PDA

View Full Version : Charger 4-door Sport


Ptrope
01-09-2005, 04:36 PM
I'm one of those who has no problem with the door count of the new Charger, and for the most part, I think the design is reasonably good. Not having seen one on the street, I can't judge how well it works in context, so I could be putting unnecessary thought into it, but from the static shots, I've seen some areas that I think could use some work, one of them minor and easily rectified, one of them stylistically minor but major from an engineering standpoint, and major from its impact on the car's overall stance.<p><IMG SRC="http://www.ptrope.com/gedwards/images/D2006_004_Charger_quarter_fix.jpg" BORDER="0"> <p><IMG SRC="http://www.ptrope.com/gedwards/images/D2006_009_Charger_quarter_fix.jpg" BORDER="0"> <p>The minor issue first: the end of the window silhouette is capped by a black painted triangle to complete the shape, there because the glass can't be any longer and still roll completely down into the door. By reshaping the window opening, the C pillar can be made more substantial - and the roofline more coupe-like - without reengineering the door or its internal mechanisms, and the car will look more in keeping with the classic Charger style; the window sill is also reshaped to be harmonious with the rise of the fender. By moving the door handle off the car's flank up onto the more horizontal surface of the 'shoulder' - <i>a la</i> '68-'84 Corvette - the overall impression is more that of a coupe without losing the functionality of a sedan.<p>The other problem with the design, as I see it, is that the car looks stubby, especially the doghouse. I realize that this is dictated by the hard points of the platform being identical to those of the 300 and Magnum, so fixing this would be much more of an effort, but what I've done is move the entire car back on its wheelbase by 3", and then extended the nose those same 3"; the result is a better stance, with a more classic long hood/short deck proportion, and at the same time increased the distance from the base of the windshield to the center of the front wheel, and increased the rear overhang slightly for a better overall proportion. On a more feasible approach, the nose of the car, forward of the wheels, could be extended those same 3", which would also improve its nose-to-tail proportion, but it wouldn't have quite the same stance as this approach.

The Water Is Poison
01-09-2005, 05:03 PM
Umm.... wrong section

Charger
01-09-2005, 05:12 PM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>...DamagedProphet...</b> &raquo;</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Umm.... wrong section</TD></TR></TABLE><p>Why is this the wrong section? This is a photoshop

Ptrope
01-09-2005, 05:22 PM
Okay, this is my first time posting here, but I'm curious, too, why this is the wrong section. This is "Member Photoshops," is it not? That's what I posted. These are not un-retouched promo images. after all.<p>Just curious ... am I missing something, as a newbie? <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://images.zeroforum.com/smile/emwink.gif" BORDER="0">

Charger
01-09-2005, 05:25 PM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Ptrope</b> &raquo;</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Okay, this is my first time posting here, but I'm curious, too, why this is the wrong section. This is "Member Photoshops," is it not? That's what I posted. These are not un-retouched promo images. after all.<p>Just curious ... am I missing something, as a newbie? <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://images.zeroforum.com/smile/emwink.gif" BORDER="0"></TD></TR></TABLE><p>No, you posted it in the right section. It was a photoshop done by you, very nice chop by the way

The Water Is Poison
01-09-2005, 05:28 PM
Sorry but I didn't see anything chopped.

Ptrope
01-09-2005, 05:32 PM
^^<p>I'll take that as a compliment <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://images.zeroforum.com/smile/emwink.gif" BORDER="0">

The Water Is Poison
01-09-2005, 06:00 PM
you should, it looks very clean

chazcron
01-09-2005, 06:14 PM
the window wouldn't go into the door, that's why the black triangle is there

Ptrope
01-09-2005, 06:21 PM
^^<p>I know that; I even said that in the initial post. That's why I started from the point where the production glass ends and swept a new arc up into the roof, giving the C pillar a wider appearance and giving it a curved wedge profile. Personally, I think that when a designer has such hard points, the styling should accommodate and incorporate them, rather than try to paper over them, as with the Charger design, as well as the outgoing Lexus GS; the result is a design with integrity.

Ptrope
01-09-2005, 11:34 PM
Well, hopefully, the changes on this version will be more noticeable :):<p><IMG SRC="http://www.ptrope.com/gedwards/images/D2006_004_Charger_Daytona.jpg" BORDER="0">

Rugbyplaya91
01-10-2005, 04:24 PM
they are everything looks good but the spoiler doesn't match up very well

Ptrope
01-10-2005, 08:24 PM
^^<p>Thanks; yeah, I'm still not happy with the way the spoiler turned out, so I'm going to keep trying and then replace the image. I <i>do</i> like the way the nose turned out, though <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://images.zeroforum.com/smile/emwink.gif" BORDER="0">.

sono81
01-10-2005, 09:19 PM
the nose is good. Reminds me the Saturn SC. Put a shadow at the bottom of the spoiler. this might help

Nick
01-10-2005, 10:33 PM
eeww...please do not bring back the daytona...that is and was such a butt ugly car...

Ptrope
01-10-2005, 10:42 PM
^^<p>Ahhh, but it had a <i>purposeful</i> beauty <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://images.zeroforum.com/smile/emwink.gif" BORDER="0">. Anyway, I couldn't resist giving it a try, and I've updated the art a bit; I think the wing looks <i>better</i>, but there's still something about the lighting and highlights that I'm not able to put a finger on.<p>In its heyday, the Daytona was an engineering solution, not a stylist's hard-fought atempt to make the lines beautiful. Now, with no need to try to conform to any NASCAR regs, and only the wind tunnel to conflict with the stylist's intent, I think a new Daytona could be beatiful <i>and</i> evocative of the original (something that so many Charger purists insist it needs in order ot be accepted).

hollc004
01-11-2005, 10:07 AM
Im not keen on your last chop it reminds me of a rocket out of the Thunderbirds, Although your other chops are fantastic. Great Conversion and very clean and realistic. <p>well done man <p>Regards Hollc004

Ptrope
01-11-2005, 02:35 PM
<IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/biggrin.gif" BORDER="0"> Well, I suppose I could put a big "2" on the side of it, but you do know what the Daytona was, right? I just updated the parts that that car originally had; I'd never made the connection to Thunderbird 2 before, but now that you mention it ...

Ptrope
01-11-2005, 08:13 PM
I decided to take another stab at it, this time from the approach of actual manufacturing issues. In other words, all that's been changed is the door sheetmetal and inner structure, a much less costly approach, and one that could conceivably be accomplished in the event the Charger's sales necessitate a fast freshening (not that I expect they will, but there are those who want to see something more familiar, so I'm trying to oblige <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://images.zeroforum.com/smile/emwink.gif" BORDER="0"> ). Like the first attempt, the rear door handles have been moved up onto the upper fender surface, but the opening in the unibody is unchanged, as is the forward sheetmetal (I may try the 'harmonica' next ... )<p><IMG SRC="http://www.ptrope.com/gedwards/images/2006_Charger.jpg" BORDER="0"><p>I also thought moving the badging around might help ... YMMV <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://images.zeroforum.com/smile/emwink.gif" BORDER="0">

Nick
01-12-2005, 01:54 AM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Ptrope</b> &raquo;</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">^^<p>In its heyday, the Daytona was an engineering solution, not a stylist's hard-fought atempt to make the lines beautiful. Now, with no need to try to conform to any NASCAR regs, and only the wind tunnel to conflict with the stylist's intent, I think a new Daytona could be beatiful <i>and</i> evocative of the original (something that so many Charger purists insist it needs in order ot be accepted).</TD></TR></TABLE><br>lol....well I dont know how evocative you would really want it...if there was a new daytona, hopefully it wouldnt have any styling similarities with that of the old one, atleast in the wing and nose department...I dont know of too many people who want a 20 ft wing on the back of their car and a pointy, rocket-like nose slapped onto the front...unless of course you're joe dirt <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/ylsuper.gif" BORDER="0">

Ptrope
01-12-2005, 01:31 PM
Honestly, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to rapidly find both the high wing and a Daytona-eseque nose on the aftermarket. With so many 'fast and furious' cars running around with ground effects, air dams and wings nearly as tall as the Daytona's, the only thing that will really differentiate the Charger will be its size. I just hope that it doesn't take too long for them to appear with some decent styling, and not just an attempt to force-fit the old lines onto the new fenders, which I <i>do</i> think is going to look pretty bad.<p>Frankly, I think the Charger is going to open up a new market segment, or reopen an old one: the classic mid-size musclecar. It's only a guess, mind you, but I think it just might happen. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/2cool.gif" BORDER="0">

Nick
01-12-2005, 01:47 PM
well, technically, couldnt you put the 300c under that "mid-size musclecar" segment already?

Ptrope
01-12-2005, 01:57 PM
I suppose so, but I'd consider it more of a "sport sedan," competing against the likes of the 5-Series from BMW; it has more of a luxury image than the Charger. It's too bad neither Ford nor GM really have anything to compete against <i>either</i> of them; a new Impala SS against the Charger just seems like a joke <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://images.zeroforum.com/smile/emwink.gif" BORDER="0">.

Nick
01-12-2005, 03:30 PM
well, actually GM does have the caddies, which would compete against BMW, especially the STS with the 5 series and 300...until GM brings out the zeta platforms for chevy and convert the impala to rwd with the v8, then GM nor ford will have much competition for dodge's charger...