AF: Chrysler / Dodge Future Speculation | Page 12 | Allpar Forums
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Chrysler / Dodge Future Speculation

Discussion in 'Rumors and General Chrysler Discussion' started by NWbyNW, Nov 1, 2019.

  1. Jerry Simcik

    Jerry Simcik Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,679
    Likes:
    1,202
    Precisely what I was saying. The regulations put in place (and the unevenness of them with regards to cars vs trucks) caused automakers to focus on development and refinement of trucks rather than cars. There are certain benefits to a truck-type vehicle that are hard to give up. Room, ride height, ease of entry and egress, capability, etc... Those are only a few! Once you got into a truck, it became hard for you to get out of one. There are many out there who share a similar story. The market has shifted; it's not going to go back unless there is a seismic change. Until that time, the sedan will play second-fiddle to CUVs and trucks... Sedans will continue to become more and more of a niche product (Which is why I think the Charger is in a GREAT PLACE.) and CUVs will become more and more common...
     
  2. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,924
    Likes:
    20,597
    Jerry, I may agree with your point, but what you seem to be also saying is that people are buying crossovers and such not because of regulations, but because they are a superior format, in which case we would have been flooded with them anyway. Jeep did not make the Cherokee to evade fuel rules, they made it because they made Jeeps. The Cherokee's runaway success brought numerous other SUVs (including the rather lame Explorer). Then the crossover came as a cheaper and more efficient way to make SUVs. Now they're selling wagons and calling them crossovers. I think Honda and Toyota, which do NOT have any problems meeting economy rules, woudl have preferred to keep making Camrys and Corllas and Civics and Accords by the million, but the market shifted.

    Originally I will say you were right - in the 1970s, a small number of people started buying trucks because they “needed” V8s and such, but small cars were easily whupping those in performance and they pretty much stayed a niche. Minivans were a breakthrough product but they weren't launched to avoid CAFE, Chrysler has zero problems meeting CAFE back then.
     
    cygnus likes this.
  3. Jerry Simcik

    Jerry Simcik Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,679
    Likes:
    1,202
    Discussing regulations that directly caused a market shift and led us to where we are today and which will continue to lead us into the future is ABSOLUTELY, 100% ON-TOPIC to this discussion. This is a discussion of the future products from the company. The company's products WILL be governed by any regulations that are in place. The company will have to make decisions that best protect their future in that regulated environment. This is PRECISELY what this thread is for.

    If a mandate for EVs is passed, for example, there will be no Hemis or Tornados... If safety standards grow even more stringent, vehicles will get larger... And so on and so forth. Many people will not be able to buy what they want; either their preferred product will not be available or they will not be able to afford them... This is not "political"; this is historical! There are NUMEROUS examples of this sort of thing in the auto industry and others already that can be witnessed! These things (the present, the past, the future, and politics) CANNOT be separated!
     
    #223 Jerry Simcik, Sep 16, 2020 at 3:05 PM
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2020 at 3:23 PM
    danbek and ehaase like this.
  4. Jerry Simcik

    Jerry Simcik Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,679
    Likes:
    1,202
    There's s more nuance to it than that, but you've got the jist...

    There are certain benefits to trucks. I love trucks! I actually use mine as it was intended regularly, but most of the time it's still just "a car". But there are a LOT of people who do not need them at all and who would, honestly, be better served by a larger car. But car's haven't really evolved like trucks have and cars also continue to cost more to produce while returning fewer profits. The incentive for development isn't there. Until something changes in the regulations, I don't see that changing...

    Your Jeep example is a bit of a cop-out. Cherokee wasn't made to "evade" fuel rules, per say, but those rules contributed to its development instead of the development of other products. Furthermore, what was the most efficient Jeep at that time? It likely was the Cherokee. Will you not agree that the quickest and simplest way to solve any new problem (regulations) is to stick to what you know as much as possible (building Jeeps) and take calculated risks into a new territory? If you were exploring an unknown region of the world without a map and you came across a river or a road, would you not follow it? That's what Jeep did, IMO - they stuck with what they knew best and tried to make it fit into the new world... What projects was Jeep working on before the regulations came that never saw the light of day??? Was Cherokee even on their radar???

    I think, in general, trucks would still "win" in the long run, but I don't think you'd see the penetration you do now. I think cars would still be more common if the automakers were not penalized for making them... Furthermore, I think we'd see far more specialty concepts and varied design approaches - there'd be 27 ways to solve the same problem, each with their own benefits and advantages - were it not for our very heavy-handed regulations. We'd end up with much more refined & a sustainable solutions, that's for sure...
     
  5. Adventurer55

    Adventurer55 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2015
    Messages:
    3,318
    Likes:
    4,302
    Rising fuel prices and the need to offset that with higher mileage was the main reason the 84 Cherokee was downsized.
     
  6. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,924
    Likes:
    20,597
    1) Most people own trucks for image reasons, not utility. That's based on the market research.
    2) Cherokee most likely had lower ratings than the light CJ did. Cherokee had nothing to do with emissions. Low sales of the Wagoneer were the issue. Wagoneer was expensive, truck-like, and, well, launched in 1962.
    3) Toyota and Honda were never penalized for making cars and they are having a hard time with the switch to crossovers.
    4) Our regulations are hardly “heavy-handed.” That said, I personally think a carbon tax or universal target would have made more sense.
     
    Tony K, tabutler, James A and 3 others like this.
  7. patfromigh

    patfromigh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes:
    3,240
    The minivan development was started before CAFE regulations. Remember Lee worked for Ford at that time. The minivan sort of followed him to his new employer. I haven't read Dave's minivan book, so I don't know if the Ford project is discussed.

    The downsized Jeeps of the 1980s happened because the sales of the larger BOF Jeeps were dead. (Except for the CJ,) The price of fuel was forcing the changes, not regulations.
     
  8. hmk123

    Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes:
    3,273
    Our Dart Limited was really a comfortable car. We were super impressed by it. If it hadn’t been in an accident we would have kept it for a long time. I don’t understand why it wasn’t more successful.
     
    Dave Z and tlc like this.
  9. NWbyNW

    NWbyNW Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2015
    Messages:
    423
    Likes:
    555
    To get this topic back on future speculation and what-not... I am working on a "fictional" future for Chrysler and Dodge with pictures! At least I hope to release it... I might realize I am doing to much and then just not do it. Lol. But it will lay down a speculative future that includes what Chrysler and Dodge need, plus some sedans most of us want.
     
    Tony K, James A and Chebby7 like this.
  10. Chebby7

    Chebby7 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2018
    Messages:
    94
    Likes:
    97
    Can't wait.
     
  11. tlc

    tlc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    71
    Likes:
    77
    I agree. I have driven my Dart on a few long distance trips. 1 being 22 hours in 1 day. 4 total stops totaling 45 minutes. Felt good when I stopped. Just tired. Other trips were around 17-18 hours. So far, it's been very reliable. Only adding 2 quarts of oi total between oil changes. Almost 69,000 miles on it. 2.4.
     
    hmk123 likes this.
  12. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,924
    Likes:
    20,597
    Seats are very nice. Aero is not as nice, though - stiff suspension (lowered the way an aftermarket company would do it). Also, I discovered when they specify premium fuel, they MEAN it. Anything less than perfect means shuddering, power loss, check engine lights, loss of cruise control, turbo refusing to engage, etc. (That includes “premium” from less than honest vendors - thanks, Chris Christie, for slashing Weights & Measures.)
     
    tlc, 77 Monaco Brougham and hmk123 like this.
  13. 77 Monaco Brougham

    77 Monaco Brougham Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2017
    Messages:
    2,218
    Likes:
    3,438
    Since Chris Christie dropped out of the national spotlight some years ago, I haven't bothered to keep up on what's been going on with him.

    By any chance...Has he managed to keep HIS OWN "weight and measure" under control?:p:D
     

Share This Page

Loading...
 We are not affiliated with FCA. We make no claims regarding validity or accuracy of information or advice. Copyright © VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.