2007 Dodge Avenger (Very Impressive!)

[JNasty4G63]

Why does everyone hate a corporate style?

Having a corporate "style" is one thing. But, making a direct rip-off of a car you already make, just smaller, isn't style. If the new Ferrari 599 looked exactly like a F430, just a bit bigger, do you think people would be ok with that??? No, they wouldn't. They want Ferrari "feel" but in a different car. Having the big "corporate" grill and what not on a Dodge is fine. But, making a direct copy is of an existing car is just lazy.

They are doing what Hummer is trying with the H2 and H3. Make something that looks almost exactly like a very distinct car, just at a smaller scale. No originallity, just make it look the same, but cheaper. People wanted a smaller Hummer, so they made the H2. Then people complained that it was too big and expensive, so they made the H3. No originallity in either of them, just a mirror image of a very distinct car trying to ride its coat tails. Sad really.

Hilg

 

[Eric.]

Why does everyone hate a corporate style?

Blocky and with overhangs is dodges thing now!

This is the replacement for the Stratus, not the Neon.

How could you mix that up, if it is "based" (nose job) on the Sebring?

Actually, this would be the replacement for the Avenger...💡

 

[TopHat]

No, if it were the Avenger replacement, it would be a coupe!

This is a replacement for the discontinued Stratus, which was the same as a SEBRING. double the

 

[JNasty4G63]

No, if it were the Avenger replacement, it would be a coupe!

You mean like they did so well with the Charger??? Ok, got it.

Hilg

 

[harrytuttle]

Build quality and percieved quality aren't very high on DCX models as far as my knowlege reaches... The Caliber has failed to impress me on the "value" scale with the Tupperware interior, one of the worst I have seen in a production car. The pannels feel like they are made out of the same material that my youngest brother's toy cars are made out of, it is just that bad.

BTW: This is the "old" Avenger:

I know all about the old Avenger; a friend had one, and hated every minute of it. Constant repairs, things falling off, even fuel economy was lousy...but I guess the car was 5 years old.

I never understood the appeal of the Sebring convertible. It's not like it's the only USDM convertible around, but maybe since it was just about the only convertible available at every damned rental place meant it was bound to be popular.

As for whether the new Avenger will sell: of course it will. The entire central US eats this crap up as much as Miami eats up Gallardos. There's no incentive for the US manufacturers to improve anything (especially the interior) since most of the buyers don't even care about that. In fact, the average buyer cares so little and knows so little, is it really any surprise we get half the cars we end up with? Could the shape of the US motor industry be anything else with a market like this?

 

[samj_13]

As for whether the new Avenger will sell: of course it will. The entire central US eats this crap up as much as Miami eats up Gallardos. There's no incentive for the US manufacturers to improve anything (especially the interior) since most of the buyers don't even care about that. In fact, the average buyer cares so little and knows so little, is it really any surprise we get half the cars we end up with? Could the shape of the US motor industry be anything else with a market like this?

I think people in America are starting to want cars that get them from A to B, and have a little bit of fun mixed in. Sounds kindof like a big K-car marketplace (big meaning size of the car). I know if I had a car, I'd much rather have a small little SRT-4 over a Civic sedan, an Accord, or a Maxima for example. I like the way the SRT-4 was built: Small package, big power, really fast. And it looks pretty cool as well.

That being said, there will for at least the next decade, a market in America for huge pickups, saloons, sedans, and sports cars.

Bigger isn't always better...

 

[YSSMAN]

I'm sorry??? Since when does making an 80% scale version of an already ruined shape come across as distinctive??? Thats just lazy, is what that is. Give a picture of the Charger to an intern, have them fire up the Xerox, and get to work. They just couldn't be bothered it appears.

Hilg

Since when did you become the Führer of Automotive design? I think you are overlooking the big-picture here...

Now I will acknowlege that DCX did soil the reputation of the Charger nameplate by making it a four-door sedan, but when you look at things overall, it wasn't a bad move at all. Although it does have four doors, it has the "looks" of a coupe, but the selling point overall is it's overall "muscular" looks as compared to other vanilla sedans out there today. The oversquare look brings back memories of when American cars were just that, American cars... Not a rebadged Mazda 6 or Opel Vectra.

Dodge, as it seems, is attempting to do the same thing with the Avenger. Giving it the mini-Charger looks makes it look "tough" by comparison to a Toyota Camry or Honda Accord, making the Mom or Dad feel less embarassed to be driving such a boring car. The car is more about "image" than everything, and given your assment of automotive design, I would have assumed that you could figure that one out yourself.

I like the looks, you don't. I'd be willing to bet that a good number of people, that would be the average American, will like the looks as well. I'm glad to see that DCX is taking a step forward in design, and doing something different. That said, I think the next-gen Malibu looks better, but thats just me...

----

That said I also think you are missing the point of the "corporate face" as well. Although the origins of the "corportate face" date back well into the early years of the automobile industry, only recently has it become as obvious as ever before. Granted, I'm not a big-fan of what the assorted brands do, but I can understand their resasoning.

They want consumers to see their products and "know" that is a BMW or Pontiac, a Volkswagen or Hyundai. Giving cars a similar identity ties the product lines together, kinda like a family. Maybe you like the looks of the Lexus LS460 but can't afford it... So you go out and buy an IS350 that uses the same "L-Finesse" design language.

I find it funny that you focused primarily on American cars in your citicisms when Japanese and European manufacturers are just as guily. One sided views? I'd say so, as Honda and Toyota are just as bad as GM and DCX.

 

[JohnBM01]

When I was just getting into cars, I considered the Avenger to be a wonderfully-designed and mean car. The 1998-ish car had a pretty mean stance for a car that I didn't know was a front/FWD machine. I'll likely say that it was one of the most wicked FWD (or "wrong-wheel drive" to haters of FWD) of the past decade. It probably would have benefitted with a RWD setup or at least a 4WD.

But I take a look at this bad boy... I think the Avenger was styled pretty nicely. I thought the Charger styling on this car seems to work better for this model than the Caliber. I probably thought this would have been a better Neon replacement. The Caliber didn't work for me all that much in the styling department. This Avenger deal WORKS. In fact, I can recall of plans to bring back the Avenger. Now it takes center stage and never looked better. I've always badmouthed Cadillac for too many lines and boxes and not enough curves. A machine like this is sort of a great mix of bold lines and nice curves.

Out of 100% approval of a car like this, I'm giving this a VERY high 95% approval. This car may make it in this tough world of ours. I'll even go a step further and say that the aftermarket/tuner types will probably embrace this car very well. I've always seemed to like most Dodges in that Inferno Red color like with Dodges late last decade. This car will shine if priced considerably. It should be a nice Dodge. That's why I like DaimlerChrysler among America's Big Three. I do have respect for GM, though. This car should do pretty well. And once again, YSSMAN, I was rather surprised myself to see this car designed so well.

 

[JNasty4G63]

Since when did you become the Führer of Automotive design?

Does the line form behind you???

.....making the Mom or Dad feel less embarassed to be driving such a boring car.

Exactly, a mind-numbingly boring car will not be saved by making it look flashy. The PT Cruiser and VW Bug come to mind there. What you have is a Neon and Golf, but with retro-ish shapes on top. But, what they had going for them, was that nothing on the road at the time looked like them. But, with this, you already have a car that looks like it, the Charger.

The car is more about "image" than everything, and given your assment of automotive design, I would have assumed that you could figure that one out yourself.

You think in a country where we buy more trucks than anything else, people are really going to give 2 flips about the look of a FWD sedan???

I'm glad to see that DCX is taking a step forward in design, and doing something different.

WHAT is different about it??? It might be different than the outgoing Stratus sedan, or the original Avenger, but different as a whole it most certainly isn't. If Chevy came out and said that the new Camaro was going to be FWD, and look just like the current Impala, would you think that was "distinctive" and a "step forward" in design??? I sure as hell wouldn't.

That said I also think you are missing the point of the "corporate face" as well.....They want consumers to see their products and "know" that is a BMW or Pontiac, a Volkswagen or Hyundai.

I fully understand what a "corporate face" is and why its important. But, what I don't agree with is making a car look exactly like a current model, just smaller, and being satisfied with that.

You use BMW, so I'll take that example and go with it. They very much have a "corporate" look. But, every one of their cars has it's own look and feel. Yes, they all have the kidneys for grills, and that "Bangle" feel to them. But, you'd be hard pressed to confuse a 330i with a 550i at a glance. Yes, they are instantly known as BMWs, but very different looks. Completely different headlights, very different taillights, and a whole different flow with the shape of the body and contours. Not so with the 2 cars from Dodge....

This.....

.....doesn't look like this.

And yet, this.....

.....is almost exactly like this.

I find it funny that you focused primarily on American cars in your citicisms when Japanese and European manufacturers are just as guily. One sided views? I'd say so, as Honda and Toyota are just as bad as GM and DCX.

Well, this thread is about the DODGE AVENGER, so that is what I talked about. I didn't know this was the thread where we get to bag on all other brands out there. But, if you can find me another car from a Euro or Japanese brand that looks this blatantly copied from a current model, I'll gladly gripe about it as well.

Hilg

 

[GT4_Rule]

Ermm...

I would like the old Avenger, please. Thank you.

 

[JohnBM01]

Let's have some public opinion on this, then. Would you prefer the latest Avenger or the previous model? Explain why you'd prefer that specific version over the other.

 

[Cod_Father]

Does the line form behind you???

Exactly, a mind-numbingly boring car will not be saved by making it look flashy. The PT Cruiser and VW Bug come to mind there. What you have is a Neon and Golf, but with retro-ish shapes on top. But, what they had going for them, was that nothing on the road at the time looked like them. But, with this, you already have a car that looks like it, the Charger.

You think in a country where we buy more trucks than anything else, people are really going to give 2 flips about the look of a FWD sedan???

WHAT is different about it??? It might be different than the outgoing Stratus sedan, or the original Avenger, but different as a whole it most certainly isn't. If Chevy came out and said that the new Camaro was going to be FWD, and look just like the current Impala, would you think that was "distinctive" and a "step forward" in design??? I sure as hell wouldn't.

I fully understand what a "corporate face" is and why its important. But, what I don't agree with is making a car look exactly like a current model, just smaller, and being satisfied with that.

You use BMW, so I'll take that example and go with it. They very much have a "corporate" look. But, every one of their cars has it's own look and feel. Yes, they all have the kidneys for grills, and that "Bangle" feel to them. But, you'd be hard pressed to confuse a 330i with a 550i at a glance. Yes, they are instantly known as BMWs, but very different looks. Completely different headlights, very different taillights, and a whole different flow with the shape of the body and contours. Not so with the 2 cars from Dodge....

This.....

.....doesn't look like this.

And yet, this.....

.....is almost exactly like this.

Well, this thread is about the DODGE AVENGER, so that is what I talked about. I didn't know this was the thread where we get to bag on all other brands out there. But, if you can find me another car from a Euro or Japanese brand that looks this blatantly copied from a current model, I'll gladly gripe about it as well.

Hilg

To me, what you are saying about BMW applies to the Dodge's as well. How is the rear of the avenger "almost exactly" like the Charger anymore different than the two BMWs being "almost exactly" alike? The differences at the rear are more than noticeable between the makes of each manufacturer.

And why did you focus only on the rear?

front:

I don't know how this is a "charger copy." Different grill shape, different headlight shape, grill is raked back on the avenger, different hood, more rake to the windshield, fender flares. Hell, the only thing that resembles the charger to me is the rear quarter hump.

So to me the differentiation between the models is even greater than that of the BMWs.

 

[Dave A]

While I would dissagree that the difference between the Charger and Avenger is bigger than the two BMW's, I do think there is noticable differences between them. They share the same stye. But I'm assuming they are also different sized cars, if they were both the same size I would have to say I don't see any point in the new Avenger, but otherwise I don't see anything wrong with them using the same direction in it's design.

 

[JNasty4G63]

How is the rear of the avenger "almost exactly" like the Charger anymore different than the two BMWs being "almost exactly" alike?

You are seriously going to say that??? Look, I understand that the car isn't a PERFECT copy of the Charger, down to the exact millimeter. But, honestly, the differences are so minimal, its just ridiculous. The BMWs, on the other hand, are not at all alike. You can't honestly tell me that the taillights of the BMWs are no less alike than those on the Dodges.

And why did you focus only on the rear?

What the hell is going on here?? I get ripped by YSSMAN for only talking about Dodge when it comes to design...IN A THREAD ABOUT DODGE CARS. And now, you are asking why I only focused on the rear. I was trying to just make my point quickly. But, if you really want me to delve into everything else, I sure will.

Look, you people are getting way to technical about this. The fact of the matter is, to me, the car is boring and styled after and already bland shape. They obviously want people to know its a "NEW DODGE" so much, that they just copied the flow and style of an already NEW DODGE. If you people look at this, and don't think it looks bad, and think it is SOOOO distinctive compared to the other cars in their lineup, then I guess it worked. You fell for it.

But, to me, it looks like another car. If I'm buying an Avenger, I don't want a "Little Charger". I want an AVENGER. Granted, the original Avenger/Sebring coupes weren't the best cars. But, they were pretty good looking, and didn't look like direct rip-offs of a current model at the time.

But, like most of these things now, they just want to put an old name on a new car, and call it good. The Charger, now a sedan. The Magnum, now a wagon. The 300C, now a sedan. I don't want OLD names on new, unrelated style cars. That doesn't work for me.

Hilg

 

[YSSMAN]

Yes, it may not work for you, but it works for the average American/Canadian (or whoever) consumer that will be buying these cars in the near future. To put it all into perspective, the automakers are building models that appeal to two different categories: The Baby Boomers (Charger) and the Gen-X kids (Avenger).

The point of the car is to be different, or to follow Dodge's various slogans, to be "Dodge Different" or to "Grab Life by the Horns."

So the question becomes, do you go with Vanilla?

Or do you go with Stawberry?

The point is that the car doesn't look like a sepository or a vibrator, it looks like an American sedan. Chrysler has always had unique products throughout their history, and this is one more step away from the Cab-forward look that they pioneered with the Intrepid, etc. It may be "ugly" by your standards, but it has presence, and thats what matters.

Is it the best looking car in it's class? Probably not, espically with cars like the Aura in the mix, but the Avenger will certainly be a favorite among Americans and Canadians.

 

[Danny]

 

[95GTIVR6]

I am going to stay simple, not argue and plainly say that the styling cues of this new Avenger do not please me the slightest. Actually, most of the new designs coming out of Dodge the past few years all look......recycled. Just my opinion, I thought the Charger was a decent design but the new design of the Avenger just seems to bastardize it, especially the middle/rear section.

👎

I liked the design of the OLD Avenger much more than this new one. I believe they should have done "90's Retro" styling. HAH, if there even is such a thing......just wait until it becomes popular in about 15 years to style cars like the 90's, how awful.

 

[JNasty4G63]

It may be "ugly" by your standards, but it has presence, and thats what matters.

I don't recall ever calling it ugly. It most certainly isn't ugly. That title is only reserved for things like the Aztek and such. This car is just bland. Not ugly, just repetitive and dull. And just so you don't snip me for not saying something about the Japanese, its the same with the Accord and Camry. Not bad cars at all, just boring looking.

But, the beauty, or lack there of I should say, is not what is in question here. I just find it rather lame that they couldn't come up with something new. A name from the past, and a shape that is currently already in use. UGH. And, from the looks of the last few posts here, and on some other boards, I'm not alone in that position.

Hilg

 

[JNasty4G63]

So the question becomes, do you go with Vanilla?....Or do you go with Stawberry?

Oh, and to answer your question, if I HAD to choose a midsize sedan, it would be a Legacy all the way. Granted, there are no REALLY good looking sedans at that price segment if you ask me. But, the Legacy looks pretty good. Its sporty, but yet not trying too hard.

Hilg

 

[Danny]

Oh, and to answer your question, if I HAD to choose a midsize sedan, it would be a Legacy all the way. Granted, there are no REALLY good looking sedans at that price segment if you ask me. But, the Legacy looks pretty good. Its sporty, but yet not trying too hard.

Hilg

*snip*

I thought the Legacy was the Liberty over there.
*Confused*

 

[JNasty4G63]

I thought the Legacy was the Liberty over there.
*Confused*

No, the bigger sedan is called the Legacy here. I think its only "down under" that they call it the Liberty. We have the Impreza, Legacy, Forester, Baja, and Tribeca.

The only Liberty that I can think of that we got here in recent years, or at all for that matter, is the Jeep Liberty, which was the Cherokee replacement. I think it is STILL called the Cherokee over in your parts. But for whatever reason, probably mostly political fluffing, they changed the name to Liberty here. More UGH from DC.

Hilg

 

[Danny]

No, the bigger sedan is called the Legacy here. I think its only "down under" that they call it the Liberty. We have the Impreza, Legacy, Forester, Baja, and Tribeca.

The only Liberty that I can think of that we got here in recent years, or at all for that matter, is the Jeep Liberty, which was the Cherokee replacement. I think it is STILL called the Cherokee over in your parts. But for whatever reason, probably mostly political fluffing, they changed the name to Liberty here. More UGH from DC.

Hilg

That clears it up, thanks. +rep

 

[YSSMAN]

...I belive the Legacy is a larger car that would technically compete against the Charger in price and performance.

The Avenger will be shooting it out with the Camry and Accord, as well as the Malibu, G6, Aura, Fusion, etc.

 

[JNasty4G63]

...I belive the Legacy is a larger car that would technically compete against the Charger in price and performance.


The Avenger will be shooting it out with the Camry and Accord, as well as the Malibu, G6, Aura, Fusion, etc.

Not even close to the Charger. Its over a foot shorter in length and wheelbase, and also between 400-600lbs lighter, depending on what chunk of engine the Charger has. This also showing the fact that you can only get the Legacy with a 4-cyl engine, unlike the Charger with its many BIG choices. Very different cars.

In fact, the Legacy falls right into the range of almost every one of the other cars you mentioned. It is almost exactly the same size, weight, and with basically the same power as the Camry and Accord.

Hilg

 

[TopHat]

@ YSSMAN on Dodge styling- Good for you

@ All of the overly-biased morons

All of you who say that DCX has uninspired designs,
I have a few words. CHALLENGER, PT CRUISER, PROWLER, CHARGER, ANY JEEP(not the compass or Liberty), AND FOR THE WIN..... THE CARAVAN!!

Yes, the Caravan, the original minivan.

 

[JNasty4G63]

@ All of the overly-biased morons

All of you who say that DCX has uninspired designs,
I have a few words. CHALLENGER, PT CRUISER, PROWLER, CHARGER, ANY JEEP(not the compass or Liberty), AND FOR THE WIN..... THE CARAVAN!!

HA HA HA!!! You just don't get what I'm saying. I have nothing wrong with DC's designs. They're fine. I just have a problem with them bringing back a retired name (Avenger), and putting it on a car that looks exactly like a current model (Charger), all while not keeping the look and feel of the original (2dr now 4dr). Like I said, they did the same thing with the Charger, the Magnum, and the 300. The design of those cars is fine, I get it. But, just don't call it a "CHARGER" just to drum up fake buzz for the car.

They did well with others, like your PT Cruiser, Prowler, Viper, Avenger, Intrepid, and others, just to name a few. New cars with new names. I just hate it when they try and bring a name from the dead to spice up a car. Its almost like they KNOW the car is dull, and so in an effort to save it, they try for the nostalgia factor. And no, I understand they aren't the only ones who do it. But, in recent years, they have been the company that seems to be digging in their past the most.

Hilg

 

[STLbarcelona5]

Am I the only one that notices an odd similarity off the headlights with this. I don't really know why, but that was the FIRST thing that caught my attention about the car.

 

[YSSMAN]

Bringing back nameplates from the dead is an easy way to connect with previous generations that loved the model in question. If it be the Impala to connect with the Baby Boomers or the Avenger to connect with the Gen-Xers, it is simply a marketing ploy to bring people into the showrooms. While on many occasions it works out quite well, others it does not.

Quite frankly, there isn't a huge problem with it. It keeps customers comming back, and it brings new customers back in. While there are plenty of people who have lambasted Dodge for making the Charger a sedan, many people embrased it, given the cars origional roots as a spinoff of a large four-door sedan.

 

[JohnBM01]

Everyone has what they consider as beautiful cars and ugly ones. I think the most recent... I want to say Automobile magazine had a section about some of the most beautiful cars of the past and present. JNasty4G63, you can chalk up me as a fan of the Legacy you've mentioned. Just on the basis of what is exciting vs. what isn't exciting, we can make your own respective points (I almost typed "ur" instead of "your!).

A big preference on what is beautiful compared to what isn't can be an indication of what one considers good design as opposed to "me too" designs, so to speak. I sometimes tend to like more sophisticated European and Japanese tones. Most Hyundai and Kia models are more of style for those who don't have too much and don't want to have a car that isn't as much of a standout. These kinds of people are more about just having a good car for good money and don't care too much on character. But then, there are those who feel that life is too short for a bland-looking car, or at least a car that doesn't have any sporty intentions or characteristics. A person who is likely to forego a Hyundai Sonata will opt for something like a recent Ford Mustang or (as in these examples) a Dodge Charger. I love the newer Mustangs myself. However, I just don't feel like I'd want a certain car to be a reflection of my image or just to show off. I don't think I'd want a car to have an unnecessary exhibition of speed, light up the tires, or any of that. I've grown up with the tuner car crowd, so I know what it is like to have a car designed differently so that it's unique and not like everyone else. Car modders usually are at war with each other over who has the finest car. The car (usually economy cars) is still that same model, just that it looks more unique to the tastes of the owner and/or the crew responsible for building up the car. Us Americans are usually about cars that are more bold than flashy, more capable than spartan. It's why most of us don't really like cars like the Ferrari F430 (which I love) or the 599 Fiorano GTB (or whatever it's called). It's also the same reason we'd prefer a Pontiac G6 to a recent BMW 3 Series. It's more about personal preference to me. In the sense of this Dodge Avenger, I would prefer a nice-looking automobile. Why is that? It's because I am an art person. This machine isn't exactly the Mona Lisa of car design, but for some people, "who cares?" The reason why I like this design is because it is aggressive while not overdoing it. That's the key for me and my tastes. I don't want something to intimidate certain Japanese imports, even though this car can do it without saying anything or moving one mph or kph. Other peoples' keys mostly pertain to the fact that this design for a compact is different and not watered-down or plain. People who know me know that I don't like taking a pro-patriotic approach to everything- even car design. Dodge isn't going to suck up to anyone else's design just to sell their cars. They know better than that. And if you're going to come up with a completely different design, do it right. Otherwise, I'd take "the field" over that specific car any day of the week. Like I would take a Lexus RX-class SUV over the Pontiac Aztek (Ass-tec as I call it) or the overly-milked Hummer H2 and H3 on the basis of style. This despite the fact that the RX-Class isn't a terrain-conquering behemoth. It doesn't matter much to me because I know what kind of person I am and know what I want in a properly-designed car or truck.

So all in all, I'm happy with the design of this Avenger. I've seen much worse. I wonder what the car would look like if it took design cues from the 1990s Avenger and applied them to this new-age Avenger. The lights would be above, and the grill would be below the lights like the Viper. The rear would see vertically-shorter taillights. But would the combined design work better if they went with the 1990's style Avenger? Just a thought.

 

[JNasty4G63]

Bringing back nameplates from the dead is an easy way to connect with previous generations that loved the model in question.....Quite frankly, there isn't a huge problem with it. It keeps customers comming back, and it brings new customers back in.

Answer me this then. Lets say, theoretically of course, the new Camaro comes back as a FWD V6 sedan. You'd be ok with that right, because the name is what brings people in??? I mean, no one cares that it used to be a fun coupe with lots of power and attitude. It would be fine as a timid sedan, because people totally LOVE the name Camaro.

Or, again theoretically, what if Jaguar were to come out with a new 4-door wagon, and they called it the E-Type. The name is all that matters, so that would be fine, right??? I mean, the original E-Type is one of the greatest cars of all time. That name alone would sell the hell out of some wagons.

Forgive me if I don't agree with you.

Hilg