MARAUDER/SHO

[syrtran]

I would hardly call the Challenger "midsize."

 

Does it not have the same wheelbase as the Charger?

No.

 

116" vs. 120"

 

I just looked it up.

 

Of course, the Mustang is only 107.1, and the Camaro is 112.3, so the Challenger is a bit bigger.

[rmc523]

No.

 

116" vs. 120"

 

I just looked it up.

 

Of course, the Mustang is only 107.1, and the Camaro is 112.3, so the Challenger is a bit bigger.

 

Still pretty close, then.

[syrtran]

Still pretty close, then.

It's even closer when you consider overall length

Charger 200.1

Challenger 197.7

Camaro 190.4

Mustang 188.1

 

(and those of us who grew up around '59 Catalinas, '67 Country Squires, and '73 Imperials still have a problem calling a current Charger "full-size.")

 

 

And back to the thread, I'd bet a lot of the traditional Mercury buyers would come back for something bigger than a Milan, less trucky than a Mountaineer, and cheaper than an MKS, especially if it looked like this rendering.

 

Me, I'm still waiting for a proper Cougar (but that's another - dozen - threads).

[rmc523]

It's even closer when you consider overall length

Charger 200.1

Challenger 197.7

Camaro 190.4

Mustang 188.1

 

(and those of us who grew up around '59 Catalinas, '67 Country Squires, and '73 Imperials still have a problem calling a current Charger "full-size.")

 

 

And back to the thread, I'd bet a lot of the traditional Mercury buyers would come back for something bigger than a Milan, less trucky than a Mountaineer, and cheaper than an MKS, especially if it looked like this rendering.

 

Me, I'm still waiting for a proper Cougar (but that's another - dozen - threads).

 

That was basically my point...that Challenger is about the size of a "fullsize" sedan.

[OTPisdead]

The back looks like a Bentley Continental Coupe.

Sweet.

 

http://images.myride.com/images/vehicle/20...5_(768x576).jpg

 

That's what I thought right when I saw it. Not bad back, don't like the front.

[T'Cal]

That was basically my point...that Challenger is about the size of a "fullsize" sedan.

No, it's not full-sized and it's not a pony car either as so many have tried to portray it by comparing it directly to the Camaro and the original pony car, the Mustang. Sit in it and you'll see it's wide but there's not much leg room. That 4" reduction in wheelbase is mostly from the backseat area, if not entirely. It is a mid-sized car, and the R/T and SRT8 models are muscle cars in the truest sense of the word. The Charger, OTOH, is full-sized. Sit in them and you'll understand.

[rmc523]

No, it's not full-sized and it's not a pony car either as so many have tried to portray it by comparing it directly to the Camaro and the original pony car, the Mustang. Sit in it and you'll see it's wide but there's not much leg room. That 4" reduction in wheelbase is mostly from the backseat area, if not entirely. It is a mid-sized car, and the R/T and SRT8 models are muscle cars in the truest sense of the word. The Charger, OTOH, is full-sized. Sit in them and you'll understand.

 

The Charger is not a coupe, though. I was thinking more along the lines of coupes, and I should've been more clear. The Challenger is about as fullsize as coupes come these days (at least from the mainstream brands - although vehicles like the Mercedes CL would be a true-er fullsize coupe.

Edited August 6, 2009 by rmc523

[T'Cal]

Not a coupe? Every automotive website I've looked at lists the Challenger as a coupe. Wait! let me count the doors. One. Two. That's it. That's a coupe. Not as big as the full sized car but not as compact car. That makes it a midsized coupe. If it was a two door Charger with no editing of the wheel base it would be a full sized coupe. I'm not sure what your aversion to calling it a midsized coupe is, but that's exactly what the Challenger is.

 

Back to the topic. I'd buy the Marauder depicted here in a heartbeat.

[akirby]

Not a coupe? Every automotive website I've looked at lists the Challenger as a coupe.

 

The Charger is not a coupe, though.

[rmc523]

Not a coupe? Every automotive website I've looked at lists the Challenger as a coupe. Wait! let me count the doors. One. Two. That's it. That's a coupe. Not as big as the full sized car but not as compact car. That makes it a midsized coupe. If it was a two door Charger with no editing of the wheel base it would be a full sized coupe. I'm not sure what your aversion to calling it a midsized coupe is, but that's exactly what the Challenger is.

 

Back to the topic. I'd buy the Marauder depicted here in a heartbeat.

 

YOU brought up the CHARGER (saying it's fullsize), which is NOT a COUPE. I was talking about the CHALLENGER being a rather large COUPE (as far as coupes go these days).

 

So being just 3 inches shorter overall and having a just 4 inches smaller wheelbase than the Charger is enough to categorize it "midsize" rather than "fullsize."

 

I don't really care....

 

 

And thanks Akirby.

[Edstock]

Could you please try one without a side scoop? The world and the market has become more sophisticated, and if it isn't real, don't do it. BMW and Audi don't.

 

BTW, love the GT-90, and I'm glad it's been on display for a while. The back end was weird, but the rest of the car is fabulous. Too bad it never saw production, it would be a great follow-on to the Ford GT.

[timmm55]

Could you please try one without a side scoop? The world and the market has become more sophisticated, and if it isn't real, don't do it. BMW and Audi don't.

 

BTW, love the GT-90, and I'm glad it's been on display for a while. The back end was weird, but the rest of the car is fabulous. Too bad it never saw production, it would be a great follow-on to the Ford GT.

 

Who said it wasn't real? It could be a real vent for either brake cooling or interior ventilation.

Anyway here it sans vent.......

[RangerM]

Since Mercury isn't getting the Sable/Montego back....maybe a Marauder COUPE based off the SHO?

Love to see it as a Pillarless hardtop. Some used to call it a hardtop convertible, IIRC.

[rmc523]

Could you please try one without a side scoop? The world and the market has become more sophisticated, and if it isn't real, don't do it. BMW and Audi don't.

 

BTW, love the GT-90, and I'm glad it's been on display for a while. The back end was weird, but the rest of the car is fabulous. Too bad it never saw production, it would be a great follow-on to the Ford GT.

 

Despite the fact that it came 8 years before the GT concept....?

 

Who said it wasn't real? It could be a real vent for either brake cooling or interior ventilation.

Anyway here it sans vent.......

 

I like that one too.

 

Love to see it as a Pillarless hardtop. Some used to call it a hardtop convertible, IIRC.

 

Huh?

[RangerM]

Huh?

In a hardtop convertible, there is no B-pillar. (Follow the link)

 

I believe Tim's model would be dramatically-improved if he adopted this body style.

Edited August 10, 2009 by RangerM

[rmc523]

In a hardtop convertible, there is no B-pillar. (Follow the link)

 

I believe Tim's model would be dramatically-improved if he adopted this body style.

 

Yes, I know, my mom has one.

 

I just thought it was strange that you used a hardtop convertible as an example for a b-pillarless coupe.

 

 

 

The Mercedes CL or the new E-coupe would be a good example:

 

[RangerM]

Yes, I know, my mom has one.

 

I just thought it was strange that you used a hardtop convertible as an example for a b-pillarless coupe.

 

It's just another (and older) way of saying the same thing.......

 

Fixed Roof (like a hardtop) + Pillarless windows (like a convertible) = "Hardtop Convertible"

[rmc523]

It's just another (and older) way of saying the same thing.......

 

Fixed Roof (like a hardtop) + Pillarless windows (like a convertible) = "Hardtop Convertible"

 

Except for the fact that what you're trying to describe isn't a convertible. Whatever, it doesn't matter, I knew what you meant.

[T'Cal]

YOU brought up the CHARGER (saying it's fullsize), which is NOT a COUPE. I was talking about the CHALLENGER being a rather large COUPE (as far as coupes go these days).

 

So being just 3 inches shorter overall and having a just 4 inches smaller wheelbase than the Charger is enough to categorize it "midsize" rather than "fullsize."

 

I don't really care....

 

 

And thanks Akirby.

Let's get on the same page here. The Charger sedan is full-sized and the shorter wheelbase Challenger coupe is mid-sized. I'm not sure where the confusion came in but let's move on.

[rmc523]

Let's get on the same page here. The Charger sedan is full-sized and the shorter wheelbase Challenger coupe is mid-sized. I'm not sure where the confusion came in but let's move on.

 

When I first typed it, I thought the Challenger was on the same wheelbase as the Charger. It isn't. Which brings me to what I was saying in later posts........even though the Challenger is not on the same wheelbase as the "fullsize" Charger, it's still very close, which makes it a rather/very large "midsize" coupe, and as close to a "fullsize" coupe as you're gonna get from a mainstream manufacturer these days.

[RangerM]

Except for the fact that what you're trying to describe isn't a convertible. Whatever, it doesn't matter, I knew what you meant.

I think it's important that you remember that the term "hardtop convertible" (as it refers to a no b-pillar hardtop) has been around since before you or I were born. Ford, GM, or Chrysler is who coined the term, AFAIK. I know I didn't make it up.

[timmm55]

I think it's important that you remember that the term "hardtop convertible" (as it refers to a no b-pillar hardtop) has been around since before you or I were born. Ford, GM, or Chrysler is who coined the term, AFAIK. I know I didn't make it up.

 

Around 1953 GM (1953 Chevy Bel Air for example) came out with their "hardtop convertible" it was created for people who liked the look of a convertible but had a fixed rmetal roof and didn't have the rattles or leaks. Apparently some people liked the sporty look of a convertible but never put the top down. Most 2 door sedans were just versions of the 4 door up till that time.

 

Few cars had A/C back then, and the uninterupted flow of air with the windows down in a hardtop convertible was cooler, visually it was easiler to see out of too (no posts).

[Edstock]

Who said it wasn't real? It could be a real vent for either brake cooling or interior ventilation.

Anyway here it sans vent.......

Really fine. Less distraction from the body sculpturing and the rocker panels

 

Despite the fact that it came 8 years before the GT concept....?

But the GT was a reprise of the original from 1963 or so. The 90 is a concept that reflects the progression of design; it's essentially more modern. Love the GT, but if they were going to build a new one . . . .

[rmc523]

But the GT was a reprise of the original from 1963 or so. The 90 is a concept that reflects the progression of design; it's essentially more modern. Love the GT, but if they were going to build a new one . . . .

 

This is true......and I don't think we'll see another supercar from Ford for a while (GT500 is as close as they'll get - still a pretty good showing).