Inventories still swollen
Though the Big Three have tried to cut back their inventories, a sudden economic squeeze (one could argue that through reckless spending and poor investment choices, it’s been building for years) has thrown sales off kilter, sabotaging efforts in an industry with long lead times. GM, Ford, and Chrysler would probably much rather be able to slash truck production right now; but contracts and other arrangements don’t allow for such sudden movements.
Chrysler remains one of the worst off in stockpiling; the Jeep Wrangler was very hot, and suddenly demand disappeared, leaving Jeep with the fifth highest inventory in the industry (according to Automotive News, as are all other figures cited here). Of mainstream brands, only GMC is worse, by a single day of supply. But Jeep’s average 106 days’ supply is nothing compared with the stock of pickups. There are 107,700 Rams floating around out there, good enough to support Chrysler for 160 days should they stop production right now. That’s a worry with the 2009s coming soon, but Ford and GM have their own troubles. The Silverado is in relatively good shape - more are out there but sales are higher so the total supply is just 117 days. The F-series has 215,000 copies out there - a 133 day supply. Toyota’s Tundra is not reported separately but Toyota trucks overall have just a 100 day supply - and there are 225,000 of them on lots.
Chrysler’s biggest “days’ supply” problems, aside from Rams, come from vehicles with relatively low stockpiles - the Pacifica (5,100 for around 400 days’ worth), Crossfire (1,300 of them), Nitro (15,400), and Aspen (8,600). The minivans are interesting to see - the Dodge version has a 42-day supply, the Chrysler a 96-day supply, as the market apparently changed gears suddenly and decided it wanted the Dodge. I suspect this is due to the perception that the Dodge is cheaper.
The LX cars are looking surprisingly good in days’ supply, other than the 300. Likewise, there’s just a month’s worth of PTs out there as production was switched to the Journey, which with 71 days’ supply, is no longer looking as though it has the bright future execs clearly assumed it would - it was meant to be Chrysler’s European entry vehicle, but unless the diesel-AMT version is much cooler than the gas-automatic version, it doesn’t look as though it’ll gain the traction it needs to justify dedicating Toluca to it. At this point, Chrysler would be better served by putting the minivan captains’ chairs back into the PT, putting the old air dam back on, and trying to get people to desire it more - again. (Throwing that 180 hp engine around more wouldn’t hurt, either.)
As for Jeep, it’s bad news everywhere but for the Patriot, which is probably benefitting from gas prices and financial squeezes. The Commander could stop production now and still last for around six months, the Grand Cherokee could go on for three months, and the Liberty and Wrangler are both at around 130 days’ supply. We don’t know if the Wrangler-based pickup will be pushed forward, because they need to do something with that assembly line, or whether it will be dropped as the manual transmissions are reportedly being dropped (according to the jk forums), to save money.
Daimler put their emphasis on the Chrysler brand, positioning it rather like Chevrolet, Ford, or Toyota. That appears now to have been a mistake. If I were to operate without market research, I’d say that Chrysler is probably positioned in most people’s minds in one of two ways: as a troubled automaker that was bailed out repeatedly and changed hands like Jeep, or as a formerly upmarket brand that never quite made it into luxury. Dodge appears to have a more solid rep as the everyman brand. Daimler’s attempts to essentially rename Plymouth have, I think, failed dismally. They would have been better off dropping Chrysler than dropping Plymouth, because if Plymouth did not have much in the way of connotations for the average younger buyer - or many older buyers - at least it did not have a lot of the negative baggage of Chrysler. (Also, it would make our job easier, because we could refer to “Chryslers” as “Dodge, Jeep, and Plymouth” without confusing people with the brand.)
Yes, I say it’s time for Plymouth to return. I know it’s expensive. I know it means sacrifice (though some more investment from the people who have more money than they could EVER spend would be helpful about now. Talk about patriotism is cheap - put your money where your mouths are, Steve and Bob.) But this is the time for down-to-earth, sold, frugal, and value-based auto investment by the average buyer, and that’s what Plymouth has always stood for.
Really good analysis. But would Plymouth mean those things to buyers, right now? Alot of us remember the Valiants and Dusters and Furys. But a whole generation came up on Toyota’s and Hondas. I would suspect Kia and Hyundai mean more as a down-to-earth good value. Would Plymouth really help Chrysler LLC any more than Saturn or Buick or Pontiac helps GM? I raise these questions as a Plymouth fan. The sound of reduction gear starters will be ingrained in my consciousness until my last day.
Yes, Diamler ruined the Chrysler brand–they made it a rental car division, despite the wonderful 300C. 300C should have been the Acura Legend that (re)launched Chrysler as an upscale brand, but that opportunity was thrown away. I just think Chrysler LLC’s only solution is to improve its strongest products and hope they will catch on–for example, getting the new interior in the Patriot, maybe adding the European diesel, or pairing a turbo with the smallest world engine. Kill Compass and Caliber. Not another dime should be spent on those. Adding a luxury version of Liberty and killing GC and Commander. Adding a Jeep pickup and killing Dakota. Getting a dual-clutch transmission with a small diesel or V-6 on the Ram. Selling budget “America” versions of the Caravan and Avenger, while killing T&C and Sebring sedan.
Convert Magnum to a 300 model, as is done in Europe. That gives Chrysler a much more viable utility vehicle than Aspen. I agree about PT–put a better grill back on and keep selling it as long as sales are over 70,000 a year. Wasn’t that what flexible manufacturing was for? If we’re stuck with the current Sebring sedan, at least for 2011 Chrysler still has a chance to reskin that body and make it into a ES350 fighter.
Giving Dodge a great midsize car like the Malibu would probably do more good for the company than starting a new brand and creating the equivalent of a Saturn Aura–a really good car that is forgotten in the shuffle.
“But would Plymouth mean those things to buyers, right now?”
No, not to many. Of course the press could be pushed to remembering the original Plymouth and marketing could reinforce that, if Chrysler itself focused less on Cudas and Furys, and more on Valiants and P-whatevers and Belv’s (etc.)
As important, though, Plymouth would have no negative connotation to those very younger buyers who are used to imports. It would not start out with baggage.
Magnum was swapped for Challenger.
Small turbos for the World Engine - something between their “not really” 172 hp and the 280-hp SRT - could allow the 2.7 and 3.5 V6 to be dropped from either Avenger or Sebring or both. I’d agree there but it’s another topic.
Dodge… I’m rapidly agreeing with Pete H. - “it’s a truck brand.” Let it specialize in trucks and muscle cars. Leave Plymouth for the volume cars.
I agree, it would be something of a blank slate. But do you think it would connect? What does the name “plymouth” say to a generation raised on XBOX and I-pod’s? Maybe the name wouldn’t even matter if the cars were good enough. Or would it be as out of step as brylcream or Tab soda? Would the virtues of the 1928 Plymouth or dad or granddad’s Plymouth really mean much to Car and Driver or Motor Trend evaluating the new cars? I’m not sure. I don’t think it would mean much to most customers. The cars would have to stand on their own four tires.
Dodge more or less by default is just a truck brand. I wonder if that is enough to survive–maybe when we were at 300,000 Rams per year. What will be left with sustained gas prices of 3.00 or 4.00 per gallon? I really think Chrysler LLC has to have a full lineup to survive. Toyota seems to be doing quite well with products in every segment and the ability to shift its eggs to other baskets when one area shows signs of weakness (i.e., moving production from trucks to Prius’s).
I hope small turbos are being at least considered. GM is promising 40 mpg plus with the new Cruze compact with 1.4 liter turbo.
It was interesting what you said about patriotism. Where are the Iacocca’s that are willing to take $1 a year until the company is in decent shape again?
Where is the commitment from Cerberus saying, we plan to spend whatever it takes, even $2 billion, to make sure we have the best midsize car America can produce? I think the workers and dealers have been sacrificing, it’s time for the CEO class to put the company ahead of personal interest. Chrysler will likely have its compact built by Nissan in Japan. Why haven’t any polticiansor union leaders spoken out and asked for incentives to keep production at Newark for example? The bottom line can’t be the bottom line for everything. Only those kinds of sacrificies will return Chrysler, and the Western World, to its rightful place.
The Dodge Avenger and Chrysler Sebring are just the right size for the current market conditions. They look smaller than the Malibu and Aura. A year ago that was a mistake. Today it is a good thing. Detroit News online is reporting Chrysler is rumored to drop the top of the line Sebring and Avenger trim levels. That makes sense as the letters R/T mean “pass anything but a gas station” to many consumers, including myself. The turtle topped Sebring with a luxurious enough interior can be marketed as the Chrysler economy car. My only hope is that if they put the 2.7 V6 with the six speed auto they fix the backwards gear spacing first. The World 2.4 liter needs attention as well.
Part of the problem might be the lack of publicity. I don’t know how many potential customers even know those two exist.
Dropping the R/T makes sense to me. The R/T designation should never have become a trim package. Losing the 3.5 would also simply production, I suspect. If Americans weren’t so conditioned to want a V6, I’d argue for two engines - the 2.4 and a light pressure 2.4 turbo producing 220 horsepower (rather than the 280 in the SRT) which would be a good replacement for the 3.5 and the 2.7 alike.
I disagree with all of you, so there! No more cuts to the product line until there are replacements coming. The selection of “Chryslers” that I personally would buy has dropped considerably, 300, yes, magnum, yes, sebring convert, yes, PT cruiser, yes, Journey, yes, grand cherokee, yes. The rest are all no-maybe, with the right price and options. Dropping the R/T line is a huge mistake as well as the 3.5, its the best option for the larger vehicles. I think many Americans are in panic mode over the price of gas, but that will fade, as you become used to the prices the rest of the world pays for it, and then you will regret having only a choice of small or smaller. I drive for a living three days a week, and pay $1.32 per LITER here in Alberta, (5.28 per U.S gallon- approx.) If people are so marginal on their incomes that they cannot afford gas at world prices, then they need to look at another alternative to driving-simple as that. High prices are never going away.
I personally would love to see a return of plymouth, a Valiant was my first car, and I think that younger people would certainly look at a Plymouth line-up if only because their parents owned one. Make the car cool and inexpensive and customizable (scion anyone), and they would flock to the showrooms. What I don’t understand is why we are talking about this here, when it appears NO-ONE at chrysler has been able to figure it out. Any Chryco big-wigs reading this?
On cuts: they need to make the cuts (or so we hear) to make money available for the replacements.
Dropping the R/T… it can be restored; at the moment it signifies little, just an option package with a bigger engine that isn’t well suited to the car or isn’t tuned well. For .8 extra liters you get… 32 extra horsepower? Keep in mind that in 1999, that same engine was rated at 250 hp! My guess is that it doesn’t really fit in there properly and so the intake or exhaust is restricted. A turbo four would fit better - in the meantime the benefit over the 2.7 doesn’t seem that marked.
The 3.5 V6 is only being dropped in the midsized cars. The Charger, Challenger and 300 wiil still have it. BTW, the 3.5 in the RWD cars still has 250 hp and gets 18 mpg city/25mpg highway EPA in the 2009 Challenger. In the 1970’s Chrysler replaced their muscle cars with option packages such as the Charger and Dart Rallye package. There was an energy crisis going on and customers wanted the gauges, brakes and suspension, etc. They sold a lot more 318 motors than they did the Hemis and six packs of a few years earlier. The Journey with four cylinder has the four speed auto with a 4.28 gear ratio. With the .69 overdrive the overall top ratio is 2.93. That matched to a 2.7 V6 in the Avenger with dual exhaust would be the perfect performance package for today’s market. It would better the Caliber R/T in every category.
Wait for the economy to stabilize, and gas to go down.
I disagree. I think Plymouth should stay dead and if you want to add value to the corporate lineup focusing on adding it to the Dodge brand. It is the mainstream brand after all.
Chrysler needs to be moved upmarket. Plain and simple. Even if it only makes it to Volvo, Acura, Infiniti levels.
Focus on adding PLYMOUTH to the DODGE brand? How is that? A Dodge Plymouth brand? Chrysler was always aimed at the Buick level at GM and the Lincoln level at Ford. Where do you move it? Where Imperial used to be? With what now that it is firmly entrenched right where it is? Just curious where you would arrive at making such a point. CLLC needs a very STRONG entry level line of vehicles. So far, Dodge isn’t doing it. Plymouth was the marque that literally was the tail that wagged the dog. Benign neglect, corporate arrogance, lack of foresight lead to the downfall of the Plymouth line.
I didn’t say add Plymouth to the Dodge line, just add value. Like complete stripper models.
Also, when I say move Chrysler upmarket, I mean right where I said, to Volvo, Acura, Infiniti levels. Not the top, but not the low end of the luxury game. Currently they aren’t even there. They are almost mainstream.
Chrysler isn’t Chrysler anymore anyway. There is no corporate heritage to it, no fall back, no real history, except for chaotic management, sporadic fits of quality, intermittent styling leadership. Since Chrysler marque vehicles were “targeted” to fill the so called “value” niche, it belies the fact that such a niche does exist, and needs to be fulfilled by something other than a very “low” end Chrysler with a 2.7 litre V-6 and barely enough equipment to call it a car. Dodge, even now, is still targeted at getting the lower middle spectrum of buyers, as well as enforcing its image as the “performance” group. There is a very viable argument going on for complete consolidation of all lines of vehicles, (see ALLPAR N & R column) with possibly GM leading the way. Ford, under it’s current leadership, has decided, right now, to bite the bullet, getting itself situated for smaller cars, smaller trucks, and some pretty hot design elements. Note, I said FORD branded cars, not Lincoln. The vaunted F-150 that has lead sales for decades just isn’t working anymore. We do not yet know exactly where Chrysler is going. However, it has been literally without an anchor in not having Plymouth. Letting that whole entity go was just an exercise in German “think” of corporate cost trimming that did not take into consideration the size, capability, or history of Plymouth itself. And surely, aided and abetting by the Chrysler Corporation fiefs that followed Bob Eaton into that hallow hall of “merger of equals.” If any division should have had to go, it should have been (uh-oh HERESY) Dodge. Plymouth was more poised, more capable to fill that end of the market than Dodge was, or ever will be to be a “value” leader. As was well known throughout the corporation, Dodge never met a Plymouth that it didn’t like. For YEARS Plymouth lead the corporation in any element that you care to think of, so much so that the lack of acumen at the Corporate level suddenly came home to roost in the mid ’50s. There is an element of “spirit” that goes into any corporate entity. If management exudes pride in it’s fulfillment of production, it does not condone or allow building inferior products. Plymouth, during the last years, rose again to be the quality leader of Chrysler. The Breeze, even though, by then, had become a third issue “cloud” car, still garnered the most awards and prizes for its quality. Chrysler right now, desperately needs that.
My argument has been that Dodge should truly go after niche marketing - trucks and muscle cars ONLY (with Caravans to avoid losing leadership there - though they don’t fit!).
What would be lost? Only the Dodge Avenger and Caliber, and neither is a big seller. Eventually the Journey will be dropped anyway with Project D.
Now, bring Plymouth in, and give it a very focused lineup: short-wheelbase Voyager minivan, mid-sized car (call it the Valiant to get some easy publicity), and MAYBE a Caliber clone with different sheet metal.
In a few years, when the LY is here, a stripped-down version can be sold as a Plymouth. The Chrysler version would have no strip-down base model; 300D (or 300C) only, Hemi only. the Dodge would remain Charger and Challenger. The Plymouth would have a family oriented tuning (soft ride), the Dodge muscle tuning.
We’re not talking HUGE sums of money though we ARE talking more “discretionary” investment than anyone’s cared to do since 1998. (That is, money spent to grow rather than to survive.)
I can’t help but agree and quickly endorse your concept. I hear all the time how “expensive” it would be to bring Plymouth back, which a tired argument that lacks authority. Cerberus is sitting on billions, yet, even if it reported losing money, the treasure chest is still quite full. If Caravan is retained by Dodge, would Chrysler then retain the T & C, albeit, as a “luxury” item? Thereby putting the “new” Plymouth as the real value marque, as it should be. However, let us not forget that is was Plymouth that was the true performance oriented division. While I am not advocating another Charger, a value oriented “performance” car could be introduced based upon the original Road Runner concepts. Recall that the Plymouth group was their own company, with everything they needed, from design, engineering, and manufacturing. The ‘56 Fury caught Dodge quite by surprise, which felt their D-500 package represented the ultimate. The Plymouth “police” and “severe duty use” designs, throughout the 60’s kept Plymouth way in front of Dodge on Performance. The ‘68 Road Runner caught everyone, including Plymouth by surprise, with sales going some 400% beyond projections. The ‘70 Duster caught Dodge and Chrysler Corporate completely out of hand. However, Corporate stupidity seemed to set in, and Plymouth found itself mainly competing against it’s own corporate cousin, Dodge, much more so than Ford or Chevrolet. Right now, this country’s vehicle manufacturers are undergoing the biggest transformation they have ever experienced. Ford, has bitten the bullet, turning their corporate attention to smaller, more efficient, and quality built vehicles, while shutting down one of the biggest sellers in history, the F-150. Chrysler needs to keep a weather eye on what Ford is doing.
Chrysler does not have European subsidiaries like Ford nor does it have Korean and European subsidiaries like GM, to draw on. It is trying to create a “new Horizon” from Nissan’s Cube but that will take time. The Daimler people had them focused closely on Chery which as Bricklin found out, may be a company with a bigger mouth than merited.