[GretchenGotGrowl]

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2015/09/...is-not-coming/

Sad but not surprising.

[Snoman]

...as GM Authority has come to learn exclusively.

From who exactly? Why would that person bother to communicate this? Who is making these decisions? Time to call them out and find out why they decided to destroy the Regal.

Thought I wanted one when I found out they brought it back a few years ago. Friend of mine owns a local GM franchise chain, brought one to my house one weekend during football.....I wanted to shoot the car....just another Honda clone.

[el ess A]

Wasn't/isn't needed. Finally someone making the right call.

[Denis]

that's okay with me...honestly im getting a little tired of the revival of old names being given to new cars that lack the heritage. (Charger for example)

[DGthe3]

I don't remember seeing anything that confirmed it was on its way in the first place. Just some periodic internet speculation that GM might be bringing it back. But 0 actual evidence of them planning on building such a car like prototypes or a sporty concept car.

And really, it makes sense that they wouldn't do it. In essence, a GNX would be an ATS-V for around 10 grand less. What incentive does GM have to actually do that? Sure, its great for customers. But its not so great for GM. Especially as they are doing everything they can to give Cadillac & Buick unique brand identities. A GNX works against that, or at least a proper one does. They could make a turbocharged AWD Regal & call it a GNX if they like and it wouldn't affect Cadillac one bit. But if you do that, why bother calling it a GNX?

Originally Posted by Denis

that's okay with me...honestly im getting a little tired of the revival of old names being given to new cars that lack the heritage. (Charger for example)

Indeed, how dare Dodge follow up the Charger with a Hemi V8 powered, rear drive, full size sedan. Afterall, the legacy of the Charger lies with the compact, 2 door, 4 cylinder, FWD car of the 80's.

[Number 3]

Tough to die when it never really was. This was always rumor of hope and faith than GM going back to the day when they could invest money to compete with itself.

Any Alpha coupe in the Buick showroom steals sales from Camaro. Any Alpha based sedan steals sales from Cadillac.

GM is still in a VERY tough spot with 3 brands to feed.

[Denis]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Indeed, how dare Dodge follow up the Charger with a Hemi V8 powered, rear drive, full size sedan. Afterall, the legacy of the Charger lies with the compact, 2 door, 4 cylinder, FWD car of the 80's.

don't get me wrong...I love the car. The fiancé is thinking about leasing one in the spring. I don't like the name. and no, the legacy of the charger doesn't lie in the 80's. is that really what you think? that the charger was made famous in the 80's? you honestly think that or are you just tying to pick a fight?

if you think im the minority in thinking that Dodge shouldn't have put the Charger name on a 4 door, family sedan I think you're mistaken.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Denis

don't get me wrong...I love the car. The fiancé is thinking about leasing one in the spring. I don't like the name. and no, the legacy of the charger doesn't lie in the 80's. is that really what you think? that the charger was made famous in the 80's? you honestly think that or are you just tying to pick a fight?

if you think im the minority in thinking that Dodge shouldn't have put the Charger name on a 4 door, family sedan I think you're mistaken.

No, my point is that the Charger nameplate was tarnished long before 2005 & those that think otherwise are unaware of their history.

Plus the new car does a pretty good job at following up the originals from the late 60's/early 70s based on size, engines, drive configuration, and styling (with the 2nd new generation). The only area that it does not continue from where the originals left off is the number of doors. So if that is your be-all/end-all criteria for what defines a car, then no ... its shouldn't be a Charger. But using that same logic, the car from the 80s was totally deserving of the Charger nameplate -because it only had 2 doors. And that is more absurd than saying the current car shouldn't be a Charger. The only alternative is claiming that any new car using an old name must retain every single possible descriptor of the original(s), otherwise it shouldn't use that name. And if you agree to that it opens up a whole 'nother ball of worms (like the late 60's Charger not being 'Charger enough' for the name)

[Racin J]

I agree in a way with Denis as far as the "cool" factor goes..the new Charger isnt as cool as the first gen, however performance wise the new beats the old speaking of the v8 variants, but DGthe3 has very good points too. I love the new chargers and would rock one in a heartbeat, as well as the old, we should be glad that we have the performance numbers today whether its chevy, dodge or ford! We all win

[Denis]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

No, my point is that the Charger nameplate was tarnished long before 2005 & those that think otherwise are unaware of their history.

Plus the new car does a pretty good job at following up the originals from the late 60's/early 70s based on size, engines, drive configuration, and styling (with the 2nd new generation). The only area that it does not continue from where the originals left off is the number of doors. So if that is your be-all/end-all criteria for what defines a car, then no ... its shouldn't be a Charger. But using that same logic, the car from the 80s was totally deserving of the Charger nameplate -because it only had 2 doors. And that is more absurd than saying the current car shouldn't be a Charger. The only alternative is claiming that any new car using an old name must retain every single possible descriptor of the original(s), otherwise it shouldn't use that name. And if you agree to that it opens up a whole 'nother ball of worms (like the late 60's Charger not being 'Charger enough' for the name)

yea I hear what you're saying. I just think they could have sold the same car under a different name and it would have sold just fine. I feel that they revived that nameplate just for the sake of doing it to boost sales and put it onto the wrong vehicle.

Originally Posted by Racin J

I agree in a way with Denis as far as the "cool" factor goes..the new Charger isnt as cool as the first gen, however performance wise the new beats the old speaking of the v8 variants, but DGthe3 has very good points too. I love the new chargers and would rock one in a heartbeat, as well as the old, we should be glad that we have the performance numbers today whether its chevy, dodge or ford! We all win

oh its a great time to be into cars, that's for sure!

[SSJ455]

It is a shame they are not bringing it back. But then again I am sort of releaved. I was not impressed by any of the renderings I saw. There is only one GNX. It was based on the G body and there were only 547 of them. I have my 1/18 scale diecast and I am happy with it.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Tough to die when it never really was. This was always rumor of hope and faith than GM going back to the day when they could invest money to compete with itself.

Any Alpha coupe in the Buick showroom steals sales from Camaro. Any Alpha based sedan steals sales from Cadillac.

GM is still in a VERY tough spot with 3 brands to feed.

This^

[Snoman]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I don't remember seeing anything that confirmed it was on its way in the first place. Just some periodic internet speculation that GM might be bringing it back. But 0 actual evidence of them planning on building such a car like prototypes or a sporty concept car.

DGthe3, I'd have to dig....but I remember GM registering a patent on the name recently, or was that the El Camino?

Fenwick?

[FenwickHockey65]

Don't remember. GM applies for trademarks all the time though. Doesn't mean they'll ever use them.