I had previously written a blog entitled What Will be Powering Our Cars in the Future? and since them some people have asked me to produce/write a second blog expanding the on the ideas presented in the first blog.  In this particular blog I will discuss in more detail certain aspects presented the previous blog as well as presenting new information like the pros and cons on the use of Ethanol based fuels. 

I would like to note before the discussion begins that I am a physicists and not a chemist, but I do play a bad chemist here at allpar.  Therefore I have asked for the help from jstwe314 (a member here at allpar) who has a degree in physics but has worked as a chemist for many years.  jstwe314 has added a lot (and I mean a lot) of information here on the actual chemistry behind certain reactions that I will be discussing.  And I would also like to personally thank jstwe314 for all of his insight into this particular field. 

This blog will be broken down into five sections; the chemistry behind the reactions of certain hydrocarbons, the pros and cons on the use of Ethanol, the facts about the use of hydrogen as a source of fuel, the physics behind particular alternative forms of energy, and why all of this is not the final answer for energy independence. 

 

_______The Chemistry behind the Reactions of certain Hydrocarbons_______

In order for us to understand why there is a need for alternative sources of energy or how they actually work, let us first describe to you some basic principles of gasoline. For starters here are some notes about Gasoline.  

Gasoline is is made up almost entirely of hydrocarbons, which are molecules made up of carbon and hydrogen.  Hydrocarbons present in gasoline usually have between 6 and 12 carbon atoms in each molecule. A good average is probably octane, which has eight carbon atoms and 18 hydrogen atoms and is written C8H18. (Note: sugars are hydrocarbons with oxygen….interesting)

When a hydrocarbon is burned (that is, reacted with oxygen), it forms carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). For our “average” gasoline of C8H18, the reaction is 2 molecules of octane reacting with 25 molecules of oxygen (O2) to form 18 molecules of water (18*H20) and 16 molecules of carbon dioxide (16*CO2).

Of course, this reaction only occurs completely in an ideal world. In the real world, there is usually not quite enough oxygen available or fast enough inside your car’s engine to allow the reaction to occur completely, so there is also some carbon monoxide (CO) formed as well.

In addition, since the oxygen is provided by bringing air into the engine, and since air consists mostly of nitrogen, some oxides of nitrogen (NO#) are formed as well.  Finally, some of the trace elements in the gasoline (such as sulfur) can react to form small amounts of other pollutants, such as SO2 or sulfur dioxide.

In summary gasoline is a mixture of:

1. Natural or straight run gasoline, that is, distillate in the temperature range 40-205 degrees Celsius, C5-C10 and cycloalkanes, like cyclohexane C6H12.
2. Reformate, that is, n-alkanes and maybe olefins rearranged to branched alkanes, methyl- and ethyl- groups on straight chain alkanes.
3. Aromatics, like benzene, C6H6.
4. Oxygenates and octane boosters like MTBE (methyl tertiarybutyl ether) and ethanol.
5. Proprietary additives and detergents for corrosion control and fuel system. 
6. Anti-oxidants, metal deactivators, deposit modifiers, surfactants, freezing point depressants, and corrosion inhibitors.
7. There are over 500 different hydrocarbons present in gasoline.

Question: How is the heat produced in combusting hydrocarbon fuels apportioned between the carbon and the hydrogen present in the fuel?

Answer: It all depends on the fuel.  Let us look at different types of fuels or hydrocarbons. 

For a gasoline (say C7H16) fueled vehicle 39% of the power comes from the hydrogen, and 61% from the carbon.  Gasoline averages 2.3 hydrogen atoms per carbon atom. 

For a diesel (say C12H26) fueled vehicle 38% of the power comes from the hydrogen, and 62% from the carbon.  Diesel fuel averages 2.2 hydrogen atoms per carbon atom.

How are these percentages actually calculated? ***Note*** for the purposes of this website, we have answered this question (percentages) assuming it is an accounting problem.  Take these values with a grain of salt. 

A procedure to calculate the heat released in combustion of an alkane hydrocarbon is to multiply the number of carbon atoms per molecule by 100.7 kcal/mol and multiply the number of hydrogen atoms per molecule by 28.4 kcal/mol and add.

Sample Calculations:

1. Natural gas, methane, CH4: 100.7 + 4(28.4) = 100.7 (energy from the carbon atom) + 113.6 (energy from the hydrogen atoms)= 214 kcal/mol in total from methane.
Percent heat from hydrogen = 113.6/214 = 53%
2. Propane, C3H8: 3(100.7) + 8(28.4) = 529 kcal/mol

Here is a table with the above examples plus more; H. of C. = Heat of Combustion.

# Carbon Atoms	# Hydrogen Atoms	Name	H. of C. (kcal/mol)	H. of C. (BTU/gal)	% of Heat from Hydrogen
1	4	Methane	213	121,459	52
3	8	Propane	530	84,448	43
8	18	Octane	1318	114,194	39
12	42	Dodecane	1947	125,881	38

For a NGV like the Honda GX, 53% of the power comes from the hydrogen in the natural gas, and 47% from the carbon. So the GX could, just barely, be called a MHFV (mostly hydrogen fueled vehicle). Natural gas is mainly methane (CH4) and there are 4 hydrogen atoms per carbon atom, the largest ratio for any hydrocarbon fuel.

Summary: 

1. For more information on the chemical makeup of gasoline, please visit this website. 
2. Gasoline may be plentiful today, but I think that we can all agree that fossil fuels will not be around forever.  For reasons backing up this statement, see my previous blog. 
3. We as a society should focus our attention for finding new sources of oil and natural gas as well as finding new alternative sources of energy because of the previous statement. 
4. A very hot topic as of late is the use of Ethanol to help run our automobiles.  I will continue with the current topic of this blog and discuss possible pros and cons of Ethanol in the next section. 

 

_______The Pros and Cons on the Use of Ethanol_______

The Facts: 

Ethanol consists of hydrocarbons with the addition of oxygen or C2H5OH.  Ethanol is also commonly known as ethyl alcohol, alcohol, or grain spirit.  Ethanol is a clean-burning alcohol produced by bacteria that ferment the sugars in corn and cornstalks as well as other products.

Pros:

1. Since ethanol is an alcohol based product, it does not produce hydrocarbons when being burned or during evaporation. This is great since hydrocarbons contribute to the formation of ground level ozone or O3 (a greenhouse gas).
2. Aldehyde emissions from the combustion of ethanol blends are slightly higher than when burning gasoline.  An aldehyde is a compound containing a carbonyl group with at least one hydrogen attached to it. R-C=O where R may be some hydrocarbon or hydrogen atoms.  However, The Royal Society of Canada termed the possibility of negative health effects caused by aldehyde emissions from the use of ethanol blends as being “remote”.
3. By adding ethanol, which contains oxygen, combustion in the engine is more complete and CO is reduced. Research shows that reductions may reach as high as 30% depending on the type and age of the automobile, the emission
   system used, and the atmospheric conditions. Ethanol blends dramatically reduce emissions of hydrocarbons, a major contributor to the depletion of the ozone layer.
4. High-level ethanol blends reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by up to 20%.
5. High-level ethanol blends can reduce emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) by 30% or more (VOCs are major sources of ground-level ozone formation).
6. As an octane enhancer, ethanol can cut emissions of cancer-causing benzene and butadiene by more than 50%.
7. Sulphur dioxide and Particulate Matter (PM) emissions are significantly decreased with ethanol.  (Note: Sulphur is found only in gasoline and not from Ethanol itself.)
8. Ethanol has a pleasant smell.

Cons:

1. 1.5 gallons of ethanol has the energy of 1 gallon of gasoline. (Conventional Gasoline = 5.253 MBtu/Barrel and Fuel Ethanol = 3.539 MBtu/Barrel where M = million)
2. It takes 3 units of input energy to make 4 units of ethanol energy.  Therefore, a gallon of ethanol replaces only 2/3 of a gallon of gas, and making it requires the fossil energy in about 1/2 a gallon of gas. In summary one must make 6 gallons of ethanol to save the fossil energy in one gallon of gas. This is expensive using US corn but much cheaper with Brazilian sugar cane or beets.
3. With 15,000 square miles of land devoted to ethanol, we reduce our energy dependence by just over 1/4 of 1%.
4. To achieve independence would require 50% more land than in the US counting Alaska.
5. Ethanol production or the production of corn is not good for the soil; corn uses more nitrogen fertilizer than other crops, which pollutes our waterways.
6. There are other cons related to the refining processes that I am exactly not familiar with.

 

_______The Facts about the use of Hydrogen as a Source of Fuel_______

I am not going to go into stating whether or not we as a society should place our energy (not a pun) into using or not using Ethanol as a temporary replacement for gasoline.  But I will continue the blog by talking about a possible next generation of fuel, which of course would be hydrogen, another very current hot topic. 

I am also just going to give you some facts about hydrogen like; what it actually is, where it comes from, and how we will begin to use it.

1. Hydrogen must be stored at extremely low temperatures and high pressure. A container capable of withstanding these specifications is larger and more expensive than a standard typical gas tank. Hydrogen storage could be viewed as a problem by consumers.
2. The heat or energy would be obtained from the combination of two hydrogen atoms with one oxygen atom or 4H + O2 -> 2H2O.  The formation of water is in a lower energy state relative to the atoms in an unbounded state therefore this reaction is exothermic and energy is released.
3. Ideally if this could be utilized, using hydrogen as a fuel, this would be a true renewable source of energy.  Hydrogen stored in the car would react with oxygen from the air creating water or H2O.  The water would be released into the environment for us to use again at a later date. 
4. Today, hydrogen is mostly extracted from natural gas, making it a fossil fuel product. The mining of the gas and the hydrogen extraction process are not pollution free, even if fuel cell powered cars essentially are.
5. In order for the hydrogen to be truly “renewable” or “green,” it would have to be produced from water by electrolysis.  Electrolysis requires a large amount of electricity, though, so the source of the electricity would also need to be renewable and clean if the whole process is to be.
6. We must put the same amount of energy into gathering hydrogen as we will get out of it when we use it.  Therefore the entire process has a net efficiency is 0%.
7. The reader should then ask the question:  If we have to burn or use fossil fuels to make hydrogen, what have we really gained?

 

_______The Physics behind Alternative Forms of Energy_______

Turbines:
The majority of electricity today is produced by burning coal or oil to heat up water.  The water is converted into high temperature and high pressure steam through different stages of boiling and super heating within the confines of the boiler tubes.  This high pressure, high temperature steam then passes through a main steam pipe to the turbine.  A turbine is a rotary engine that extracts energy from fluid flow.   It converts mechanical energy from fluid flow, and for more information on a turbine find it under Wind and Hydro-electric power.

As we discussed in the previous section, we learned that if we were to obtain hydrogen from water, we must then use electrolysis to extract the hydrogen.  This means that we must burn fossil fuels in order to obtain hydrogen from the renewable source of water.  One way for us to get around the use of fossil fuels, in this instance, is to find or use other alternative sources of renewable electricity.  Examples of these include wind, hydro-electric, and solar power. 

Wind and Hydro-electric Power:
Uses Faraday’s law which states that electricity (or moving charges) is produced when the field of a magnetic field is changing in time.
A turbine has magnets connected to its moving parts and as a windmill spins its blades or water moves through a damn, this causes the magnets to move.  The magnets move around some copper wires, say, which generates electricity in the wires. 

Solar Power:
Uses the photo-electric effect that was first discovered by Einstein (he won his Noble prize for this)
A photon hits the metal which releases an electron, the electron moves producing current thus electricity.  This is a completely free, natural, and renewable source of energy.  Drawbacks include: a bad efficiency of current solar panels, the cost in constructing solar panels, the need for huge land areas of solar panels to generate enough energy for them to be productive.

Follow the links provided for more information on the the physics behind each idea presented and Click here for more information on different types of Energy Sources

 

_______Why all of this is not the Final Answer for Energy Independence_______

Unfortunately the world is not just black and white….there are a lot of shades of grey.  For all of the positive benefits of Ethanol there are equally huge drawbacks in my opinion. 

Hydrogen gas also has its drawbacks in its current form, the fact that we must use natural gas or methane in order for us to gather hydrogen.  If hydrogen is to be obtained from water then a massive amount of electricity must be used.  Currently, electricity is produced from fossil fuels.  It is like a never ending deadly cycle.  We as a society cannot seem to end the cycle of using fossil fuels to run our cars, cool or heat our homes, surf on the internet to listen to some lunatic talk about energy.  It is like there is no end to the cycle or we are just not smart enough to find a break. 

The only way I see it, if we want to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels is the use of Nuclear power.  I am not going to discuss the pros and cons of Nuclear power, we all know what they are; cheap power, wonderful efficiency, harmful by-products with no place to store them, etc.

The other way for us to break the cycle is for us to fund more research into fusion reactors.  Unlike Nuclear (or fission) reactors the by-products of fusion are not harmful, 4 hydrogen atoms are smashed together to get one helium atom.  This technology has been used in bombs (the H-bomb) which have a great destructive power with more output energy relative to the older nuclear (or fission) bombs.  The current problem for us is that we are unable to gather and use the output energy.  Hopefully current researchers and engineers will be able to solve this among other problems with this particular form of energy.

The 2007 Chrysler Pacifica made its informal public debut, thanks to photos at allpar.com - http://www.allpar.com/model/cs.html - which show an attractive vehicle inside and out.

Fortunately, Chrysler designers apparently took a light touch on the Pacifica; they could have gone much farther. The main problem with the Pacifica is not its looks, which are remarkably striking for what is basically a slightly-restyled minivan body with a completely new interior; nor is it the functionality, which is superior to just about any truck-based SUV in that price class for those who don’t need to tow and haul; nor is it the quality, which has reportedly been quite good. I think the main problems have been getting people to realize it exists and getting people inside one. People who see it, generally love it. People who drive it generally like it. Getting people in, once again, is Chrysler’s big problem - just as it was with the Neon and early Intrepid. Then they can be pleasantly surprised.

Of course, test numbers that make the Pacifica seem lethargic don’t help; nor does the moderately disappointing gas mileage, the result of using a rather nice car engine in a heavier, larger vehicle than it was presumably designed for. Putting in a six-speed automatic (for quicker off-the-line acceleration coupled with better gas mileage) and reworked 3.8 liter engine should help the second generation, along with a few other “keeping up with the Joneses” changes.

In the end, we’re happy to see that although the interior is getting more of that chunky feel Chrysler thinks we want, it still is at least a little warm and attractive (compared with, say, the 300), and the exterior remains quite nice. Take a look for yourself and see if you agree.

When the new 300 came out, it was definitely a mixed bag. On the one hand, in its favor were superb cornering and handling feel - a nice sense of balance for a large vehicle combined with great road holding and a driver-tuned stability control system came from the combination of expensive Mercedes E-Class suspension design (modified to fit underneath a Chrysler and presumably to not bankrupt the company), tuned by the experts at Chrysler. (We saw from the Crossfire, particularly the SRT-6, that Chrylser is better at tuning Mercedes cars than Mercedes is.) Adding to the attraction was the top Hemi engine, which provided superlative boost with hardly any fuss and V6-style gas mileage. On the down-side was the performance with the base V6, both in acceleration and gas mileage; the 3.5’s moderately disappointing, though still perfectly acceptable, acceleration; and the relatively Spartan interior. While the 300C was definitely classy outside, inside it was, well, economy plus a nice analog clock. Compared with the 300M, the 300C is downright cheap inside - at least in appearance. We have been assured that it is actually far less susceptible to squeaks and rattles over time, not that the 300M was bad; but the 300/300C should be “world class” in that regard.

After the LX series, we saw the introduction of the Caliber, which proved that the PT Cruiser was not the last overweight smallish vehicle to be made by Chrysler. In case you thought the designers of the AMC Eagle - a compact car weighing a good two tons - had taken away their spirit, we had a surprisingly heavy small wagon, whose porky presence on the scales brought sub-Neon performance from engines with far more horsepower than the Neon ever got (unless you include the SRT-4, and to match the SRT-4, the Caliber SRT-4 will add a good 70 horsepower). Which brings us to the Sebring/Avenger.

The new mid-sized cars will hopefully give Chrysler a shot in the arm in that missing part of their product line, the popular family sedan. Chrysler used to play a huge role in that market, with A and B bodied cars, and then with various K-cars, and finally with the Spirit/Acclaim. The critically acclaimed Stratus and Sebring never sold as well as the Spirit/Acclaim, but actually made a profit; still, their sales never reached an acceptable level for a mainstream automaker with thousands of dealerships across the United States, with customers defecting to Toyota in droves for those bland, comfortable Camrys. The Stratus is set to get a more powerful base four-cylinder engine, with Chrysler’s lovely 3.5 liter V6 adding 50 hp to the current 2.7 liter engine, putting that power to the ground through a new, more efficient six-speed automatic. If the Stratus/Avenger keep their weight gains in check, they might just be able to match the 268 horsepower 2007 Camry (0-60 in 7 seconds), which also has a six-speed automatic, though the Camry’s EPA estimates (31 highway!) might be hard to reach at the same time. On the other hand, if they end up with a two-ton mid-sized car, we’re all in trouble. Maybe that won’t happen; the Caliber, after all, had to accommodate double duty as a Jeep, whereas, at least as far as we know, no Jeep version of the Sebring is planned.

We’ve now seen the Sebring and Avenger (spy shots are here) - and thanks, Autoblog for the link. Despite Dieter’s exhortations against identical twins carrying different nameplates, the only difference appears to be in their skins and perhaps a little suspension tuning, with the Avenger looking like a little Charger and the Sebring like a Charger with Crossfire styling. While we’re glad it’s not a mini-300C, the Sebring is clearly closely related to the Avenger, just as the Compass and Caliber are clearly twins.

Inside, the Sebring carries on the 300’s “silver and black” routine, with no rich burgundy, tan, or other colors; just the now-clichéd silver, gray, and black. The interior looks just about as Spartan as the 300, from what we’ve seen, even as the 300 is reportedly getting a restyled interior design to make it look, well, richer and more attractive. We sure hope that Chrysler plans to do more to the Sebring’s cabin before the official launch, because at the moment, it looks like another case of a pretty exterior and a dull, plasticky interior. Please prove me wrong, guys…!

BMW ran an ad that included: “The ability to say no to compromise is a rare thing these days. Many
companies would like to be able to say it, but so few have the autonomy to actually do it. As an independent company, BMW can say no.” BMW, in short, makes the Ultimate Driving Machine, and will not start producing poor-handling SUVs or economy cars to get a quick buck, unlike some other companies we can mention.

It is great companies like BMW, Honda, Toyota, that do not stray from their principles nor let somebody come in and change their operations or beliefs. That is why these companies are first rate auto companies - the finest and most successful in the world, while entities like Chrysler are second class citizens in the market place. Strong companies keep to their guiding priniciples and never let them out of sight, while the weak ones let the market walk all over them. The last example is perfect in describing today’s Chrysler - a weak entity that sold itself to the devil for protection and in doing so sold its soul, beliefs, and principles. How do you pronounce Daimlerchrysler? Daimler, the Chrysler is silent.

Chrysler can no longer claim itself as an independent company like Toyota, Honda, Porsche, Ford, and GM can. These are the first tier auto companies that rule the auto industry. The second tier are those that have to gain protection from a stronger (financially and mentally) entity. This fits Chrysler perfectly as it huddles to the security blanket of its Stuttgart masters.

Chrysler no longer has the ability to say anything about its future because now its future is guided in Stuttgart Germany. The German mindset is clearly on display on the new and upcoming Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep vehicles. That “Chrysler” look is gone and has been replaced with such strong German lines that even Hitler would approve. The Commander would probably fit perfectly in the German army. Gone are the swoopy, sleek lines of the original Viper or the cutesy look of the Neon. Instead we get box after box because that is what the Germans define “American” style as. Chrysler’s design philosophy has been thrown out the window.

Chrysler’s legendary engineering died when Walter P. Chrysler passed on. After that day, Chrysler engineering has had some bright spots and some not so bright spots. Today, I have to wonder if there is such a thing called Chrysler engineering because with all these parts coming from Stuttgart,
Nissan, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, Mercedes, VW, and others, one has to wonder what those Chrysler engineers do all day. They can’t seriously think they can take credit for the work done by others? So, another of Walter P. Chrysler’s beliefs is out the window.

And finally, the main point that EVERYBODY seems to miss - Walter P. Chrysler’s persistance in keeping his company going during so many threats and hard times. His deterimination kept the company from going under. In contrast, the current bunch doesn’t have a clue, yet they foolishly think
they are doing a grand service by keeping his legacy alive. Well, I guess if keeping the name hooked up to the Daimler life support system is the answer, then so be it!

The point of all this mumbo jumbo is to say that the saying provided up above is the correct way to run a company and keep it going. Chrysler was (and still is) incorrect in its belief of its current situation. BMW, Honda, and Toyota have survived and have flourished because they did not sell out their principles. Chrysler did, and they had every opportunity to succeed like Honda, Toyota, and BMW.

CG is starting another one of its famous declines with over-production showing its ugly face again, industry leading incentives, dropping profits, and increasing fleet sales showing that the world’s “hottest” company might just be full of hot air. But just keep trusting good old Stuttgart boy
Eberhardt and all will be fine. Just keep telling yourselves that. And when the time comes to chop another 20,000 off the Chrysler payroll, let them talk to their representatives in Germany.

Like Ben Franklin said, “Those that give up freedom for security shall receive neither”. It is only a matter of time when this statement comes true. CG got themselves into this mess, and I’m not about to help them out of it either. It is either sink or swim with Daimler. They will have done it to themselves.

At least one good thing came out of this, the good/hard working guy has surpassed the bad/ unethical guy in the auto industry. By this I mean Toyota’s movement into third place in the U.S. auto market. Through hard work, determination, focused quality, and giving people what they want, Toyota has grown from a little nothing in the 60s to the third largest automaker in the United States by just man-handling Chrysler last month. On the opposite side of the spectrum, Chrysler has shown us how to throw everything away just for the short-sighted goal of protection — of the next “big fad”. Funny how the smart, independent car companies didn’t fall for that old trick and felt keeping their company strong and independent was more important than what Wall Street said. Again, Chrysler showed its feeble mindset at the worst possible time.

I applaud companies like BMW, Honda, Toyota, Porsche, Hyundai, GM, and Ford for doing the right thing and battling the tough fight and surviving.

In response to seeing hundreds of guests using the forums, I’ve changed permissions on most forums so you can’t just lurk and read without signing up. The forums are a community; at least that little step should be taken by everyone using them. After signing in, after all, it’s just one more step to actually contributing.

Also, the classifieds just weren’t working, so I’ve cut my losses, and tomorrow you’ll see a new system in place. Sorry I couldn’t preserve the old ads but conversion from one system to another doesn’t seem possible.

Today I would like to discuss the perceived image of Chrysler by comparing the vehicles that Chrysler produces to other luxury or near-luxury brands.

Below are the vehicles, along with Chrysler, made by Mercury, Buick, Acura, Lincoln, Infinity, Lexus, and Cadillac. Along with the vehicles I have placed the starting MSRP for the various trim levels offered (this may or may not be a complete list of start MSRPs).

For comparison’s sake, I have also averaged all of the starting MSRPs from each of the vehicles (since the list this may not be complete take the average price, as I stated above, take this average price with a grain of salt). Starting with the lowest average price I have listed the manufacturer along with their vehicles.  I have also placed in bold the cheapest and most expensive starting MSRPs just for easy comparison sake.

I have also put the sales, for each of the brands, for the first 4 months of 2006.  Numbers obtained by posts from hemidakota. 

Mercury (6 models, 3 cars, 2 SUVs, 1 minivan):
Milan $18,995
Montego $25,130
Grand Marquis $25,555
Mariner $21,995 - $29,840
Mountaineer $29,795
Monterey $29,325
Average price $25,663
Sales 68,014

Buick (5 models, 2 cars, 2 SUVs, 1 minivan):
LaCrosse $22,490 - $27,990
Lucerne $25,990 - $34,990
Rendezvous $24,990 - $28,990
Rainier $31,290
Terraza $27,990 - $30,490
Average price $28,357
Sales 81,845

Chrysler (6 models, 4 cars, 1 SUV, 1 minivan):
PT $15,125 - $29,850
Sebring $20,730 - $29,595
300 $24,450 - $42,695
Crossfire $30,070 - $50,395
Pacifica $26,145 - $38,755
Town & Country $21,985 - $37,655
Average price $30,621
Sales 214,867

Acura (5 models, 4 cars, 1 SUV):
RSX $20,325
TSX $27,890
TL $33,325
RL $49,300
MDX $37,125
Average price $33,593
Sales 65,023

Lincoln (6 models, 3 cars, 2 SUVs, 1 truck):
Zephyr $29,660
LS $39,945
Town Car $42,875
Mark LT $39,555
Aviator $41,400
Navigator $50,145
Average price $40,597
Sales 42,571

Infinity (5 models, 3 cars, 2 SUVs):
G $31,200 - $33,200
M $40,840
Q $58,100
FX $37,800
QX $49,800
Average price $41,824
Sales 38,805

Lexus (8 models, 5 cars, 3 SUVs):
IS $30,580 - $36,030
ES $33,865
GS $43,845 - $55,595
LS $57,220
SC $66,050
RX $38,095 - $46,755
GX $47,330
LX $68,090
Average price $47,587
Sales 93,056

Cadillac (7 models, 4 cars, 2 SUVs, 1 truck):
CTS $29,990 - $51,395
STS $41,470 - $77,090
DTS $41,990
XLR $77,295 - $100,000
SRX $36,990
Escalade $57,280 - $59,680
Escalade EXT $54,210
Average price $57,036
Sales 68,845

The average “Average price” for the 8 different brands is $38,160 +/- $9,965.  Chrysler, which has an average price of $30,621, actually comes in within one standard deviation of the rest of the manufacturers.  However it still is roughly $7,500 away from the average starting MSRP of the rest of the manufacturers.  Therefore, from this info, one could say that Chrysler could be thought as near luxury and not a luxury brand.  Brands that are at or above this price point are Lincoln, Infinity, Lexus, and Cadillac.  Missing the boat are Mercury, Buick, Chrysler, and Acura.  (Is this division of brands a surprise to you…for some reason it does not surprise me.)

The average number of models of these 8 manufacturers is 6 +/- 1.  Chrysler who makes 6 different models is right on average.

The average number of cars is 3.5 cars +/- 0.86.  Chrysler who makes 4 different cars also fits into this average.

The average number of SUVs is 1.875 +/- 0.6.  Chrysler, who only has 1 SUV the Pacifica, is outside the standard deviation for this particular grouping.  With the addition of the Aspen, this will help bring Chrysler inline with the rest of the industry. (Note: all crossovers or anything as such has been classified as an SUV).

The average number of minivans is 0.375 + 0.48 - 0.375.  The brands which carry minivans are only Mercury, Buick, and Chrysler.  They also happen to have the lowest average start MSRP prices…any thoughts why this is so???

The average number of trucks is 0.25 + 0.43 - 0.25.  The brands that carry trucks in their lineups are Cadillac and Lincoln.  One a clone of the F-series and the other a clone of the Avalanche.  They are both asking around or more than $40,000 for them…is this something or a market that Chrysler needs to get into?  The pimped out/chromed out truck?  A Chrysler version of the Dodge Ram anyone?  The Chrysler Citadel?

The average sales for the first 4 months of 2006 for the given 8 brands is 84,128 +/- 52,222 units.  Chrysler, which sells the most cars in this grouping of brands, sells more vehicles by 2.5 standard deviations then the average.  Chrysler alone with Lexus are the only 2 brands that are above the average mark.  (This tells me I should be using other forms of statistics…but I am too lazy for that).  Chrysler also outsells the next leading brand, Lexus, by 120,000 units which is more units then even Lexus has sold.  Does this mean that Chrysler is the best near luxury brand or is it a slow selling general brand á la Chevy, Ford, Honda, Dodge, Toyota, and Nissan?

Being DCX’s armchair CEO, this is my plan for moving Chrysler upscale:

1. Get rid of the PT.  It is the lowest price vehicle from all 8 brands and with many Chrysler/Jeep dealers and with the addition of the Compass and Patriot to the Jeep brand there is no reason to have a low priced vehicle in the Chrysler lineup.  The PT can be moved to the Dodge brand (they may or may not keep the grill) since the Dodge brand is the only mass-market brand in the DCX lineup (that is all I will say on that).

2. Get rid of lower trim levels of the 300.  That means getting rid of the base with the 2.7L and the Touring edition with the 3.5.  Keep the 300 on par with the Avalon in terms of beginning price range say $29,995 starting price point well equipped.   

3. Keep the starting price point of the next Sebring at $20,000.  And I mean 20k, not a starting MSRP at 20k with 5k dollars worth of rebates.  If you want to roll with the big boys then you need to walk and talk like you’ve got it.

4. Include the Aspen to the line up.  This is going to happen so nuff said.

5. The next generation Pacifica should be able to go toe to toe with the FX, RX, MDX, and MKX.  Engine, price point, no base models, lower sales expectations, and don’t call it something that has an X in it. 

6. Get rid of the Crossfire and replace it with the Chrysler engineered Firepower.  Add the Hemi and have a starting MSRP of 45K for it.  This will be on par with some trim levles of the Crossfire, but this time worth the money, IMO.

7. Don’t produce a Chrysler truck á la Mark LT.  Who buys $40,000 trucks anyway?

8. Keep the minivan.  Although most of the luxury or near luxury brands do not offer this particular type of vehicle…it will be able to set Chrysler apart from the rest.  Minivan doesn’t mean cheap and hopefully the next T&C will show people this.  Oh, did I say no base models…that is what ***cough cough*** Dodge is for.

9. Interior, interiors, and interiors.  All interiors of Chrysler vehicles should meet the standards set the the above 7 other brands.  Go and take a drive in a Lucerne or a Mountaineer just for starters.  They all, for the most part, have really nice interiors.  Most people at allpar say they love the interiors of say the 300, well most of us at allpar would buy a garbage can with 4 wheels and a Chrysler badge on it….just like the general public would buy the same with a Toyota badge owwww ahhhhhhh.

So those are my 9 suggestions for moving Chrysler up-market and upscale. Along with my suggestions I have also place some statistics to try and back up some of my points and why some of these changes needs to be accomplished. 
Any thoughts, any suggestions???