August 30th, 2007 by Bill C
I am looking at Nardelli’s remarks about “monetizing some assets,” and the Wall Street Journal article on selling Mopar Performance and Chrysler Transport, as indicating that the cost-cutting plans will be expanded soon.
What really bugs me is that Chrysler needs investment and inspiration, not a trip to the chop shop.
With the exception of the ill-advised Aspen, their recent introductions are doing pretty well compared to their peers from GM and Ford. I think both the Caliber and Patriot would be delivering better numbers had Chrysler not launched the Compass, which was a totally unneeded vehicle. Had the launch of the Pacifica been handled differently, where the vehicle was positioned properly in the minds of consumers, I think it would have done better than it did.
And what’s being done to the PT Cruiser is nothing less than criminal. How can a company ditch a car the public loves even though it’s been largely unchanged for longer than just about any other light vehicle on the market? And, if they can’t come up with a legitimate restyle under Trevor Creed, why the heck aren’t they headhunting for a designer who can do the job?
However, Nardelli, and others like him, who are the flavor-du-jour in industrial CEOs, see that cost-cutting pleases Wall Street in the short term and know it’s easier than addressing the tough issues of fielding competitive products. I think Cerberus erred in tying Nardelli’s compensation to returning to profitability, which is comparatively easy to do. They should have tied it to growth, even if they promised him a billion dollars for every additional point of market share accompanied by increase in volume. In doing this, they would not only make money, they would increase the value of their new asset. But I am not sure the current pool of CEO “talent” includes anyone like that.
August 30th, 2007 by Rich
The above is one of the most pressing product questions facing many Mopar fans, especially us PT owners. The questions have only gotten louder with the to-be-built-in Toluca Dodge Journey being introduced. What will Chrysler do? Will they allow the current iteration to soldier on as a cheap-to-produce cash cow like the M and L bodies of old and then kill it off? Will they retire the name and bring out a Journey-based crossover with no retro cues? Or, worst of all, *not* retire the name, and bring out a Journey-based crossover with no retro cues?
What *should* they do? In my opinion, any “PT Cruiser” has to have a decidely retro feel to it. The Journey is very modern in the exterior especially, leaving room for Chrysler to continue the retromobile. The Journey also has a symmetrical instrument panel…so that theme can continue as well. While it is true that a PT based on the Journey would be significantly larger than one based on a Caliber, it would also follow Chrysler’s upmarket movement, without much of an MPG hit, if any, based on the estimates. This would,in my opinion, be the best option. A new PT Cruiser, complete with retro flair, and not competing with the entry level Compass/Caliber/Patriot. If you like this option, sign the Save the PT Petition at http://www.savethept.com/ !
Next, surprisingly, would be just building out the current vehicle until the line was needed elsewhere, or it was no longer profitable. They’d certainly get their moneys’ worth out of the current iteration, though we’d see little in innovaton and likely further decontenting. Thus would end the PT Cruiser, with the “replacement” being called something completely different and having no retro cues. It would, however, not sully what the PT Cruiser essentially is, and avoid the “then they stuffed it up” syndrome.
The worst option would be showing a complete disregard for what the name has built and ignorance of the brand by carrying over the name on a vehicle that shares nothing, in spirit, with the original. This would saddle the new vehicle with double baggage; PT Cruiser fans would say “That’s not a PT Cruiser!” and non fans would say “I hate PT Cruisers!” In the end you’d have a vehicle with an uncertain identity and, quite possibly, damaged chances for success.
We’ll find out how different the New Chrysler really is; as Option #3 is the type of boneheaded move the “Old Chrysler” was all too good at.
Please guys, get it right.
The PT was very good for Chrysler.
Do right by it.
