Land Rover: the answer to Chrysler’s problems?
As Ford gets closer to a sale of Jaguar and Land Rover, people have started to talk about how it would be a natural fit for Jeep. This is true, but not for the obvious reasons.
Land Rover has two things Chrysler desperately needs: a good four-cylinder engine, and a small diesel.
The four cylinder gas (petrol) engine is really the big item. Cummins can supply diesels to Chrysler, and their new, very modular design, which will be installed in V8 form in various Dodge trucks and presumably Jeeps, can almost certainly spawn a four cylinder for cars. The Cummins is tough, long-lasting, fuel efficient, and endowed with a name beloved by generations of truck owners. A Chrysler diesel could be laughed at by the news media; a Cummins diesel in a Dodge or Chrysler car, on the other hand, would be formidable indeed. On the other hand, the Land Rover 2.2 liter diesel pumps out a respectable 158 horsepower but has lots of low end torque and the usual diesel good mileage; if Cerberus bought Land Rover, it would presumably be able to build them in a present engine factory, preserving jobs (and postponing retirement benefits) and retaining profits.
The big deal, though, is the gas engine. Chrysler has a lousy four cylinder gas engine now; it went from top of the ranks with the 1994 introduction of the 2.0 to near the bottom with the World Engine, a horrific but buzzword compliant powerplant that, while it makes remarkable power with a turbocharger, is an unrewarding drive without said turbo. The horsepower ratings are great; the driving experience is not, because low end torque is lacking. This engine was foisted upon Chrysler by the overlords of Stuttgart at just the wrong time, as the United States started to value gas mileage and Chrysler increased its drive to take over foreign markets. Just about every review of the Caliber, Compass, or Patriot talks about highlights of the cars, in spite of the engine, which is just about universally disdained.
Land Rover makes four cylinder engines, and an industry insider of note described it as being strong and quite desirable. That is very important.
To deal with the World Engine’s deficiencies, we have been told that there are two choices: either make serious redesigns, or start over. Either might cost billions of dollars, and engines take years to develop, test, and tune properly. Sometimes they turn out surprisingly well, and sometimes they are a disappointment. Buying Land Rover provides a new option: simply use the Land Rover design, retooling the Dundee, Michigan plant to build their existing engine. It would have to be modified, but that would be far less serious than re-engineering the World Engine or creating a whole new powerplant.
That alone could make buying Land Rover worthwhile - just as Ford could justify buying Volvo just in the new Taurus platform. But there’s more.
Sharing with Jeep, Land Rover could make huge profits, because duplication of development costs would be largely eliminated. Jeep could leave markets they are not doing well in; Jeep has pretty much lost its prestige in the luxury 4×4 market, but Land Rover and Range Rover have not. In the United States, Jeep could drop the Grand Cherokee and Commander entirely, and stick with its most desirable vehicles - the hard core Wrangler, the Wrangler Unlimited, the Scrambler pickup, and the Cherokee/Liberty. The basic engineering of the latter could be merged with the equivalent Land Rover for foreign sale, and for an upmarket alternative; while the Range Rover line, with costs dramatically reduced and quality dramatically increased by sharing with Jeep, could be sold in the US, at higher prices. Hummer will always get its “I want to intimidate” buyers, but Range Rover, with some assurance of decent reliability and better appointments and chassis, will be able to get more of its genteel, wealthy, upper-crust buyers.
That would be nice, but that’s not the whole point. The whole point is also to get more people to buy the Journey, Caliber, Sebring, and Avenger, and that will only happen if they have decent engines under the hood. If Land Rover can fix that problem, everything else is gravy - and the Compass can easily disappear, since the capacity will be needed for Calibers and Patriots.
Of course, Cerberus could license an engine design from Fiat or Peugeot, or another company that doesn’t compete in the United States. But with Land Rover, Cerberus could get a massive profit-maker that fits right into their current skills and technologies, with a stellar reputation among those who don’t know any better. It’s a great deal.
“Land Rover has two things Chrysler desperately needs: a good four-cylinder engine, and a small diesel”
So these are Land Rover engines and not Ford?
For the diesel I think the 4-cyl is currently the “Duratorq” or the EW/DW engine made in joint-venture by Ford and Peugeot-Citroen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Duratorq_engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_EW/DW_engine#DW12 who are under the hood of Land Rovers for the European market
Also, some others bidders have an eye on Land Rover, Mahindra (who ironically who still build the old Jeep CJ-3B under licence but they dropped because the sale also include Jaguar and Mahindra only wanted Land Rover) and Tata from India.
Drop the Grand Cherokee? Uh, no. What is the reliability of the Land Rover engines? Don’t some of them use BMW engines? The last thing Chrysler needs is another luxury partner. What they need to do is buy a Toyota or Honda 4 cylinder and copy almost every aspect of it and then put it in their cars. People want reliability and safety, if Chrysler can match reliabilty with their excellent styling they would have nothing to worry about. As far as Jeep goes, Jeep was doing fine until Dumbler decided to make it into a large division. Wrangler, Liberty and Grand Cherokee are all that should wear the Jeep name and for Christ sake, leave it American! Ford is dumping these luxury brands for a reason, just like Federated dropped Lord and Taylor, they just don’t fit in with what Chrysler needs right now. Chrysler needs to focus on quality and reliability before they lose any more buyers. Drop the Grand Cherokee and make Jeep a Brit? Good lord I thought I heard it all.
Nice to see someone say the same thing I have been saying ever since the Caliber was released. The new 4 cylinder engines are horrible. It is still an embarassment that Chrylser spent all that time to come up with an engine that is no where near the competion- and on top of that pair it with a badly tuned CVT (Caliber, Compass, Patriot) and an old 4 speed automatic (Sebring, Avenger). Chrysler is so far behind in the cars that matter most at the moment (fuel efficient economy cars and sedans) that I am not so sure they can catch up now. I agree, if Land Rover has good engines this may be the quick fix they need but I’m still not sure it will be soon enough.
Never said we should drop the American engineering - but Range Rover has a true cachet that Jeep has mainly lost.
The current Grand Cherokee is a disappointment to me - especially compared with the prior generation. Not surprising though - the Daimler years could be harsh.
I personally think the best solution is development of a new engine, but there’s no time or money for that. And there’s a big difference between Daimler owning Chrysler, and Chrysler’s corporate parent owning Jaguar and Land Rover. Jaguar has some interesting technologies that Chrysler could use, and I don’t think we ever have to worry about the two treading on each other’s toes - any more than Ford worried about Jag and Lincoln.
I think it would be a bad move to have Jeep and Land Rover under the same parent company. One brand will lose ground while the other flourishes. As you said yourself, they could drop a bunch of models and volume from Jeep, cut costs for Land Rover while making it more profitable, and push the image of Jeep downmarket, while Land Rover goes further up. To me its almost the same as what Mercedes did to the Chrysler brand. I don’t want to see that happen again.
Oh, and Chrysler could just license the engine design from Land Rover, and Cerberus wouldn’t have to assume the liability that is Jaguar.
For Jeep, it would be more of concentrating on the hard-core and not catering to the “casual” market. Even if the Grand Cherokee remained, one version of it could be held by Jeep, and a more upmarket version - as in $50,000 - by Range Rover. Jeep will not be going up into Range Rover any time soon; but this could keep the cheap Land Rovers at bay (as in buy your competition!) and keep Jeep’s Wranlger-image up.
Grand Cherokee sales have been disappointing lately, though making a companion Dodge would help overall paying-off-the-engineering-costs.
I agree with Dave’s comment above.
If Chrysler were to purchase Land Rover, its inherent prestige and price-points won’t overlap that of Jeep’s heritage and lower purchase points. The Chrysler product line needs a pretige brand to help pull the entry-luxury image along or at least solidify it. The Aspen is a cute 1st attempt by Chrysler for a large premium SUV, but it just doesn’t work considering that the only major changes were front facia and some brightwork on the exterior.
With Land Rover, the Chrysler line wouldn’t need an SUV. Trucks, SUVs, and crossovers would basically go to Dodge, Jeep, and LR. Dodge can keep what is already has and further develop the Ram, Durango, Magnum, and Nitro. Jeep can keep the GC, Wrangler, Liberty, and the Patriot. And Chrysler can have a small sedan/crossover, Sebring, mid/size crossover, and the 300. Land Rover keeps the Discovery, Range Rover (and Sport), and the LR3 (maybe repackaged from the Liberty/Nitro platform).
Hey, if Chrysler purchased LR and had to take Jaguar as part of the completed deal, they’d have ownership of the “Daimler” name. And that could be given back to Daimler AG. But that would leave the 300 at the premium/entry-luxury level that it should be and open up the doors for a new Jaguar branded division that would come with better quality and designs.
I’m in favor of buying Jaguar and Land Rover, then applying the Daimler name to the new China cars. ;)
Well if Mother has to get an english company to get decent engines..do i need to say any moore?
But it could fit in nicely with the upscale rovers.
The jag also has a nice, it could be the upscale sporty dodge. Sharing platform,engines and transmission.
But i would rather see volvo in the stable.has made small engines both diesels and gas that works good.
They also stands for security and reliability…and mother needs that.
Or put the money in engine development, the caliber is best with the VW diesel…
I firmly belive that the future belongs to the diesel engine, and mother doesent make them..(but will i hope)
As living in Sweden i hope you can oversee my spelling, and i do actually drive Mopars: Voy,Durango and the alltime high quality product: a /6 valiant.
“I’m in favor of buying Jaguar and Land Rover, then applying the Daimler name to the new China cars. ;)”
I never thought about that Dave, but now that you mention it, I think that would be the perfect thing to do.
Grand Cherokee sales are down because SUV’s are increasingly less popular. I never cared much for the WK’s styling either. It is like Chrysler decided that Gille’s square shape for the 300 worked so why not apply it to everything they build. The WK looks like someone accidently stepped on it and then tried to mess with it to get it back to normal. I have a 2004 WJ and I couldn’t be happier about getting the WJ before they were gone. The WK also doesn’t look very “rich” like the Grand Cherokee’s of yore. The Laredo looks downright cheap and the Laredo accounts for most of the sales. Also what is with the 4 wheel drive system on V6 Grands? Buyers who want a true 4×4 have to move up to the V8 to get a low range and neutral gear. Dodge is around for cheaper SUV’s, Jeep should remain up market. I stand by what I said earlier, Land Rover is not good for Chrysler right now. They need to work on reliability and quality first. They need better engines and better fuel economy. Look at the new 2008 Accord, their 4 cylinder now makes 177 (LX) and 190 (EX) horsepower. Chryser needs to get smaller before they can get big again. There is no reasoning with you guys.
“Hey, if Cerberus purchased LR and had to take Jaguar as part of the completed deal, they’d have ownership of the “Daimler” name. And that could be given back to Daimler AG”
What do you mean give it back - maybe for the other 20% of Chrysler. Then we could pvercharge them for our shared technology!
VERY HAPPY WITH MY WORLD ENGINED PATROIT
Ford already sold Daimler name back to Daimler AG !!!
Stop picking on the 2.4, 2.0, 1.8 world engine family! I work for a CJD dealership and positive response to the Caliber,
Compass and Patriot models equipped with these engines has been overwhelming. We have never had as many import and competive tradeins! Toyota(ie. Prius), Honda(Accord, Civic Hybrid), Subaru, Volkswagen, Hummer(H3), the list goes on and on. Everyone is impressed by the power,economy and the sporty growl. Reliability has been excellent! I drive a previous generation 2.4 in my PT Cruiser, which I really enjoy, but look forward to the next generation with no reservations.
“Ford already sold Daimler name back to Daimler AG !!!”
No they didn’t, they have an agreement that Daimler can keep the name for corporate but not use it as a brand for a line of cars. Jaguar still has control of that name.
The idea is quite sound, and would likely be a good fit.
I was hoping that perhaps with design going back to a Cab Forward, that just as a 4.7 minus 2 cyl becomes a 3.7, that perhaps a 5.7 Hemi, could become a 3 Liter V4, with MDS and and at half the HP be around the 180 mark.
Since engines are longitudinal access would be easy.
I also agree with the economy, it must be much better , I have an 2007 Wrangler, I love it, but when purchased it advertised 17 city, and 20 hwy, the reality is 14 city, and 17 hwy ! Honestly, They should be able to do Much, much better then that!
A co worker has an H3, and it’s promised 20 mpg all around, Is more like 13 city and 16 hwy, Just because they say it, doesn’t mean it is. I believe in the long run this practice will only push more buyer’s away.
Fuel mileage ratings were determined by the EPA and not the manufacturers. Beginning with 2008 models they have implemented a new more “real world” rating for fuel mileage. 2008 Wranglers are rated at 15 city and 19 highway which more reflects what you are getting Mark.
Range Rover and Jag, I don’t see the point. If another brand [line] is needed, and it is, then a GOOD value line is the answer to gaining market share and profitability, Think Plymouth, or I would settle for Eagle as another brand and brand name. As you may recall Lincoln and Caddy used slighty modified Ford and Chevy SUV’s as their first attempt at entering the SUV mkt. Aspen is really a very nice luxury SUV, it could stand to be a little longer [roomier]. As for the Aspen name, I would say that 90% of the buyers of Aspen never heard of the Aspen car. To me say the name “Aspen” and I think of Aspen, Co. and wealthy vacationers. If the Aspen were advertised and promoted againest that backdrop and image, the old Aspen Dodge would never be thought about except the usual rebel rousers that have nothing better to do than harrass Mopar faithful. As far as the 4 cyl. engine situation is concerned, remember the high revving engines were originally in small cars and in order to get needed power you had to keep your foot on the floor and if I remember correctly they were all hooked to 4/5 spd trannies. Not worth a flip in traffic. I grew up with slow revving high torque engines that you could lug along without buck jumping.
Honda tried cooperating with the Brits with the Sterling, which was a flop. BMW tried with the Land Rover, and the Rover car lines, another flop.
Ford hasn’t netted a plug nickle on the Jag and Aston lines. Chrysler’s primarily British Rootes Group, was another flop. The Chrysler/Mercedes/Mitsubishi alliance fell apart, without the claimed benefits when formed.
The employees in Britain have a culture of entitlement that cannot be overcome. Chryler’s quality, with German fastidious management, was improved but still never reached Japanses levels. Any interaction with Land Rover, would poisen the well, without any net benefits. All this “brand’s used as chess game” stuff is such nonsense.
The management team should have streamlined brands to enable focus on quality and profitability over the short, medium, and long term business cycles.
Management’s attention to these core issues gets seriously diluted with the pile-on of more brands, which requires complicated integration strategies. The end result is that whatever hypothetical gains are ideally achievable, can never be realized in the real world. In other words, the management drag of the integration process itself, nullifies the potential benefits.
Chrysler has 3 great brands, more than enough to cover all the target markets worth going for. They should stick to fundamentals and run their business.
Brian
Now that I think about it, British engines may be the answer! Maybe we can get Lucas electrical systems(Why do the English drink warm beer? They have Lucas refrigerators) to enhance the ownership experience along with the puddles of oil leaking from the engines!
Yes, everything is the same now as it was in the 1970s. Fiats still break down daily, Fords still explode, and American cars all use solid beam rear axles with big thirsty V8s (or four-liter straight sixes) equipped with carburetors.
But the one thing that has been consistent? Land Rover being at the bottom of all quality studies. With Chrysler’s current reputation, well deserved or not, I think maybe they should be trying to get Cerberus to buy something with a better reputation.
Most old automotive cliches are no longer true. But, based on my family’s personal experience with a pair of recent model Land Rovers, the one about British automotive reliability is still applicable. I stumbled onto this site while searching for an engine for a Disco II with 55K miles - this will be engine #3. I got rid of the other Land Rover before the warranty ran out. Chrysler would do well to look elsewhere for technology unless they are seeking clues on how to build a 30,000 mile disposable engine.