2006 Dodge Charger SE: In The Autoblog Garage Days 1-2
I was aware that a 2006 Dodge Charge SE would be arriving. I was also keenly aware that this would not be the chest pounding Hemi-equipped bruiser the Charger is painted to be. Our tester would be fitted with Chrysler's 3.5-liter 250-horsepower V6. In this day and age, the fuel economy offered by choosing a smaller engine may become more popular as fuel prices rise. That makes the V6 model more relevant that I had originally planned.
That was my angle when I realized I would not be able to enjoy the Herculean power of that popular push-rod V8.
After having spent my fair share of time in the brilliant SRT8 variants of Chrysler Corps large sedans, it was time to
pay my dues with the more pedestrian variety of the LX-platform.
Pedestrian is a harsh adjective, perhaps, because the Charge doesnt look like anything remotely associated with the
word pedestrian. In fact, you imagine pedestrians running at the site of this thing. By the way, they do cautiously
move away from the street when you approach. John Neff so poignantly described the Charger as a vehicle that looks like
it would just ram anything in its way. That is a pretty loose quote, but you get the idea. I was a bit worried that
the V6 would limit my ability to ram unsuspecting vehicles, but the mass amounts of paperwork that would entail is the
real limiting factor. Ill have to do my best to keep the reins tight on this beastly Dodge.
Actually, the Dodge Charger gives you the feeling of superiority with its copious mass. Most cars in this price range
dont give you the same impression. For around $23,000, you can get a four door sedan that could seat five comfortably
and feel safe in knowing that you could clobber anything that gets in your way. Seriously, as I trolled down the
highway, I glanced at an innocent S10 pickup and thought to myself, I could seriously destroy that weenie truck with
this Charger. Thats saying a lot, especially without the aggressive influence of a Hemi. You definitely dont get
this kind of feeling behind the wheel of something like an Olds Alero or 1999 Nissan Sentra.
So you get the idea, this is a big car. The interior is extremely roomy, the trunk is huge, and its a comfortable
package, overall. It has that full-size feel that is available in the comparably archaic Ford Crown Victoria. Dont get
me wrong, the Crown Vic is a great, durable ride, but compared to the Charger, its horribly overpriced. If you ignore
the fact that theyre front wheel drive, the Ford Five Hundred and Chevrolet Impala are the Chargers closest
competition. And like its domestic competition, the Chargers pricing allows it to compete with smaller sedans like the
Toyota Camry and Nissan Maxima. Regardless, we will see how the Charger fits in this $21-24k segment.
Get a WordPress.com Blog_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg "2011 Audi A8: Live from Miami")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Sully 10:45PM (12/18/2005)
How is the headroom? All the LX cars I have been in felt like they were meant for a 5'6" tall person.
Reply
Justin Lutz 10:45PM (12/18/2005)
Let's not forget that the Crown Vic doesn't have a V6 option. According to edmunds, the Charger SE sticker price is $22,320 to the base Crown Vic's $24,510. I guess a difference of $2190 could be interpreted as "horrible", but that still doesn't mention the cash rebates stuffed neatly in the Ford's glove compartment.
Reply
Mark Weber 10:45PM (12/18/2005)
Hurry up with the review! I've been waiting for some real world testing on what the 3.5 is going to be like in this rather large car. I am actually considering an Impala, Five Hundred, and Charger - if I can get past the sheer size of these cars, after years of driving small cars.
Reply
Randall Halcomb 10:45PM (12/18/2005)
Yeah, but the Crown Vic's platform has some serious equity in it. The V6 in the base Charger produces more raw HP than the V8 in the base Crown Vic. The Crown Vic does possess more of that grunt off the line, but the Charger's V6 breaths better in the upper RPM range.
Reply
Pip 10:45PM (12/18/2005)
So....this is gonna be a good alternative to a Malibu on rental lots?
Reply
Hank 10:45PM (12/18/2005)
I'm interested, too. I owned a Chrysler with the 3.5 (great engine, never a moments trouble and lots of get up and go...in a lighter car).
Reply
emergency 10:45PM (12/18/2005)
May have the power, lacks the looks. Atleast the front could have been nicer.
Reply
Randall Halcomb 10:45PM (12/18/2005)
The Charger is not equipped with a sunroof, so front headroom is very generous. The rear headroom is not so generous, but i'll get to that later.
Reply
JustJase 10:45PM (12/18/2005)
Are those wheels or wheels covers? Either way they're wretched looking!
Hate to say it, but this car is a "double bagger".
Reply
Randy Stern 10:45PM (12/18/2005)
I've driven a Chrysler 300 Touring with a 3.5litre and it felt very smooth with plenty of get-up. Certainly one can have a HEMI, but the 3.5 is a damn good engine for 250HP and better overall fuel economy.
At the price, the Charger is a better find with the 5-speed automatic versus the 4-speed on the 300. That is what I want to know from this review.
Good luck, Randall! You're making me wish for some Charger time...
Reply
shrinkydinx 10:45PM (12/18/2005)
re: headroom
i am 5'8" and i estimate there to be at least 10 inches of room above my head with the seat down as far as it goes.
Reply
Alvin Brinson 10:45PM (12/18/2005)
As for the person considering an Impala..... DON'T... The Impala, like the Ford, is absolutely archaic compared to the Charger. It feels like a gramma car from the moment you sit in it, and then it accellerates like one. The Charger v6 has, what, 250hp? The Impala has, if I remember correctly, below 200.
I was in a rental Impala for a week this summer, and I've got to say it was the most boring car I've ever driven.
Reply
iQuack 10:45PM (12/18/2005)
Was in Palm Springs last weekend and we rented a new Charger with only 150 miles on it when signed out. It had 3.5 V6 and leather seats, but rather cheap plastic everywhere else inside.
There was plenty of head room and leg room (no sunroof) and engine power was more than adequate. Brakes were excellent and handling very good with a firm, but never harsh ride.
Driving around Palm Springs without trying to conserve gas (some lead-footing) resulted in 15.4 MPG which isn't very good, but might improve after the car is broken in.
The dashboard gauges with black on white aren't as good as the electroluminescent gauges on many other cars, and the turn signal arrows were in a dumb location that was obscured by one of the stalks sprouting from the steering column (cruise control, I think). But the clicker for the turn signals was so loud that it wasn't necessary to see the turn arrows anyway if used correctly.
The doors locked automatically when the car reached a few miles per hour which was a good feature, but there was no automatic down/up for the driver's power window--the driver had to hold the button up or down to fully raise/lower the window.
The seats were firm and comfortable with power controls for the driver and power height only for the passenger. Both front seats had manual lumbar bulge adjustment which was effective.
I think the Dodge Charger is a good car for someone who wants a large car (over 200" long, and about 75" wide). Have your wallet ready to buy plenty of gas if driving mostly in the city!
iQuack');">Reply
md 10:45PM (12/18/2005)
What exactly constitutes cheap plastic anyways? In the interior of cars, plastic is plastic. It is not serving any functional purpose other than covering dashboard inards. i can understand if the interior is not well put together with loose screws, wide panel gaps, crooked installation of panels, etc, or uses very thin plastic, but the term "cheap plastic" really makes no sense. if the plastic is not texturized and is just flat is it considered cheap? if it is too hard or to soft for someone's tastes is it considered cheap? Is it cheap if it is weak or brittle? If the interior plastic of a given automobile detracts from the car's appearance or quality because it is ugly, weak, thin, hard, etc, describe it as such, but the phrase "cheap plastic" when speaking in terms of auto interiors is a very weak and meaningless description.
Reply
iQuack 10:45PM (12/18/2005)
md:
Cheap plastic is just what I said inasmuch as plastic can be molded, textured, made harder or softer, etc.
The Charger's plastic on the door panels is hard plastic much like the crap used in the 2003 Nissan Altima. The dashboard plastic housing the gauges looks like the silver-toned stuff on cheap boom boxes.
I still think the Charger is a very good car and for the money, I'd rather see cheaper-looking plastics than compromises elsewhere.
But plastic is so variable that you should be able to distinguish between cheap-looking stuff and better quality plastics that are evident in other cars. Also, the cheapness was magnified by plugs that probably covered screws under some plastic panels.
If you can't tell what looks cheap from what doesn't, maybe you need an eye test.
iQuack');">Reply
md 10:45PM (12/18/2005)
"But plastic is so variable"
Exactly, there are so many different types of plastics that are all designed with certain attributes, or to be used in certain things. some plastics stand up to extrem temperatures better, some are harder, softer, more elastic, stiffer, denser, brittle, flexible, opaque, translucent, and the list goes on and on. There really aren't "crappy plastics" as many people describe them. when somebody wishes to refer to a subpar interior due to plastics it should be refered to as an inapropriate type of plastic for an automotive interior, not cheap plastic. the plastic in interiors is mostly for appearance purposes. Sure the chosen plastic chosen for an interior can be to brittle or thin, but just because a plastic is hard does not make it cheap or crappy. clearly iQuack, you are not a fan of hard plastics in interiors, but that does not make the interior itself cheap, it means it is unappealing in an automobile. more expensive does not neccesarily translate to better quality. the plastics in interiors are not "cheap." they will all serve the purpose just as well as the supposedly "higher quality plastics" they just won't look as nice in the eyes of the typical consumer. i guess I am thinking about plastics in terms of their chemical compositions and properties, that probably comes from my grandfather who was a chemist at goodyear. plastics in interiors can be visually unnapealing or innapropriate in terms of their characteristics for an interior, but that certainly does not mean they are cheaper or subpar to other plastics. clearly consumers are not fans of hard, squeaky, or ugly plastics in car interiors, but those plastics themselves are not neccesarily inferior to other plastics, just innapropriate for use in an automotive interior.
Reply
Kurt B 10:45PM (12/18/2005)
"As for the person considering an Impala..... DON'T... The Impala, like the Ford, is absolutely archaic compared to the Charger."
Well there is a new Impala since you're rental including a 303HP SS model (5,3l V8).
The standard engine in the LS and LT is a 3.5 litre V6 producing 211 horsepower. That said, on looks I'd still take the Charger hands down.
Reply
Dale 10:45PM (12/18/2005)
My company ride is a 2005 Magnum SE. 2.7l V6, very lightly equipped (power driver seat, ESP, auto dim mirror, ABS). And it's got the fugly base wheelcovers of this Charger. I only have two real complaints: the 2.7l is a bit anemic for something this size (though the recent re-flash of the trans computer has made the car much more driveable and willing to downshift). The second is that the tires on the base model are somewhat less than aggressive. They're quiet when pointed straight, but on a mildly hard corner they slide and squeal like nothing I've ever driven.
Other than that, it's one of the best cars I've ever had. Vault-solid, quiet as can be, roomy (HUGE), comfortable, and even the base stereo sounds decent. I'm getting 23/25 MPG, and that's despite having to work the motor pretty well to get it's mass moving. For under $24k, I'm very impressed.
As for the interior plastics being "cheap", I honestly can't say they seem that way on my Magnum. Maybe it's because I've got the two-tone khaki/charocal interior (which looks much better than the dark gray/light gray). Ergonomically, the cruise control stick on the column sucks. Small, in the wrong place, counter-intuitive. Just plain stupid. I'll second the comment on the turn signal arrows - you can't see 'em unless you look for 'em. And I don't like that they put the button to toggle through the odometer/trip meter/outdoor temp in the small gauge tube on the left. Hard to reach.
But those are small complaints on an otherwise great car. Seriously, I can't believe how well done it is. The switchgear has a nice quality feel, the tap-for-3-flashes turn signal stalk is slick for changing lanes, and it feels very confident and composed on the road. Step up to the next level, which gets you the 3.5l and better rubber (with aluminum wheels), and it'd be one great car.
Reply
Greg Tuft 10:45PM (12/18/2005)
Well, re: the plastics quality argument... I'm not a chemist, but plastics that are hard or brittle certainly do have a tendency to break and crack, so I think it's more than just looks or personal preference.
Also, the fact that the interior is a tactile, interactive environment means that the quality of the plastic pieces around you is fair game for discussion.
With those points in mind, I don't think anyone could claim that the plastics used in the Magnum are up-to-par when compared, say, to a comparably priced Japanese import. I believe some current domestic cars fare better in this area as well - The Pontiac GTO and G6 come to mind.
I've posted an image that shows the dashboards of the Magnum and the Mazda 6 together for comparison. Both images come from the automaker's websites, BTW. One looks (IMO) inviting, well-designed and solidly constructed, and the other looks like something we would have expected from the big-three in 1986. I'll let you decide which is which for yourself.
http://gregtuft.com/cars/magnum_mazda6.jpg
Reply
Gary 10:45PM (12/18/2005)
How does the interior room compare to the 300? Particularly headroom in the back?
Reply