Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Quick Drive: 2017 Dodge Charger SXT

    The Dodge Charger is a mean and potent machine when equipped with one of three HEMI V8s available. But is the same true when the Charger is equipped with the 3.6L V6? The answer we found after spending a week with an SXT AWD model is it depends.

    • Dodge updated the Charger back in 2015 with new front and rear end treatments. I’m not too fond of the new front with a wider crosshair grille, reshaped headlights with LEDs, and new hood just looks somewhat awkward. On the upside, the revised trundled with the long taillights works very well. 
    • Our test vehicle came equipped with the Blacktop Appearance Group which adds a gloss black fascia, a spoiler finished in satin black, and 19-inch wheels finished in black. Yes, our vehicle is missing the wheels and we don’t know why. But even without the wheels, the Blacktop package makes the Charger look even more menacing.
    • Time has not been so kind to the Charger’s interior as it is looking even more dated since the last time we drove one. The black interior isn’t pleasant to spend a lot of time and makes the vehicle feel somewhat claustrophobic. Not helping are the materials which are either hard plastic or have a rubbery feeling. 
    • There is some good news concerning the Charger’s interior. For 2017, FCA has installed the latest version of UConnect which brings a number of improvements. I’ve praised this system in the 2017 Pacifica and will do the same here. Performance is noticeably improved thanks to various tweaks made to the system. FCA also gave the interface a fresh coat of paint that helps bring the UConnect into the current century. Apple CarPlay and Android Auto integration are present and work flawlessly.
    • Under the hood is the familiar 3.6L V6 that powers a number of FCA vehicles. For the Charger, the V6 produces 292 horsepower and 260 pound-feet of torque. Power is routed through an eight-speed automatic to either the rear-wheels or in our tester, all four wheels.
    • Sufficient is the best word to describe the performance of the V6 as it gets the Charger up to speed at a decent rate. We will admit that the extra weight of the all-wheel drive does zap some of V6’s power, making it feel slightly slower.
    • Fuel economy doesn’t take as much of a hit as you might think when going with AWD. EPA fuel economy figures stand at 18 City/27 Highway/21 Combined. The rear-drive Charger V6 returns 19/30/23. During my week, I saw an average 20.7 in mostly city driving.
    • Compared to its V8 brethren, the Charger V6 has a much softer suspension tune. This does mean the Charger does not like being pushed around corners. You can order the Rallye package that brings a sport-tuned suspension which makes for a very entertaining vehicle. The benefit to the softer suspension is the Charger glides over bumps with no issue. Some road and wind noise makes its way into the cabin, but it is quite acceptable for most buyers.
    • The Charger is quite the brash vehicle to look at no matter which variant you choose. When it comes to engines, the V6 can be a surprisingly good drive if you order the Rally package. Otherwise, the Charger V6 is a mean looker of a full-size sedan that can provide a comfortable ride. Though, if you really have your heart set on one, we would point you in the direction of the Chrysler 300 which offers most of the plus points of the Charger with a much nicer interior.

     

    Disclaimer: Dodge Provided the Charger, Insurance, and One Tank of Gas

    Year: 2017
    Make: Dodge
    Model: Charger
    Trim: SXT AWD
    Engine: 3.6L 24-Valve VVT V6
    Driveline: Eight-Speed Automatic, All-Wheel Drive
    Horsepower @ RPM: 292 @ 6,350
    Torque @ RPM: 260 @ 4,800
    Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 18/27/21
    Curb Weight: 4,233 lbs
    Location of Manufacture: Brampton, Ontario
    Base Price: $31,995
    As Tested Price: $36,165 (Includes $1,095.00 Destination Charge)

    Options:
    Navigation and Travel Group - $1,095.00
    Driver Confidence Group - $795.00
    Redline Tri-Coat Exterior Paint - $595.00
    Blacktop Appearance Group - $495.00
    Premium Cloth Seats - $95.00


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Awesome, nice update on the car, pics clearly show what you were stating about inside. Interesting. AWD V6 I can clearly seeing in the snow belt as being a valuable option. Wish they would get a V8 option with AWD out.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

    Those can be had with a two tone interior thus mitigating the claustrophobia issue. Makes all the difference in the world as far as appearances go. 

    Agree  I love the Sephia color on this and the challenger. 

    charger-hellcat-interior-1.jpg

     

    iof-2-png.627

     

     

     

     

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    29 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

    Those can be had with a two tone interior thus mitigating the claustrophobia issue. Makes all the difference in the world as far as appearances go. 

    IMG_5465.JPG

     

    23 minutes ago, Stew said:

    Agree  I love the Sephia color on this and the challenger. 

    charger-hellcat-interior-1.jpg

    iof-2-png.627

    Makes one wonder why the OEM does not think about giving their best foot forward in every powertrain version for these loaners. Very weird! <_<

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    9 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

    The two tone interiors definitely are a big improvement over basic despair gray or black.  

    Agreed....almost gives it a different look.....

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    10 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

    Given the mess FCA is in and the way the market is shifting, I do wonder if there will be a next gen Charger or 300.. 

    I also question if there will be a next generation Charger or 300 or even Challenger.

    I question if Dodge or Chrysler will make it past 2021...never mind the trio of LX cars...

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • How did their engineers find a way to offer both with great space? It is a large 'engine bay'.  At this point, even if I said that 2 cu.ft is nonexistent, if the Audi could offer a frunk that size, Cadillac should have done the same.  I have realized that  people associate EVs with frunks and this is why you and I (and I think @David too) might criticize Cadillac for a missed opportunity with the Lyric.    Forget about Silverados and Hummers, they gave the mid-engine Corvette a trunk and frunk when a mid-engined supercar, even as a Corvette, could have forgone a frunk, but they KNEW it would benefit Corvette because people EXPECT storage space in a Corvette.    GM missed the part that people ALSO expect frunks in EVs...  ESPECIALLY in the market that the Lyriq resides in.  yeah......that would be the proper wording. Its not a big deal by ANY means.  Just disappointing. 
    • Thanks for the information. The Model X seems to have an abundance of space, everywhere.  The Lyriq just seems to have such a large "engine bay" that could/should still be able to have at least 2 cubic feet of space available. It isn't like their rear cargo space is THAT much larger than what they chose to compare it to.  It's a perfectly fine vehicle and the lack of a small frunk wouldn't stop me, it's just a little disappointing it doesn't have one when I feel like they could have engineered one in and still had a large boot. 
    • At 2.12 and 0.95 cu.ft for the Audi and Jag's frunk respectfully is a non-issue for the Lyriq not having a frunk. Maximizing the back trunk space as what the GM guys are saying for the Lyriq and the reason why they did it that way by-passing the need for a frunk sounds like marketing BS, until you realize that Audi and Jag's frunk space is nonexistent...   To which GM's words then kinda make sense as the Lyriq does in fact offer more room back there.   Frunk space is kinda expected though, for EVs, so there is that... Tesla Model X for a comparison as Tesla is the benchmark....   https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/modelx/en_us/GUID-91E5877F-3CD2-4B3B-B2B8-B5DB4A6C0A05.html     Cargo Volume Table 1. 5-Seater Cargo Volumes Area Volume (liters) Volume (cubic ft) Front trunk 183 6.5 Behind first row, second row folded flat 2,410 85.1 Behind second row 1,050 37.1 Maximum total cargo volume with driver and front passenger 2,593 91.6 Maximum total cargo volume with 5 passengers 1,233 43.5 Table 2. 6-Seater Cargo Volumes Area Volume (liters) Volume (cubic ft) Front trunk 183 6.5 Behind first row, second row in max cargo position, third row folded flat 2,431 85.8 Behind second row, third row folded flat 935 33 Behind third row 425 15 Maximum total cargo volume with driver and front passenger 2,614 92.3 Maximum total cargo volume with 6 passengers 608 21.5 Table 3. 7-Seater Cargo Volumes Area Volume (liters) Volume (cubic ft) Front trunk 183 6.5 Behind first row, second row folded flat 2,314 81.7 Behind second row, third row folded flat 957 33.8 Behind third row 425 15 Maximum total cargo volume with driver and front passenger 2,497 88.2 Maximum total cargo volume with 7 passengers 608 21.5       The Lyriq's cargo space is plentiful and it would seem like an engineering choice to favour rear space over the use of a frunk.  Is it a sound engineering choice? Possibly yes as the powertrain bits need not be crammed.   Is it a sound MARKETING choice? Time will tell as many folk really dont understand engineering choices all to well...   Nor do they seem to care.  If they want a frunk, they WANT a phoquing frunk... 
    • Lyriq Chief Engineer, Jamie Brewer, recently explained to GM Authority that the team decided to prioritize rear cargo space over two separate cargo areas. Thus, the 2023 Cadillac Lyriq will have a larger traditional rear storage area. In fact, according to Brewer, that enables the Lyriq to boast the “largest cargo volume in its competitive set.” That made us wonder what, exactly, is the Lyriq’s competitive set. According to Cadillac spokesperson, Katie Minter, it consists of the Audi e-tron and Jaguar I-Pace. “Lyriq is aimed at customers that are looking for a luxury SUV with outstanding styling, ride and handling and seamlessly integrated technology. In this instance, we’re looking at vehicles such as the Audi e-tron and Jaguar I-Pace,” Minter told GM Authority in an emailed statement. So then, Lyriq has a maximum cargo volume of 60.8 cubic feet behind the first row seats and 28.0 cubic feet behind the second row. When compared to the Audi e-tron and the Jaguar I-Pace, the Lyriq does offer more space in the back. 2023 Cadillac Lyriq Cargo vs. e-tron I-Pace   Cadillac Lyriq Audi e-tron Jaguar I-Pace Rear cargo volume behind second row (cu. ft.) 28.0 28.5 25.3 Rear cargo volume behind first row (cu. ft.) 60.8 56.5 51.0 Frunk cargo volume (cu. ft.) N/A 2.12 0.95 Total front & rear cargo volume (cu. ft.)* 28.0 30.62 26.25 * With second row seats upright However, both the e-tron and the I-Pace feature frunks (2.12 cubic feet in the e-tron, 0.95 cubic feet in the I-Pace respectively), allowing the e-tron to have slightly more total cargo volume (combined frunk and rear cargo area). https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/05/heres-why-the-2023-cadillac-lyriq-doesnt-have-a-frunk/  
    • That's probably a better worded way to put it. It's a missed opportunity.  They're all liquid cooled at this point and I can't imagine Ford and Tesla are having battery cooling issues, at least I haven't heard of any yet and I've watched a fair amount on the Mach-E and know somebody with a pair of Teslas in Nevada.  I don't believe lack of cooling has ever been a factor in an EV catching fire. It's always something shorting and sparking with poor connection(s) somewhere.  I'd also like to learn why. They have to have a good justification, I know they're not a bunch of idiots who "didn't think of it".  I just don't want the press release answer of "we needed the space for packaging". 
  • Social Stream

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. bobo
      bobo
      (54 years old)
    2. loki
      loki
      (39 years old)
  • Who's Online (See full list)

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We  Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...