Why Chrysler Needs Plymouth - Chapter 12,658
This is how I see it; which will be my armchair CEO thought of the day.
(A stolen quote from Stratuscaster)
Every auto manufacturer should have a brand that produces the bread and butter / vanilla vehicles as well as produces vehicles that allow first time car buyers to be introduced into the company. With the death of Plymouth, a lot of these types of vehicles are making their way into the likes of Dodge and Chrysler which has the overall affect (in my opinion) of watering down these divisions.
Chrysler and especially Dodge, cannot be all things to all people. Each brand needs to carry or convey some sort of image. More times then not, it is this image that sells a product. Why else would some people buy a Viper over a Corvette? It is the image of higher class, aggression, luxury, and wealth to name a few, that helps buyers of products to decided.
This is one cause for the declining sales of Mercury, Lincoln, Saab, Pontiac, and Jaguar to name a few. There is no defining portrait or image that these automakers convey with their vehicles or in their advertising. Can someone tell me what Saab is? Are you buying a luxury car, sports car, are they masculine, will women adore my car, how did my math test go last week….wait I think I am getting off track here.
Chrysler needs to move upscale and compete against the likes of Buick or Mercury. It would be nice for them to compete again the likes of Lexus, Cadillac, Lincoln, but I don’t think that Chrysler has enough history of perfection or street credibility to do so at this time. However, I do think that Chrysler is getting close. The 300 is a great start, the Imperial would be wonderful, but if you remember when the Pacifica was first introduced…Chrysler thought they had IT…the consumer told them otherwise.
Dodge needs to sell sportiness, machismo, affordable muscle. There is no need for sub-compacts, intro-vehicles, or vanilla minivans. If they are going to make a minivan…give it some attitude, then may be more males will want to buy one.
Plymouth will fit the bill for the cars that the other two main brands will leave behind. The vanilla minivan, the affordable quirky functional PT cruiser, the Hornet with Plymouth clothes, Scion fighters to help introduce the youngsters to the fact that DCX is “cool.”
Well, that is my armchair CEO thought of the day.
Mercury, Pontiac, and Olds are pretty much nonentities in a lot of ways. I think Chrysler should be positioning itself as a low-cost alternative to Lexus and an Acura beater… we’re pretty much in agreement.
This shows a lot of thought and insight. In a very real sense you are so correct, it is nearly worth crying about because Plymouth did define Chrysler at one point. Since then, as Dave wrote somewhere in this blog, DCX will continue to be 1/2 Chrysler and 1/2 Plymouth. Dodge still flounders after having lost it’s best division to copy its products from. Hasn’t been the same since. I have long wondered why DCX let Plymouth go so easily. Dodge cannot and will not ever define the niche that Plymouth held and could still hold if it were brought back today. Let your imagination wander as to what a Plymouth Division could do for DCX now. It would push Chrysler upwards, where it belongs with a good eye on competition with the very margues you suggest, ie: Lexus, Buick, and such. Dodge would then be free to be the bold and aggressive competition division that it had defined itself into. Plymouth could start to kick butt in the Corolla, Cobalt, Escort area, with ease.
Thank you Curtis and Dave for the positive comments.
They really do mean a lot to me.
I completely agree. I never did like the idea of Plymouth’s closure.
OK, Plymouth is gone. However, DCX needs an entry car and vanilla car. Truthfully, Plymouth was mismarketed for years. Plymouth was treated as an afterthought from the 70’s on. The Plymouth was considered a cheap Dodge, not the Dodge as an upscale Plymouth. You need a clean sheet of paper, like the Scion at Toyota. Why not use the SMART name for the US? You start with the Hornet, then the next generation PT is a SMART rather than a Chrysler. The next generation minivan gets a SMART, and when the new Stratus/Sebring comes out, a SMART version is introduced, something more like the Malibu/MAXX. Something that screams VALUE!! I would like to see a separate fleet vehicle off the 300 / Charger platform, with a body set more for headroom and legroom.
Kim M
Something that is NOT widely known outside of Mopar circles was that Plymouth has been getting the ’short end’ of the Chrysler Corporation/Group stick since at least 1953:
Dodge received its first V8, the 241 Red Ram Hemi the above year whereas Plymouth did not get ITS V8 till 1955.
When Chrysler came out with the 1962 model year lineup; only Dodge (and Chrysler) received a true ‘fullsized’ car yet Plymouth get the B body. It took several years for the latter divsision to receive a true big car, the 1965 Fury.
Plymouth did not receive the 440 High Performance V8 till 1967 for police work yet there was a retail 440 optional in 1966 for the Fury.
No 1979 R body for Plymouth yet Dodge and Chrysler got their copies………
I believe that everyone caught my drift,
Regarding SMART - well, for one thing, because it’s a Mercedes name and company, and it’ll make most Mopar people physically ill. In short, it would piss off huge numbers of people without having a major advantage over the Plymouth name… and it also would not recapture those who WERE loyal to Plymouth - remember those 200,000 sales per year? and would for that matter leave some great names out… Road Runner for one!
As for the Red Ram Hemi, well… I will say that a high-end, sophisticated, expensive V8 for Plymouth would have been out of character in 1955…
I don’t know. How Smart is using Smart? Probably not very. I saw for myself how popular the Smart car was in Europe, but then about everything seemed small and smelled like diesels. Just an observation, not a knock. To use the name here might not be the best course of action, since the Smart concept seems to have passed by. Such a little vehicle here would probably only serve as a target for a lot cell phone occupied SUV operators who wouldn’t even see a Smart before they tried to mash it into a grease spot on the highway. I think Plymouth could come back, as I have said, providing it was endowed with a clean sheet of paper and specifically targeted towards the niche that it was meant for to begin with. Plymouth as a division probably lost it’s best corporate advocate when Walter Chrysler left. Alas though, the great Road Runner name has been left to wither as did Plymouth. The name was not protected when the copyright ran out a while ago. What we waited for in 1955 was another version of the Hemi V-8 for Plymouth. What we got was an also ran built under pressure by Dodge division which really didn’t want Plymouth to move up that far! I don’t know what ever happened to the corporate stick that Plymouth division leaders should have wielded as the biggest producer, but it certainly didn’t ger used very much. There wasn’t any reason that Plymouth couldn’t have gotten a Dodge built Hemi instead of going into more development for yet another V-8 line. That would have given Dodge a chance to move up in power and displacement faster than it did. It would have also given Plymouth a chance to really hot rod the low price range, especially in a version to power the Fury at 305 cubic inches in 1956! But it didn’t happen as we know, and now Plymouth is ignomously recalled. It deserved a better chance of standing on it’s own, as was promised years before.
I didn’t mean use the SMART name as such. I just meant it as a for instance. I think the Plymouth name was so devalued over the last 30 years that any new line such as I mentioned would have a reputation to overcome, not a reputation to continue. For every one of us baby boomers who remember the Barracuda and Road Runner, there are a dozen GenXers who remember their grandfather’s Caravelle or Breeze.
How about the DCX “Scion” for the new lines, and use “Plymouth” for strictly fleet models that could be sold through any DCX dealer?
Kim M
I do agree with you royabulgaf (exactly how do you pronunciate your name?).
Plymouth has been devaluated; apparently since 1953. Eagle would be a good name…a lot of people are still driving and loving the Talon. But that is neither here nor there. I can hope all I want; I think it would be a cold day in hell before DCX really does bring back Plymouth/Eagle/SMART or whatever.
I can’t remember the last time I saw a Talon. Eagle was simply brought over as part of the AMC deal in order to get Jeep, and given little more attention than Plymouth after that. At least they could generate some marketing buzz by highlighting Plymouth’s retro years. There’s not a lot to highlight from the Eagle brand.
I can’t remember the last time I saw a Talon. It is hard to believe that. Here in NM and back in Nova Scotia, they are everywhere. Eagle was kinda like what Saturn is turing out to be…an import competitor.
There’s not a lot to highlight from the Eagle brand. The only car I can think of is the Talon…did they make any more than that :)
Well, they started out with AMC/Renault leftovers like the Premier, aka Dodge Monaco. By all reports a very nice riding car; not particularly reliable. They got the Eagle Vision as well as their version of the Eclipse in the Talon. Plymouth also got one in the Laser; the best buy of the three so of course it was the first to go. Let’s see…gonna have to cheat here to see what else they had…ah! The Eagle Summit, aka Dodge/Plymouth Colt. Also had a version of the MPV-style one I believe. That’s the only other one I could find on Allpar, and I can’t quite recall another. 300M was initially going to be an Eagle (much like the PT was to be a Plymouth). Like Plymouth, Eagle was a mishmash of rebadged stuff from Chrysler and Dodge, much like Plymouth was, and they never quite figured out what to do with it. I think ‘97 was the last year for Eagle; maybe ‘98.
Thanks Rich for all of the research…I do remember most of those vehicles now that you mentioned them…Thanks.
Eagle was designed to get import buyers, and they never had any serious sales level. Plymouth was once the #2 or #3 seller and for quite a while was in the top five brands. Plymouth, Dodge, and Chrysler always had overlap, but it got insane in the end, with Chrysler getting Plymouths and only sheet-metal differences, but you know, Plymouth went out with the best quality rankings of any Chrysler Corp brand…and for that matter any DaimlerChrysler brand.
Plymouth has real heritage going back nearly to the dawn of Chrysler Corporation, with tons of nameplates that could be successfully revived, not the least of which is Voyager! Eagle mostly sold rebadged/reengineered foreign cars; the Vision was I believe the only fully American-designed, Canadian-made Eagle.
Come to think of it, Eagle might be the best representative of the modern Chrysler, redesigning and selling Volkswagens (made in Mexico by Volkswagen), Mitsubishi-platformed Dodges, and perhaps even the odd Mercedes or Smart.
I see that a lot of the posts only regard the relatively recent history. In order to put these things into perspective you need to look at the whole history up to now. Plymouth was an entry level dependable reliable sturdy no frills car line. Thats what Walter P. had in mind when he named the new car line Plymouth. It was named after Plymouth twine, which was considered a very durable reliable trusted brand. Dodge has not been watered down, neither has Chrysler. A Chrysler 300 is a far better car than a Lexus or any other small luxury car. A 300 has a definate look that sets it apart. I couldn’t tell a Lexus from an Infinity, from a Base Honda. I don’t see anything that says to me class or style. If you look at the cars of today you will be hard pressed to tell one from another. If they had no badges it would all be the same. At least Chrysler has some distinction with their styling. The PT Cruiser, the Viper, The Viper truck, the Magnum, the 300, they are all very different from the multitudes of sameness that is out there. I am not a big fan of the Charger but at least it is different.
Chrysler *has* been watered down; look at the lower trim lines of each of the vehicles you mentioned. A Plymouth would do a nice job of replacing those lower line vehicles. Note I am not saying take a base 300, switch out the trim and call it a Plymouth, but rather I’m saying that a no frills four door sedan (Fury?) could well take the place of a base 300. ‘No frills’ also means something different than it used to; Nav availability and things like optional DVD in the minivan would have to be offered. Stow & Go as well. I don’t think ’strippers’ would sell any more in any volume. But some of the more esoteric & expensive options wouldn’t be available (AWD in the family sedan as an example) and there’d be less sound insulation and maybe not as nice carpeting…go after the Hyundai & Kia market..get people to say ‘wow! I get all this for that?’.
300C…would be the base model Chrysler in years past! 2.7 liter 300? That would be like a slant six Newport.
I agree with custom880 on everything except the watered-down-ness of the brands. The PT is a great car but should any Chrylser have mechanical windows and locks in this day and age? And what about the Sebring sedan - all too obviously a Stratus? And the base T&C…
Maybe and I mean Maybe the 300 is not watered down…but the brand is.
Cheapest Lexus 30k
Cheapest Chrysler 13 or 14k
Think about the Halo effect of these “lower priced vehicles”
It is very interesting to me that something that happened a couple of years ago (the killing of Plymouth) gets more attention on these blogs then other topics.
Mention Plymouth in your blog and you are guaranteed like 10 comments.
Any other topic…there may be 5 at the most.
Very interesting.
May be my next topic will be on why DCX did the right thing by killing Plymouth (of course I would have to back up those statements). :)
Dave: PT has never had manual windows :) Manual locks, yes. And no seat memory (maybe for ‘06? I don’t recall; I know a full-zoot power seat is available but don’t know about memory..)
Sure? I’d have sworn there was a crank window option. As for seat memory, no, I don’t remember there ever being seat memory.
Positive. A preproduction model seen in pics in one of the car mags (C&D or R&T) had crankers, but fortunately never made it to production. It also had a different hatch latch and a smaller, seperate Chrysler badge higher up on the liftgate. Wasn’t sure if memory was offered for ‘06 but didn’t think so…
Yes, mention Plymouth and you get a lot of attention. Plymouth was the heart and the soul of Walter Chrysler and his vision for his corporation. He didn’t buy Dodge to acquire Dodge per se. He did so to get the foundry so he would have the capacity to build Plymouth. He knew, and someone over at DCX ought to grasp this by now, that he needed an entry level fully capable, highly dependable, comfortable car. Plymouth became that and much more. The killing of the brand still doesn’t make sense in the minds of the folks that knew what Chrysler orginally intended. You can argue that it was right for DCX to kill off the brand, but, it isn’t much of an argument, because it is feint accompli. Even so, DCX is adrift without a base to anchor the rest of the lines off of, as Plymouth did “in the day.” Since it seems that going “retro” is a huge selling point, perhaps, getting back to basics may well be the answer to DCX image and lineage. How so? 5 clearly deliniated divisions with clear price groupings, as it used to be. Don’t fiddle with the formula, instead work harder to make the 5 division formula work better than GM or Ford has done. But, I digress. DCX can’t even market what they have correctly, so who am I kidding. Plymouth…..RIP, indeed.
I’d argue that the formula was almost right, but that DeSoto doesn’t quite fit any more (and yes, that is TWO WORDS, anymore is not a word). Plymouth, Dodge, Chrysler for cars, Jeep for specialty off-roading, and Dodge Truck. Plymouth - quality and value. Dodge - well, it used to be different, but now, I’d agree - “Ram tough” and “big and bold.” Then Chrysler holding up the fort in what used to be Dodge territory as well as what used to be Chryler territory, namely, “affordable luxury.” Finally, Mercedes gets the top end where Imperial used to be.
Of course you can make a point about DeSoto but in truth, at whose feet does the fault lie? Chrysler itself, never a great marketer of it’s own stuff, didn’t seem to know what to do with DeSoto OR Plymouth. Perhaps a slight modification of the original formula may indeed be in order. But not much, because it was truly right for a good many years. Poor DeSoto had it’s fate sealed when Dodge pushed upward and Chrysler went downward, right into DeSoto territory. Granted, the last few models looked way too much like a Chrysler anyway, but that is the hedge that I am referring to. Just because the chassis is the same, it doesn’t mean that the outward sheet metal has to look the same. And let us not forget the proposed new Imperial. It is a CLASS onto itself. With a bit of refinement, it would be just right, and not bother the cat M-B anyway.
In some ways I’m suggesting that DeSoto’s place has been taken in reality by Chrysler. Ideally, yes, Imperial would be as it was so often, a single model carline, exclusive and overpowering all others, yet based on a top line Chrysler - but with no expense barred and no mass production intended. I don’t think today’s marketplace allows for a lineup by cost; I think every brand needs to have its own personality, which may be why Lexus is not doing as well now as intitial sales indicated it would (or as its quality deserves!) — the IS was a sham and a shame, their version of the LeBaron K-car. BMW does quite well as the Ultimate Driving Machine, Jeep as the Off-Roader, and Dodge COULD make a name for itself as Bold and Brash as Chrylser has indicated they want it to. But there needs to be a palce for true mass-produced value, (Plymouth) … and Chrysler could go back to affordable luxury.
Again, DeSoto definitely had a place. Yes, it was marketable, and done at a price range. When the price range blurred, and marketing floundered, all was lost. Chrysler did take the DeSoto spot with the low priced Newport. When introduced the Newport sold like hot cakes at a pancake social. It would seem to justify what Chrysler did in blowing out DeSoto. Yet, it also could have meant that people were looking for an affordable large car in that PRICE range and DeSoto had originally been there. Marketing done correctly would have prevented such an overlap and subsequent loss of the brand. Brands do develop, or used to develop a “personality” or a following of loyal customers. Stick within the personality and brand price range, and you keep on selling no matter what. VW Beetle was a prime example. Don’t fiddle with the formular except to make it better or improve it, but leave the “personality” and the price range alone. GM marketed some real shlock junk for a good part of the 80’s, but people kept buying it because of the “personality” and price range. Same could be said for CG IF they reintroduced Plymouth in the niche where it truly belongs. It would serve to legitimize some of the vehicles that CG is bringing out now, and allow the PT Cruiser to become the Plymouth Truck that it was meant to be, taking that low priced image away from Chrysler.
Agreed - and I’ll throw in the Neon as an example - lost much of its personality with Gen 2… I wonder if part of Chrysler’s problem is that the cars do change SO Much between generations these days. Rear-drive replaced with K-cars, K replaced with cab-forward, cab-forward replaced..
Couple that with the fact that few brand names survive beyond two generations; some not even making it past one. I do think there is a comfort level associated with a long-lived name, and fully believe that it is part of the reason for the success of the ubiquitous Civic/Corolla/Accord/Camry. The names are everywhere because the cars are everywhere. The evolutionary changes between models also means a five year old and 10 year old model is still recognizable for what it is.
If Chrysler would put some money into these cars half way through their life-cycle then they wouldn’t have to change names. They let each car flounder in the market unlike Civic/Corolla/Accord/Camry where money is put into everyone of these vehicles.
Yup. The perception of the Corolla as a rustbucket has long since vanished.
Oh, a long time ago. And they come out with new ones every 4 years (IIRC). Sebring/Stratus date from 2001. Last Intrepid went from 1998-2004 and the last didn’t look any different from the first.
I don’t think that the “sheet metal refresh” is entirely needed. Their current system of coming out with performance versions first to get buzz is much better than coming out with a car perceived as slow, and later adding bigger engines, so it never overcomes first impressions. The problem now is that the refresh is usually unflattering, changes the character away from what buyers liked, and comes complete with gobs of cost-cutting.
They don’t need to do much, necessarily. The 300M had a grille tweak, and got new taillamps through it’s run, and the Sebring/Stratus did get a new head & tail. But underneath it’s still the same car, and to compete in high volume segments that just won’t do six years after introduction. The vehicle becomes an anachronism. Currently, the Ford Ranger is an excellent (extreme?) example of that. But I’d gladly trade a ‘refresh’ for an all new vehicle a year or two earlier. But they seem to give up on vehicles in their second generation and just chug them out for too long. Neon went too long; Intrepid went too long and didn’t change a bit. The Concorde morphed into the LHS’ body and they tried to pass it off as ‘new’.
The cost-cutting is unfortunate. I’d think that the reverse, upping the content, would be an enticement to get people into an aging model. At the one end of the lifecyle you have those interested in a new model, and at the other those less impressed by the ‘latest release’ would be wooed by the higher content levels at an attractive price.
I couldn’t agree with you more on these points Rich.
I still don’t really believe that. The Ranger is the best selling compact pickup as I recall. The Camry and Corolla don’t normally get a refresh. You are right that they give up on vehicles in their second generation. Part of it seems to be a cultural idea that anything old is bad. I wonder if part of it is that once a vehicle is successful they’re scared to let it stay where it was… and part is the bigger/heavier disease that hurt the Intrepid, Neon, Stratus, etc. in their second generations!
Well, as of ‘02 the Ranger only had a 2% lead on the Tacoma (per Automotive Digest). Toyota actually cares about the segment, so I’d be willing to wager they’ve made up the 2% deficit.
Camry and Corolla don’t need a refresh; they get all new vehicles!
Sometimes I wonder if it’s all a setup: ‘We’ll let the Intrepid stagnate so when we pull out the next vehicle it’ll be big news’.
I am in northern Canada and I have a 1957 Plymouth Plaza which runs and is pretty well intact. It belonged to my grandmother who did not drive. Does anyone have any idea what it might be worth these days? Is anyone looking for such a vehicle for their collection?
You might want to try http://www.plymouthbulletin.com/
I had a friend say that he saw a dodge van with a V-8 diesel.I know that dodge has a cumins diesel inline 6 but I haven’t heard of the V-8 diesel… is there such an animal?
Not to much knowledge Bryon. the 5.9L will soon become an 6.7L I6. Maybe he was mistaken by this?