Discussion in 'Mopar / FCA News' started by Allpar News System, Feb 2, 2015.
Renault Espace 2013 and 2015.
Similar transformation process for the new Dodge Caravan.
You say my profit margin argument cannot be substantiated by data. Well, the same could go for your total sales argument. Simply having fewer minivan sales from the corporation does not have to necessarily be bad without all the info. Decisions are not made in a vacuum.
In other words, they lower the roof and go to doors.
However, there is no DODGE Caravan in the public product plan.
Well, if you're going to throw out numbers, at least be accurate. 50k minus 2014 sales would be 282k.
Thats not what I said at all.... I do know for a FACT that there is a higher profit margin on the vans that are equipted better than the AVP/CVP vans.
This comparison is also silly...... You are compareing T&C/Caravan .....Chryslers most respected model(hell we invented the minivan) We are to minivans what the Accord is to midsized sedans. The 200 name is JUNK in the midsized world.....It s going to take some time to build a reputation(POSITIVE reputation) for the 200. The rebates are necessary to even get people to think about a midsized Chrysler. The 200 has not been on most buyers radar when shopping for a midsized sedan. They Think Honda,Toyota, NissanFord,Hyundai, and Chevy before even thinking about Chrysler... We are way down that list. Even the biggest of import lovers consider the T&C when purchaseing a minivan.....its what we do!!!!!
CDJ… maybe where YOU live… here it's a fight to get beyond Honda and Toyota. Very regional!
But you're right, there are areas where Chrysler has to fight harder than others. Pickups, big cars, minivans — Chrysler has an easier time. Small and midsize cars - it's a struggle.
I am just saying that Chrysler wanted to stay away from a lower price 200, while they have to put rebates on the hood to sell them. I have heard them advertising for less than $19k.
Doesn't seem like the minivans are that respected by Chrysler, a segment invented by them. If it ain't broken, don't change anything. They have changed over the years (Plymouth, SWB, AWD) and noticed a decline in sales while Honda and Toyota have been selling more.
Inside the company, they can run all the data they want.....and twist it as well.
We can easily see number of units sold and market share. Those are solid criteria for evaluating a business It is not the only criteria, but it is all that we have available to us with regard to this decision.
Since the new 200 is selling heavily discounted...and has more content than the previous generation, I could claim it was a losing decision.
But since I do mot know the profit margin numbers, I cannot make that claim.
All I can see are units (growing) and market share (slight increase). Based on that, it looks like dropping Avenger may have worked.
No, my number is correct. Chrysler sold 346,884 minivans in the U.S and Canada in 2014 so the 50,000 less that you said would leave the number at 296,884.
I would guess that they are not making a large profit, if any, on 200, but it is an investment in the future.
I also suspect they did not make anything on the old 200/Avenger despite the already paid for engineering. You gotta be in that segment.
The reality is that whether sales are up or down overall or market share is up or down overall for minivans, we won't know whether that is truly due to not having two minis or just because the new mini is great, awful or indifferent. Two variables are changing new platform and one less name plate. we'll be able to argue to the cars (cows) come home and no side will be able to prove their opinion for that's all it will be. At least that's mine, lol
A decrease in market share is giving up ground to your competitors.
As Dennis said, minivans are our strength. We have no reason not to destroy the competition.
We can agree that loss of market share is likely bad. I'm just saying that if there is a loss of market share we won't be able to prove is was because of a loss of the caravan nameplate or because the new van is simply not as competitive as the old. If it doesn't sell well, there's no way to prove having a Dodge version would change that.
I have a feeling the new vans will be awesome, as always, expected from Chrysler. If it doesn't sell, it would be hard not the blame the dropping of the Caravan...
Will there be some who would have bought AVP/CVP that will go for the higher priced ones? Don't they offset the loss of sales?
And, besides, do you really want Dodge to undercut KIA?
I don't know of anyone (that is looking for a new vehicle and doing prior research) who would unknowingly go to a dealership seeking a Plymouth then ops for something more expensive Chrysler. They may look for a lower model Chrysler T/C and compare to the Dodge
Looking at your current numbers that are posted, the 300 sold 5503 units for the month. Looks to me Chrysler doesn't sell big cars well. With 18797 sales of the 200, looks to me mid size cars sell well.
Too bad they don't brake down sales between motor sizes - trim level.
Would the 300 sell more if it were a Plymouth with lower trim package with bench back seat and a few body changes - front fenders, hood, headlights, grill + new tail? Would it sell a few more if the VM3.0L 190hp & 240hp were added since I see Lancia Thema is dead. But I suppose the Ram 1500 is sucking up all those motors.
If the minivans go down to one brand name, and they make the same number of minivans, the number of different parts was identified as about a dozen (if I remember correctly), so what is the real difference from making the two minivans? I too don't see retaining the number of minivan sales remaining the same with one name, a CUV is simply an offset, whereas ADDING the CUV would be an increase. Never makes business sense to drop one thing to replace it with another until it is proven to be able to hold its own. And the notion that Dodge will be the performance brand, well, that doesn't mean a minivan or a Dart can't be part of that. Nothing says having a performance brand can't also have bread and butter cars in it. Just like all E bodies and B bodies weren't performance 340/383/440/Hemi cars, not all new charger Sedans and Challengers are Hemi cars. So no reason why they can't have the Caravan, Durango, Dart, and Hemi cars under the same name. Besides, there are enough "performance brand" names under FCA, another one is not going to improve anything above what is here already, European and USA/Canada market is just different, something I thought SM understood, but at this point I am beginning to wonder.
Not trying to derail the convo, but, right here on Allpar.
T&C 138040 + 8944 = 146984
Caravan 134152 + 51759 = 185911
Fleet sales, there are many types. Rental fleets are in the business of having the newest vehicles. Lots of people would rather rent a vehicle than to put up with dealership pressure. Plus they can use it for a day or week compared to drive it around the block.
As for other fleets, fleets for business - government use, they normally keep that vehicle 10+ years. My company still uses 4 S-10 pickups (1982-1990 body). They rented a freightliner sprinter crd for 2 months then bought one crd to haul parts from hanger to hanger to warehouse. They have a honda insight for parts runs into the big city. All lift trucks are used airport trucks pre 1990's & 1980's.
For local city fleets, I still see Jeep Cherokee's pre 1990's & 1990's dodge dakota's in the utility departments.
So to me, business fleets are long lasting.
Yes, but by your logic, less total minivan sales = bad. So, shouldn't more 200 sales = good?