Discussion in 'Mopar / FCA News' started by Dave Z, Apr 7, 2017.
I like this configuration a lot. I wish they also made a Fiat version for Europe.
Yes and yes.
The risk of confusion is real. But Ford may have gauged the recognition of the Explorer name and deem it strong enough to play the role of a sub-brand.
Like everything else in life, it will depend on the final execution. All Explorers will have to resemble each other in appearance, and to some extent in function. If Explorers become too different in appearance and in role, then confusion will set in and Ford would be better off coming up with a new nameplate.
FCA is already doing some of this by taking the view that Wrangler is its own sub-brand: first continuing what Daimler started with the 2-door and the 4-door; JL is also separating the roles of Sahara from Sport and from Rubicon now more than ever, and is planning to spin off a pickup. I truly believe Wrangler can carry all of this and much more, but keeping all of these variants immediately recognizable in look and capability is key.
The risk, though, is that Wrangler could become its own brand separate from the rest of the Jeep lineup...which would defeat the point of launching so many CUVs in the hope that Wrangler will carry them through to the point of making the sale.
The production limitation has been discussed thoroughly. Every vehicle on the road is discounted, including Jeeps. It's a fact of life. There are plenty of people looking for CUVs with a premium look and feel without all of the expensive Jeep off-road tech/hardware. Will it be more profitable? I don't know. I do know there are plenty of abandoned Chrysler customers out there.
What will differentiate Chrysler?
The ugly truth is......the answer is NOTHING.
Now that Dodge has in essence become "Pontiac"......it becomes painfully clear that (in spite of the howls and cries of the Chrysler die-hards).....that Chrysler must now assume the role of Plymouth.
Let's be brutally honest for a moment. Circumstances and history of the last 20+ years have not been kind to Chrysler. There's just no way around it.
im not following that logic but ok
What will differentiate Chrysler?
Just look at the Pacifica. That's the face of Chrysler for better or worse. So look at what defines the Pacifica and makes it a leader in the mini-van segment and work from there.
IMO, they should offer a 5 and 7 seat version of the Grand Commander. The 5-seat version could have individual back seats and bring a lot of modularity to the midsize segment as its unique selling point. Also make it available with a mild-hybrid option similar to the Wrangler from the start and a plug-in hybrid.
Then the RA SUV should have Stow n'Go. How many people would love to have a SUV with Stow n'Go? I bet that a lot of people would pay for a very spacious SUV with that. It would be a unique selling point that's for sure.
It would lead over the competition in that regard.
And being a Chrysler it wouldn't steal Jeep costumers because it wouldn't be trail rated (which would also be good since the rear suspensions won't steal so much boot space).
Please let me give you a sense of how I see it.
Under the Daimler Occupation, we saw most of the products coming out of DCX de-contented. Remember the cheap-looking cheap-feeling Tonka Toy interiors of those times?
Remember how Chrysler was actively held back by Daimler?.....The 2006 Imperial concept never came to fruition because it would horn-in on the Holy and Sacred Mercedes. The ME-412 was also scuttled for much the same reasoning.
Face it....Chrysler has not been viewed seriously as a premium brand since the last C-Body Chrysler Newport / New Yorker of the late 1970's.
OOPS ! ! !...Almost forgot. One of the first things that happened during the Daimler Occupation was the killing of Plymouth in the first place.
These are just a couple of examples to illustrate why I think the things I said in reply #778
I'd like to see a shorter version of the Grand Commander-based Chrysler if the sales figures are good. It could share a lot with the Cherokee, but address many of its shortcomings in the mainstream market by being more efficient, having more cargo space, and having a nicer ride quality. It would also take the pressure off of the Cherokee to allow it to turn into more of an off road vehicle and less of a RAV4 competitor.
I also think a smaller version would have better proportions. They should benchmark the Edge and Murano for that version.
It isn’t exclusive, but it doesn’t need to be. Fully electric vehicles, and more hybrids may help to differentiate from Dodge. More interior space and options like stow and go can help differentiate as well from both Dodge and Jeep. Chrysler isn’t attached to performance or off-road ability so it’s free to take advantage of attributes that might hinder those aspects in the other brands. AWD is available in all the brands, but Jeep makes its bread and butter on expanding upon that capability. Sportiness...the same thing...but Dodge and Alfa make their living on that.
The point is, an attribute doesn’t have to be exclusive to one brand, but one brand may develop it further than the others as it’s niche.
Nothing that I say is a rubber stamp of approval or that it is guaranteed that it will succeed...just may be where they’re headed and one way of getting there.
I never said RA was “back on”, I simply said it existed.
Please do not put words in my mouth. Straw man arguments are worthless.
So is it no longer on the table? We've seen a lot of posts about how Chrysler is getting two crossovers - one based on Pacifica, one based on Grand Commander...
A Chrysler variant of the Grand Commander would not be an R*.
Yes, but the one I'm referring to is the Pacifica-based crossover. The one that's larger than the Grand Commander. We've been told several times recently that there would be two.
Yes and in a few short months the next five year plan will come out and confirm.
Good. Don't scare me like that.
I can imagine the arguments that will inevitably ensue over the 5 year plan. I may have to stock up on popcorn. (Sorry...couldn’t resist)
Well you "stock up" on $FCAU stock instead and make a nice down payment (assuming they don't go buy an another Automaker).
Considering how volatile the market has been lately, that might not be the best choice. Lol. I may stock up on ibuprofen for the mods and insiders on here though.
Exactly. It's easy to see where Chrysler could carve its own niche.
I mean, look at Buick and Lincoln. They're derided for trying to be what they aren't (premium brands), much because of the component and parts sharing with Ford and Chevy (albeit that is changing for Lincoln).
They have attractive cars and SUVs. They have nice interiors but they're not seen as premium even though Ford and GM want them to be seen that way. However, they do have a certain american style. Especially Lincoln.
Chrysler exudes that feeling. Much more than Lincoln or Buick. Even with many more models in its range, Buick barely sells more than Chrysler. Lincoln sells about half the units.
FCA should just undercut Lincoln and Buick. Focus on space, ride quality, good interiors (even if not premium), modularity features but without trying to overprice the cars like Buick and Lincoln do.
If FCA launched a seven seat Chrysler with a typical Chrysler design (like those sketches posted by redriderbob) at a competitive price (say comparable to Chevys and Fords) who would go for a Lincoln? If they launched a new generation of the 300 who would pick a Lacrosse or Continental over it? Not many people besides the die-hards of those brands (and those ones aren't long in this world...).