The 2006 Dodge Charger’s styling was greeted with mixed reviews when the car was introduced. Perhaps the most pointed criticism came from Car and Driver writer Larry Webster (2005), who stated that its corporate sibling the Chrysler 300 “looks cool” but that the Charger’s styling was “goofy.”
Michael Jordan (2005) of Automobile magazine concluded that there was “an awful lot going on in the Charger, maybe too much: a truck-style grille, frenched headlights, a retro kick-up in the rear door meant to recall Chrysler E-body pony cars of the early ’70s, and a Kamm-style aero tail. It’s all been stitched together with lots of enthusiasm, but there’s not much beauty to behold.”
Road & Track’s Matt DeLorenzo (2012) had a slightly warmer attitude: “The first photographs of the car didn’t impress, but seeing it in the flesh, and especially in the striped and winged Daytona version, I must admit that it has grown on me.”
Hemmings writer Daniel Strohl (2005) defended the Charger against allegations that it looks “like a flying brick,” noting that the base model’s draft coefficient was “better than a Hummer H2.” The SE model had a coefficient of 0.33 compared to the H2’s 0.57 — but not as good as as an Infiniti G35’s 0.27.
Weaker aerodynamics caused by retrograde styling
I wouldn’t call the 2006 Charger a true “retro” car because it evoked the iconic 1968-70 Charger in only the vaguest of ways. The car was retrograde in the sense that its unusually square shape was out of sync with the jellybean look common to passenger cars of the early-21st Century.
As a case in point, the windshield was cartoonishly upright, kind of like in the 1960s. The goal was presumably to cultivate nostalgic feelings. This design approach was a radical reversal from the previous big Dodge, called the Intrepid.
As with all of the Chryslers based on the so-called LH platform, their most visible feature had been the “cab-forward” look, whereby the windshield was given a relatively horizontal rake and its base was pushed forward so far that it was above the front wheels.
The 2006-10 Charger’s upright windshield hardly helped aerodynamics, but neither did the car’s forward-leaning grille, which replaced the swept-back styling of the Intrepid.
Of course, the differences in the two cars’ profiles partly reflected that the Intrepid was front-wheel drive whereas the Charger was the opposite. Modern FWD cars will tend to have longer snouts and shorter wheelbases between the A-pillar and front wheels. However, as we shall discuss shortly, that didn’t preclude Chrysler from maintaining an aerodynamic shape when it switched to rear-wheel drive.
The Charger’s rear end was the most benign part of the car. An arching sail panel maintained a theme from the Intrepid. Note how the base of the rear window was inset somewhat from the outer edge of the sail panel. This paid homage to the second-generation Charger’s flying-buttress roofline. In addition, dual round taillight bezels evoked the 1968 Charger’s bullet-shaped lights.
Charger’s revival created unflattering comparisons
Bringing back the Charger nameplate unleashed a debate about whether a muscle car must have only two doors. DeLorenzo (2012) quite-rightly argued that the “door count isn’t as important as the overall shape.” He pointed out that the Charger, like the Chrysler 300, had a relatively low coupe-like profile.
DeLorenzo (2012) also quite-rightly noted that the new Charger was “not as sleek as the 2000 concept of the same name, which also had four doors but shared the same so-called fuselage styling of the original.”
Also see ‘Matt DeLorenzo’s book, Dodge: 100 Years, is a highly polished something’
It was inaccurate to describe the early Chargers as sporting “fuselage” styling — that didn’t happen until a major redesign in 1971. However, the 2000 concept car represented the direction that Chrysler should have taken because it successfully integrated contemporary sports-sedan aerodynamics with classic Charger styling cues, such as the wide-shouldered and wedge-shaped body sides.
Another noteworthy aspect of the concept car was that the LH platform was converted to rear-wheel drive. Daimler’s subsequent takeover of Chrysler nixed the idea of further development of this platform (Strohl, 2020). A modified Mercedes-Benz platform was used instead.
#/media/File:Dodge_Charger_R-T_Concept_(17087253500).jpg)
I give Chrysler credit for learning from its mistakes. Designers drew more from the 2000 concept when they restyled the Charger for 2011. However, they could have modernized the car even more by, for example, significantly lowering the grille and giving the hood a more downward slope.
.jpg)
Should the 2006 redesign have been called a Charger?
Back when the Charger was reintroduced, Webster (2005) argued that Dodge should have come up with a different name. He thought that “Dodge uglified the car with those rear fender humps simply so it could find some connection to the original Charger and then justify tacking on the Charger badge. Sure, I admire the old Charger, but this new car is good enough to deserve its own name.”
I would agree that the rear-quarter’s kick-up looks tacked on, which is accentuated by the weird two-tone paint shown in the above photo. However, it also made sense for Dodge to bring back the Charger because it was one of the brand’s most iconic nameplates.
What the car needed was styling to match the name. For whatever reason, that didn’t happen. Indeed, rather than burnishing the Charger legacy, the cheesy styling undercut it until a redesign at least partially saved to day.
Meanwhile, the 2000 Charger concept car still represents a plausible design approach after more than two decades. That speaks to both the quality of the design as well as the weaknesses of what ended up in production.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- DeLorenzo, Matt; 2012. “2006 Dodge Charger Daytona R/T.” Road & Track. Posted Nov. 6.
- Jordan, Michael; 2005. “2006 Dodge Charger R/T, 2005 Ford Mustang GT, and 2005 Pontiac GTO 6.0.” Automobile (now MotorTrend). Posted Aug. 1.
- Strohl, Daniel; 2018. “A Product of its Time – 2006 Dodge Charger.” Hemmings. Posted Sept. 23.
- ——; 2020. “What could have been: Chrysler originally intended the LH platform as front-, rear-, and all-wheel drive.” Hemmings. Posted May 8.
- Webster, Larry; 2005. “Dodge Charger R/T.” Car and Driver. Updated July 31.
- Wikipedia; 2020. “Dodge Charger.” Page last edited May 6.
- ——; 2023. “Dodge Charter R/T (1999 concept).” Page last edited Jan. 3.
PHOTOGRAPHS:
The following photos were drawn from Wikipedia via Creative Commons 3.0. Photos have been lightly edited to reduce background shadows.
- Banner image of 2006-7 Dodge Charger SXT by IFCAR.
- 2009-10 Dodge Charger by Bull-Doser (all rights released).
- 2014 Dodge Charger SXT Plus by FireHouseRock.
- 1999 (2000) Dodge Charter R/T concept by Jeremy.
The LH series had some great designs and were doing some industry leading on Design. The Charger left that behind as they became part of Daimler. They now had to work with what was essentially and E Class platform. Chrysler’s internal leadership that had spawned the LH was gone – Tom Gale (VP Design) and Bob Lutz (a champion of design and sanctity of the product).
Under the new direction it was about sticking a Hemi into everything possible and promoting it as the second coming of the 1960s muscle cars. Subtlety and refinement were no longer required.
The re-imagined Dodge Magnum / Charger styling was roundly criticized in “Autoweek” upon model introduction after the mag had displayed the Charger concept on the cover years earlier. I don’t think Daimler-Benz cared about Chrysler after 2005. I nominate John T. Snow (Former C.E.O. of CSX Transportation and former U.S. Treasury Secretary under George W. Bush) and the poor speller, former V,P. of the U.S. Dan Quayle of Cerberus Capital as easily the worst automobile C.E.O.s in the history of the automobile industry !!!!!
“However, it also made sense for Dodge to bring back the Charger because it was one of the brand’s most iconic nameplates.”
Yes, because the hatchback from the 80s with the VW motor was so faithful to the original concept 🙂 . This is one situation where Chevrolet’s habit of renaming their compacts after every respawn would make more sense.
Pictures engineers standing around a dripping compact fresh from the vats and asking
“What shall we call you?”
“What was my name last time, fleshlings?”
“Cobalt”
“WFT?? I want a cooler name. It still has to be a C, right? I really liked Vega.”
“Yes, a C.”
“…Cruze. This is who I am. Cruze.”