Discussion in 'Mopar / FCA News' started by Allpar News System, Feb 2, 2015.
You took the words out of my mouth.
One problem in 2000 was that many did not have Dodge to keep the lost Plymouth customers (many were already combined, but some were not). Sure the cheap Town & Country Voyager helped, maybe it was worse with cars but I saw a lot of Chrysler/Plymouth dealers become Chrysler/Kia lots. When my aunt replaced her Sundance, rather than go track down a Dodge dealer, they went back to the same Chrysler dealer (they liked it, the Dodge dealer had some issues) and ended up with a Kia. It may have been worse on the car side than the minivan side, who knows?
It is my opinion, nothing more. My reasoning behind my opinion is based upon the idea that if the Caravan name itself is more well known then T&C, and the idea that people buy it because of the model name, not the brand itself. I have no evidence, but most info that has been written on here carries about as much weight as my statement, because they are opinions as well, not fact.
Facts pertaining to the loss of sales, unfortunately, can't be written until the plan is put into place. At that time, it will be too late to change, and someone's opinion on here will be right. One way or another.
Keep in mind that switchovers tended to include higher incentives for outgoing models. Also, there was one switch where they ran out of product! The new model is introduced in the year before the model year. It all makes it hard to figure out. But yes, I think they lost a lot of sales with Plymouth. If you look at Prowler, it pretty much ended when they swapped nameplates.
Trailduster, hypothetically, what would happen if they kept the Caravan name but moved it to Chrysler? As they did with Prowler and Voyager?
And we all know what happened to the Prowler and Voyager...
IMHO, I believe the Caravan name is synonymous with the minivan itself. It is after all the original. The Voyager name was moved down from the B van, and it has been retired. I think it is almost it's own brand, that is why I believe they would take less of a hit in sales, and don't have to make another van solely for Canada.
Just an FYI....as we watch the numbers after the changes, we will not count Dodge CUV sales into minivan sales. Minivan sales will be stand-alone judging the totals against the totals.
There will be no games with the numbers trying to say the Caravan CUV should be counted into the minivan total. No, it is not a minivan and no longer matters to minivan sales....even if it carries a minivan name.
So, it doesn't matter if they sell say 50k fewer minivans, but do it with more profit per minivan, and then go on to sell more than 50k in another vehicle? Okaaaaay.
Of course it's not a minivan, but really Erik - you're that invested in this argument of sales numbers for minivans? As seen in my previous post about numbers after voyager death, it's not as simple as count before and after. Has this already degenerated into a pissing match about who will need to eat crow for sharing an opinion in the future?
If the new minivan sells just 1 fewer minivan than the outgoing 2, it will be deemed a failure of a decision by some.
What needs to be done to determine a loss or gain is compare the numbers to the competition in relation to the D/C/P numbers to see if there was a migration to the competition, taking into account upgrades/changes made by all. No matter what happens, removing and deleting a name is always a bad thing, and just like the Japanese do, they advertise an "all new (whatever)" every single year, but the name remains the same. Whatever happens, which has already been decided, keep the name and call it an all new even if it is a different platform and design. Look at all the changes to the Mustang over the years, all the changes to the Cougar, the Celica, Accord, and the list goes on. Two cars one year apart and not a single piece interchanges, yet the name stays and people can identify it.
You and I will never know the real profit margins on any vehicle they sell. Nobody here knows (or is allowed to reveal) the profit margins earned.
So, your profit margin argument cannot be substantiated by any publicly available data. Therefore, it is a pointless metric for success that can be substantiated here.
Your other premise that selling 50K fewer minivans and 50K new CUVs is some significant strategy really does not hold water as well.
First, that is 50K fewer minivan sales in the minivan segment. FCA will have lost minivan market share...unless the total market shrinks.
Second, they could retain those 50K in minivan sales (keep Grand Caravan) and still add 50K of a new CUV since Windsor could handle a third vehicle easily.
This whole argument is so silly........ There are those on this board that simply look for a reason to bash Fiat for just about anything they do.
There is no doubt that there will be a loss in minivan sales. The question is how many and how much profit is loss? It will not be 100K......I dont dont think it will be 50K..... If you add the new CUV sales they are banking on having a net gain and increased profit margin......
So, your premise is that they lose money on Grand Caravan sales?
Voyager name is still used outside of north america for the minivan. Voyager in euro, GrandVoyager in UK.
So you are predicting Chrysler will sell 296,000 minivans in the U.S. and Canada when they switch to 1 minivan? Okaaaay.
I have always been positive on FCA's decisions, they have done nothing but good to Chrysler but this minivan decision is just piss poor.
Ther will be a minivan sale drop, regardless for the CUV or not. The CUV will not count as a minivan sale, regardless if it sells at 20K units a year of 600K units a year.
Having the 2 minivans plus a CUV would have been good for the company.
I highly doubt!
Within a year, I can see the T&C selling for the same price as the current AVP/CVP vans now. The new 200 is selling at less than $20k now, where Chrysler said they would not go as they axed the Avenger...
Yes as they never had the T&C or Caravan name outside of North America. Correct me if I am wrong.