A couple of weeks ago I was driving into the parking lot of my favorite cheap Mexican fast food restaurant, Taco Bell (say what you will) and in front of me there was a Dodge Grand Caravan.
There was no need for me to actually pay attention to that car but I was so close to it that I couldn’t help but notice something odd on the tail gate, it was a “R/T” emblem.
“WT beep!!! That badge looks awfully legit” I just couldn’t believe it.
While I was enjoying my chalupa, I couldn’t resist to to go online and ask master Google about it. Yes, I was kind of prepared for the worst but anyway, I almost puked. The Grand Caravan R/T was a real thing.
Dodge just ruined a mythological badge putting it on a minivan.
If I remember well R/T stands for Road and Track. Does that mean the Caravan R/T is some kind of high performance mini van? I know it is just silly to go deeper on that.
For me and for many of you guys, those letters still represent a lot. It is sad that Dodge decided to spoil all the heritage of the R/T legacy.
This feeling is so strong that I didn’t even like when they put a “S” in front of the “R/T”. Holy stuff should be left untouched.
Am I going crazy on that? After all, it is not the first time Dodge screwed up with a sacred name.
I know the 80s were complicated years but they could have waited for a better product to bring back the Charger’s name, like the one we have now.
Dodge is not the only one messing up with some serious stuff.
For a while Ford threw the “Ghia” badge on some less than awesome cars, like the Brazilian Del Rey.
But that is nothing compared to see Ford products showing the iconic Aston Martin shaped grille.
On the Mustang… well, still doesn’t look right.
But to see that shape on a Ford cargo van just makes me sick to my stomach.
I believe there are more examples out there, but these are the ones that came to my mind right off the bat.
What kind of automotive disrespect makes you cringe?
Don’t forget the Mercury Cougar sedan and station wagon that was a glorified Fairmont. Remember the Daewoo built Pontiac LeMans.
THANK YOU!.. I recently saw an R/T Caravan and I did a spit-take with the travel mug coffee I was drinking! F’d up my interior bad. This sooooo sad! I mean, does some soccer mom or dad actually think….”hey, lets do a track day with the van!” Just as sad as the 2.2 litre “Chargers” pictured in the article.
In their defense, Mercury was trying(and failing) to position Cougar as a brand within a brand sort of like Oldsmobile did with the Cutlass. The Cougar XR7 remained the “real” Cougar, the same way the Supreme remained the “real” Cutlass.
True enough, And given the success Oldsmobile had, It wasn’t an unreasonable path. I actually Iiked the “Fox” Cougar lineup. They were IMHO attractive in an early ’80s way, and they were at least RWD American cars. Unlike My candidate for this type of sin: The ’88-’93 Pontiac (Deawoo) “LeMans”.
Personally, as a huge Dart fan, the R/T on the side of the photo above is wrong. There never was an early Dart with R/T package that I can find. GT, GTS, GSS, Swinger, the 340 packages. But no R/T on the Dart line. Don’t get me wrong, that car pictured looks awesome, but the R/T and C stripe should have been something else or just the stripes.
And yes, Ford’s obsession with the Aston grille shape is borderline nauseating.
I always thought the import Novas after the origin RWD was a bad thing. The later Grand Ams until they really came into their own, as well. The later import Cougars, stuff like that is unpleasant to me. But that’s just me. I understand your rant.
I understand the R/T Dart looks confusing but I hope this post will help you to understand that car is actually “legit”.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/cc-global-the-brazilian-dodge-dartcharger-genuine-mopar-v8-this-time-around/
This Dart R/T is actually a brazilia Dodge Charger R/T, wich was based on our local Dart
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/cc-global-the-brazilian-dodge-dartcharger-genuine-mopar-v8-this-time-around/
I think the FWD “Nova” deserves a pass because the overwhelming majority of RWD Novas were basic transportation with a 4 or 6 cylinder engine, 3 on the tree or a Powerglide, a bench seat and hubcaps. Against this background, a re-badged Toyota Corolla is an honorable successor since the Corolla was the pre-emininent transport appliance of the era and the NUMMI factory’s Toyotas were just as well built.
It is only in retrospect that Novas are seen as muscle cars, because the survivors were rebuilt as muscle cars, just like the Pontiac GTO “tribute cars” which makes it seem like the base LeMans or Tempest never existed.
You’re right. 99.86 of Novas were regular workaday cars, Corolla is similar, My only “beef” with it was FWD vs RWD. FWIW, I’ve always thought the name “Tempest” was cooler than “GTO”..(…..running for cover….)..It actually implied more of what a muscle car was about: A seriously pissed off stormin’ mutha! Yeah, Baby!!! “GTO” was intended to sound “euro” (before “euro” was a whole term, I guess) That name and “LTD” led to the three letter damned car names we’re stuck with now. (end of mini rant).
I’m sure I will think of more, but the K-derived Chrysler Imperial comes to mind. That one almost made me pull my hair out.
Unlike Cadillac and Lincoln, Imperial also had the indignity of competing for name recognition with less regal advertisers. I’m sure by the late 70s, as many people in the general population would have associated ‘Imperial’ with margarine.
I was thinking of Imperial Whiskey, But then it IS Friday. ?
I remember when these came out. I thought they were cool then, and I still think they’re cool now. I especially like that red color. I’d love it if they made a Sienna TRD, or an Odyssey Si, or even a Ford Transit SVT. That’s a world I’d be glad to live in!
Ford Transit Supervan anyone?
Meh, not my cuppa but if the R/T makes some Dad feel better driving a minivan why not. Frankly it’s not like “normal” people notice these things anyway.
However I do feel more strongly about your choice of Mexican restaraunt. Assuming you are American, and speaking for the rest of the world why are you eating there? Your country is chock full of wonderful cheap Mexican food made by actual people and your favorite is Taco Bell? Seriously?
I can’t speak for Rubens, but I like to eat chain food AND go to authentic Mexican restaurants. Sometimes I’m in the mood for one or the other.
Agreed. I like both. Sometimes I have a hankering for one or the other.
As an American, I can happily say I have not set foot in any Taco Bell since around 2010. Eating at Taco Bell is not unlike my sole experience chewing tobacco – there was a definite reaction.
And, I also read the ingredient list for Taco Bell as it existed at that time. Scary.
Stephen Colbert did a riff on Taco Bell’s taco meat around that time, that it was “beef-adjacent” and contained “…isolated oat product, soybean-based anti-dusting agent, and silicon dioxide which you might know by its’ street name. Sand.”
Conan did a visit to the Taco Bell test kitchen.
Years ago, I was in Taco Bell, and I asked for some jalapenos. The manager told me “sir, this is not a Mexican restaurant” Never been back…
I have eaten at Taco Bell the grand total of once. I was living in Korea, and I got invited on to the US base at Yongsan. I was excited to get some “Mexican food.”
Suffice to say, I am a rather selective eater, and Taco Bell didn’t “agree” me.
LOL! Taco Bell is authentic Mexican food as Pizza Hut is authentic Italian food!
Exactly. Is it really ‘necessary’ for minivans to be 100% frumpy and boring whil 0% stylish or fun? Does the R/T trim impede the van in any way from doing the utilitarian, mundane scut work it is meant for? It’s giving these vans and their owners a slight boost in image so what’s the harm? A few Challenger/Charger owners may be butthurt over it, but having an R/T variant of the minivan pulls it in a little closer with the rest of Dodge’s lineup of muscle and ‘muscle flavored’ products.
I feel like the latter point is the only reason it exists, not because they have this genius plan to lure in imasculated men, but because Dodge Marketing is so lopsidedly leaned toward performance with the Challenger/Charger the ancient Caravan would look utterly out of place if they didn’t superficially R /T it up.
At least there isn’t a Scat Pack, that would really take on a whole new meaning!
I grasp your point, but “R/T” has (had) a defined meaning and projects an image. It can certainly be used on a mini-van, but it should be a damn bad-ass mini-van.
Perhaps this will make what I’m trying to say clearer:
This guy’s name is Max, and he is quite possibly mad. However, to label him “Mad Max” is, well, wrong.
@DougD: I couldn’t agree more about Taco Bell. Patronize your local family-run Mexican restaurant – the food will be authentic and twice as good. If you MUST go to a chain, do NOT patronize Taco Bell. Have you ever examined the writing on the wrapper of one of their tacos? No? Down there in small print it says, “Grade D Beef. Suitable for human consumption.” Suitable! Please, Rubens, for the sake of your own health, if not your taste buds, don’t do that no more.
I understand your anger at seeing the R/T badge on a Caravan, but disliking Ford’s take on the Aston Martin look is a little much, considering Ford owned the company for a very long time. Plus, its basically two brothers that are responsible for the iconic grilles: Ian and Moray Callum, both of whom floated around the Ford corporate structure for years. No doubt they talk/share their thoughts on design, which lead to the vehicles we see on the road today.
Maintstream automakers generally follow the trends set by the luxury brands. This has been happening for decades and pretty much every manufacturer does it.
As for Taco Bell, count me as a fan. I’m partial to the Cheesy Gordita Crunch with the fiery shell. I can also eat a Quesarito and not have to consume anything else for the rest of the day. It’s definitely the best fast food option.
Just avoid the ‘beef’ at Taco Bell and you will be fine. The chicken and steak items don’t cause gastrointestinal distress like whatever they put in the ‘beef’. The bean and cheese only burritos are good too. Much tastier than the vastly more expensive mexican food I had last week on SE Hawthorne.
Where is Clara Peller when you need her?
Yep, in the mid 60’s when they first came to Portland the beef was actual beef. And the rest of it didn’t come out a gun. A friend of mine worked at one first as a a a worker and then as a manager and I would get my orders supersized long before that term existed. Used to love the original Enchirito.
Something changed at Taco Hell in the mid 90’s, that’s for sure. I heard from several ex employees that the granulated dogfood meat had ‘Grade D, but edible’ printed on the bag it came in. Explains a lot. I liked the Enchirito too, way back in the day.
These days when I get the insane urge to stuff myself with dirty counterfeit Mexican food, Del Taco is my go to. It actually tastes like real food and no gastrointestinal misadventures yet.
I do love me some Del Taco too (we only have one and it’s halfway to the airport), but really, in general the ingredients and kitchens are WAY sketchier than what is found at Taco Bell! 🙂
It’s like many good Chinese food joints – just enjoy it, don’t inquire too deeply about what’s in it or how and where it’s prepared. Some things you just don’t need to know.
Agree about the degradation of the Cougar, Nova and Imperial (and by the way, to me the Omni-based Charger was less egregious than the current FOUR DOOR Charger!) but this R/T minivan actually looks kinda cool. I was surprised to see a Caravan GT recently … that seems a less appropriate moniker, though a modern minivan is actually a pretty grand tourer for a large family on straight roads.
The pass I give the current Charger is that the proportions are right. Automakers have somehow got it in their heads that any 2 door they make needs to be short and close coupled and the Chargers everyone remembers fondly was long. And what I like in particular is the styling, while certainly having familiar elements isn’t full blown throwback like the Challenger, instead looks like a natural evolution to modern day. Plus it’s RWD and has a V8 soundtrack, something no Charger should be without.
I hated the LX Charger when it came out. Partially due to the defiling of the name, but mostly because of the absence of ANY 2 door coupe on the platform. The Challenger definitely mitigated that.
The Charger has been an undisputed success so it was the right move. That said, I just wish theyd have gone the extra mile and not gone full on sedan. RX-8 style clamshell doors would have me in line to buy, actually. But even hiding the rear door handles using remote door poppers (like the HHR panel) and keeping the quarter windows to one pane would do wonders for the Charger’s side profile and preserve its heritage. That said, the ’15 refresh is by far the best of the LX Chargers.
Yeah I agree, the 06 body was a come down from the Magnum and had no heritage lines, then when the 07 Avenger came out with almost identical styling it cheapened it even more. 2011 was a big improvement from the doors back and the 15 really came into it’s own. I wish it was a big 2 door, but I more so wish it had a manual option than having 2 less doors at this point.
Meh. I put a TRD badge on my Highlander because… reasons.
I also have a bumper sticker that says: “I love my haters” – so take everything from me with a grain of salt.
Ahhh, TRD. Enviable heritage and engineering but who in Toyotas operations looked at those letters and didn’t see a “u” among them?
When I see “TRD” the word “turd” pops up in my head. (No reflection on Toyota, just me!).
Certain manufacturers seem to place significantly more emphasis than they should on marketing and mining the goodwill of their vintage legacy, than focusing funds on building well engineered and durable cars. I would put Chrysler in that category for the past couple decades. And for long durations during their existence. The name ‘Charger’ comes top of mind.
Well….I’m going to go against the grain here, although without a whole lot of vehemence nor venom:
*For its time* the Charger 2.2 was actually a somewhat viable candidate to wear the badge. Yeah, the plastic hood scoop and stick on striping was a bit hokey, but the car did perform, and quite admirably, I might add. I owned an ’82 during my late high school and early college years, and for that brief moment before turbocharging became more than a quirky novelty and EFI was still in the future it was quick, it handled like it was on rails (disregarding the insanely unpredictable torque steer), and it was appointed and equipped like a true performance car of the times.
This is not to say that even I made plenty of fun of it in comparison to its forebears, but in truth if fuel prices, MPG standards and emissions regulations went the way Detroit was preparing for them to go in the early 80’s, cars like the little Charger 2.2 might be looked at very differently today. And incidentally, my young self was vindicated by those ads that put the Charger 2.2 up against the contemporary Z28 and Trans Am, but even I had to take note of the fact that the comparisons were careful to use 0-50 times as a measurement, as the little 2.2’s magic was pretty much exhausted after 65 MPH.
I loved mine, for the record. I’d love to find one today. Silly as it was, it was a product of its day, and through the lens of that moment in time there was NEVER going to be another V8 RWD car again, so I can’t fault anyone for thinking the Charger name was aptly applied in that instance. The Grand Caravan R/T though? Yeah….No.
In a three year period, Chrysler used the names Charger, DeTomaso, and Shelby to market the Dodge Omni 024 in various versions.
How’s that for audacious?
Well, when you put it that way….Touche’
Not just marketing…Shelby put the GLH together. Having owned one…they moved!
@John
DeTomaso, Charger and Shelby. Three brands with bold performance histories, and distinctly different heritages, on the same car between 1980 and 1983. Chrysler was definitely trying to light a marketing fire under a car struggling to compete with Mustang and the GM F-bodies.
I’m not criticizing the car. Rather, making fun of their marketing. Chrysler appeared wanting to fast track performance/sports car credibility on the O24 ASAP. While it was still competitive in the market.
DeTomaso, Charger and Shelby. Back to back to back. Luckily for them, it would finally stick with ‘Shelby’.
Yes they did! The GLH/Shelby Charger scared a lot of Mustang and Camaro owners in their day. I still dream about finding another one to play with.
Agreed. I think ‘Challenger’ or ‘Dart’ would have fit better, but considering the times, these were definitely cool little cars. FWD and 4 banger power aside, the bodystyle looked great for those times. And the performance these cars managed with an economy car platform was nothing short of amazing…especially the Shelby cars.
Challenger was out because it was already being used on the Mitsubishi coupe, and Dart in the early ’80s conjured up images of a pea-soup-green sedan driven by the elderly couple who had bought it new.
I don’t really see the point of this rant, manufacturers have been misusing names with weight behind them for decades, not really a modern thing. Also, for the record, you have to laugh a little bit at how loosely FCA handles itself, it’s almost like they’re in on the joke of the badge game. Besides, I have to respect a company that has the balls and the sense of humor to make a “muscle” minivan. I think it’s pretty fun, not really worth getting mad about.
And for the record, I strongly disagree about the Ford-Aston grill thing. It’s an attractive design, why not use it? Ford’s making the best-running and best-looking cars they’ve made since the 60’s.
The current Ford grille reminds me more of the grille design of the 73 Gran Torino or Mustang II than Aston Martin on some of the vehicles in the lineup wearing it. The only car that authentically pulled it off was the Fusion, and now it just looks stale.
As for R/T, if “normal” people don’t notice it anyway, as DougD surmised, then why dillute it for those of us who will? The performance legacy of Dodge is the ONLY leg that brand has to stand on, and attaching the most sacred badge in their history to a diaper hauler is just insane.
I disagree about the 80s Charger though, it wasn’t any worse than the “Chargers” made between 75 and 77 and I give it a pass simply because it’s a model name, and model names are often attached to evolving shapes. The Charger is cursed in that the 68-70 was so iconic no follow up ever could quite live up to it unless it’s a tracing paper copy, even the Mustang can’t get out of the shadow of the first generation without catching flack.
The more egregious model name offense that Dodge periodically rolls out is Daytona. What started off as a race bred, instantly identifiable homologation package on top of the 69 Charger, First became a two tone paint scheme on the Córdoba based Chargers, then became a K car sporty car, and then another decal package on the current LX cars. None of which ever have or will ever live up to the original.
In 2013 (me thinks), Mercedes-Benz made a sedan which was totally different from the rest. I still remember the first one I saw. It was the current S class, one of the few current Mercedes I loved and still love. What I don’t love is their idea of stopping differentiating their sedans.
I mean, spending €120k on an S Class to have people thinking you have a €60k E220d?
Or buying an E220d to have people not distinguishing you from the guy who drives a €35k C180d?
When you have to look at the DRL’s and door handles to distinguish a C from an E, you know there is something wrong
You’re point doesn’t bug me so much, as the W201, W124 and W126 looked nearly indistinguishable apart from size as well. Similarly I have a hard time telling the 60s Mercedes models with stacked headlights apart.
What bugs me about modern day Mercedes is the use of the SL grille with the large center ornament on EVERYTHING.
Swedish brick, you and I are in 100% agreement. If I was an S-Class owner I would be pissed! I genuinely struggle to pick the three apart. They all look great but they all look the SAME.
I expect that frustration from Audi but from Mercedes it’s annoying. When their cars looked like each other in the past, they never looked that close!
I would also definitely be pissed. The thing is: I think the A4/A6/A8 are easier to tell apart than the C/E/S. M-B managed to out-Audi Audi… And while in the ’80s, ’90’s and ’00s they looked close, they were easy to tell apart.
Just hoping that mid-cycle refreshes will make them more identifiable, and return some uniqueness to the S-Class (even the dash in the E looks close)
Maybe Volvo, centering their identity on headlights and taillights and making body designs unique to 40, 60 and 90 series (just looking at their new SUV’s will confirm it) will leave a mark for other manufacturers to follow.
Maybe…
I think the owners have spoken on this. Far more C-class 63 coupes than S-class coupes in my well-to-do neighbourhood.
Charger 2.2 is nothing compared with this variation. And there’s also the Shelby Charger of 1983.
The Shelby name would never be the same after this.
In their day, these cars were excellent performers, some of the best bang for the buck out there. Even now, the numbers are pretty respectable.
Not only were these cars great performers. OL’ Shel was definitely involved in their development. More so than maybe the last classic Mustang Shelby model. Also don’t forget that there was a turbo Caravan with manual five speed tranny available in 1989 and 1990.
“but disliking Ford’s take on the Aston Martin look is a little much, considering Ford owned the company for a very long time”
Agree 100% and could go on, but so what?
They also owned Volvo, so does that mean they should put a diagonal bar across the grilles too?
was quoting someone else, and again so what? The author goes “makes me sick to my stomach” Really?
I prefer the more positive stories like the red Gran Torino and yellow Monte Carlo.
It means there’s a bit more legitimacy for Ford to use the look, and the corporate closeness between the two companies and the duo of brothers that created the design refutes the idea that putting the grille on Ford products is sacrilege.
Ford only owned them for around 10 years, and that grille shape was used on Astons before Ian and Moray Callum were even born. It’s bizarre reasoning. I don’t see Volkswagon Jettas with scissor doors because VW owns Lamborghini.
I don’t think it’s bizarre reasoning to conclude that a designer at Ford was inspired by both Aston Martin design heritage and his brother’s work to create something similar for the products he was working on.
Ford also has a demonstrated history of sharing research within their corporate umbrella. By the mid-1990’s Ford employees could electronically communicate with their counterparts at Mazda. Similar communications channels likely existed between Aston Martin and Ford as well. I’m not saying Ford has to use design language of their luxury brands. But it’s entirely plausible that their relationship with Aston Martin created the conditions that led them to their current design language.
That’s entirely different, nobody would ever know about shared diagnostic interfaces unless they were privy to the business, whereas no average person can mention the Fusion or 15-current Mustang without uttering Aston Martin in the same sentence.
Aston Martin’s relationship to Ford isn’t deep enough for this level of cribbing, if they went way way back it would be a different story, but the fact is they were merely an acquired asset during the Nasser era, and sold off the minute trouble emerged. Ford has it’s own design heritage, and this era will be looked back on no more positively than Lincoln’s overuse of the faux Rolls Royce grill in the 70s-80s.
We’re just going to have to agree to disagree.
There is also of course what SEAT did.
They once grabbed their small hatchback Ibiza, added a 1.9 TDi with 130 HP (or the 150 HP 1.8 20V Turbo gas), 17″ wheels, and sporty accents in the interior. They called it the Ibiza FR. That 130hp diesel was the best of the breed. Huge torque and a lot of power for such a little engine made for a surprisingly affordable pocket rocket (cheaper than the 160 HP Cupra version). It got a legion of fans in Southern Europe.
Fast forward to 2016. You can get your Ibiza FR with 1.0 liter engines, or 1.4 3 cylinder diesels. The Cupra is gasoline only, and the only true pocket rocket in the Ibiza range.
RIP, Ibiza FR. You gave us a lot of fun.
Malibu Maxx SS was another one, and Chevy wisely stopped using SS for just a trim package.
Instead, they went all the way to the other extreme and named the whole car “SS.” While I’ve not had it said to me (I own one), I’ve heard other SS owners relate folks carping about the use of SS on a four-door sedan (irregardless that it will outperform the ‘old’ SS cars in most, if not all, metrics). Same thing happened with the Holden Monaro-derived Pontiac GTO…
I generally don’t get offended at practically anything but the issue I had with naming the whole car “SS” was that as a standalone name it does make me think of Nazis.
Now that’s one I haven’t heard before!
Not all of us have taught History, Government, and Geography before. 🙂
I’m sure track days with the car would be full of sturm und drang.
Oh, we home schooled and I’m a military history buff (thus we covered a lot more military history than our boys would have gotten in public school) – I know what the Nazi SS was, but never would have thought to associate it with a Chevrolet, that’s all. FWIW, the Chev SS product manager refers to it as a ‘sports sedan’ (vs. ‘super sport’).
I seem to remember a British car maker having the same problem, although it was a bit more strident at the time, being 1945-46. It all worked out well, as Jaguar is a much nicer name, anyway.
Odd…since that is EXACTLY what it started out as! Yes, you could get an Impala “Super Sport” with a six and a Powerglide.
And RS in Chevyspeak has never been anything but a trim package. In fact, it comes standard on the Cruze hatchback. Opting for an automatic deletes it but you can option it back.
It SOMETIMES has real improvements. Offhand, I recall a Cavalier RS used the chassis, wheels, and tires from the Z24, though without the hotter engine. The 4th-Gen Camaro RS used Z28 chassis parts and I think brakes.
1970-ish Chevelles had what was basically a 2bbl 307 or 350 car with SS trim, stripes, and wheels…it was sold as the “Heavy Chevy”.
I agree XR7Matt that the current Charger has a lot of nice attributes, but the curmudgeon in me still thinks the name is wrong. And while we’re ragging on FCA, the Fiat 500 is another one that bothers my purist side. But I guess Fiat 1400 wouldn’t sound so good.
My own inner curmudgeon (who’s really not so “inner” most of the time if I’m being honest) also thinks the current Charger should have been a Polara, but then again we’re not the ones who’ve paid millions for marketing surveys and focus groups.
I’ve sometimes had a few pangs of discomfort with a 2.7 litre relative stripper Chrysler sedan being badged “300” too, but when I think of what other heritage badge I think it should wear instead I’m at a loss. The only strong Chrysler model name that hasn’t been debased all to hell since 1980 is Newport, and of course the tobacco tie-in would make that one a no-go today. So I guess it all just is what it is.
The 024 Charger gave Chrysler a performance car on the cheap at a time when they were clawing their way back to solvency. It was the right car for the times. No one has mentioned the Mitsubishi built Challenger of the 70’s. Although I thought they were good looking cars, I thought that they should have been named differently.
Ironically, I also owned a 1982 (Mitsubishi) Challenger (which was totaled by a friend, thus necessitating the purchase of the Charger 2.2 I reference above), and here I whole-heartedly agree with those who cry fowl.
That was a great little car, but it should have been called a Sapporo at both your Dodge and Plymouth dealer’s, much like the Colt was and the Neon would be later on. Granted, it actually looked a bit like the original Challenger, so I guess I can see how they “got there”, but it was a Celica fighter, and should have been named and marketed as what it was, not what Dodge had been 15 years before.
I agree with the Sapporo strategy you describe but I think Challenger only seems offensive in retrospect. The first Challenger wasn’t a huge success, after all, and has only truly become valuable with age.
I’m over 50 and have spent a lot of time in Mopar B bodies but I’ll bet the modern Caravan would out brake, out handle and maybe even keep up in the quarter mile as a 1969 R/T 440. Those Shelby Chargers were pretty cool especially after the turbo 2.2 was added-my wife had one and I don’t remember anyone puking when they seen her driving it. (maybe it was eating at “Toxic Smell”?) I really like a lot of articles on here but this one really rates as a “Old man yells at cloud” edition.
Out brake? Yeah. Out handle? Yep. Keep up in the 1/4 mile? Uh, no.
That’s irrelevant. A 1969 Coronet wagon with a /6 would out brake, out handle and probably out accelerate a performance made in 1921. Simply matching a 50 year old benchmark by way of natural progression isn’t worthy of bearing a badge associated with performance of that previous era.
“Toxic Smell” caused me to almost spit my drink onto my computer screen!! Thanks for the laugh!! 🙂
The following “heirs to the names” have never sat right with me:
1990-92 Dodge Monaco
2007-2009 Chrysler Aspen
1978-1983 Dodge Challenger
You may be offended by the badge, but when I was looking at vans 2 years ago the R/T was easily the most masculine one out there. It’s what I wanted, though I wasn’t able to find one optioned the way I wanted and ended up with a T&C.
Agreed. If my situation forced me to own a minivan Id insist on the R/T…its definitely tolerable. Id feel better about owning it since the blackout trim any performance flavoring just appeal to my tastes and make any vehicle more attractive. Yes its fluff but being able to tolerate something beats absolutely despising it.
R/T is a lot better than Sport.
FCA did a sporty Town & Country S with nice wheels and smoked lights, too.
LOL-
I spent last weekend in the Colorado high country cruising around in my buddies 2017 Challenger GT. In Dodge speak, the Challenger GT comes with All Wheel Drive, making it a step up from the base models, and providing him with a reasonable daily driver during Colorado’s snowy winters.
However, in Steamboat Springs a Dodge minivan parked next to his Challenger with an identical “GT” badge. A quick Google check confirmed Dodge offered such a model, which DID NOT include AWD capability. When I pointed out the badge on a common minivan, my friend was not amused.
I think it was a real missed opportunity by Dodge not calling the AWD Challenger “Rallye”.
I like your thinking-
When he said he’s bought a Challenger GT, I had to look it up on the Dodge website. While AWD ties in nicely with the overall concept of “Grand Touring,” US buyers tend to relate “GT” with big engines and straight line performance.
For true enthusiasts, “Rallye” brings to mind deep woods stages of the Press On Regarless rally, a much better fit for All Wheel Drive.
Indeed, I didn’t even realize there was a GT, let alone that that was the name attached to the AWD model. When I think of rally cars I think of AWD Impreza WRXs and Lancer EVOs. Dodge has a perfect opportunity to revive the name they called Challengers and Chargers after R/T was dropped, difference being this ad would be much more realistic:
No strong opinion here about badging, except that I don’t think highly of badge engineering. I do dislike it, though, when whole brands flail about, having lost their identity. This could be said about most of General Motors before their bankruptcy reorganization.
Taco Bell? My spouse says it’s not Mexican food, but it is really tasty.
The Caravan R/T is just a creative (and risky) way of addressing the elephant in the room. Basically, it amounts to stuffing a kids foul tasting medicine in a brownie so he takes it with minimal fuss. Very few people ‘want’ a minivan. Non-car people may suck it up as doing the responsible thing, but to a gearhead dad (or mom) trading in the Wrangler or Challenger in on a minivan is a gravely humbling and emasculating experience. But the overall look of the R/T and what minimal handling upgrades it may have definitely takes some of the edge off. The Pentastar V6 makes any FWD vehicle plenty fast so any hp boost is likely unnecessary. It may piss off purists, but throwing a small bone to enthusiasts forced to domesticate isn’t a bad move. As a car company, does it hurt your brand image more to dilute a performance moniker, or to have customers dropping $40K on your vehicle and absolutely hating driving and being seen in it?
Diluting the moniker is worse in the long term. R/T may seem comforting to you when you walk into the dealer but sooner or later you’ll be treating it like any other minivan and resenting it just as much.
In the end i will concede it probably doesn’t matter, since a 3″ emblem on a van tailgate is almost unnoticeable, and blackout trim doesn’t convey sporty today the way it used to so no one will ever notice. I’m sure I see a dozen Caravan R/Ts on a commute, but my recollection is none because minivans and CUVs are so invisible(figuratively, unfortunately) to me.
That’s why Dodge did it right. The differences are subtle, and will only matter to the owners. High impact colors, loud exhausts, hood scoops and bumblebee tail stripes would have made these a laughing stock and definitely would bring down the brand. But a slight tweek in flavor makes all the difference. A red and black Caravan R/T is something that would elicit comments like ‘that actually isn’t bad…for a minivan’. Compared to the usual depressing grey and beige with chrome trim suburban mom mobiles, that’s high praise.
To me, this is no different than Chevy putting “SS” badges on every model around 13 years ago.
To its credit, Chevy did add some sort of “pop” to its cars that wore the badge, even the SS TrailBlazer, but stuffing a V8 into a FWD Impala was a bit much!
ZM, those at least were tangible upgrades. Now that Malibu SS sedan…total abortion.
In fairness, the Malibu SS had more power, a manual shift mode with its automatic, and a former suspension.
Problem is, those upgrades merely brought it up to Accord/Altima level…
Was this stubby thing really an Eldorado?
Let’s not forget the early K cars with the HEMI badges.
Maybe they heard ya’, I believe for 2017 it is now Grand Caravan “GT”!
I say “meh”. Car enthusiasts make up, at best, 10% of new-car buyers. The rest simply don’t care about badges. Most buyers aren’t even brand-loyal any more.
Hmmm, hardly news.
A few years ago I got a (free upgrade) Dodge Journey as a rental in Quebec. It was badged R/T and was anything but sporty – more like a rolling sofa, particularly for my European butt.
In the early 80s, Peugeot brought out the *other* quintessential hot hatch: the 205 GTi, possibly even better than the Golf. In the following years, it slapped the GTi badge on everything, including mundane sedans and wagons. Daughter Citroën did the same thing, even the CX break came in a GTi variant.
2005: Daewoo is phased out in Europe, from now on, they’re Chevrolets. Until then, cars with the bowtie were big American sleds and sports cars with rallye wheels built-in mullets. Certainly not the (then still) disposable tin cans suddenly sporting one.
Ford made the Ghia name synonymous with slightly tacky luxury trim on sometimes very ordinary cars. Now this name lost all its cachet, it moved on to the next designer: Vignale. With limited success – the Titanium trim does a lot better, and sounds literally cooler.
A BMW designer once accidentally dropped a small clay model of the next X5. Some exec thought it looked great, and proceeded the market them as “coupes”.
And let’s not even get into the Saab Trailblazers of this world.
Name debasement is nothing new. Nothing was ever sacred, and it won’t ever be in the future either. That said, re-using a name for a new model can work well if it is similar in spirit of not precisely the same. Case in point: the Charger. A full-on muscle car that now happens to have rear doors for practicality.
The new BMW 6-series is unforgivable though.
Our ’12 VW Routan is our fifth Chrysler-platform minivan, and it’s been a revelation from the previous four. VW tightened up the suspension quite a bit from the normal GC/TC offering, and it actually handles well for what it is. Seats are firmer and have more support, too. The Pentastar 3.6l has been rock-reliable so far (85K miles), but the transmission programming leaves a *lot* to be desired – it turns what would have been a superb vehicle into one that’s frustrating to drive anywhere there are anything more than mild hills.
Why is the 6-Series unforgivable? The past two generations since its resurrection have been gorgeous, competitive cars.
It’s worth noting the 6-Series is being axed and an 8-Series being launched.
I was referring to this thing, not the outgoing 6 series.
I overtook one of these RT minivans down a passing lane last week, it never occurred to me that RT meant anything real anymore, once upon a time many years ago hot Valiant Chargers wore such lettering and those were genuinely fast cars and not just between traffic lights but such a badge on a Fiat product its like a M badge on a 318 BMW just good for laughs as you pass.
Chrysler TC by Maserati. Wow!
Or for that matter, Maserati by Maserati!
Dodge has sold a Journey R/T for years. That name has just become a stock trim level.
However, POST-SCRIPT: for 2017, the Grand Caravan and Journey R/T are now called the GT.
Interesting point, I was behind a Journey R/T at a traffic light a couple of days ago, first thought that went through my mind was sadness remembering the great cars that wore that badge, and the fact that this wasn’t one of them.
I think Ford had the right idea back in the late 60s into the 70s in Australia when they used the GS pack option on more basic Falcon models to give some of the GT Falcon look without diluting the revered GT badge.
I have four words for your question of the day and I dare anyone to argue it.
“Pontiac LeMans by Daewoo “
I can think of one name that will remain sacred (at least in the sense that no one will ever use it for a car again,) “Matador!”
Cadillac Cimmaron…. that is all
While I might agree with the name “Cadillac” being sullied, The post seems to be about model and sub model names being s__t on. “Cimmaron” had no legacy to uphold, only to “live down”.
Those re-badged product line extensions mark the death knell of hope for a return to a ‘perfect’ ideal and savvy marketers know what buttons to push to elicit the ‘buy’ signals.
Remember when aluminum wheels, fog lights and a stripe turned an ordinary mini’van into a “Sport”
When they slap the R/T badge on a mini van, I think it stands for Raising Toddlers !!!!!
I knew about the R/T minivan, but just noticed the GT recently…in a rental car lot, no less!
I’m just going to leave this here.
Sometimes I occasinally think about the advantages of buying a minivan. I wouldn’t drive it everyday but it’d be easier to include my parent, my wife’s parents or friends on trips.
Though I’ve had horrible experience with later Chrysler products, I like the look of the latest Caravans. I know it can be cheesy but it’s neat to have a “sporty-like” minivan for someone who is used to driving cooler cars and trucks. The Penastar engine is pretty decent as long as they improved the transmission that took literal seconds to shift. Also, most vans and crossovers cam be made to handle pretty decent.
So a “sporty” Caravan seems like it wouldn’t make its driver look as though they’ve completely given up on life. I do believe the R/T moniker is going too far. They apparently have a GT model (according to their website) but the Sport model is gone. The SXT badge just doesn’t seem that impressive. I wonder what an acceptable model could be for a “sporty” model Caravan. SRT6?