Allpar Forums banner

AN: Dodge death or new strategy?

44K views 338 replies 65 participants last post by  CarStar 
#1 ·
 News Analysis Pundits are proclaiming the death of Dodge. That might be true — or Dodge might actually be changing its products to match its strategy and image, in a first for the brand (and maybe for the company). Chrysler has had issues with branding from the start. After the conversion to from Maxwell Motors to Chrysler Corporation, the old Maxwell became a Chrysler, though it was barely related; then the refreshed Maxwell was pushed off into a new brand, Plymouth. We won’t even get into later gaffes, such as Dodge Coronet starting out at the top and dropping to entry-level just three years. From the 1930s to the 1960s, Chrysler had similar cars differentiated by size, power, and trim. Then Chrysler got a Dodge body, Dodge got a Chrysler body and a Plymouth body, and Plymouth got a Dodge body; and there was no real attempt to differentiate by muscle, theme, or..

View the original, full post
 
#179 ·
hmk123 said:
But... but, we like our Dart.
Two completely different cars. Different styles, different motors, different sizes and riding position, and judging by customer acceptance, a different and higher acceptance rate.
SHAP profit and efficiently depends upon both 200 and Avenger running on that line.
It is counterintuitive to think killing Avenger will help Dart.
There is no evidence that Avenger buyers will move to Dart.
Frankly I would not give up owning the Pentastar, for a 4 banger.
patfromigh said:
I own an Avenger, it's a nice car, but it's time to move on. The next 200 will replace it. There will be the Dart for those who can not afford a 200. The Dart is superior to the Avenger for the qualities people desire in a compact car.
Dodge buyers are Dodge buyers, Chrysler buyers are Chrysler buyers, most will not move to The 200, they will move to another brand.
 
#182 ·
MoparNorm said:
Two completely different cars. Different styles, different motors, different sizes and riding position, and judging by customer acceptance, a different and higher acceptance rate.
SHAP profit and efficiently depends upon both 200 and Avenger running on that line.
It is counterintuitive to think killing Avenger will help Dart.
There is no evidence that Avenger buyers will move to Dart.
Frankly I would not give up owning the Pentastar, for a 4 banger.
Don't get me wrong. I like the 200/Avenger. And especially with the Pentastar; if you consider the engine, the Avenger is the better car for the money. But strangely around here for the past couple of months both 200s and Avengers have primarily been offered with the 4 banger (really hard to find the V6).

Plus, everyone's needs are different. We already have two V8s. So I don't necessarily need another fast car. And after the Fiat got totaled I wanted to get another Mopar. This one is for my wife and I tried to get her into a 200/Avenger. But she felt they looked dated (I personally like both of them). However, I was able to get her into the Dart. And for around town it is a great vehicle. The 8'4 UConnect is nice creature comfort. It is also other things that add up: like the backup camera or the courtesy lights shining down from the mirrors at night. It is a lot of little things that add up to a real nice experience. Don't get me wrong, if I could only have one car I would get one with the Pentastar. But for us that wasn't the case. For what it is we love our Dart and think it offers a lot in its class.
 
#183 ·
A big chunk of fleet sales belong to Avenger. Not surprising since its older and pretty much paid for...in fact both fleet and subprime sales are shunted to Avenger because of those lower costs. In time, that will shift to Dart.
 
#184 ·
Stratuscaster said:
A big chunk of fleet sales belong to Avenger. Not surprising since its older and pretty much paid for...in fact both fleet and subprime sales are shunted to Avenger because of those lower costs. In time, that will shift to Dart.
Back in the time that Taurus was the number one selling car, it was a fairly nice car for the middle class, however a lot of those sales were generated by fleet and when folks saw their "nice" car as rental fodder, Taurus sales began to decline.
Im not sure Dart becoming a fleet queen will help it in the long run, only add to the stigma and keep the factory artificially operating in the short term.
Fleet normally means lowered resale values and lowered lease residuals. If Dart is to survive it needs a different strategy, than "let's kill the Avenger". The Avenger outsells Dart by more than two to one, how can that possibly be a good strategy for SHAP?
 
#186 ·
SHAP is supposedly getting the next Journey. Increased production of the (new) 200, combined with the addition of the Journey, could make up for the loss of the Avenger. Also, we don't know what else is planned for SHAP. Maybe it will get some or all of the D-RWD vehicles if they are designed to go down the same line as CUSW, or overflow from TNAP, Belvidere, and Toluca (depending upon what they put there after the Journey and 500 go), or even the Dakota replacement. I suspect that SHAP will have plenty of models available to it to prevent underutilization.
 
#187 ·
James Mooney said:
SHAP is supposedly getting the next Journey. Increased production of the (new) 200, combined with the addition of the Journey, could make up for the loss of the Avenger. Also, we don't know what else is planned for SHAP. Maybe it will get some or all of the D-RWD vehicles if they are designed to go down the same line as CUSW, or overflow from TNAP, Belvidere, and Toluca (depending upon what they put there after the Journey and 500 go), or even the Dakota replacement. I suspect that SHAP will have plenty of models available to it to prevent underutilization.
Hopefully, however it's probable that there certainly will not be overflow from TNAP, Belvidere, or Toluca.
Journey sales are about half of Avenger, so while potentially helping utilize SHAP, the company's overall production will suffer.

What worries me is Marchionne has the ability to instantly turn around companies (Fiat and Chrysler) but has no proven track record in the ability to sustain that growth.
 
#188 ·
patfromigh said:
The leader in the compact segment is now the Cruze, and that comes at the expense of its showroom siblings Malibu and Sonic.
MoparNorm said:
Avenger sells thousands more per month, it's a better car than the Dart and it would be folly to not replace it.
Just because Marchionne's narrative is to turn Chrysler into Fiat West, doesn't mean it's the right plan.
MoparNorm said:
Two completely different cars. Different styles, different motors, different sizes and riding position, and judging by customer acceptance, a different and higher acceptance rate.
It is counterintuitive to think killing Avenger will help Dart.
There is no evidence that Avenger buyers will move to Dart.
Frankly I would not give up owning the Pentastar, for a 4 banger.

Dodge buyers are Dodge buyers, Chrysler buyers are Chrysler buyers, most will not move to The 200, they will move to another brand.
I have driven several rental cars for thousands of miles I will testify that the Chevy Cruze is a very good car. It was better than the Malibu and the Sonic, it was better than the Nissans. I think it is even better than Dart. I can't put my thumb on it but the Cruze felt tighter and I liked the drivetrain better than I did when I test drove the Dart. On the other hand, being a Charger owner (2nd one I have owned) I doubt I will ever buy another 4 cylinder car. The Avenger has the Pentastar which might be what the Dart needs. My Charger gets 34+MPG on the highway.

And Mopar Norm nailed it for me, I am a Dodge man, if I ever purchased anything other than Dodge it would probably be a Ford for my wife of I would switch to Chevy if Dodge ever went away.
 
#189 ·
MoparNorm said:
Im not sure Dart becoming a fleet queen will help it in the long run, only add to the stigma and keep the factory artificially operating in the short term.
Fleet normally means lowered resale values and lowered lease residuals. If Dart is to survive it needs a different strategy, than "let's kill the Avenger". The Avenger outsells Dart by more than two to one, how can that possibly be a good strategy for SHAP?
It doesn't need to become a fleet queen, but it will no doubt increase its fleet percentage to 30% - 35%.

According to the Reid Bigland, the Dart was Chrysler's best selling sedan at retail in January 2013 (IIRC Dart was 90% retail). Total January 2013 sales (fleet + retail):
Avenger....9,628
200...........8,846
Dart..........7,154
Charger....6,411
300...........5,325
 
#190 ·
MoparNorm said:
Hopefully, however it's probable that there certainly will not be overflow from TNAP, Belvidere, or Toluca.
Journey sales are about half of Avenger, so while potentially helping utilize SHAP, the company's overall production will suffer.

What worries me is Marchionne has the ability to instantly turn around companies (Fiat and Chrysler) but has no proven track record in the ability to sustain that growth.
His ascendency to his seat in Fiat occurred in 2004.

The turn-around was profound. He then faced the US/Global Economic Downturn in 2008. Four years. Then with smarts and cash-backing they (he) work their way into the Chrysler Bankruptcy in 2009. Then late 2010-2011 the Euro auto fall-out begins - but hits hard late 2012 and has carried on. Two years.

Each one of these instances are matters outside anyone's control.

But we're all aware of the leadership that has provided three solid years of a 'Reversal of Fortune' for Chrysler domestic product. Is it Sergio? Is it his choices for Lieutenants? If neither of those, what else has provided guidance and decision-making which has buoyed Chrysler quite this strongly if not Sergio? At this point, the Chrysler side has enabled the Fiat side to cope. I don't know enough about the financials nor of the financial mechanisms that govern how profits can be used in this, what seems like a complex international alliance.

I know they're eager to get to the point that the IPO will make them either truly unified, or 'more' unified. But without the legal standing that derives from that IPO there is careful separations being managed - and careful linkages being managed. I get the feeling he's thinking, "Enough already."

I tend to think that meaningful moves will follow at a comfortable distance in time AFTER that IPO is finalized. Until then, it seems they're treading water, somewhat.
 
#191 ·
JavelinAMX said:
His ascendency to his seat in Fiat occurred in 2004.

The turn-around was profound. He then faced the US/Global Economic Downturn in 2008. Four years. Then with smarts and cash-backing they (he) work their way into the Chrysler Bankruptcy in 2009. Then late 2010-2011 the Euro auto fall-out begins - but hits hard late 2012 and has carried on. Two years.

Each one of these instances are matters outside anyone's control.

But we're all aware of the leadership that has provided three solid years of a 'Reversal of Fortune' for Chrysler domestic product. Is it Sergio? Is it his choices for Lieutenants? If neither of those, what else has provided guidance and decision-making which has buoyed Chrysler quite this strongly if not Sergio? At this point, the Chrysler side has enabled the Fiat side to cope. I don't know enough about the financials nor of the financial mechanisms that govern how profits can be used in this, what seems like a complex international alliance.

I know they're eager to get to the point that the IPO will make them either truly unified, or 'more' unified. But without the legal standing that derives from that IPO there is careful separations being managed - and careful linkages being managed. I get the feeling he's thinking, "Enough already."

I tend to think that meaningful moves will follow at a comfortable distance in time AFTER that IPO is finalized. Until then, it seems they're treading water, somewhat.
Yes, I know the history and he did wonders at Fiat, but Fiat sales were softening prior to the economic problems in Europe and Chrysler's 36 months of double digit growth have slowed because of product decisions.
That said, it's arguably easier to troubleshoot than to innovate, no doubt, as I have been in that position and successfully ran a multi-million dollar business for several decades, in both good economic times and bad. It's not easy, however I get the sense that there is more ego than reason in some of these decisions and he too quickly dismisses ideas he doesn't fully understand as inferior to his own.
I don't think the color of toilet paper, in the executive bathroom is left up to his lieutenants, much less the platform and architecture decisions that have been made.
I'm both optimistic of the potential, yet leery of what the company will look like when he is finished.
It certainly won't be the Chrysler we all knew and loved and won't be the Dodge truck and Jeep we hoped for.
Maybe one or two legacy models survive, but that is increasingly unclear.

Please don't feel that this discussion, is in any way adversarial, I enjoy the exchange.
 
#192 ·
MoparNorm said:
Yes, I know the history and he did wonders at Fiat, but Fiat sales were softening prior to the economic problems in Europe and Chrysler's 36 months of double digit growth have slowed because of product decisions.
That said, it's arguably easier to troubleshoot than to innovate, no doubt, as I have been in that position and successfully ran a multi-million dollar business for several decades, in both good economic times and bad. It's not easy, however I get the sense that there is more ego than reason in some of these decisions and he too quickly dismisses ideas he doesn't fully understand as inferior to his own.
I don't think the color of toilet paper, in the executive bathroom is left up to his lieutenants, much less the platform and architecture decisions that have been made.
I'm both optimistic of the potential, yet leery of what the company will look like when he is finished.
It certainly won't be the Chrysler we all knew and loved and won't be the Dodge truck and Jeep we hoped for.
Maybe one or two legacy models survive, but that is increasingly unclear.

Please don't feel that this discussion, is in any way adversarial, I enjoy the exchange.
All points well-taken.

No one at Chrysler maintained for a decade, and there never was the continuity we seek.

CEO positions also include Ego-drive ( not to be confused with Eco-Drive ). That's inescapable.

My mantra has been that Chrysler LLC remaining with the Chrysler name is a nod to the domestic long-term presence of the brand on this continental soil. Your term : 'Fiat West' is apropos. Privately with my son (who's a big Chrysler fan), I've been calling it 'Fiat of the West' - so there's no meaningful difference in outlook.

It's a commodity which has been tortured to death ... by its own people (purposely or inadvertently, they nurtured the circumstances which brought to fruition its own demise).

Someone else operates it now. Soon, they'll own it. These good folks have been better than the other folks. Those other folks ran this company into the hands of these good folks. But the previous 'good folks' ran the company into the hands of those Schnitzel-loving "fellows". Why? I'll never get my arms 'round that one.

Joint Chrysler/AMC people had it going on pretty well. Just wish it could've kept on keeping on.
 
#193 ·
Eaton sold his soul and the legacy of Chrysler, for personal gain, may he rot in hell.
 
#194 ·
Auto CEOs (and many other CEOs) are not just ego driven.

They are hired and scrutinized by a Board of Directors that, many times, sees themselves as superior in ability. Most CEOs only last a few years if "results" are not shown.

This is what has led to many instances of fraud, malfeasance and short-term decision-making over long-term gain.

With regard to keeping the Chrysler name, just remember, a small handful of airline executives ran a regional carrier called America West. They took over US Airways, made it profitable and kept the name. Now, they have taken over American Airlines and will keep the name.

Stealth over ego.
 
#197 ·
valiant67 said:
And Iacocca was his enabler all because Iacocca's ego could not handle Bob Lutz.
Yes, the story is well documented and admitted to now, by Iacocca.
 
#199 ·
burnout said:
Absolutely...can tell you how many times my Dad and I have said that about Eaton...what a bum...
FINALLY!
A subject that nearly ALL Allparians can agree upon!
;)
 
#201 ·
Dr. Z said:
"Chrysler's 36 months of double digit growth have slowed because of product decisions."

More because they have been slowly cutting back incentives and fleet sales.
I beg to differ.
The slow arrival of Dart and the delay of KL without a KK have hurt sales growth. Look at Jeep, and take away Liberty, Jeep would be up 28+% even without KL.
The sales of refreshed Avenger and 200 have been phenomenal. When Avenger goes away, Dart is not going to fill that big hole in product. It's faulty thinking behind the boardroom doors.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top