Discussion in 'Mopar / FCA News' started by T_690, Aug 14, 2020.
Which is why I said “Worked pretty well with the Cherokee and EU Renegade.”
If my memory serves me correctly, PSA took a couple of VW MQB cars that were different brands and disassembled them and interchanged multiple hidden parts in front of their management showing what can be done with cars that look different but really have major shared parts. Their newer product send to show that they learned from that. About 2-3 feet of the underhood area is the key. Savings are huge that way.
We love our Renegade.....I grew up living overseas and grew accustomed to smaller cars. I think it is really a great all around CUV it isn't tiny but isn't large either gets decent mpg. Yes it could use some more power under the hood but the build quality on our personal Renegade has been great....I am surprised because when I drive I see tons of them on the roads here in Texas so they must be doing something right....I was really interested in getting a Dart but when they discontinued it I started to look into the Renegade and when they updated the interior for 18 model year I grabbed it at the right time for the right money....Paid $18,000 MSRP was $27,985
And to think that Chrysler was working on a modular platform in the late 80s that became the LH. What a shame.
The problem with the Eaton/Lutz years was that they never optimized their platforms. The PT was the only example I can think of where they had two really different cars from one platform. The Magnum is sort of there as well.
Magnum was just a station wagon from a sedan body. Only special thing was the rear door extended into the roof which evidently caused production issues. Was a really neat feature though.
That's why I said “sort of there.” Oddly if they'd just raised the Magnum up instead of making it a low-rider, it would have been an SUV and sold ten times better - ref Legacy Wagon vs Outback. Same car, different ride heights and advertising. I have no idea why nobody at Chrysler saw the Outback's success and said, “Hey, we can do that.” Probably because a guy in a white lab coat behind him said, “No ve can't.”
Thanks for admitting “oops”! My respect for you has gone up a notch.
I thought Chrysler went from one extreme to the other when they replaced the endless proliferation of K and L cars with one-car-per-platform. But the name-badge games continued unabated. Sheet-metal changes and suspension tuning and engine options still separated the brands from each other.
One of the oddball things that happened was the Neon and the cloud cars having totally different platforms/architectures and ending up almost exactly the same size; someone tell me they couldn't have done a long-wheelbase Neon with a different roofline and larger engine bay? Reminded me of the R body, creating an entirely new (well, by Chrysler standards of the day) car instead of lengthening the B-body slightly or shortening the C-body slightly.
I suppose it might help to actually read posts S-L-O-W-L-Y as opposed to scanning quickly.
I've wondered that myself. We had a new R body in 79, it was like an updated B body. It was a good car, but there were some things that needed refined. Sadly, that never happened. Under Lee's regime they were orphans. The M body would've suffered the same date but cops needed cars, and they gave the 5th Avenue treatment to the LeBaron, and they stayed till 89.
I think that management was not really in an "Out if the box" thinking and only what they saw as normal. Europe (Germany) has always had a fairly large wagon (Shooting break) market and that would be a safe move for them. Subaru probably was not on their comparable list and still not high on must copy markets.
I've done the same...!
I covered the R body earlier in this thread, I think. The M body was basically a slightly modified F body (Volare). Had they just made a slightly bigger B body, the quality gaffes of the R would not have risen - maybe. Had they fired Dick Dauch, they probably wouldn't have had these problems either.
If by management you mean Eaton and Lutz, probably that's true. They should have noticed the Outback. Any time a relatively nobody gets a hit, the others should all be looking to see if there are any implications for them. Didn't take Ford and GM long to imitate the Caravan/Voyager!
Are we giving Subaru too much credit? They had just over 1% of U.S. sales in 2003 when the Magnum idea probably was in discussion for future product. Outback had about 60k in sales comparing that to Caravan/Voyager is not even in the same playbook. Subaru was selling their 4 wheel drive as their main point which wasn't even in the Chrysler bag of tricks to offer at that time.
I think we are all guilty of that at times.
You have that story exactly the wrong way around.
It was Volkswagen engineers who brought in three PSA cars that were of different sizes and brands, and showed how almost all parts in the engine bay could be interchanged. This was during the internal lobbying for the MQB project within VW.
Prior to being tied up with platform-centric GM, FIAT had also been developing the same ideas. Volkswagen was almost the last European carmaker to adopt common modular architectures, because its scale had allowed it to get away with bespoke solutions. But it was probably among the first to give the idea an overarching name and tell its PR department about it.
...It’s funny how big companies end up being assigned the credit for other people’s work.