|
|
|
|
|
Go back and vote on this image.
|
Picture
Information
|
| URL:
http://riceornot.ricecop.com/?auto=31102 |
|
| Comments: 51 (Read/Post) Favorites: 3 (View) |
Submitted
on: 03-12-2004
|
 View Stats |
Category:
Car |
|
|
Description:
charger prototype |
Showing page: 3 of 3
[ 1 2 3 ]
 |
| #42 |
4-10-2014 @ 09:18:49 PM |
| Posted By : Obsidian |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#16, Oh those goddamn 4 door cars! How dare Dodge make a 4 door Charger! How dare the world accept 4 door cars!
|
|
| #43 |
4-10-2014 @ 09:44:46 PM |
| Posted By : MxCx |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#42, seems more along the lines of resurrecting a legendary coupe as a four door. leaps and bounds better than the last iteration of the name, but really, anything is better than that one. except the one with four doors.
|
|
| #44 |
4-10-2014 @ 10:45:26 PM |
| Posted By : Obsidian |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#43, Actually - I think the present Charger is better than the original. It's better built - better looking - better riding - better handling - and more reliable.
|
|
| #45 |
4-10-2014 @ 10:46:21 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#44, You can't objectively judge a 1960s car by modern standards. Cars are judged by the standards of the era they're built in.
|
|
| #47 |
4-10-2014 @ 11:57:57 PM |
| Posted By : Obsidian |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#45, Conversely - you can't hold a car from the 1960's as a benchmark to which all present day cars are to be judged by.
Apart from the 'better looking' - everything else I mentioned is quantifiable. I can judge the old Charger however I see fit - especially when the old Charger is being upheld as 'sacred' and 'indomitable' by virtue of it simply being a car from the 1960's; as if that excuses it from it's shortcomings. The fact it's from the 1960's is no barrier to critical analysis - and it doesn't protect and isolate the car from contemporary criticism. If its to be upheld as important - its importance should be quantifiable over time and in comparison to contemporary cars.
There are no sacred cows - and the Charger of the 1960's is as 'holy' as a 96' Sunfire.
[Edited by Obsidian on 4-10-2014 @ 11:59:50 PM]
|
|
| #49 |
4-11-2014 @ 01:41:04 AM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#47, ....and a modern Fleetwood double-wide mobile home is more space-efficient, energy-efficient, has better wiring, is less likely to leak, and is easier to repair than a 3-story Victorian house.
The definition of "classic" is a benchmark by which future versions are judged. One would certainly hope that future versions of the Charger are objectively better, because it's only through the development of the earlier car that they were able to reach that level. Regardless, I'd rather have a 1966-1974 Charger than a 2006-present one, by many magnitudes.
|
|
| #50 |
4-11-2014 @ 01:43:43 PM |
| Posted By : Obsidian |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#49, You'll get no argument from me regarding Victorian-revival architecture; decoration is waste and asymmetrical designs are costly.
'Classic' is term with loads of baggage in car circles. It's a term seemingly reserved strictly for old cars with which to preserve the 'essence' of such cars inside glass jars as if they were under threat from modernity. Like a trademark lawyer - you'll find proponents of 'classic cars' vigorously and hopelessly defending the old cars while they claim no modern car could ever outstrips everything that its predecessor could do - as if no new car could ever supplant the old and become an archetype in its own right and on its own merits.
NVH ratings alone can dismiss the old Charger - and nobody is going to uphold those qualities as being enviable - emulatable - or as a universal standard. Reactionary opinions of cars are a weak exercise in the attempt of stymieing automotive technological advances - downplaying them simply becasue they weren't thought of 50 years ago.
|
Showing page: 3 of 3
[ 1 2 3 ]
Login to leave a comment
|
|
|
|
|
