Chargers

[HarleyEarl]

Doing OK: Dodge's Charger showing positive signs, but not selling like 300 MARY CONNELLY | Automotive News Posted Date: 12/12/05 DETROIT -- Since its launch in May, the 2006 Dodge Charger has attracted a younger buyer to Dodge and is selling for a higher price than other premium mid-sized vehicles. But more Chargers are sold with rebates than is typical in the premium mid-sized car segment. And it's taking dealers longer to sell the Charger than its platform-mate, the Chrysler 300, according to data from the Power Information Network. Power data show that in its seventh month on sale, the Charger averaged 36 days on dealership lots before selling. The 300 averaged 16 days in its seventh month in the market. "It is doing respectably," says Tom Libby, senior director of industry analysis at the Power Information Network. "But it requires more time to determine how it will do long-term." The car held 3.7 percent of the premium mid-sized car segment, Libby says. Vehicles in the segment include the Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Chevrolet Impala and Nissan Altima. Through November, Dodge sold 37,667 Chargers. November sales were 6,827 units. Chrysler has produced 69,328 Chargers this year. By comparison, Chrysler built 68,616 units of the 300 in its first seven months, from January through July of 2004. After the 300 went on sale in April 2004, Chrysler reported 82,721 sales during the next seven months, although that included some sales of the predecessor vehicle, the 300M. Power data show: >> In November, 88 percent of Charger sales included a customer cash rebate, compared with 52 percent for the segment. But the Charger rebate averaged $1,104 a unit in November - below the segment average of $1,487. >> In November, the Charger's average transaction price, less customer cash rebate, averaged $29,366. That compares with a segment average of $23,550. >> The Charger is capturing a younger buyer than the segment average. In November, Charger buyers averaged 40 years of age, compared with 44 years for the segment.

[Flybrian]

Good. I'd rather not see the roads flooded with them as that only serves to eliminate its specialness. That what makes the 300 even more unappealing - the fact that its ev-ery-where and most I see are white, silver, or tan base rentals. Charger looks better and offers an appropriate interior for the price.

[balthazar]

Wait- isn't the industry 'on-lot' average like 60 days?? If so, why the hell would this piece take a hot selling car, running (again: if so) near to half the industry average 'on-lot' time... selling to a younger demographic... with less incentives... at a higher price... and approach the story with "not selling like" and "taking dealers longer to sell"????

Oh; that's right, I forgot; the media is what pigs find on their hooves and say 'Ewwwh, what did I step in?"

[knightfan26917]

Doing OK: Dodge's Charger showing positive signs, but not selling like 300
MARY CONNELLY | Automotive News
Posted Date: 12/12/05
DETROIT -- Since its launch in May, the 2006 Dodge Charger has attracted a younger buyer to Dodge and is selling for a higher price than other premium mid-sized vehicles.
...
the Charger averaged 36 days on dealership lots before selling.

Tell that to the Dodge dealership I had contacted regarding the Charger. The salesperson called me the Thursday evening I went into the ER to tell me a dark blue base Charger had just arrived. It was sold by that Saturday, way before I was able to get to the dealership to even see it.....

*shrugs*

But, of course, your mileage may vary....


Cort, "Mr MC" / "Mr Road Trip", 32swm/pig valve/pacemaker
MC:family.IL.guide.future = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort/
Models.HO = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort/trainroom.html
"The stars might lie, but the numbers never do" ... Mary Chapin-Carpenter ... 'I Feel Lucky'

[turbo200]

well, i think the point is it's not selling like the 300, which is incredible if it's still only taking 16 days to sell. i see why you'd say that, 36 days is still really great, and more than "respectable", but they're quoting an analyst there. as the title says, "it's not the 300", that's an even-handed comment. I don't detect bias there. I just think it's wonderful these cars are doing so well for Chrysler when they weren't even going to introduce a Charger. Little differentiation with a totally unique exterior and a solid platform to begin with =sales success. Edited December 13, 2005 by turbo200

[CSpec]

I really hate how Chrysler gets a free pass with the media for the identical crappy interiors in the LXs.

[balthazar]

well, i think the point is it's not selling like the 300, which is incredible if it's still only taking 16 days to sell. i see why you'd say that, 36 days is still really great, and more than "respectable", but they're quoting an analyst there. as the title says, "it's not the 300", that's an even-handed comment. I don't detect bias there.

It's just not neccessary; including a negative slant in a piece about a car that's doing terrifically well in numerous ways and sticking that slant in the headline to boot. Why??? I don't believe the 300 & Charger are direct competitors, price-wise; why not a piece on how the Charger's 'on-lot' days are compared to one of it's competitors? Why always the need to throw at least one prominent negative into an otherwise positive article?
Since the 300's inclusion is illogical and unneccesary, I can draw no other conclusion but: bias.

[BrewSwillis]

I really hate how Chrysler gets a free pass with the media for the identical crappy interiors in the LXs.

[post="57849"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The only identical interiors are in the Magnum and Charger.......and if you think about it, they should be commended for making the exterior if the two vehicles different......because you could argue that the Charger is the sedan version of the Magnum wagon. How many other sedans, with a wagon counterpart, have different EXTERIORS? (little to none) Now how many have the same INTERIOR?......most likely all of them!

[VenSeattle]

The Charger & 300 interiors are still very similar:

[Sixty8panther]

Balthazar: LOL :metal: :D When it's a hideous and useless Honda Ridgeline they look for the sliver lining... but when it's a fantascit German/American product blend with a wining formula all they can do is point out the flaws... so predictable and yet sickening. Edited December 16, 2005 by Sixty8panther

[HarleyEarl]

It's just not neccessary; including a negative slant in a piece about a car that's doing terrifically well in numerous ways and sticking that slant in the headline to boot. Why??? I don't believe the 300 & Charger are direct competitors, price-wise; why not a piece on how the Charger's 'on-lot' days are compared to one of it's competitors? Why always the need to throw at least one prominent negative into an otherwise positive article?
Since the 300's inclusion is illogical and unneccesary, I can draw no other conclusion but: bias.

[post="57886"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I agree completely.

[Hudson]

The Charger & 300 interiors are still very similar:

Yes...let's look at those two dashboards. The Dodge's dash sweeps from driver's side over the center stack while the 300 has distinct driver's, center, and passenger's areas. The Chrysler has the HVAC controls lower than in the Dodge and the Chrysler has an analog clock splitting the center HVAC vents, while the Dodge's vents are right next to each other. The Dodge door handle has a round opening for your hand while the rectangular opening in the Chrysler is a bit more formal. The gauges on the Dodge are closer together in the middle while the Chrysler has distinct right and left overlapping gauges.

They share basic layouts and placement of some lesser switches. But with those similarities, I can find you completely unrelated instrument panels that would be "very similar" as well.

[ocnblu]

How can you beat a Charger SE for $22,995? It's got a 250 horse engine with manumatic transmission, 17" wheels, RWD, and a whole lot of attitude. The only skimping I see is in the sound system (on paper, I haven't heard the base system), and arguably, the use of wheel covers instead of alloys. I think the Charger is quite a buy. A base Charger with decent aftermarket 17" rims would be something I'd be proud to drive.

[Flybrian]

How can you beat a Charger SE for $22,995?  It's got a 250 horse engine with manumatic transmission, 17" wheels, RWD, and a whole lot of attitude.  The only skimping I see is in the sound system (on paper, I haven't heard the base system), and arguably, the use of wheel covers instead of alloys.  I think the Charger is quite a buy.  A base Charger with decent aftermarket 17" rims would be something I'd be proud to drive.

[post="60333"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

This is what almost bothers me - how come a base Charger is so much better a car than a base 300? More hp/torque, more trunk space(?!?!), standard ABS w/brake assist, standard traction control, standard stability control, and better looks for $2,000 less. You can't get any of that on the 300!

You've gotta be brain damaged (or Alamo) to get a 300 base.

Why isn't this pointed out by the Chrysler-humpers?

[regfootball]

the charger has bad looks. not dreadful, just queer. musclecars shouldn't look queer. that's probably not the right word, even. it looks 'tortured' or something. uncomfortable? help me out here..... Edited December 21, 2005 by regfootball

[enzl]

the charger has bad looks.  not dreadful, just queer.  musclecars shouldn't look queer.

that's probably not the right word, even.  it looks 'tortured' or something.  uncomfortable?  help me out here.....

[post="61789"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Awkward?

I still give a long glance at certain color/tire combos. I can understand the negative tone of the article because of three things:

1. the 300 has been such a runaway success, the Charger's sales pale a little
2. The Intrepid was a better seller in its heyday IIRC
3. The sacrilege of using the Charger name on a sedan
DCX has to be ecstatic over the overall success of the platform...they'll sell over 220K LX's in '05.

[regfootball]

The Charger & 300 interiors are still very similar:

[post="59714"][/post]

yes they are similar, they both reek of cheap plastic.

[regfootball]

How can you beat a Charger SE for $22,995?  It's got a 250 horse engine with manumatic transmission, 17" wheels, RWD, and a whole lot of attitude.  The only skimping I see is in the sound system (on paper, I haven't heard the base system), and arguably, the use of wheel covers instead of alloys.  I think the Charger is quite a buy.  A base Charger with decent aftermarket 17" rims would be something I'd be proud to drive.

[post="60333"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

perhaps chrysler could have pulled their head out of their ass and offered AWD on the charger. Edited December 26, 2005 by regfootball

[regfootball]

Awkward?

I still give a long glance at certain color/tire combos. I can understand the negative tone of the article because of three things:

1. the 300 has been such a runaway success, the Charger's sales pale a little
2. The Intrepid was a better seller in its heyday IIRC
3. The sacrilege of using the Charger name on a sedan
DCX has to be ecstatic over the overall success of the platform...they'll sell over 220K LX's in '05.

[post="62585"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

all good points. the intrepid sold well because it was a mainstream fwd car, whereas the charger just proves how limited in appeal a rear drive only car marketed as a muscle/redneck/retro mobile will not appeal to the mainstream volume segment.....and dodge is a volume brand. Edited December 26, 2005 by regfootball

[knightfan26917]

3. The sacrilege of using the Charger name on a sedan

Not sure I buy this one completely. After all, it is still RWD like other Chargers.... Chevy can't say the same thing about what they claim is the "monte carlo" since 1995...............


Cort, "Mr MC" / "Mr Road Trip", 32swm/pig valve/pacemaker
MC:family.IL.guide.future = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort/
Models.HO = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort/trainroom.html
"It's coming down to nothing more than apathy" ... The Fray ... 'Over My Head'

[balthazar]

all good points.  the intrepid sold well because it was a mainstream fwd car, whereas the charger just proves how limited in appeal a rear drive only car marketed as a muscle/redneck/retro mobile will not appeal to the mainstream volume segment.....and dodge is a volume brand.

I think attributing Intrepid sales primarily to the fact that it was FWD is a stretch. The very short on-lot numbers show consumers are snapping them up; they're not languishing at the dealer, that's for sure. Suggests Charger production is still ramping up.
Charger is not a retro design, reg, sorry. Name: yes, design: no. "Redneck" is not a legitimate charge IMO. It's sales will increase. Also, there's no reason not to combine Charger & Magnum sales numbers in an analysis of how well this type of Dodge model is appealing to the market-- the cars could (should??) easily have the same model name. What are those figures together to date?