AF: Interesting read. | Page 3 | Allpar Forums
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Interesting read.

Discussion in 'Mopar / FCA News' started by Adventurer55, Jul 31, 2018.

  1. Adventurer55

    Adventurer55 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2015
    Messages:
    3,424
    Likes:
    4,448
    The sad part was in order for a new 200 to be successful, it had to be lights years better then the old one. It wasn't. Now people point to the money that was allocated and say oh we gave the Chrysler brand this brand new car, spent however much, and it flopped. That's like asking a one armed wallpaper hanger to hang wallpaper.
     
    valiant67 and Erik Latranyi like this.
  2. TripleT

    TripleT Allpar Legacy

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,385
    Likes:
    10,193
    Watch cars in the segment start sneak taller, add the word Cross in the name.
     
    freshforged likes this.
  3. TripleT

    TripleT Allpar Legacy

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,385
    Likes:
    10,193
    Again it didn't flop the category flopped, and it was a Significantly better car then the old 200. And it doesn't matter how much one pretends it didn't happen FCA spent a ton of money and resources to make it a great car and give them a car. In the end it didn't matter how much better or even how much better it was, They could have dead copied the Accord and improved every aspect and the same decision would have been made because the category failed. In fact it would have failed more because the issue was cost, how to make a great vehicle with a lower cost structure to match failing margins in the category. The only flop was that it wasn't a CUV, that they did it in first place. While here you still see people making wrong argument that somehow it was a product problem, it was, that it was to darn short and has a trunk.

    It was a two handed person hanging wall paper.... the problem is in not 1980 and who the hell wants wallpaper? The market doesn't want wallpaper, they want a barnwood accent wall instead. It could be gold leaf wallpaper people still don't want it. The only flop is hanging it in the first place.

    I apologize to T_690 for not taking my own advice....
     
    #43 TripleT, Aug 6, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2018
    MoparJoe, djsamuel, Matthew and 4 others like this.
  4. Erik Latranyi

    Erik Latranyi Allpar Legacy

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    12,224
    Likes:
    13,234
    I think FCA believed the 200 was better than the Sebring/200 it replaced because they did not understand the US market for mid-size sedans and what consumers really want.

    A great interior and lots of electronic tech do not sell these cars. Fuel efficiency, safety (not optional safety) and reliability sell these cars. FCA could not offer all three of those in comparison to the competition.
     
    JavelinAMX and valiant67 like this.
  5. codypet

    codypet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,327
    Likes:
    1,292
    When I heard Mitsubishi had brought back the Eclipse, I was surprised to see it was a CUV. I guess Eclipse=/=Eclipse Cross.
     
  6. Adventurer55

    Adventurer55 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2015
    Messages:
    3,424
    Likes:
    4,448
    Ok a one legged man a butt kicking contest. Fill in whatever. The car failed, the boss himself said so.
     
    JavelinAMX and Erik Latranyi like this.
  7. Ryan

    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2016
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes:
    12,341
    Obviously... but it failed because of the decline in sedan sales. Not because it was an inherently bad vehicle. It was a much better car than the old 200.
     
    MoparJoe, Matthew, Ernesto and 4 others like this.
  8. Powdered Toast Man

    Powdered Toast Man Move along, nothing to see here

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes:
    2,039
    Well said.

    It's evident to me how much investment was made to the making of this car. It really is a shame it wasn't a CUV (especially considering its platform counterpart is the Cherokee).
     
    MoparJoe, Matthew, tlc and 1 other person like this.
  9. TripleT

    TripleT Allpar Legacy

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,385
    Likes:
    10,193
    How about you just stick with the truth without any colorful misleading unrelated sayings. The car was a failure because the class failed that supported it. It wasn't anymore a product issue then how tall it was and that it had a trunk. It failed before the first car ran down the line. SM knew it and regretted everyday greenlighting it. Think of how bad he would have been ripped for pulling the plug before implementation which I understand he almost did. Even now people can't come to grip with the collapse and the speed at which it collapsed of the appliance Sedan market. It still is smacking others in the face even in the luxury category.

    My evidence every thread turns into what the 200 should have, could have, would have been ..... doesn't matter it was a car... as long as it was a car it was doomed to fail.
     
    MoparJoe, Matthew, Don W and 5 others like this.
  10. GasAxe

    GasAxe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,726
    Likes:
    10,230
    Do people remember when minivans were the hot segment and every brand had one in their lineup? As the market started to contract, the weakest nameplates started dropping away. They couldn't capture enough margin to compete with the juggernauts from Dodge and Chrysler. Soon sales stabilized as did which brands would offer a minivan. The same market process is happening with mid size sedans.

    If someone desires to get back into a commodity segment, they need to introduce a vehicle that blows people away. Dodge did it with the BR Ram. Chrysler did it with the 300C. Ford did it with the 2005 Mustang. It's tough to catch lightning in a bottle.
     
  11. Adventurer55

    Adventurer55 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2015
    Messages:
    3,424
    Likes:
    4,448
    Chrysler had two misses in this segment. I remember a year or so before the new Sebring debuted, all the in the know folks said wait till you see it, it's beautiful. Well, it fell flat on it's ugly hard plastic face. The rebrand into the 200 helped, but it was a bandaid. So Chrysler's reputation in this segment was tainted by the car the new 200 replaced. It may have been bad timing, but there was no love felt at the corporate level when the reviews panned the lack of rear entry ease and the overall size. Then the market began to shift, so it was an easy target. If everyone was so smart at the corporate level then the 200 would've been a CUV. Now poor Chrysler the brand is paying dearly for that one. And if I sound agitated I am. This brand is the only original thing left of the original Chrysler corporation. Plymouth, and DeSoto are gone. This is all that remains of what Walter Chrysler started.
     
    #51 Adventurer55, Aug 6, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2018
    Erik Latranyi and wtxiceman like this.
  12. wtxiceman

    wtxiceman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,295
    Likes:
    1,352
    I think it failed for multiple reasons, but everyone has their own personal fact as to why.


    This is getting really old.
     
    MoparJoe, tlc and Adventurer55 like this.
  13. BobbiBigWheels

    BobbiBigWheels The "Front-Line" Perspective

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2016
    Messages:
    3,245
    Likes:
    4,876
    I sold 200s happily for 2 years when we had em'. I don't think the issue was quality of trims. FCA set up 200s to be our sub-prime car, with $19,998 price points on LX models and the ability to bury negative equity in them. We intentionally only stocked LX trims, with an S here and there, but no Cs. The 200 wasn't a car we had a client come through our doors and say "I'm here to see a Chrysler 200", people came in and said "I'm looking for a mid-size car, what do you have?".

    I will say first-hand that the rear headroom veto'd 2 deals in my sales career.
     
  14. GasAxe

    GasAxe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,726
    Likes:
    10,230
    That’s why it was a zero margin or worse car. The die had already been cast and a mid size car from Chrysler was the choice of buyers looking for a deal, not to pay a premium for a good car. The only way for such a product to remain is for manufacturing costs to go lower and unfortunately, a deal couldn’t get done. It was a hard choice but ultimately the right choice to kill the 200 and Dart. The bigger mystery is how Fiat NA hasn’t befallen to the same circumstance.
     
    Erik Latranyi, Adventurer55 and Ryan like this.
  15. Ryan

    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2016
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes:
    12,341
    Or how management hasn't realized it yet, or why they just don't care...
     
    #55 Ryan, Aug 6, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2018
    Adventurer55 and Erik Latranyi like this.
  16. GasAxe

    GasAxe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,726
    Likes:
    10,230
    I do think they care. There has to be a pretty complex set of issues Fiat solves or at least mitigates. With fewer and fewer sales every month, the more perplexing it gets.:confused:
     
  17. Erik Latranyi

    Erik Latranyi Allpar Legacy

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    12,224
    Likes:
    13,234
    Marchionne said the 200 was a poor design. Most people agree, except those who want to blame something else.

    Yes, it happened at a time when sedan sales were shrinking and customers expected safety, efficiency and reliability....three things that FCA under Marchionne did not care about.

    Maybe FCA changed in the last few years, maybe not. One quality report means nothing. It is all about the long-term.

    Had FCA focused on quality, efficiency and safety in the years before the new 200, then designed a decent vehicle that wasn't undersized for its class (isn't that why people buy CUVS?) I would believe they understood the market.

    Instead, they tried to chase everyone else with an inadequate product that was not efficient, not offering standard safety and not offering reliability (quality and customer service).

    Sorry, but the market rightly rejected the 200 because FCA rejected what the market wanted.
     
  18. freshforged

    freshforged Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes:
    2,536
    Yeah, personal facts are what made this country Great! That and Apple fritters and I dare anyone to prove me wrong!
     
  19. Ryan

    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2016
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes:
    12,341
    And the market wanted a CUV.
     
    MoparJoe, Matthew and TripleT like this.
  20. Erik Latranyi

    Erik Latranyi Allpar Legacy

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    12,224
    Likes:
    13,234
    No. The market still buys over 6 million sedans. 4% of that market is 240,000 vehicles....plenty to fill an assembly line.

    The market wants fuel efficient, safe and reliable sedans.....and soon, they will want fuel efficient, safe and reliable CUVs.

    Unfortunately, we have not seen FCA do anything other than exploit the Jeep name.

    FCA's focus on quality is still unknown to the market.
    FCA's focus on safety is not on base trims (like the competition).
    FCA's focus on efficiency is still years away.
     
    valiant67 and JavelinAMX like this.

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.