 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / April 2007Charger Daytona vs Avenger R/T
I am looking for evryone's opinion! I have a choice of getting a 2008 Dodge Avenger R/T with a sunroof OR a 2006 Dodge Charger R/T Daytona (with 25000 miles) for the same cost. The Avenger is new, has great gadgets and reasonable performance. But the Daytona is a Hemi-badass! The Charger is "Certified" so it has a decent warranty. Please help me decide! (Oh yea - the Charger is Go ManGo and the Avenger is Black.) >I am looking for evryone's opinion! > I have a choice of getting a 2008 Dodge Avenger R/T with a sunroof OR [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > (Oh yea - the Charger is Go ManGo and the Avenger is Black.) The avenger will get better gas mileage! > I am looking for evryone's opinion! > I have a choice of getting a 2008 Dodge Avenger R/T with a sunroof OR [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > (Oh yea - the Charger is Go ManGo and the Avenger is Black.) I would take the Avenger with no hesitation, unless I was towing a heavy trailer, then I'd chose the Charger. I wouldn't order AWD for the FWD Avenger, but I would for the RWD Charger if I drove in snow. At Edmonds owners like it: http://www.edmunds.com/new/dodge/index.html > I am looking for evryone's opinion! > I have a choice of getting a 2008 Dodge Avenger R/T with a sunroof OR [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > (Oh yea - the Charger is Go ManGo and the Avenger is Black.) The Avenger a generic front-drive v6 with some styling thrown at it to make it look like it has some relation to the Charger. The Charger is rear drive. NO question at all- go with the Charger!!! Charger is a better built car- if you can handle the gas mileage go for the Charger. The new Avenger and Sebring is a huge embarrassment for Chrysler IMHO. >> I am looking for evryone's opinion! >> I have a choice of getting a 2008 Dodge Avenger R/T with a sunroof OR [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > NO question at all- go with the Charger!!! > Charger is a better built car- Why? >if you can handle the gas mileage go for the Charger. UGH! The 300 line is a throwback to the 50s. > The new Avenger and Sebring is a huge embarrassment for Chrysler Why? > In article <mfXTh.59$Ut6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Why? Yes I would like to knoiw why also. >From the casual observer - they both look similar in apearance. Yes the Charger has a larger powerplant and so it can out perform the Avenger on the track.but not by minutes, just seconds. They are close in price and gas milege. And for the non-purist the Avenger certainly has a lot more gadets available than the Charger line. It will be interesting to see how the Chargers, and Avenger hold up once the Challenger is released. >>Charger is a better built car- > > Why? Because the Avenger/Sebring is a warmed-over JA-chassis FRONT DRIVE car. >>if you can handle the gas mileage go for the Charger. > > UGH! The 300 line is a throwback to the 50s. Your turn: Why? > >>Charger is a better built car- > > > > Why? > > Because the Avenger/Sebring is a warmed-over JA-chassis FRONT DRIVE car. That makes it better due to further development of the platform. This is just evolution of a platform. The Charger (300 line) is a warmed over Mercedes drive train, plus some undesirable Mercedes components such as the awful cruise control. > >>if you can handle the gas mileage go for the Charger. > > > > UGH! The 300 line is a throwback to the 50s. > > Your turn: Why? Heavy, large engine, poor visibility, poor for winter use due to RWD and low ground clearance and the final breaker for me is it can't store a full sized spare- based on a Magnum rental. However the 300 does fill a need which isn't mine. It was hot for a while, but not so now. Chrysler dropped their very popular LH line. Chrysler is suffering because they relied too much on large vehicles, now they are trying to recover their mid and lower market with just the Sebring/Avenger and the Caliber lines. Only two lines! My Chrysler dealer saw the light last year and sold his dealership, but kept his Toyota dealership. He was a Chrysler dealer for many years and obviously saw the light. Now a large GM dealership near me is in a final sale, buy the owner who has had it and several others for many years. He has been opening new dealerships for Toyota, Subaru, etc. The consumer is speaking with their pocket book. I'm holding my overdue new car purchase for the NA manufacturers to get their act together, but I can't wait forever. > > >>if you can handle the gas mileage go for the Charger. I filled up my '95 Concord last night because the gas price had dropped, to C$1.114 per L, about C$5.02 per CDN gallon or about US$3.71 per US gallon This is an urban price, prices can be much more in our out of city regions. I need a more fuel efficient car! >>>>Charger is a better built car- >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The Charger (300 line) is a warmed over Mercedes drive train, plus some > undesirable Mercedes components such as the awful cruise control. Actually, you're dead wrong. The DRIVETRAIN is Chrysler. All available engines are 100% Chrysler, all transmissions are built by Chrysler, one of the transmissions is based on a Benz design but isn't a "mercedes" transmission. There are no truly "Mercedes" parts at all in the car, although the suspension is heavily based on the E-class suspension design. Don't know what your gripe about the cruise control is. Its cruise control. >>>>if you can handle the gas mileage go for the Charger. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Heavy, large engine, Since when is the SAME base engine as the Avenger "large and heavy?" You do know that the 2.7 and 3.5 are available in the LX... no you probably don't given how many other facts you have wrong. And if you're referring to the 5.7 Hemi- it makes more than enough power to compensate for its weight PLUS has cylinder deactivation. The mere fact that its available in the LX and not in the Avenger/Sebring is reason enough to rule them out for me. poor visibility, poor for winter use due to RWD and > low ground clearance Red herrings. We drove rear-drive cars in winter for 50 years before we ever got saddled with this front-drive CRAP that we've been suffering with for the past 20 years. > Don't know what your gripe about the cruise control is. Its > cruise control. On the Magnum I drove it was very difficult to access, being behind the steering wheel. A creation from Mercedes I understand. > >>>>if you can handle the gas mileage go for the Charger. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > do know that the 2.7 and 3.5 are available in the LX... no you probably > don't given how many other facts you have wrong. Yes I've driven a Magnum with the 2.7L engine, which is totally inadequate for that car, a dumb choice of engine. IMO the 3.5L engine is just adequate for the 300 line, the hemi would be a much better choice. Since the 2.7L is the right engine for spirited performance in the '01 to '06 Sebring (i've driven this configuration many times), I expect it would be fine in the latest Sebring & Avenger. > And if you're referring to the 5.7 Hemi- it makes more than enough > power to compensate for its weight PLUS has cylinder deactivation. The > mere fact that its available in the LX and not in the Avenger/Sebring is > reason enough to rule them out for me. I agree the hemi is a good engine for the 300 line, but it's urban/city fuel mileage is very low. That 4 cyl operation is not effective in city driving. I have a friend who has had one for a few years, he wants to dump it because of the very poor city mileage. > poor visibility, poor for winter use due to RWD and > > low ground clearance > > Red herrings. We drove rear-drive cars in winter for 50 years before we > ever got saddled with this front-drive CRAP that we've been suffering > with for the past 20 years. I have many years experience with both RWD & FWD, there is no comparison in the real snow we where I live. This past winter I easily passed by several RWD cars stopped in their tracks by deep snow. I will never return to RWD, for winter traction and other reasons. We don't have many 300 line cars here, but even less are seen driving to our ski hills in the winter. I only saw one this last winter and it was in the early spring when there was no snow on the ski hill road. The Sebring sells very well here; a very popular car. You may question my knowledge, however I know I have significant experience in what I say. So I repeat the 300 is a heavy car, with poor visibility, substandard in snow due to RWD and low ground clearance and gives poor fuel mileage. In other environments than ours it could be a fine car. Even an AWD 300 could give winter driving problems due to the limited ground clearance. No matter how good the traction, if the snow drags the bottom you could bog down in deep snow. In terms of build quality- the 300/Charger/Magnum is far ahead of the new Sebring/Avenger. Everything is solid and fit & finish is very good. The 300 cars have been around a few model years now- that in itself would make the decision up for me. A friend of mine bought a 07 Charger SXT with the 3.5L engine up here in Cleveland, OH (in the snowbelt) and had no complaints about the car's performance in the winter this year. The 3.5L V6 is a good match for the Charger. For anyone questioning my statement about the new Avenger/Sebring.......spend an evening shopping and drive an Accord, Camry, Fusion amd Aura. Then drive an Avenger/Sebring- you'll see what I mean. Buzzy 4cyl enigines with 4 speed autos, poor fitted interior panels, sloppy suspension on all but the Avenger R/T (and thats if you like a stiff suspension), and a 197 HP V6????????. Did they even look at what the competition is out there? 3/4 of my family work for Chrysler/Jeep and I obviously have had Chryslers all my life- to me their small and midsize cars that have comeout in the last year have missed the mark big time compared to everyone else. >> Don't know what your gripe about the cruise control is. Its >> cruise control. [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > ground clearance. No matter how good the traction, if the snow drags the > bottom you could bog down in deep snow. > For anyone questioning my statement about the new > Avenger/Sebring.......spend an evening shopping and drive an Accord, Camry, > Fusion amd Aura. Then drive an Avenger/Sebring- you'll see what I mean. > Buzzy 4cyl enigines with 4 speed autos, >poor fitted interior panels, sloppy The Fusion and Sebring/Avenger both come with either a 4 or 6 cyl. IMO the Fusion is the better body for function. It has a huge trunk even holding a full sized spare. I have only driven the Fusion V6 for a one day rental, but it would get my vote if I was interested in that type of car. > suspension on all but the Avenger R/T (and thats if you like a stiff > suspension), and a 197 HP V6????????. Did they even look at what the > competition is out there? 3/4 of my family work for Chrysler/Jeep and I > obviously have had Chryslers all my life- to me their small and midsize cars > that have comeout in the last year have missed the mark big time compared to > everyone else. My wife's '01 Sebring is built very well and solid. It has a stiffer body than my lovely '95 LH Concord. It's 2.7L engine noise is a slight bit more for general use, but is quieter and smoother than the 3.3L when pushed hard. I can't say I've had Chryslers all my life, just in the last two decades of FWD cars, so switching manufacturers is not a mental block for me although I'd like to stay with Chrysler. Over the years I've owned or driven many different cars, from several countries. > In terms of build quality- the 300/Charger/Magnum is far ahead of the new > Sebring/Avenger. Everything is solid and fit & finish is very good. <snip> > For anyone questioning my statement about the new > Avenger/Sebring.......spend an evening shopping and drive an Accord, Camry, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > suspension), and a 197 HP V6????????. Did they even look at what the > competition is out there? This is my point exactly. The poster known as "Who" doesn't like the configuration of the LX platform, but that is NOT the question that was asked. The question that was asked was, basically, which is better. The LX platform is better in every measurable way. The LX platform is an industry leader, and the available LX drivetrains are industry leaders. Hell, Mercedes should buy the 3.5 v6, 5.7 and 6.3 Hemis from Chrysler for the E- and S-class and get rid of their questionably reliable and over-complex 3-liter class v6s and 5-liter class v8s. On the other hand, the Sebring/Avenger is an utter embarassment to the Chrysler group and is lurking at the bottom of the barrel with Kia and Hyundai compared to its direct competition. > On the other hand, > the Sebring/Avenger is an utter embarassment to the Chrysler group and > is lurking at the bottom of the barrel with Kia and Hyundai compared to > its direct competition. So what specifically is so bad about the Sebring/Avenger? If they are as bad as you imply I'd suggest avoiding all Chrysler products as they will all become worthless toast. >>On the other hand, >>the Sebring/Avenger is an utter embarassment to the Chrysler group and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If they are as bad as you imply I'd suggest avoiding all Chrysler > products as they will all become worthless toast. Haven't we been around this tree 4 or 5 times now? The problem with the Avenger/Sebring is mediocre fit and finish when it has to compete in a class of cars that has some VERY nicely built cars in it right now. Why avoid all Chrysler products? The Avengering is the only one that is below its competition in build quality. > In article <sbednURhqsN56bvbnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@texas.net>, > Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If they are as bad as you imply I'd suggest avoiding all Chrysler > products as they will all become worthless toast. > Haven't we been around this tree 4 or 5 times now? The problem with the > Avenger/Sebring is mediocre fit and finish when it has to compete in a > class of cars that has some VERY nicely built cars in it right now. > > Why avoid all Chrysler products? The Avengering is the only one that is > below its competition in build quality. The Avenger and Sebring are the only Chrysler cars in that category. See the Ford Fusion, the same class of car that is very well built. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.