(EXPANDED FROM 10/2/2023)
The 2006 Dodge Charger’s styling was greeted with mixed reviews when the car was introduced. Perhaps the most pointed criticism came from Car and Driver writer Larry Webster (2005), who stated that its corporate sibling the Chrysler 300 “looks cool” but that the Charger’s styling was “goofy.”
Michael Jordan (2005) of Automobile magazine concluded that there was “an awful lot going on in the Charger, maybe too much: a truck-style grille, frenched headlights, a retro kick-up in the rear door meant to recall Chrysler E-body pony cars of the early ’70s, and a Kamm-style aero tail. It’s all been stitched together with lots of enthusiasm, but there’s not much beauty to behold.”
Road & Track’s Matt DeLorenzo (2012) had a slightly warmer attitude: “The first photographs of the car didn’t impress, but seeing it in the flesh, and especially in the striped and winged Daytona version, I must admit that it has grown on me.”
Hemmings writer Daniel Strohl (2005) defended the Charger against allegations that it looks “like a flying brick,” noting that the base model’s draft coefficient was “better than a Hummer H2.” The SE model had a coefficient of 0.33 compared to the H2’s 0.57 — but not as good as as an Infiniti G35’s 0.27.
Weaker aerodynamics caused by retrograde styling
I wouldn’t call the 2006 Charger a true “retro” car because it evoked the iconic 1968-70 Charger in only the vaguest of ways. The car was retrograde in the sense that its unusually square shape was out of sync with the jellybean look common to passenger cars of the early-21st Century.
As a case in point, the windshield was cartoonishly upright, kind of like in the 1960s. The goal was presumably to cultivate nostalgic feelings. This design approach was a radical reversal from the previous big Dodge, called the Intrepid.
As with all of the Chryslers based on the so-called LH platform, their most visible feature had been the “cab-forward” look, whereby the windshield was given a relatively horizontal rake and its base was pushed forward so far that it was above the front wheels.
The 2006-10 Charger’s upright windshield hardly helped aerodynamics, but neither did the car’s forward-leaning grille, which replaced the swept-back styling of the Intrepid.
Of course, the differences in the two cars’ profiles partly reflected that the Intrepid was front-wheel drive whereas the Charger was the opposite. Modern FWD cars will tend to have longer snouts and shorter wheelbases between the A-pillar and front wheels. However, as we shall discuss shortly, that didn’t preclude Chrysler from maintaining an aerodynamic shape when it switched to rear-wheel drive.
The Charger’s rear end was the most benign part of the car. An arching sail panel maintained a theme from the Intrepid. Note how the base of the rear window was inset somewhat from the outer edge of the sail panel. This paid homage to the second-generation Charger’s flying-buttress roofline. In addition, dual round taillight bezels evoked the 1968 Charger’s bullet-shaped lights.
Charger’s revival created unflattering comparisons
Bringing back the Charger nameplate unleashed a debate about whether a muscle car must have only two doors. DeLorenzo (2012) quite-rightly argued that the “door count isn’t as important as the overall shape.” He pointed out that the Charger, like the Chrysler 300, had a relatively low coupe-like profile.
Also see ‘Matt DeLorenzo’s book, Dodge: 100 Years, is a highly polished something’
DeLorenzo (2012) also quite-rightly noted that the new Charger was “not as sleek as the 2000 concept of the same name, which also had four doors but shared the same so-called fuselage styling of the original.” It was inaccurate to describe the early Chargers as sporting “fuselage” styling — that didn’t happen until a major redesign in 1971.
#/media/File:Dodge_Charger_R-T_Concept_(17087253500).jpg)
Even so, the 2000 concept car represented the direction that Chrysler should have taken because it successfully integrated contemporary sports-sedan aerodynamics with classic Charger styling cues, such as the wide-shouldered and wedge-shaped body sides.
Another noteworthy aspect of the concept car was that the LH platform was converted to rear-wheel drive. Daimler’s subsequent takeover of Chrysler nixed the idea of further development of this platform (Strohl, 2020). A modified Mercedes-Benz platform was used instead.
I give Chrysler credit for learning from its mistakes. Designers drew more from the 2000 concept when they restyled the Charger for 2011. However, they could have modernized the car even more by, for example, significantly lowering the grille and giving the hood a more downward slope.
.jpg)
Should the 2006 redesign have been called a Charger?
Back when the Charger was reintroduced, Webster (2005) argued that Dodge should have come up with a different name. He thought that “Dodge uglified the car with those rear fender humps simply so it could find some connection to the original Charger and then justify tacking on the Charger badge. Sure, I admire the old Charger, but this new car is good enough to deserve its own name.”
I would agree that the rear-quarter’s kick-up looks tacked on, which is accentuated by the weird two-tone paint shown in the above photo. However, it also made sense for Dodge to bring back the Charger because it was one of the brand’s most iconic nameplates.
What the car needed was styling to match the name. For whatever reason, that didn’t happen. Indeed, rather than burnishing the Charger legacy, the cheesy design undercut it until a reskinning at least partially saved the day.
Then in 2024 the Charger was given a complete makeover that represented a rather conservative mishmash of elements. Perhaps that was partly because the car — now offered in both four- and two-door models — was also essentially replacing the Challenger.
Curiously enough, the 2000 Charger concept car still represents the most promising design approach even after more than two decades. That speaks to both the quality of the design as well as the weaknesses of what ended up in production.
NOTES:
This article was originally posted on Oct. 2, 2023 and expanded on June 5, 2026.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- DeLorenzo, Matt; 2012. “2006 Dodge Charger Daytona R/T.” Road & Track. Posted Nov. 6.
- Jordan, Michael; 2005. “2006 Dodge Charger R/T, 2005 Ford Mustang GT, and 2005 Pontiac GTO 6.0.” Automobile (now MotorTrend). Posted Aug. 1.
- Strohl, Daniel; 2018. “A Product of its Time – 2006 Dodge Charger.” Hemmings. Posted Sept. 23.
- ——; 2020. “What could have been: Chrysler originally intended the LH platform as front-, rear-, and all-wheel drive.” Hemmings. Posted May 8.
- Webster, Larry; 2005. “Dodge Charger R/T.” Car and Driver. Updated July 31.
- Wikipedia; 2020. “Dodge Charger.” Page last edited May 6.
- ——; 2023. “Dodge Charter R/T (1999 concept).” Page last edited Jan. 3.
PHOTOGRAPHS:
The following photos were drawn from Wikipedia via Creative Commons 3.0. Photos have been lightly edited to reduce background shadows.
- Banner image of 2006-7 Dodge Charger SXT by IFCAR.
- 2009-10 Dodge Charger by Bull-Doser (all rights released).
- 2014 Dodge Charger SXT Plus by FireHouseRock.
- 1999 (2000) Dodge Charter R/T concept by Jeremy.
The LH series had some great designs and were doing some industry leading on Design. The Charger left that behind as they became part of Daimler. They now had to work with what was essentially and E Class platform. Chrysler’s internal leadership that had spawned the LH was gone – Tom Gale (VP Design) and Bob Lutz (a champion of design and sanctity of the product).
Under the new direction it was about sticking a Hemi into everything possible and promoting it as the second coming of the 1960s muscle cars. Subtlety and refinement were no longer required.
The re-imagined Dodge Magnum / Charger styling was roundly criticized in “Autoweek” upon model introduction after the mag had displayed the Charger concept on the cover years earlier. I don’t think Daimler-Benz cared about Chrysler after 2005. I nominate John T. Snow (Former C.E.O. of CSX Transportation and former U.S. Treasury Secretary under George W. Bush) and the poor speller, former V,P. of the U.S. Dan Quayle of Cerberus Capital as easily the worst automobile C.E.O.s in the history of the automobile industry !!!!!
“However, it also made sense for Dodge to bring back the Charger because it was one of the brand’s most iconic nameplates.”
Yes, because the hatchback from the 80s with the VW motor was so faithful to the original concept 🙂 . This is one situation where Chevrolet’s habit of renaming their compacts after every respawn would make more sense.
Pictures engineers standing around a dripping compact fresh from the vats and asking
“What shall we call you?”
“What was my name last time, fleshlings?”
“Cobalt”
“WFT?? I want a cooler name. It still has to be a C, right? I really liked Vega.”
“Yes, a C.”
“…Cruze. This is who I am. Cruze.”
I did not like the Charger’s styling at first because I associated it with police cars and the overly aggressive tendencies of their occupants. The car was ubiquitous enough that I eventually took a neutral attitude. Then it hung around long enough that I hated looking at it. I was somewhat aware that it had been restyled but the difference was not enough to actually notice.
I experienced a similar cycle with the Chrysler 300. In the beginning, I liked it a lot. It was the only Chrysler Corporation product that I had taken any notice of since the Neon. But it was essentially unchanged for so long that it became boring and it acquired a gangsta/pseudo-Bentley association accessorized with oversized wheels and prodigious chrome that I found unappealing.
Chrysler was stuck marrying Mopar drivetrains onto a Mercedes platform so I highly doubt the 2006 Charger could have ever come close to the 2nd generation Charger. The 1999 concept was built on a modified LX chassis. Chryslers concept cars of the 90s were among the best of modern times and that 99 Charger is my favorite.
I think the new ICE Charger that is sold as a two and four door rectified some of the shortcomings of the 06. It takes design cues from 1968 and 1969 and making them work.
Not a fan of that Charger or the restyle, however I do consider the 2024 car a very graceful and successful design, quite nice. I will say that the more upright A pillar of the ’06 does have one benefit: that of allowing a decent entry for a taller person. At 6′ I’m not super-tall but do have to duck upon entering almost any new car and have bonked my head more than once. I find myself wishing at times for our old Volvo 240! That said the rest of the ’06 ChargerI find rather unappealing. Having owned a 1970 Charger R/T, I kind of wish they’d just left the name alone after that, nothing else since has justified its use.
I liked the car but hated the fact it wasn’t a 2 door.
I believe the Charger was originally intended to be an “Intrepid” but the poor reputation of that car’s 2.7L v-6 made that unwise. Regardless it had to share the structure of the 300C to be ecconomic, hense the taller windshield (it is SO much easier to get into for 6’4″ me, and I have my moms ’04 300M as comparison, which is a real head knocker. Putting both cars on a modifed E car platform gave them great suspension, a state of the art 5 speed automatic and upgraded electronics. The “that thing got a Hemi” powertrains and marketing did as much to make it a spritual successor to the original Charger as anything could be done in the styling studio. The four models kept a plant fully scheduled which did hurt profits either. A win in my book.
As an aside, you surely could find better cars out there to photograph than the odd customized two-tone version you selected, which does nothing to help any style arguments. Mark
It may be helpful to know that I take pictures of cars where I find them. I haven’t yet come across another example of this make, model and year that was in better shape (perhaps I will find a better selection of old cars in the wild here in Spokane). Note that I did include a Wikipedia photo.