Discussion in 'Mopar / FCA News' started by Dave Z, Feb 7, 2014.
Sometimes your projects don't match up in timing.
Do you then just put a complete halt to one project if the capacity for the other isn't up to speed, or do you build and sell what you can while you can?
If the Jeep purists had their way and there were no GC, Cherokee, Compatriots, only Wranglers and/or other body on frame 4X4s, Would current sales numbers for Jeep be matched or superceded? Is there an actual demand that matches the current products or exceeds their numbers? I think that is a relevant question to ask. That's what it boils down to, in a nutshell.
Legitimate question, is KL selling better than first year KJ? Will it recover the tooling and line costs prior to any change over?
As a businessman, I'd weight the cost vs. the gain, if it cost 2 Billion to get KL to market, and KL doesn't get into the black before another 1 billion is spent to remake the plant and platform, then it would be more prudent to spent 500 million for a KK upgrade and major refresh, instead, as a placeholder.
Im not seeing decisions that really make much sense. Granted, this is assuming the poster's rumor is true.
For the simple reason of economics, aid think not, even though RWD is preferred.
Your premiss is flawed from the start.
Who has said "Jeep Purist" don't want Grand Cherokee, Cherokee or Compatriots? You probably haven't read much of the DOJ? Thread. The exact opposite is true, many of us want those vehicles we simply want them to be capable Jeeps, just as they were when their individual sales numbers were DOUBLE the numbers we see now.
The "real" Grand Cherokee was Unitbody with coil-links and sold 200-250,000 units per year, ZJ and WJ out sold WK, XJ out sold KJ and KK, we have had this discussion many times.
The real problem with their NVH was not the drive systems, it was the crap quality and interiors, foisted on them by Daimler.
Are you assuming that the KL is the only vehicle that is built in the plant to amortize the cost? Also would a minor refresh bring you the benefits you are seeking, because then who are you competing against in the world market? Do your chances of growing your market increase with a "refresh"? Even if you refreshed the Liberty keeping the Jeep orthodoxy, is that enough to successfully compete where the current KL competes?
...when the SUV market was nowhere near as crowded as it is now.
I don't disagree necessarily. Just be prepared to pay more for them.
History teaches us, we are paying more anyway, be it inflation, regulatory changes, more standard features, etc, etc. the prices rarely go down. They may hold somewhat steady, year to year, but over say 5 years, they aren't.
Look at near $70,000 pickups, $180,000 Vipers, $41,000 Wranglers.
If Im going to pay more anyway, I want capability, not another cup holder.
No, we simply want at least ONE solid axle fixed metal roof model that is nearly as capable as the Wrangler.
The Jeep Market wouldn't be crowded with CUV's had Jeep not lowered itself to play at that game.
It's my opinion that Jeep should never have tried to be a volume brand. It spawned greed from its interim owners. When Jeeps sold in volume, such as XJ and ZJ, it was part because they were unique and part because they were real Jeeps. Accidental fame actually, Jeep became a victim of its own success.
As Bob always said, " ...sell the vehicle on what it does, not on the dreams of wannabes and posers..."
I cannot agree more, would that hurt Jeep sales? Maybe, however it would insure that we still have Jeep, decades from now.
No, I have read the DOJ thread, and I've read the other individual threads regarding Jeeps too. One thing is apparent that there is a bias that gives one the impression that there is no room in the Jeep house for anything that moves beyond RWD and/or has an IFS, and if it can't be modified to run the roughest trails, well it ain't a "true" Jeep. Just reflecting what I see and read. That is how it seems.
Isn't the whole point of the company's existence to make money, give the people what they need, and compete?
KL is the only vehicle they are making right now...and they don't have enough parts to build them to meet orders, so I don't see another vehicle going into Toledo, especially or unless they do change to RWD, which by the way I don't see happening, even though I'd prefer it.
A minor re-fresh of KL? No that wouldn't bring Jeep benefits. KL would make a nice Dodge or Chrysler, it's a joke as a Jeep. Renegade is a better Jeep, even if I wouldn't buy one. (I would buy a Compatriot if it was RWD biased and made in the USA)
The premiss that Jeep needs to compete with other cars is the flawed concept.
If executed correctly, Jeep has no competition, however Marchionne has now forced us to compete with Ford, KIA and others, where Jeep once was clearly out of their league.
Well sure RWD and no IFS is favored by most "purists".
The reason why FWD is not favorable is because it physically does not favor suspension designs that have a lot of articulation. It's very, very difficult and extremely costly to design a FWD vehicle to have the inherent capability if a rear drive vehicle. Quite simply, because of CV angle limitations and having the axles directly connected to the output of a fixed FWD transmission makes it nearly impossible to get large quantities of travel and ground clearance. This is part of the reason why the KL can't use a traditional "lift kit" and why "lift kits" are near impossible. Even a band aid puck kit won't work because of dimensions and all the parts involved.
As for the IFS... Well an IFS on a RWD Jeep can be very capable if done right. However doing it can be more costly than simple using the highly effective design they already have. The current design can still be improved even. Why fix what isn't broke?
"Then you do NOT comprehend what Norm and others are saying."
Honored to have you reply!
Heard there might be two 2015 Jeep Renegade Trailhawks at the Easter event in Moab!
I will keep you posted.
How does Chrysler using CUSW benefit Fiat? The Dart, Cherokee, and 200 are all built in Chrysler plants, presumably using mostly US suppliers. None of the those three plants are building anything that Fiat sells (now that the Flavia has been discontinued). The only benefit to Fiat that I see from Chrysler's use of CUSW is that they are using the Dart's design to build the Viaggio in China. I don't see how using CUSW to build KL benefits the Fiat side of the family at all.
One thing I did notice, the Grand Cherokee concept at Moab is running P285/55/R20 tires, that is the equivalent of 33x12.50 for Americans...