Jalopnik 
Enter your username and password.
Detroit, 11:44 PM
Sat Dec 5
8 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Ray Wert | | AIM
Road Test Editor:
Wes Siler |
Weekend Editor:
Murilee Martin |
Associate Editor - Houston:
Associate Editor - Detroit:
Editor-at-Large:
Contributors:
John Krewson |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/02/09
09/02/09
But I still don't think you quite get it.
Oddly enough, though, the one that I least expected you to understand was the one you liked the best, the Mustang. I'm glad that you liked it.
As for the Challenger, it is no more a caricature of it's past self than the other two. You also seem to subconsciously hit upon the point that it is the cruiser of the three, and while you harp about the (admittedly present) lack of cornering ability compared to the other two, you miss the point that that isn't what it was intended for. And you and Natalie couldn't get any grunt out of a 370hp, 5.7 liter Hemi, I think you might have been doing something wrong. Perhaps a longer trip in a place other than New York (like, say a long, open highway) might have been a better venue. I won't argue about the interior, as it was indeed a let down on an otherwise gorgeous car, but keep this in mind: How much do those European cars that you quote as having nice interiors cost when compared to three cars that you tested here? Considering that in some parts of Europe, a GTI can go for $40K+, I think that might explain a little. You get better materials, its true, but you also pay a lot more for it.
And then there is my beloved Camaro. As for the interior, see my argument for the Challenger. As for the 300hp V6, see my argument for the Challenger. The V6 may not be a rocket per se, but by the same token, 6.3 seconds to 60mph is certainly not sluggish. It's also as fast or faster than almost every European performance car in it's price range. You are also correct about the issue of interior space, but interior comfort for back passengers is not what the Camaro is about. I'll reserve further Camaro comments until I read your post about your complete Camaro experience (which I am anxiously awaiting).
But, in summary, I think that the problem is that too many people try to judge a car on a subjective universal standard of what they think that cars that fit a certain general appearance should be. I think that this was clearly the case here. Just as most Americans choose to pigeon-hole hatchbacks and wagons, I think you have done the same to a certain extent. Again, the case in point is the Challenger. I really found it to be a much more pleasant car than you make it out to be, but, then, I looked at the car as being less of a high-strung sports car and more of a large, comfortable, muscular cruiser, not at all unlike how I would perceive a Harley-Davidson Softail Deluxe or a BMW K1200LT.
It's fine to dislike a car, but to judge it based on a subjective standard of what you think such cars should be, as opposed to judging it by the standard of what the car is intended to be, and trying to be, is a mistake.
09/02/09
Counter point: you harp on him judging the cars based on
" a subjective standard of what you think such cars should be, as opposed to judging it by the standard of what the car is intended to be".
While the comparison between GT500:RT:V6 Camaro isn't exactly apples-to-apples, it's fair to call them all muscle cars, with a similarity of intent and purpose.
To compare and contrast across models and state one's impressions and preferences is certainly fair. After all, all such evaluations are inherently subjective.
After all, one man's "large, comfortable, muscular cruiser" is another mans pudgy not-fast-enough 3rd place muscle car.
Lastly, I'm just gonna weigh in with Peter on the looks thing. The Mustang and Camaro or interpretations/evolutions/homages to their past. The Challenger is as direct a copy as one could hope to make given the chassis they were working with and modern requirements. To Peter and I, wrapping the old skin over a new skeleton leaves some disappointing shapes.
09/02/09
But even in the heyday of the 69 Camaros, 69 Mustangs, and 70 Challengers, all three were meant to be different cars with different personalities.
The Mustang was very much the girl-next-door type, that could be a fire breather at need, but was generally more basic, more lovable and more livable on a daily basis, just as it is today. Think Cameron Diaz here.
The Camaro was the girl that your mother warned you about. It could be as basically equipped as any Mustang, and still come off as a seductive little wild child. Think Eva Mendes on this one.
The Challenger, on the other hand, was meant to be that attractive, but less mainstream model that could turn heads with the best of them, but was always something a little bit more, a little bit different, and a little bit quirky. It was a bit more adventurous than the other models, and you had to be prepared for it, but if you took that leap of faith and stepped in, you found a kinky, passionate, endlessly interesting, and totally different kind of love. Think Angelina Jolie.
And just like their ancestors, the modern versions of these cars are intentionally intended to come off as completely different personalities, and based on Peter's writing, it seems he doesn't quite see that, but rather judges them by one subjective "pony car" standard that doesn't really exist. Appreciation for any one over the others comes down to understanding what each of them is about, and picking whichever one seems best for you.
09/02/09
I guess red is the new white?
09/02/09
@DonLuc: Really?
09/02/09
09/02/09
That guy kinda reminds me of a modern day Screech.
09/02/09
09/02/09
Not exactly apples-to-apples with the options sheet, now is it?
09/02/09
09/02/09
love it
09/02/09
09/02/09
I would think the California surf bum drawl would be more appropriate for the former. "Duuude! Like, totally AWWWWWESOME shift knob, Dude!"
09/02/09
09/02/09
[en.wikipedia.org]
09/02/09
09/02/09
*shakes fist at hipsters*
09/02/09
But you're right: I walked into the shops and the one floor in the store which was supposed to be for men looked more like the women's section.
I'll stick to cheap jeans, a sweater and a pair of Timberlands thank you...if I can find them any more.
09/02/09
I like the shoes, though, Orosz. Nice call on those.
09/02/09
09/03/09
09/02/09
/soviet america, cliche finds YOU
09/02/09
09/02/09
Seriously, I hate you sometimes. Too much funny from just one man.
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
Seriously, who dresses you?
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
I really, really, really, really like that red Shelby!!!
09/02/09
09/02/09
Uh, no, I don't like the red pants. I wouldn't lose my newest friend over a pair of pants. ;)
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09