Hello, Allpar Forums member or visitor! If you were a member, you would not see this ad!

Register or log in at the top right of the page...

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

2021-2022 Brampton Charger, Challenger, 300 Redesign

Discussion in 'Mopar News' started by randy1911, Nov 26, 2017.

  1. TripleT

    Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,949
    Likes:
    6,445
    Whhhhhhhhh........

    OK, this isn't the 80's or even the 90s.... the reason you are see new terms like Architecture used is because the term PLATFORM no longer applies given the Computational power integrated with Parametric. I prefer the word Design Theme... so think each iteration evolving to match the application. So no it not a Alfa or Maserati platform and when you see such you will see a lot of confusion around the subject. The product will match the application and one will expect it to be more efficient then current model.
     
    danbek, page2171 and hmk123 like this.
  2. BobbiBigWheels

    BobbiBigWheels I'm likely at work...
    Level 2 Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2016
    Messages:
    2,555
    Likes:
    3,341
    I like it because when my boss walks by at work I can say I'm "researching our product" ;)
     
  3. Clinton H Davis

    Clinton H Davis Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2012
    Messages:
    366
    Likes:
    243
    Based on my previous experience,you should be visciously attached for that comment. “How dare you speak the truth and offend anyone?!”

    Good luck. ;-)
     
    Volunteer likes this.
  4. Volunteer

    Volunteer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,577
    Likes:
    41
    And - - - you mis-speled (yuk, yuk) PORSCHE also - - - but I won't lose any sleep over that one. :p
     
    randy1911 likes this.
  5. Volunteer

    Volunteer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,577
    Likes:
    41

    Ummm - - (attached) to what? Turnning intoo a regulare speling be.
     
  6. voiceofstl

    voiceofstl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Messages:
    893
    Likes:
    293
    So thats how the CUSW "architecture" can be both the small Dart and the large Pacifica?
    I still don't understand.
     
  7. Erik Latranyi

    Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    10,828
    Likes:
    10,181
    The Fiat way is glorified parts sharing. Some are assemblies of parts that are shared between vehicles. But it is not like FLEX where dimensions are created and if everything stays within the dimensions it can be built on the same line. Of course, they shared parts as well, like HVAC systems, etc.
     
  8. Volunteer

    Volunteer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,577
    Likes:
    41
    Hemi B-bodies of the late sixties didn't weigh over 4000 lbs. and could go upwards of 150 mph without disintegrating. The excess fat in today's models must be coming from some source. A-bodies were closer to 3000 and didn't 'fold in half' when using slicks, so were obviously engineered adequately.
    But, that was then and this is now, right.
    P.S. - - - could be such extra junk such as 12 air bags or 18 speakers, etc. etc. (sigh)
     
    wtxiceman likes this.
  9. Volunteer

    Volunteer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,577
    Likes:
    41
    But, you did correct the misteak - - so please accept a (virtual) handshake! Us long-time Challenger and Barracooda fans love you for it. o_O
     
    randy1911 likes this.
  10. KrisW

    KrisW Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2015
    Messages:
    1,116
    Likes:
    1,899
    There are photos from every CUSW plant showing other CUSW models on the same line. Don't assume that the reason FCA didn't do flex build on cusw is because they cannot. There are advantages, true, but there are also significant downsides to making a large number of different models at one site, particularly in supply chain.
     
    Deckard_Cain likes this.
  11. DarkSky

    DarkSky Moderator
    Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2016
    Messages:
    1,860
    Likes:
    2,632
    Were the safety regulations as strict then? How about the driving dynamics, would they be competitive in today's market? You may not consider safety or features important, but if you make a Challenger that is 800 lbs lighter without any features or safety equipment, it would be a laughable failure in the marketplace.
     
  12. DAGAR

    DAGAR Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2014
    Messages:
    1,394
    Likes:
    1,983
    There are whole threads on this subject and unfortunately, it's not really easy to explain or I'd do just that for you. I suggest search for some of these threads and read up then we can try to answer questions. Now to your specific point CUSW was used or Dart and Cherokee, but as you can tell by those vehicles, there are differences per vehicle. Pacifica is not actually on CUSW - it's differences are significant enough that it is it's own and considered a modified CUSW as CUSW was the starting point. the modfied CUSW is likely to be used on a "full" size CUV for Chrysler. In turn CUSW was based on the platitecture used on the Giulietta. Like I said "complicated" even before you consider @Erik Latranyi point about flex.
     
    Deckard_Cain likes this.
  13. TripleT

    Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,949
    Likes:
    6,445
    Flex is already obsolete. It was a bridge between Platforms and Architectures. Flexibility from a manufacturing perspective now is just another input in the development process. The build window and hard points for line compatibility.
     
    Deckard_Cain likes this.
  14. TripleT

    Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,949
    Likes:
    6,445
    Like I said the term Architecture doesn't really explain what is going on anymore... it just the best term right now. Think more design theme. And don't dismiss how old the Dart and CUSW are now. What has happened is computational power is exponential, and we are gotten to the point in the development world where now the product complexity is rushing and being pushed ahead. Where even in the recent past one would reuse components for safety and complexity reasons. The Flex model or modules.... But has computational power that it isn't even needed anymore you can use what you know about the previous version not in the new version but to help evolve a custom version for that application. Which in your example is yes you can start with a cut and pasted giulietta... Use that starting point and have a vehicle that can cross Moab or evolved to the best way to move 7 passengers on the planet.....

    I have yet to be able to help people to properly understand what it happening in the development world but imagine things the 20 years ago was impossible. Feedback loops from FEA and physical testing allowing optimization of materials, development of component familiar to what we would have once called a platform but specific to the application.

    IDK if this helps but the days of hand me downs for Daimler are gone, everything now is a hand me up. Much the way you think of computer now, the newer the faster and better and less expensive.
     
    djsamuel, KrisW, GasAxe and 1 other person like this.
  15. GasAxe

    GasAxe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    4,432
    Likes:
    5,158
    Is it just the computational power in designing a new vehicle that has cut the cost enough to allow unique designs or has that exponential number crunching also helped robotics and the assembly line become more flexible (see what I did there:)) with what they can manufacture? If so, I wouldn't say that flex is dead, instead I would say this is flex 2.0 where even more dissimilar vehicles can manufactured at a reduced cost.
     
  16. Dodgeguy1961

    Dodgeguy1961 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    552
    Likes:
    26
    So this refresh coincides with the possible return of the Charger to NASCAR as well. Interesting.
     
  17. TripleT

    Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,949
    Likes:
    6,445
    Flex tm who ever was trying to own that term...

    I was talking specifically about Parametric, Optimization, FEA feedback loops, Typography optimization, Design for manufacturability... each month that goes buy the power to develop component increases that time shortens and can be put back into making them specifically per application.

    And yes that isn't my thing but the same computational power can be used to virtualize and visualize the optimization of manufacturing. I have seen full line simulations.. but like I said that isn't my thing.
     
    #77 TripleT, Nov 30, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2017
    KrisW likes this.
  18. AHBGuru

    AHBGuru Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2015
    Messages:
    202
    Likes:
    87
    That's slightly revisionist. Certainly, Mopar was building a tighter vehicle in the 60's and 70's than nearly anything Ford or GM made at the time, but a loaded Hemi GTX was pushing pretty close to 4000 lbs. Certainly a loaded Hemi Daytona or 'Bird was very close.

    They only made a few cars that could crowd 150 mph: The '69 440 Polara and Fury Pursuits, and the Hemi Daytona/'Bird. The squads with the 2.76 or 2.93 SG had the balls and long legs to run that fast, and the Wing cars had the balls and the aero. Several anecdotes from retired LEO's that used the Big Dodge or Plymouth confirm that the windows would bow out under their top speeds. These were not hard-tops. Similar comments were made by Nascar drivers/owners of the time (check that out in MA).

    My point is, they were not *always* that light, nor were they anywhere near as tight as what Chrysler makes today. Some of the weight everyone complains about is from beefing up areas we used to complain about years ago.

    We, as Mopar enthusiasts, should try to decide - do we want light, quick, and flimsy(er), or is a little more weight acceptable if it'll hold together, be safe, run like a scalded cat, and still get 20 mph ?
     
  19. Clinton H Davis

    Clinton H Davis Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2012
    Messages:
    366
    Likes:
    243
    Sorry, darn iPhone “fixes” everything I type... (attacked)

    People on here... don’t like it when you imply their car “isn’t a real “insert car model name”... or at least that was an argument that was used by... someone... when I made a comment about a different model not being a real one...
     
  20. AHHA

    AHHA Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    52
    Likes:
    1
    Hearing no G next time, just another redesign on LX in 2021-22. No G based vehicles for CDJ for awhile.
     

Share This Page

Loading...