If you time-traveled back to 1964 and told a muscle car buyer that his ride would be a respected classic 40 years hence, he’d call you crazier than Khrushchev. Muscle cars were fun on the cheap. You got what you didn’t pay for: nonexistent handling, pathetic drum brakes, two and three speed automatic transmissions and efficiency measured in gallons per mile (which was no biggie at the time). Thirty years later, Chrysler and Dodge are leading the charge down muscle car memory lane. Until the Chevrolet Camaro appears, the Dodge Charger SRT8 Super Bee could well be the post-modern muscle car mascot. Which is what, exactly?
No question: brash is a big part of the definition. Even from a hundred yards, no one will ever mistake the Super Bee for a Honda Accord. If the base Charger’s styling is “in your face,” the nuclear yellow Super Bee is down your throat. The headlights are nasty-looking, the hood scoop sucks souls, and the twenty inch wheels are Hummer compatible. While a great many enthusiasts will hail the Bee’s extra-extroversion as welcome break from today’s automotive appliances, most people will hate the look of this car.
Then again, most of these knee-jerk detractors drive brownish-silverish-greyish Camrys. If you’re not one of them, the odds are excellent that you really like the Super Bee's stance, style and detailing. The matte-finish decals on the hood and rear side fenders are a resolutely retro touch. But retro what? They looked cheap on the original, and they look cheap here. I like them for their nod to history; but by that same reasoning the Renault Dauphine is “cool.”
Sitting in the Super Bee is like partying at a Rubbermaid factory– in China. The entirety of the car’s dash and door panels are made from some kind of nasty ass black polymer that wouldn’t look out of place in a hospital waiting room, or any other space where bodily fluids must be regularly removed. Everything on view looks OK in an entirely yeomanly built-to-a-price kinda way– which is a throwback too far for this retro-rocker.
Good news: people buying the Dodge Super Bee probably won’t care any more about the car’s low-grade interior than they do about CO2 emissions warming/cooling the planet. The seats say it all: they’re leather and suede, extremely wide and very supportive. WYSIWYG: the chairs are perfectly built for generously proportioned empty nesters who like to drive like their hair’s on fire.
So fire-up the Super Bee’s honking 6.1-liter Hemi and a baby seal dies somewhere. Milliseconds later even the dimmest driver realizes that the Bee– like the other SRT8 iterations– is nothing but an engine and a paint job. And a hell of an engine it is. Four hundred and twenty five horses are enough to propel this brick shithouse to 60mph in five seconds. As momentum equals mass times velocity, accelerating that quickly in a 4200 lb car is an astonishing experience. The engine is suitably loud, and every slam on the gas (gently depressing the go-pedal is like using the rhythm method with Marissa Miller) yields ferocious thrust.
In terms of changing direction (a silly concept but there it is), the Super Bee’s steering is better weighted than the helm in the lesser R/T Charger. But the combination of double-wide tires and massive torque means that driving the Super Bee requires less finesse than throwing a water balloon at the side of a barn. In fact, Dodge couldn’t left off the steering wheel entirely; directional change is just as easily accomplished with your right foot as with the decapitated turtle that passes for a tiller.
It’s a stupid way to negotiate a turn, but it’s a gen-u-ine Dukes of Hazard-style hoot– provided you drive with the aforementioned pate conflagration in mind. At slower speeds, burbling through the ‘burbs, driving the Super Bee is such a pedestrian endeavor you might as well walk. You know; providing you could still get laid by women who call you by a shortened version of your first and middle names combined.
Returning to our original question, the Super Bee is a modern car only to the extent that it’s presently being built. It follows the old formula of sticking a huge and powerful engine into a hum-drum big car. Of course, we’ve got better safety these days. Only Super Bee side curtain airbags are optional and most of those ones already built don’t got 'em, leaving drivers with two– count ‘em two– airbags.
Impact protection or no, Dodge won’t have too much trouble selling Super Bees; collectors and muscle car fans with firsthand knowledge of the era will snap them up as a second chance to buy what they couldn’t afford back in the day. In that sense, we who followed should be glad cars like the Super Bee exist. But unless tail out powerslides are your staple diet, at $46k, its best admired from afar.
I hate the look of this car.
In short this ride is smokin’!!!
Deactivate the ESP (Electronic Stability Package) and Dukes of Hazard feel suddenly becomes Mr Toad’s Wild Ride….classic Mopar performance restored! Take that Toyota!
Forty-Six THOUSAND? It really should be available with the DOH paint job and oil droppers for that sum. That’ll fix ’em REVENOOERS!
That’s the lowest slung camper van I’ve ever seen. Drifting that must be like drifting a flat bed tow truck.
Thats just plain silly.
Great write-up.
Where is the 6-speed? I will take mine primer-black, used w/ the police package. Mad-Max nice!
Like the Mustang Shelby GT, a single purpose fun mobile.
Too bad Plymouth isn’t around to resurrect the Barracuda, Satellite, Roadrunner / Superbird, etc…
Great review, mr. Berkowitz. There is really not much to add. I've never liked muscle, preferring cars that actually turn, and I feel the same about this one.
Calling this a Charger is an insult to it, that crap from 30 years ago should stay there. I partially grew up (still can’t progress past that 16 year old emotional mind-set), in that era and to compare today’s cars to them is crazy. Who would you rather practice the rhythm method with- Marissa Miller or Racquel Welch-67 years old. Back in the day should stay back there, the lowest form of conversation is the weather or remember when. BTW is rhythm method doing it to music?
A ’60s muscle car with automatic transmission. Cut me a break.
This car is bad ass! Who needs to turn anyway?
Back in the day 4 door muscle cars did not exist, were not in demand. Turning a 4 door sedan into a Super Bee is comical, especially a yellow one.
The genuine muscle car aficionado prefers the 40 year old real thing, with all of its qualities and shortcomings.
d996
I’m no fan of the new chargers looks either but check out http://www.forceperformance.biz/ for a custom 2 door version. A 1,200 hp, twin turbo and supercharged hemi doesn’t hurt either.
And when you drive it all passerbys think to themselves “geez how small IS it?”
dolo54: yeah cause when the guy in a Yugo drives by… the chicks all go chasing him down the street, right? I drive an Accord and I don’t get dates because of my car but I don’t think driving a Super Bee would hurt, not even a little. :)
From the star ratings
]]]
TOYS:
Navigation, bluetooth are nice. But 2 standard airbags?
[[[
Airbags are toys? Do you play with them on 4th of July or something?
Gee, I wonder why Chyrsler is in so much financial trouble when it pumps out wonderful cars like this one?
On an entirely non-related note, crude oil prices hit an all-time high today!
Oh… Waitaminnit…
@ barberoux :
Lots of 1960s muscle cars had automatic transmissions.
@SunnyvaleCA
Cute line, but my July 4th activities are none of yoru business. In any case, the ‘Toys’ category refers to more than just toys. It’s really equipment, spec, whatever you want to call it. The alphabet soup suspension and braking setups, airbags, sunroof, navigation, stereos, and so on.
Did the car you tested have the “summer only” tires, or the “all-season” tires? I’ve read that this can make a noticeable difference when driving the SRT8’s.
When Robert Farago reviewed the Magnum SRT8 and the 300C SRT8, he seemed to enjoy them more than you enjoyed this Charger SRT8. (He considered the 300 version an “Instant Classic”, and heaped a good amount of praise on the Magnum version).
Maybe that’s something you could talk about in your next podcast with him?
Well, fortunately, the interior is much nicer for 2008.
It’s a great looking, big, RWD, 425hp V8, American sedan.
Can’t really find any fault with it beyond the airbag nonsense.
Though, I think it would look downright mean with the cop car black wheels with chrome center hubs.
Sweet ! To win you gotta hit em where there not !
Honda and Toyota ain,t got nothin like this baby.
At least it’s RWD.
I can understand the 300SRT-8 but this thing look like what my son would dream up. And NO this thing will not get you any dates. Women might giggle at you as you drive by but I can’t think of a single women that would think this thing is nice.
In black people will only call it the Batmobile!
Great review Justin!
Muscle cars were supposedly cheap back in the day. I wonder what an inflation-adjusted equivalent of the 1964 price would be? Then again, purchasing power has expanded by magnitudes.
@Martin Schwoerer
Depends on which scale you use, and economists could debate it to no end. The department of labor says that the consumer price index adjustment makes $45,000 today about $7500 in 1968.
@Buick61
I like it too, but there is a lot to fault it with. A pathetically out of date interior, horrendous mileage, it’s basically not usable in winter (try to find snow tires for the 20″ wheels, which are different front and back, by the way), the IIHS remarks that it’s extraordinarily unsafe in side collisions. The handling is shameful for a car that costs this much money – a Mazda Miata, VW GTI, or Acura TSX would trounce it. Also, it’s $46,000.
I don’t think anybody who purchases this car will give a hoot about handling. Besides, all of those cars you mentioned are toast once you hit a straight piece of road.
What a waste of money. For thousands of dollars less, consumers have the ability to purchase a beautiful 500 horsepower Mustang – an eleven second car. The Charger is a mediocre car that, in SRT8 trim, will not be able to double as a comfortable daily driver and a quarter mile car. $45,000 and it can only cut thirteen second quarter miles? Give us a break! Who is Chrysler trying to fool?
According to the Wikipedia page on the Super Bee, the 1971 model had a price of $3271, which, according to the inflation calculator, is equivalent to $16406.31 in 2006 dollars. That’s some cheap performance!
Unfortunately, $45,000 isn’t cheap performance no matter how you look at it.
…the Super Bee is a modern car only to the extent that it’s presently being built.
Ok, that’s funny, I don’t care who you are…
I’d love to know what the actual demographics of these beasts are. Not the target demo.
Something like…. I knew a guy in high school who had a hemi ‘cuda. By golly, I’m gettin’ me a hemi Super Bee, dadgummit. Ok, its got four doors, but it’s screaming bright yellow….or lime green…do they still have plum crazy?
I think there are a _lot_ of other cars I’d have around that price range.
For $10-$15k more I’d get a Cayman or a 335i and I think it would be an extra 10-15k well invested.
For attracting women: An Elise
For more versatility & $13k less, and a 0-60 in sub 5, I’d rather get an STi (Oh wait, I own one :) or an evo — and have enough change left for a literbike, new.
For roughly the same speeds and American:
A base vette.
This would be great car…..if they dropped 1000 pounds and $10k off the price tag.
Robstar: This model has about $5,000 worth of options over the base Super Bee, and is nearly $10K more expensive than the base SRT8, so you can get this very car with all of its performance intact for considerably cheaper.
should be black with yellow highlights. I saw one, it looks like a summer squash.
I am on their website & I can’t even find a manual option :O. That completely takes it out of my buying category. I might even be convinced to go DSG, but auto only really is no fun.
Hey Chrysler. The original SuperBee was cheap but affordable performance. AFFORDABLE!!! $46,000? Unreal.
Everything wrong with the US automotive industry is embodied in this very car.
This is a Charger???? This is a badge-engineered abomination!!!
A friend of mine owns a 1968 mint-condition Charger with a 440. The stance is so menacing (just sitting in the driveway) which prompted his 10-year old son to say (and I kid you not): “Damn! This makes Japanese cars look GAY!!”
Driving the car reminded me of my high school days in the 1970s (when these cars were plentiful). I drove my parent’s 1968 Olds Ninety-Eight (a battleship of a car with the Rocket 455 engine) back then.
During a drive to the local convienience store with my friend, the Charger was turning heads of Hummer drivers, BMW drivers, Mercedes drivers, etc. I seriously thought about acquiring a late 60’s Charger myself, but sanity, $$$ (and my wife), brought me back to reality…
Now that (1968 Charger) is a car that has IMPACT. Unlike the metrosexual (2006/2007) version on the roads today…
This car is a different shade of lipstick on a pig.
Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry. Part deux.
The paint job worked with the original, because of the low longness of the chassis. This squashed version looks bad enough without the Super Bee markings crammed on. The black marks make it look like a scuffed Reebok.
This car meets one definition for a muscle car – big V8, rear wheel drive, unsubtle. This is the definition for it’s target market: baby boomers nostalgic about cars they may or may not have even driven, who have extra money in the bank for this kind of toy. In this it succeeds pretty well. For this demographic, 4 doors might even be a plus.
On the other definition – a cheap performance car – this fails horribly. But when you look for cars that fit this now, they are radically different from 60’s muscle cars. Many are front wheel drive – the Neon SRT-4 springs to mind – and a whole set of them are Japanese – the Civic Si and it’s kin. Most turn and stop much better than their 60’s kin, but also tend to have half the engine (that said, even with half the engine many are nearly as fast or even faster than the old ones).
I would say if you are looking for a collectable, this one isn’t. The cars of recent years that will be remembered fondly in 20 or 30 years by the younger generation are the WRX, SRT-4, and similar cars. Look at the 80’s and you’ll see that the MR2 and the Corrola GT-S(!) are becoming collectable (after half the remaining 80’s MR2’s are crashed, they’ll be even more so).
Fact is that the muscle car era really wasn’t.
The muscle car mystique was largely the result of hype used to sell auto enthusiast magazines starting in the late 70’s.
Many of today’s most desirable 60’s muscle cars were actually poor sellers. Remember the Plymouth Superbird? When I was a kid, the local Plymouth dealer couldn’t give them away.
One third of 1960’s Mustangs came from the factory with wheezy single barrel straight 6’s that had the cylinder heads and intake manifolds cast as a single piece! 85% of the V8’s sold were two barrel small blocks.
This new Dodge will appeal to a very tiny group of people who are pining away for an era that only existed in Steve Mcqueen movies.
Okay, technically, it’s ugly and that forward-canted nose can’t be good for aerodynamics. The sheetmetal has been unnaturally bent for the sake of nostalgia, especially in back, even if today’s buyers probably don’t know what the original looks like.
But damn! In black, like the one in my condo’s parking garage, the SRT-8 has some presence. It has a menacing, intimidating look. A friend of mine who cares nothing about cars told me I should get one when I was car-shopping.
Uh, no. I prefer small cars and I care a little bit about mpg; I don’t need to spend half my paycheck on 92 octane gas. Besides, technically, it’s U-G-L-Y.
A Chrysler with an offensively bad interior? You must be joking.;) Love the look of this car, and I like high performance 4 doors. But $46k puts it firmly out of my price range. That and I’ll never own a Chrysler product again…
The Dodge brand these days embodies (as much as you can in sheetmetal) aggession, intimidation, and a devil-may-care attitude about frugality. Call it the “last great act of defiance”. Neat thing is that there are plenty of people in America that feel that way, and they’ll cater to that market until the crap hits the fan.
shaker :
September 13th, 2007 at 6:42 am
The Dodge brand these days embodies (as much as you can in sheetmetal) aggession, intimidation, and a devil-may-care attitude about frugality. Call it the “last great act of defiance”. Neat thing is that there are plenty of people in America that feel that way, and they’ll cater to that market until the crap hits the fan.
Unfortunately, it’s this attitude that’s killing the 2.8. It’s unbelievable that they’ve invested their scarce resources to build this… abomination instead of designing a better Sebring, accelerating development of the next 300, etc.
In 10 years, if Dodge is reduced to building niche, “boutique” cars instead of being a mainstream, full-line car manufacturer, the Super Bee will be a shining example of why.
CeeDragon:
The next 300 already got pulled ahead by a full year, so that’s good, right?
vento97 :
“The stance is so menacing (just sitting in the driveway) which prompted his 10-year old son to say (and I kid you not): “Damn! This makes Japanese cars look GAY!!” ”
That’s not even close to being cool.
I saw a picture of a two door somewhere, it was appealing, even with the yellow, but the logos just look cheap and stupid no matter what.
Don’t care what the automotive intelligentsia has to say, there’s something about a mean looking car that appeals to the kid inside me. Add a burbling exhaust and the feeling of unbridled aggression under the hood, and I want.
On the other hand, the adult in me knows all the reasons that I’ll never have one. And that’s OK, too.
You get what you didn’t pay for…
Down your throat…
Brick Shithouse…
Marisa Miller…
Modern car only because it’s still being built.
A++ Justin.
I don’t care what lipstick you put on it…it’s a piece of shyte at any price. Nice work, Dodge.
That said — I acknowledge that they will sell every one they make…to Dodge and Chrysler employees. Which is why they are in this mess.
Honestly, I don’t know who is going to fail first…GM, F or C. It’s a toss up at this point…and anybody’s guess as to whether or not that first death will save the other two.
CeeDragon :
Unfortunately, it’s this attitude that’s killing the 2.8. It’s unbelievable that they’ve invested their scarce resources to build this… abomination instead of designing a better Sebring, accelerating development of the next 300, etc.
I don’t know that they’ve invested that much into building this thing. From what I can see, isn’t it just a paint job? Maybe a few different interior pieces as well, but it seems to me that its the same as the SRT-8 Charger.
Honestly, I don’t know who is going to fail first…GM, F or C. It’s a toss up at this point…and anybody’s guess as to whether or not that first death will save the other two.
Toyota will probably fail before them. They are expanding at an alarming rate and depend on Japanese government subsidies. A sharp blow from the market will send Toyota spiraling out into oblivion.
$46K for this Transformers look-alike? I’ll pass. There are substantially better cars at that price range that don’t scream out for attention like this one.
Chrysler ought to have named this abomination the Compensator. Ye gods.
I’m surprised by how much I hate the look of this car.
I know the menacing looks are polarizing, but the Charger SRT-8 (especially in black) just looks so damn good. How’d they mess up the looks of this one so badly?
It seems like the Super Bee should have an option that involves guns.
I should point out that very recently I looked at a somewhat tired but solid 69 Superbee with the original 383 swapped for a 440, and a 4 speed. It was selling in the low twenties. For the price of this car I could swap in a crate hemi, new or old, freshen the paint and I’d have something that might appreciate, looks like a muscle car and will go like hell. I’d rather have that.
If I had money to throw away, I’d pick one up just knowing that this breed of car will soon be gone. How big is the gas tank ?
This car might attract women, but they probably won’t be the women you want.
Out here in Northern California, this car screams equal amounts pudgy, 45-year-old white guy and 26-year-old, backwards-baseball-cap asshole.
This car will sell based on its emotional appeal, there is nothing rational about it, as has been pointed out by all of the previous comments.
The price alone will assure that those with more money than sense will be its purchasers.
Chrysler is clearly the Hardee’s/Carl’s Jr of car companies. The gimmick is riding high right now, but won’t last long.
(How they escaped parody in Idiocracy, I’ll never know.)
Make it a two door coupe=hmmmm
Have Marisa drive one in the commercial=reaches for the checkbook
Sometimes the sizzle SELLS the steak kids!
ash78 :
September 13th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Chrysler is clearly the Hardee’s/Carl’s Jr of car companies. The gimmick is riding high right now, but won’t last long.
(How they escaped parody in Idiocracy, I’ll never know.)
Maybe Chrysler will show up in Idiocracy II: The Return of the Mullet. :)
“So fire-up the Super Bee’s honking 6.1-liter Hemi and a baby seal dies somewhere.”
I love that line.
For what meager defense it is, this is the flipside to every rental car beige commuter sedan. And, the LXs are generally good cars, are they not? It’d be better with a stick, but other than that, the only problem is the 10K markup over the regular SRT-8
Chrysler is clearly the Hardee’s/Carl’s Jr of car companies.
o_O Funny you should mention that. I have long associated the Big Three with fast food chains. Chevy (GM) is analogous to McDonald’s, Ford to Burger King, and Dodge strikes me as Arby’s. Dodge is kind of an off-brand brand. I have also equated Chevy to Pepsi, Ford to Coca Cola, and Dodge to Dr. Pepper.
Cars such as this, rightly or wrongly depending on how one looks at cars, is why Chrysler Corporation is in trouble. What it comes down to are numbers; and the market for this car is deep, yet quite narrow (words used here to compensate for a lack of sales figures).
I myself am evaluating a Dodge Magnum R/T-8 for a week and found myself following a Plymouth – maybe a late generation, Chrysler – Prowler and thought, “Hey, this is just like that: a rolling anachronism.”
And when I stopped off at Daisywagen Foreign Car Service, Ltd., to show it to my friend, long-time owner of that business, Larry Dreon, he seemed to agree. One of Larry’s first cars, back when it was just a few years old, was a 1970 and 1/2 Chevrolet Camaro; he knows muscle. But today, he drives a Mercedes-Benz SLK AMG (which he kindly offered to give me a ride in – sometime). Other than that, he drives a Ford F-350 diesel, to haul his “fifth wheel” trailer, he and his wife go camping in. The wife drives an Audi All-Road wagon, as her grocery getter and commuter machine.
So if they can’t sell Larry on a car like the Charger or the Magnum, who would buy these? Larry had a bit of an answer, when he told me that he and his wife had seen a club, devoted solely to the new Magnum R/T-8, with their cars on display, at an outdoor town fair in Snohomish, Washington, last year.
“Instant collectible” is a bit of a bullshit term; but it might honestly apply to these cars. That’s what anachronisms that someone keeps around, oftentimes become.
Still, that’s not enough to save a company. Just ask anyone who’s around that might have worked for Studebaker in 1963.
$46k means that we now have the world’s most expensive banana!
And it’s still SLOWER than the Monaro/GTO, which was THE modern musclecar, and with a manual no less!
I’m glad I got one while the gettin’ was good!
PerfectZero :
“Everything wrong with the US automotive industry is embodied in this very car.”
There is a lot of truth in this. How can they keep wasting money on this nonsense? The notion that this is somehow a threat to Honda and Toyota isn’t even close to being in reality. People from Honda probably look at this car and laugh.
Ahh – THIS is how an American Car should look and be(e)! Having one in the garage is like having Mike Tyson for dinner. All this years from 1970 when I was whining uphill in a SAAB two-stroke 40 hp in second gear (out of four) and was passed by a Mustang with smoking rear wheels, I’ve dreamt of a car like this. And yes, now I’m an empty nester, how could you guess? Imagine what it must feel to wash and wax that front grill! THIS is a CAR! And twenty years from now, when all scientists realize that the changing climate have nothing to do with human behavior, collectors will hire Mike Tyson to force me to sell it for twice the 46K on the price tag now. Hey- where can I get a supercharger and N2O injection installed?
This car would look really cool… with a steely-eyed, thirty-something Steve McQueen behind the wheel.
Trouble is, most Super Bees I’ve seen have had a pasty forty- or fifty-something accountant with an inexorably-growing bald spot at the helm. It’s amazing how quickly a car can go from “schweet” to “Cialis on wheels” with the wrong demographic in the driver’s seat.
There are a lot of ’60s trends worth imitating. Paint color isn’t one of them. Start with offering this thing in gunmetal gray, Dodge. Then we’ll talk about that 6-speed option.
Jan – We may well find out that global warming is not anthropogenic (caused by human activity) in 20 years, but with oil production well past peak few people will be able to afford to put gas in the tank of this, or any, car.
Which might make this car worthless, or worth a fortune. Who knows?
If it wasn’t so tall and boxy I wouldn’t mind the Charger designation. While I’ve found all Chrysler LX cars are plagued with fit/finish problems normally found in third-world production vehicles, its heart is in the right place.
And I’m sure they’ll depreciate real nice 1-2 years from now.
But I’d much rather have an LS2 GTO, slap on a Whipplecharger and kick everyone’s ass. :)
Buick61:
That’s not even close to being cool.
It is to someone with a sense of humor…
One would think that the target market for the SRT8 Super Bee would see through the facade of this being an ode to the heyday of the musclecar era.
My suspicion is that potential buyers for this car will realize that the SRT8 Super Bee is closer to an expensive 1970 4-door Dodge Coronet painted Lemon Twist (that was the name of the ‘High Impact’ yellow back then) with a 440 engine, ‘Ramcharger’ hood scoops and Super Bee stickers slapped on the quarter panels than it is to the real thing. A factory, up-market, hot-rod 4-door Coronet wouldn’t have sold very well back then, and I doubt a modern rendition of one will sell too well now, either.
Even the face of the new Charger has the scowl of a 1970 Coronet.
fahrvergnugen11 :
Buick61:
That’s not even close to being cool.
It is to someone with a sense of humor…
No, it’s still not. That sort of attitude is how hate speech becomes acceptable in the minds of the young.
fahrvergnugen11 :
Buick61:
That’s not even close to being cool.
It is to someone with a sense of humor…
No, it’s still not. That sort of attitude is how hate speech becomes acceptable in the minds of the young.
Hate speech????
Oh please! People are overly sensitive and too coddled these days – a sure sign of weakness that causes one to ask the following question:
Where are we going? And why are we in a handbasket?
Talk about political correctness run amok…
“The kid who swallows the marbles doesn’t get to grow up to become president”
-George Carlin
I think it’s great. For sure a departure from the damned Cam-cords congesting the streets. A big RWD V8 domestic sedan…hello GM??
The LXs are a love it or hate it design anyway, and so is this Superbee. Cam-cord lovers have hated the more aero-styled fullsize RWD Panthers for years and if Chrysler had brought out an aero-styled LX instead of the boxier offering we have today what would the Cam-corders have done then? Still bought Cam-cords.
Keep bringing back the big domestic boxy styling. I would have like to seen this car priced starting at $39 though instead, but still a lot of bang for the buck.
Besides, people that were already interested in Chargers, will welcome this Superbee, and if they can’t afford it, they’ll buy the base V6 Charger instead.
…with oil production well past peak few people will be able to afford to put gas in the tank of this, or any, car.
Daniel Yergin, Cambridge Energy Research Associates, disagrees. Yergin has been the most consistently correct energy prognosticator over the last 40 years regarding energy reserves. He estimates we have 3X all the oil pumped out of the ground to date, ahead of us and recoverable. There are others who think it’s even more. Peak Oil? Not just yet.
http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx?CID=8444
Phil
Have a peek here
http://www.duricy.com/~desoto/desaga/destuff.shtml
and you’ll see that the hottest “standard” 1956 DeSoto is described as follows
The exotic Adventurer aside, the DeSoto Fireflite came with more standard horsepower than most cars in its category. At 255hp., the Fireflite V8 was more robust than anything from Mercury, Oldsmobile, or Pontiac, and equal to Buick’s biggest engine. Zero to 60 took an effortless 10.9 seconds and the top speed was 110 miles per hour.
Wow. My Prius can beat the 1956 DeSoto Fireflite to 60, and is only 4 mph slower at top speed. But then after 51 years, you’d hope that’d be the case, right? Right.
DeSoto was the 1956 Pace Car for the Indianapolis 500, and the first Pace Car to exceed 100 mph while leading the pack.
Two car-guy friends and I were talking about this just this morning; about performance and how the perception of same has changed.
As I mentioned to them, by 1964, 0-60 in 10 seconds was “do-able” in most mid-sized family sedans with small-block V8’s, automatic and 2-barrel carburetor (some needed 4-barrel and dual exhausts to manage the feat).
I’ve recently read someone who was writing online about how fuel is going up, up, up in cost – and it was his opinion that “nobody truly needs to get to 60 mph faster than 10 seconds.”
Yeah, he speaks and writes the truth. But “need” and “want” have nevermore been the same for the human race, correctomundo? Let’s put it this way – a brand new rendition of a 1957 DeSoto would get better mileage than a bluff-faced pug ugly Stupid Utility Vehicle, just due to aerodynamics. Right? Right.
Thus, don’t you think Chrysler might be smart to dump some of the SUV production, and resurrect the 1957 DeSoto and call it the Sportsman (built right, rust-proofed, with the modern HEMI V8 – 330 horsepower)? No “PC” badging here – SPORTSMAN (kind of equivalent of the 1957 Fireflite but with modern underbody parts, hidden air bags, air conditioning, cruise control, etc.)
Yep – chrome and all(actually use stainless steel, polished). Push button selector for the automatic (5 speeds, instead of 3, of course). Hidden air bag in the stainless steel steering wheel center (not chrome appearing – to cut glare). Sell the 4 door sedan (don’t leave the “chrome” off the window surrounds! also, front and rear bench seats, room for six), the 2 door hardtop and yeah, the 2 door convertible!
The dual exhausts have to go through the twin portals in the rear bumper, just like 1957….
Price them at $19,000 – $20,000 and $23,000 and watch them fly off the dealer lots! Since they’d be sold as a DeSoto, allow every Chrysler, Dodge, or Jeep dealer to sell them, but use “Saturn” style no haggle pricing. There’s the price. Take it or leave it. The live rear axle would be essentially that of the ½ ton pickup – cheap to produce, already in mass production. For that matter, the 2wd pickup front suspension could probably be used, too, just choose the springs and shocks for the right ride. The engine and tranny would be from the Chrysler 300. Offer the 425 horsepower HEMI V8 as an extra-cost “Adventurer” option on the two door cars only, with gold (colored) body side trim, gold trim “turbine” alloy wheels instead of steel wheels and wheel covers (remember them?). Put swivel front bucket seats in the Adventurer (actually this was an option in 1959 cars but who’s counting?) Add about $2000 for the Adventurer, add another grand for optional leather interior – as in the whole interior, door panels and all.
Don’t forget the 2-tone paint and optional brushed stainless steel roofs. $100 and $500 extra respectively. There’s your options.
Here are some pix of ’57 DeSotos. http://www.angelfire.com/de/petrus/
As for a lower priced version with the overhead cam 4.7 V8 or V6, why bother? Fahgedaboudit. The 4.7 motor only gives 1 mpg better than the 330hp HEMI and gives up 95 horsepower. Go for the Gold (Adventurer), eh?
Chrysler would be back in profit within 6 months….. how could “Japan Inc” compete with that – resurrect the 1957 Toyopet?! (I don’t THINK so).
Like the idea? Actually credit for most of it goes to Joe Sherlock http://www.joesherlock.com
Kudos, Joe. Much as I love my Prius for practical car work, I’m not adverse to a fun car, too.
Given enough money, I’d get a black Adventurer convertible with white leather interior, and the Aventurer gold exterior trim and forged alloy wheels…. So what if it only saw 1000 miles a year? That’d be my business….
Each car has a purpose. “Showoffmobile” or “Practical Commmuter” or “Stuff hauler” for those folks who actually truly need pickups, for example…. (personally I find a car and open trailer far more useful and efficient overall but that’s me).
I take back what I said about how ugly this car is.
I saw one in person today and it was pretty cool. I still like the standard SRT-8’s better but it’s not a bad looking car by any means. Somehow that picture makes it look real ugly though.
Hey, fahrvergnugen11: Maybe you thought Buick61 was worried about “hate speech” against Japanese cars?
Worrying about THAT would be “political correctness run amok”, yes… But your theory about that phrase being “cool” to “someone with a sense of humor” is bogus: I’m fairly sure there are at least some gay people who are, even in your opinion, endowed with such a sense (right?) … And yet, I very much doubt any of them find that “cool”.
Such puerile twaddle is NEVER “cool”. Just learn that; stop arguing about it.
Thank you.
Mr. Berkowitz evidentially has not done his homework. The SRT8 outmaneuvered the Mazda MX5, Miata and the Pontiac Solstice just to name a few in the slalom. For a 4200+ pound car that is impressive.
213Cobra– Yergin has been wrong about many things, including his advice to electric producers to switch to natural gas, which is in full scale depletion in the United States. Furthermore, if there is so much oil left as you assert, then explain why the world peaked in total crude production in 2005? We’re at peak, and if you honestly think we’re going to be driving cars as we do today in 20 years, you’re hopelessly misinformed.
Yergin has been wrong about many things, including his advice to electric producers to switch to natural gas, which is in full scale depletion in the United States.
Nobody’s perfect, but so far, Yergin hasn’t been wrong about oil.
if there is so much oil left as you assert, then explain why the world peaked in total crude production in 2005?
A given year’s production has nothing to do with how much recoverable oil is left in the planet. It only reflects what current wells produced as a response to demand. Recoverability is influenced by price, continued discovery & exploration, and by evolving technical capabilities. Oil sands and shale oil haven’t been heavily exploited yet. The arctic is promising for added large-scale reserves. Ultra-deep drilling is bringing previously inaccessible oil fields within reach. And even new recovery techniques are ramping up production in some aged US oil wells previously considered spent.
We’re at peak, and if you honestly think we’re going to be driving cars as we do today in 20 years, you’re hopelessly misinformed.
Best evidence so far says we’re not at peak. But nevertheless, while I expect vehicle propulsion to diversify over the next 20 years, you can count on internal combustion engines still being a big part of that mix in 2027.
Phil
Phil,
There are several problems with what you’ve written.
First, discovery of oil peaked 40 years ago. We’re currently consuming four barrels for every one that is found.
Second, there is only so much oil that can ever be recovered from a field, and most of those techniques (“bottle-brush”, etc) have already been employed. Saudi Arabia is already into tertiary production, meaning they are pumping vast amounts of seawater into their fields to keep them pressurized. Their supergiant field, Ghawar, might be close to the end of its productive life, which is a serious problem, as several other of the world’s major oil fields are now in full scale depletion– the North Sea, Cantarell and Burgan are all examples of major oil fields whose production is rapidly declining each year.
Thirdly, oil shale and tar sands are proving to be extremely difficult, and may never be ecomically feasible to produce. The tar sands, for example, require enormous amounts of energy and fresh water to produce a useful product. Deep water (Like the so-called “Jack” discovery) are equally as expensive. Which leads me to my fourth point:
Which is to say that there is a limit on how much energy can be returned from energy invested (EROEI). If it takes 1.2 barrels of oil to produce one barrel, then it doesn’t really matter if that barrel is worth a million dollars, it can’t be sustainably produced. Even if there is a positive return on energy, these things are likely to remain expensive to produce.
The backside of the Peak means that oil is going to be much more difficult to produce, meaning it will be more expensive.
You and Cobra seem to have a great deal of faith in Yergin, whose expertise is in International Relations. Why not trust the true oil men, like T. Boone Pickens and Matt Simmons, both who believe we’re at Peak? Or the petroleum geologists like Colin Campbell, Kenneth Deffeyes, Hubbert, etc who spent their careers looking for the damn stuff and who all believe we’re in trouble (and at peak)?
You suffer from what James Howard Kunstler calls the “Jeminy Cricket Syndrome” whereby because we want it to be true, then all we have to do is beleive to make it real. What if you and Yergin are wrong (which he’s been about oil– it’s not very likely that there’s 2-3 trillion barrels left) and this childish optimism backfires leaving us in a world where we didn’t even consider the possibility that science & technology didn’t deliver a “just in time” solution? I don’t expect you to believe me, but I’d prefer you didn’t put your faith in a guy like Yergin either…
You and Cobra seem to have a great deal of faith in Yergin
We’re one and the same.
Why not trust the true oil men, like T. Boone Pickens and Matt Simmons, both who believe we’re at Peak? Or the petroleum geologists like Colin Campbell, Kenneth Deffeyes, Hubbert, etc who spent their careers looking for the damn stuff and who all believe we’re in trouble (and at peak)?
Because Yergin’s been right for 35 years and the others have not.
You suffer from what James Howard Kunstler calls the “Jeminy Cricket Syndrome” whereby because we want it to be true, then all we have to do is believe to make it real.
This is not true. There are many other reasons to get off the oil drip as soon as possible, and I’d like to see that happen sooner rather than later. But not at the cost of stalling the entire world economy and the economic lifting of the second through fourth worlds.
First, discovery of oil peaked 40 years ago. We’re currently consuming four barrels for every one that is found.
This is a central point of disagreement.
Second, there is only so much oil that can ever be recovered from a field, and most of those techniques (”bottle-brush”, etc) have already been employed.
Following from:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0115-00/fs-0115-00po.pdf
And this source also documents enhanced recovery from domestic oil fields thought idle.
“…The onshore fields of the conterminous United States were studied as part of the 1995 USGS National Oil and Gas Resource Assessment (reported by Attanasi and others, 1999) and are summarized in figure 3. After 90 years of production, reserves continue to grow for both oil and gas. As part of their study, Attanasi and Root (1994)
divided U.S. onshore fields into two groups, common and outlier fields. Outlier fields were defined as fields whose reserve growth
deviated from the general trend of common fields. Fields with heavy oil, such as the Midway-Sunset field in California, where a sudden increase in recovery many years after discovery is attributed to the application of thermal recovery methods, are considered to be outliers….”
If it takes 1.2 barrels of oil to produce one barrel, then it doesn’t really matter if that barrel is worth a million dollars, it can’t be sustainably produced.
Agreed.
Even if there is a positive return on energy, these things are likely to remain expensive to produce.
There’s the question. History says what’s out of reach now will descend in cost relative to our ability to afford it.
Phil
We’ll have to “agree to disagree” here, as I doubt I will persuade you to reconsider your opinions about Yergin. His record has been far from stellar, particularly on natural gas, but also with oil. Based on CERA’s estimates from a few years back, we’d be at about 93-94 million barrels of production per day, which is off by about 10 million. And as far as the USGS is concerned, their report isn’t really taken seriously by anyone– especially the oil companies.
Earlier you stated the it doesn’t really matter what daily production rates are, that only the reserves count. This simply couldn’t be more wrong; daily production is the only thing that matters, as we simply can’t fuel our entire infrastructure upon the hopes of the future.
Again, I hope I’m wrong here. But to simply push aside legitimate concerns of permanent energy austerity in order to keep the business of globalization going a bit longer is short-sighted in my opinion. These things have to be considered, no matter how “doomsdayish” they appear…
It should also be said the Yergin has been saying– for the past two years– that oil is going to drop below $40 a barrel, which it clearly has not done.
Ultimately, we should revisit this conversation in several years– if oil has become more expensive, and it is clearly established that 2005-06 was the peak of production, then perhaps we should take the consequences of energy austerity more seriously; if things have stabilized, then I’ll be more inclined to take your (and CERA’s) position.
We’ll have to “agree to disagree” here, as I doubt I will persuade you to reconsider your opinions about Yergin. His record has been far from stellar, particularly on natural gas, but also with oil. Based on CERA’s estimates from a few years back, we’d be at about 93-94 million barrels of production per day, which is off by about 10 million.
You express the dissent of a serious person, rather than reflexive opposition, so you deserve a particularly considered response.
No one has a perfect record on energy forecasting, and I agree Yergin has been less accurate in his prognostications regarding natural gas than oil. The main thing in his favor is that repeatedly when experts around him have projected imminent disruption, he’s anticipated discovery and supply increases. The fact that only now are we seeing the real-dollars price of oil pivoting around the previous record high in 1981, is testimony to Yergin’s prior analysis. Moreover, the 1981 high was induced by an artificial disruption, and today’s lofty prices include an uncertainty tax imposed by futures traders to “price” security concerns about Middle-East supplies, not to mention that Iraq has been largely offline for a several years. The price isn’t a real reflection of the actual planetary supply.
Earlier you stated the it doesn’t really matter what daily production rates are, that only the reserves count. This simply couldn’t be more wrong; daily production is the only thing that matters, as we simply can’t fuel our entire infrastructure upon the hopes of the future.
Perhaps you didn’t connect that comment to the posting it was in response to. A prior poster cited a sag in daily production as proof that we’re past peak and running out of oil. I responded that daily production rates are affected by a variety of artificial factors unrelated to the amount of oil left in the ground. Reserves reflect what we have identified or strongly suspect is recoverable.
Now, the latter part of your rejoinder gets to the real rub. You’re correct of course that we can’t fuel our entire infrastructure on hopes. We need energy. I see a mix of assets and liabilities. On the asset side, I have confidence that more oil is to be found and that both old and new supplies will become recoverable through technology and efficiency innovation. Also, the price of oil by itself isn’t important as much as its affordability. That is, our current real-dollars price surge is more affordable to us today than the last equivalent, because we have both a vastly more productive economy to pay for it, and we are using much less energy per percentage point of economic growth. Further, we could be doing much more with other energy sources to alleviate pressure on oil supplies. I’ll elaborate on that in a moment. On the liability side, we have the human factors of inertia, intransigence, political mediocrity and apathy.
No one knows for sure who’s right about total oil reserves, known and unknown. You might say it’s prudent to go with the oil guys like Hubbert or Pickens — all smart, sophisticated domain experts — because there’s no risk in being wrong. If there’s more oil than they think, great. We can stretch it further. And that’s tempting. But trillions of dollars in public policy decisions driven by a Chicken Little political mentality aren’t warranted by that view, and that’s what’s building, aided and abetted by unreasoned panic over climate change.
You might say that betting on Yergin is dangerous because if we don’t mitigate oil consumption and Yergin is wrong, we’ll hit a brick wall at 100 mph . Catastrophe.
Regardless how much oil is in the ground, the US is self-interested in reducing oil dependency, unless our vast shale oil reserves become economically recoverable. Leave climate change out of it completely. We have economic, political, foreign policy and environmental reasons. The issue is that transportation isn’t the place to start. Mobility is essential to prosperity, and liquid fuels are essential to mobility for the time being. But we could undertake a focused program over 5 – 10 years to cease burning oil for power generation. We could be subsidizing mass adoption of rooftop solar among homeowners and businesses. We could build high-scale solar array farms in a couple 100 x 100 mile tracts in the sunny southwest. These kinds of things are no longer technically or economically precluded. They are now a matter of will.
Further, the automobile is already on the mend in this respect. Already, in every class of vehicle, even SUVs, new models are more efficient than the last versions, even while delivering more power. We can get more composites into cars to reduce weight and increase efficiency. GM has promising hybrid technology for heavier-duty vehicles beginning this year. Ford will spread its hybrid system into cars. Consumers can step back and wean themselves off some of the luxuries that add needless mass to vehicles. We can’t control what China and India do, but we can get our house more in order.
Before coal, England faced an energy emergency when it deforested the British Isles. Coal averted a setback. Oil gave us more punch with much less pollution than we had with coal and horse-drawn transportation. As late as the 1890s something like a thousand horses a week keeled over in New York City alone, often taking days to remove. Widespread diphtheria was among the consequences. We’re resourceful. We’ll find our way through the next transition too. Making use of solar power in its various forms is essential to the mix, for it is the one energy source that there is a permanent surplus of relative to human needs. Nuclear will come back. Oil with stretch on for both energy and as basis for synthetic materials. America will use clean coal. The US has the assets to be alright.
Again, I hope I’m wrong here. But to simply push aside legitimate concerns of permanent energy austerity in order to keep the business of globalization going a bit longer is short-sighted in my opinion. These things have to be considered, no matter how “doomsdayish” they appear…
This is what I object to in the political realm, this idea of permanent energy austerity. We don’t need austerity, we need efficiency and responsible use. I don’t think we’re talking about degrading living standards. We don’t have to squeeze everyone into buses and trains. We don’t have to return to horsesh*t in the street. In America, there is much still to be done to make housing more efficient. Our auto fleet will be more efficient in 10 years than it is now even if no further regulation comes on scene. It’s not austerity, it’s better use of what we have.
35 years ago I drove a car that returned 40mpg at a sustained 75mph highway. Today, no one makes an equivalent car that I can fit in and it’s not because I got any larger. I haven’t. But sports cars have gotten smaller inside. Today I have a 443hp V8-powered car that, surprisingly, returns 25mpg at a sustained 80mph highway. It’s a great car and I enjoy it. But you know what? It’s not more fun that that 1750 lbs. car of 35 years ago.
Build me a stylish, 1800 lbs. sports car with, say, a 180 hp 4 cylinder mill and beautiful surfaces and I’m in. Something I can fit in at 6’3″ / 180 lbs., and drive comfortably at least 300 miles. That and other advancements are going to come, because they have to. They always do.
Phil
If oil stays at $80+ a barrel we will definitely see more supply cropping up in the form of unconventional oils. Extraction of oil from sources such as oil shale is expensive, but profitable at prices over $50 a barrel. Current in-situ processes have an EROEI of 3.5.[1] The capital costs involved in developing this resource would be large and oil companies are reluctant to pull the trigger because they were badly burned in the 1980s. Billions were poured into oil shale projects in Colorado right as oil prices collapsed. (The project sites are now retirement communities.) If this resource is developed, the US would hold 4/5 of the world’s largest reserves with over 2 trillion barrels of oil locked up in large economically viable deposits. This is 10 times the size of Saudi Arabia’s reserves. Oil is here to stay. There are no real alternatives to fossil fuels in the transportation sector in the immediate future.
This whole notion of peak oil being a massive disaster is sensationalist. Conventional oil production will certainly peak within the next few decades, however as prices rise new resources will become available. The increase will be gradual and people will adjust their consumption habits. I think its interesting to note that even at oil prices of $200 per barrel, our gas prices will remain lower than European gas prices today(assuming no new taxes). There are a whole lot of things you can do to recover/synthesize oil at $200 a barrel.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahogany_Research_Project
if your retarded enough to want the vehicle in a 2 door version to pay an extra 100 to 200 on your insurance go for it. As for the automatic trans. Its an auto stick you can switch to 5 speed if you want to. Just like the some of the BMW’s have on thier option. So if you want to still whine about how bad the car is your making yourself sound retarded. Most of you dont have the 46,000 to pay for it so i guess that makes u mad?
But unless tail out powerslides are your staple diet
If there is any other way to drive, I’ll leave it for the broken spirit minivan drivers.
bottom line: it sucks call it something else and leave the charger alone the same goes for the challenger automatic wtf? chrysler is f’in everything up