Find Reviews by Make:
Latest Car Reviews view all
Latest Product Reviews view all
Recent Comments
- Lou_BC: @Carlson Fan – My ’68 has 2.75:1 rear end. It buries the speedo needle. It came stock with the...
- theflyersfan: Inside the Chicago Loop and up Lakeshore Drive rivals any great city in the world. The beauty of the...
- A Scientist: When I was a teenager in the mid 90’s you could have one of these rolling s-boxes for a case of...
- Mike Beranek: You should expand your knowledge base, clearly it’s insufficient. The race isn’t in...
- Mike Beranek: ^^THIS^^ Chicago is FOX’s whipping boy because it makes Illinois a progressive bastion in the...
Car Reviews By Make view all
New Car Research
Who We Are
- Tim Healey
Managing Editor - Matt Posky
News and Social Media Contributor - Timothy Cain
Sales Analyst - Murilee Martin
Junkyard Finds Author - Matthew Guy
Contributor - Chris Tonn
Contributor
- Adam Tonge
- Bozi Tatarevic
- Corey Lewis
- Jo Borras
- Mark Baruth
- Ronnie Schreiber
Ahhh, Magnum III by Audi… Based on the Magnum II by Lincoln… Copied from Magnum I by Dodge…
Yeah, there’s such a HUGE market for station wagons that Dodge is dropping the Magnum due to it’s phenomenol sales rate.
I’d argue that the Magnum is an excellent machine that isn’t selling well because Dodge did not market it well.
I’d also argue that the Dodge Magnum is simply too cool for the American sheeple to ‘get’.
It’s a real shame that gas prices are so high and Chrysler is in deep financial trouble because their current muscle car line up is excellent. If they made each model a few hundred lbs. lighter and refined a few points their muscle line up would be near ‘best ever’ territory.
If not for Consumer Reports’ below average reliability rating, and a previous unsatisfactory experience with Chrysler warranty administration, we would have seriously considered a Dodge Magnum.
I’d argue that the Magnum is an excellent machine that isn’t selling well because Dodge did not market it well.
That’s probably true. I don’t think I saw much in the way of advertising for the thing, at least not compared to the Challenger and 300.
I’d also argue that the Dodge Magnum is simply too cool for the American sheeple to ‘get’.
I’m not sure. The Maggie was about the only Chrysler, excepting the PT and 300, that had traction in the urban markets. When I still lived in Toronto, I used to see Magnums regularly, probably more often than I saw 300s. The problem was that Chrysler really has very little urban presence, and their traditional suburban/rural buyers was going to split the difference between the Charger and the Ram.
The Magnum was “werd”, the Charger and Challenger are “yee-haw”. Generally, the first demographic sets more trends, and is certainly new the Chrysler, but didn’t provide the raw volume Daimler’s quarter-happy management needed Pity, because if they’d improved the car yearly (five-speeds across the line, a diesel) I think they would have continued to grab new customers.
That said, they did the same with the PT Cruiser: it had traction with new buyers, and Chrysler sat on it’s laurels and let the car rot. The refresh made it worse (can’t have the half-decade-old PT showing up the Caliber, can we?) between stylistic choices and decontenting.
All this is moot now. I liked the Magnum, and I was sad to see it go in favour of the retrograde flash-in-the-pan that is the Challenger.
I’d also point out that the stock Magnum looks far better in person than in photos.
Most photos make the car look a bit more elongated and emaciated than it really is.
In person the car radiates a “chopped Merc” vibe.
Note these comments do not apply to the SXTs rolling around on 22″s in hideous purple and silver two-tone paint schemes.
@psarhjinian
I also thought the magnum was cool looking, but even if I could have had it with a clutch, I wouldn’t have bought it because I like to be able to see out of a car in all directions.
Alright, let me see… A three-ton four-by-four with a lowered “sport” chassis, 25-inch rims with low-profile tyres (so it basically sucks on AND off road). The fuel economy is probably measured in gallons per mile rather than mpg. Throw in the fleet-footed grace of a blue whale and all the aerodynamic fluidity of Buckingham Palace… am I really the only one here to think the car in the picture is an all-out affront to human intelligence?
That’s better? Well I quess it couldn’t get any worse….Still a gothic monstrosity.
The Magnum is a great looking RWD wagon with plenty of room, decent driving dynamics, and either the 3.5 or Hemi are good engine choices. With the 3.5 V6 it actually got decent gas mileage too.
It died because it had zero marketing. I was THIS close to buying one instead of my ’94 Roadmaster, but settled on the latter because I wanted a v8, and couldn’t afford one in the Magnum.
This… thing… in the picture is no Magnum. It looks like a Porsche Cayenne ripoff, and as such is completely pointless, ugly, and no doubt overpriced. It’s about as special as a shit-flavoured lollypop.
Why all the Magnum talk? Isn’t this a Q7 SUV?
@discoholic
no, you’re not the only one. Well said
Is TTAC a sponsor of SEMA? :-)
ChrisHaak:
Because Wolven compared it first to a Magnum, for some odd reason. I agree it’s an SUV, not a wagon.
Hmmm… SUV huh? How can you tell? When did stationwagons become SUV’s?
If it’s an SUV, do the greenies hate it as much as they do a Yukon?
Because it’s tall, has ground clearence and rugged suspension, and the body shape is much taller and more bulbous than a wagon.
Also, Audi calls their Q-series an SUV, I believe. :p And greenies probably do hate it as much as most SUVs.