondering for years how good a Charger would look if they chopped 4” out of the slab sides all around the car. I know it’s not possible in person, but you could do it. (Pretty please) Basically from the top edge of the bumper to the top of the bumper vent, all the way around the car. It’s just too tall and slab sided. The only one that breaks up that a bit is the widebody wheel flare one.
I like that GIF… it’s like the car is twerking!
Fantastically educational read – thank you!
How about we start with giving it mechanical door handles and move forward from there…
When you “lean back” the b pillar, what visual tricks do you use to hide the fact that the window edge still needs to be pretty much vertical for it to go up and down?
It doesn’t need to be vertical. The window can slide forward and down using the trailing edge as a runner. Might need a cheater panel on the leading edge but this would be a price worth paying I think.
I say you stretch the nose out even more, bring it to a point, add pop-ups, and a ‘uge rear spoiler.
Rear fender mounted and bridged high so the hatch can open under it.
You just made aftermarket fabricators slap their foreheads.
memeep
Completely agreed, and I would lengthen the nose even more and make it not droop at all from the fenders.
Adrian, what tends to upset you more, a design that just wasn’t well conceived from the get go or one where they were close, but not quite there?
The latter, because that tells me they had a good idea and the aesthetic judgement to pull it off, but whatever reason couldn’t land it.
Are these reasons typically things like bean counters, safety requirements, fuel economy, or are you more talking about they simply couldn’t think of a good way to “land” the last few details design wise?
I don’t think any of those would have drive these decisions, but I wasn’t in the room so can only make educated guesses.
Interesting. I’d argue that going down swinging on a good idea, valorizes it/the designer more.
Is it because you’ve seen how the sausage is made as a designer, and you can also see how they screwed up more?
I’m going to say, I think part of the problem is that I think US auto design colleges concentrate more on a high level of vocational skills rather than a high level of aesthetic judgement.
The comment about nuance made me think of when I saw several Ferrari 250 GTOs together. They were all hand made and I’m not sure any were exactly alike, but add in often extensive racing (at least when they were new) and inevitable repair work, and they certainly aren’t exactly the same, even if in photos or at a glance they appear pretty much so (talking about the series 1 cars, not the series 2s). What was interesting to me is that, in person next to each other, some were decidedly better looking than others as the curves of the fenders and front end (the primary differentiators, though the rears also had some impact) varied enough that the relatively subtle changes between them had a substantial impact. While some looked predatory and svelte in a way that matches their reputation for beauty, others looked like they gave up on exercise and gained a fondness for chips (no shame here—I love chips!), almost as bad as the 275 GTBs that look like the GTO’s fat Elvis period.
The designs that bother me most are the ones that are so close, but not quite there. They’re so much more frustrating than the completely hopeless. This is one of the former, though the suggested changes certainly help. I’m not buying one, but I’m also glad they’re making a 2-door as there aren’t enough coupes anymore.
Excellent piece! I do photochops, and sometimes things just seem to be a little off. Adrian’s comment: “what is appropriate for the car in question” will be helpful. Thanks!
If you need any tips hit me up in the Discord.
I am wondering if there will be a post or not, I could live with a four door pillarless verion like they used to make occasionally.
Honestly the styling is decent either way though. the price, not so much. The ICE hurricane version had better have the same level of tune options as the Wagoneer and be roughly the same price as a regular RT.
There’s definitely a post, Stellantis isn’t going to spend the money to engineer a hardtop to pass crash testing. They might conceal the pillar behind glass, but that’s as far as it will go, or else just either paint it black or cover it with shiny black plastic, like everyone else does now
Also remember the Charger is often a fleet car, with government and law enforcement duties a B pillar is a good thing for those apps.
Maybe have the Chrysler off-shoot go pillarless for $$$.
I don’t think there’s going to be a fleet version of this one, though, the base model will be turbo and AWD only and $40k+, Stellantis only wants high margin sales even if it means lower volumes