• Oct 8, 2008
In a recent post about the 2009 Dodge Challenger SE, KickingTires quotes director of Dodge brand marketing, Mike Accavitti, saying that there will be no convertible version of the reborn muscle car in Dodge showrooms. Apparently the platform would require too much additional hardware to handle the extra flex from cutting the roof off, and the added weight would push the car too far into the Sumo class. And that would be with just a simple manual soft-top, not one of them there new-fangled retractable hardtops that are the top du jour for convertible buyers. There's also the issue of cost and the fact that Dodge's market analysis seems to indicate there isn't a huge market for them. We understand the reasoning and know that even the coupes are going to be low-volume, but we would humbly like to suggest a limited run of SRT-8 convertibles at double the coupe's asking price. Say 20 or so. Buyers will pay twice the sticker price at least and mothball them immediately so they can be exhumed in 2050 and be the '71 Hemi 'Cuda convertible equivalents of their day.


[Source: KickingTires]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 29 Comments
      • 6 Years Ago
      No Challenger Convertible is a good thing. What Chrylser/Dodge needs to do is fix the Sebring first and that Convertible which is a regular seller. You have the Muscle Car for the Guys now you just need the Two Seat Convertible Coupe for what they use to call the Secretary Market.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Even a run of 20 cars would require manufacturer's warranty and service support for 10 years. If the market truly demands such a limited run, the work is better left to a niche/aftermarket/kit company that can sell the car as-is. Even then there would be legal issues to overcome. Not gonna happen.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Yeah, Let's keep it that way, Challenger does not look good at all as a convertible...

      • 6 Years Ago
      I cannot get over the fact how ugly and outdated this "car" is! What sells it?
      Efficient, powerful, yet fuel-sipping engine? No.
      Maybe some kind of engineering breakthrough, first in the industry, anything ingenious? Big NO!
      Wait, I know! It's the "days of yore" sentiment, when the cars were big and powerful and gasoline cost less than a water. I'm sure entire batch of 11 cars will sell in like a year, and those few stoops will be "GIT'R'DONE" happy, YEEEEHAAWWWW!

      Idiots....
        • 6 Years Ago
        Auto, chances are they're older than you with the way you talk.

        Your immaturity really shines through when you consider all republicans to just be "wrong", and being a republican to be bad.

        You're such a fool.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Serge K. You need to get over your stereotypes that v8 = gas guzzler always.

        "Efficient, powerful, yet fuel-sipping engine? No."

        Actually the 5.7 hemi v8 IS powerful yet fuel-sipping compared to any other 375 engine out there. What other 4,000 lb car with 375 hp gets 16/25?
        • 6 Years Ago
        John and MajorGeek, oh the hostility... how old are you? You two must be Republican as you wage war on anyone who doesn't agree with you.

        There is always a greater fool. ;)
        • 6 Years Ago
        AutoXN- a LOADED SRT8 is 45k. And for 45 grand, not much else is this cool.
        BTW, an RT gets better mileage than a Mustang GT.
        • 6 Years Ago
        You give truth to the saying: "Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"
        • 6 Years Ago
        And AutoXN: Keep your useless political commentaries to yourself. If you feel compelled to talk about politics do it somewhere else.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Funny that one or two haters comes to every thread. I usually ignore most cares I hate when I can. That said, my car still draws huge looks (just came back in from a ride) and people stop to see it, so I assume your the minority. What people like is the design, no my bad, they LOVE it. You seem to be expecting a perfect car, its a wonderful car, but nothing is perfect. Frankly, the weight and size comes up, but it is a huge engine and onpar with many high performance cars.
      • 6 Years Ago
      I say this is a good move on Chrysler's part.

      They need to get over their obsession with big cars and trucks and sink their budgeted teeth into world-class A-, B- and C-segment cars before they can even think about seeing some black on the bottom line in the next decade.

      Besides, who needs another gas-guzzling overweight convertible?
        • 6 Years Ago
        Point taken, and I am of the same opinion as far as enjoying a good drive goes - I didn't mean to come off as a snobby 'greenie'.

        I'm just more of a smaller-turbocharged-engine-in-a-lighter-car type of guy. My Jetta 2.0T consumes less gas than my previous Mazda3 and has an extra 50hp to boot, and you can definitely feel it. Nobody really *needs* much more power than what the 2.0T offers (IMO), but larger and heavier cars do need the extra power for better performance. I just think it's excessive and unnecessary, but that may just be my liberal Canadian ways taking hold of me. Bigger isn't better, damnit!
        • 6 Years Ago
        @RS,
        I've driven a rental Charger SXT and I really liked the vehicle. Very smooth ride for a unibody vehicle, and the interior was comforable and quiet. If the Magnum R/T had a respectable towing capacity I probably would have bought one over my Suburban.

        I also love the assumption that any larger car must guzzle gas. My Roadmaster Wagon (LT1 powered) does ~26mpg on the highway going 70. That's not bad for a vehicle with more cargo space and towing capacity than ANY car/wagon sold today. The reason I had to buy an SUV is because the Roadmaster and its ilk are gone.

        Also: my vehicle has TWO backseats to choose from for make-out purposes :)

        @B-NOIT
        I'm the polar opposite, I can't stand turbo motors. The power delivery isn't smooth, the turbo sounds themselves are absurdly loud and obnoxious, they eat premium fuel, they require that idle cool-down period, etc (most of my experience comes from an 06 STi and a 03 (I think at least) GTI). The VAG 2.0T itself is a pretty inefficient turbo motor compared to its competition. GM's LNF 2.0T Ecotec is more effcient and more powerful.

        Everyone should drive what they like. I don't care for small vehicles with high-strung engines, but if that's what you like then by all means. I like big RWD soft-riding BOF vehicles with torquey motors. I liked them long before SUVs became popular (I've always owned big GM wagons and Chevy/Ford pickups) and I'll continue to like them afterwards. It just so happens (and sucks) that Suburban's about the only choice I have. Smaller isn't better either dammit!
      • 6 Years Ago
      thank god.
      • 6 Years Ago
      "My gripe is why this car wasn't desgined from the beginning to have a covertible option"

      I feel your pain, but it's easily explained. They only built the challenger, the way it looks, because of people like me who complained, and continue to complain, about the car they are calling a charger. So, since many of us complainers stated that a two door retro version was what we wanted, they quite literally took the "charger/300" platform and made the challenger on it. (plus it's cheaper that way, with the assembly lines and all)

      The fact is, a few minor changes to the current challenger design, and it would be the charger many of us hoped for all these years, and the one many of us still want. The challenger is great, and if I could afford it right now, my wife would have one, but it's no charger.

      My 69 will be out of the body shop soon, and even with all it's 60's imperfections and lack of power brakes, power steering, or power windows, it will still be better than "settling" for the new car.

      Hmmm, $40,000 for a four door sedan, or $40,000 or so in a 69 charger restoration...no contest.
      • 6 Years Ago
      A convertible Challenger would weight what, three tons or so? Be better off making a convertible Ram Cummins dualy because they would weigh about the same.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Bad move.

      Chrysler will essentially spot the Mustang and Camaro "x" number of units everyday because they simply are not going to compete in the segment. I see a pretty fair amount of convertible Mustangs living in Michigan where a convertible is only good for 3 months. On my 4 visits to the LA area almost every Mustang I saw was a convertible, same for the Charlotte area and Florida.

      I understand the weight issue but shouldn't they have planned ahead for that when designed the car in the first place?
      • 6 Years Ago
      I actually hoped for a Challenger hardtop convertible. With the top up, it'd look like a pillarless hardtop, like the concept.
      • 6 Years Ago
      dumbest move ever.
      • 6 Years Ago
      I thought this was an auto enthusiats site; not where Marxist Obama Zombies come to vent. The Challenger should be more than a two-door Charger. At least drop a 6.4L 500hp engine in it.
        • 6 Years Ago
        WTF? Who ever said political affiliation has anything to do with car enthusiasm?

        I'm sure just as many Blues love the Challenger as Reds. Its a great American car, and cool cars transcend partisianship. You can't lump car enthusiasts into such basic camps. Now truck enthusiasts, I'll leave that one alone.
    • Load More Comments