Hello, Allpar Forums member or visitor! If you were a member, you would not see this ad!

Register or log in at the top right of the page...

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

On FCA US’ carline gaps

Discussion in 'Mopar News' started by Dave Z, Jul 13, 2017.

  1. JeepandRams

    JeepandRams Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2016
    Messages:
    128
    Likes:
    203
    One way that Chrysler could get the quality up is by building less innovative cars. The Japanese and Koreans seldom innovate beyond hybrids and when they do they also have problems.

    With Rams good reputation and actual engineering they will have little problem going into fullsize SUV market. People are no more tied to Tahoe/Yukon/Suburban than the Chevy trucks Ram is killing. Customers settle for the GM large SUV's because of weak competition, just making a Tundra or F150 station wagon isn't all that appealing.
     
  2. First thing is -- that isn't true.

    Civic had record sales last year. It is clearly turning a profit (despite the tough currency environment).

    Honda's profitability on the Civic is just fine:
    Honda's Operating Profit Rises 27% Despite Strong Dollar -- The Motley Fool (at https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/02/03/hondas-operating-profit-rises-27-despite-strong-do.aspx )
     
    Erik Latranyi likes this.
  3. The problem is that Chrysler is somewhat responsible for this situation. How often do they abandon their products? Dodge Neon -- Automobile Magazine's Automobile of the Year.... Canned..... Chrysler Cirrus -- Motor Trend's Car of the Year..... Killed..... Dart/200.... Dead.....

    How many times to they kill a car with no direct replacement? Chrysler Aspen, Dodge Magnum, Chrysler PT Cruiser..... and on and on.

    Even when they build a class-leading product, they kill it after 3-5 years with no direct replacement. You can't get repeat buyers if the same car doesn't exist. The Japanese know this and built up 40 years of name recognition and buyer loyalty by continuing to update Corollas and Accords.

    We have to stop running away from segments because it is tough. The whole market is tough -- keep fighting for each sale. Build equity in the model, too (update the damn Caravan because it pioneered the segment -- and it has great recognition among consumers).
     
    GasAxe, Erik Latranyi and valiant67 like this.
  4. suzq044

    suzq044 Resident Photoshop Nerd

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,829
    Likes:
    4,344
    Niche cars like the Magnum and PT cruiser were ended because they were at the end of their lifespan. I'd argue that the PT cruisers follow-up was the Caliber, though obviously not stylistically. The Aspen was a badge-engineered Durango; so there's its replacement right there. Whereas yes, the Neon and the Cirrus were good. In their prime. 1998 or so.

    For example, the neon dropped off the damn cliff after that year when the head-gasket thing came around, and then the arguably fatter 2nd gen was introduced with nothing but a bigger body to be hauled around with the same engine. Made the once nimble neon slower, and to some, even less of a deal. The final facelift (which i call a 2.5gen) did nothing but change the appearance, and add the SRT variant to the lineup. The neon was far from a hit, outside the SRT by the time it was ended. The Caliber.. was a marketing disaster, IMO, but there's enough of them around here that I don't know how much of a sales success it was. As for the Dart, I don't think it was given enough time to 'settle' and become a solid place in the market.
     
  5. Alexbucks

    Alexbucks Guest

    That's not the right conclusion to come up with:
    Easy comparisons for 2016 VS 2015 (Takata has hurted Honda more than other Automakers).
     
  6. Adventurer55

    Adventurer55 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2015
    Messages:
    879
    Likes:
    883
    Chrysler's lead up to the 79 disaster was way more complicated then timing. They invested needed moneys in places on the world they had no business in. They were stretched too thin. There were other businesses they shouldn't have been in as well. The A/V cars was a mistake they learned nothing from. Valiants and Darts didn't have proper inner fenders on them either and they rusted too. Three steps up, two back.
     
    Dave Z likes this.
  7. Erik Latranyi

    Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    10,659
    Likes:
    9,803
    Triple T has been called on his "claim" that Honda does not make money on the Civic. It came form some forum post with no credibility to back it up and has not been repeated anywhere.

    It is used to try and make excuses for FCA exiting the sedan market.

    Honda is profitable. I am tired of calling him out for this deception as it cannot be proven true.
     
    JavelinAMX, Ian and DarkSky like this.
  8. Alexbucks

    Alexbucks Guest

    It pretty much common knowledge on Wall Street that zero of the small cars made in the U.S. are profitable in the States.
     
    Prabhjot, ScramFan and Ernesto like this.
  9. patfromigh

    patfromigh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes:
    913
    I was simply saying the new lineup of large cars in the fall of 1973 was bad timing. The A/V cars were the right vehicles for the time, and they repeated the same mistakes from 1957. It's hard to say if they did learn anything from the A/V problems. The Ultra-Drive debacle shows they didn't, while other changes in the later 1980s shows the did. Bob Eaton wasn't there in the 1970s and 80s and went back to repeating the same old mistakes. Daimler ran off a lot of people who did remember and learn from the past.
     
    Adventurer55, ScramFan and Dave Z like this.
  10. jerseyjoe

    jerseyjoe Plymouth Makes It

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2002
    Messages:
    7,456
    Likes:
    1,673
    From what I remember is it was just a bunch of junk in the 70s driveshft failures, over heating, cracked dif housing, rust throughs in a few years, lean burn failure sure there were more, thats why I skipped 70s vehicles totally. I remember GM cars stalling and Fords with pre ignition run on after keys were out to top it off super bad fuel economy. All US manufacturers failed one way or another while gas prices jumped. Thats when imports took over. Almost forgot GM and Ford diesels. Beginng 1980 they finally got the message, Chrysler was on the forfront. 4 bangers beating V8s. Chrysler had the lowest prices to boot.
     
    73PlymouthDuster and patfromigh like this.
  11. dmcdonald

    dmcdonald Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    862
    Likes:
    898
    As was stated here previously, the "claim" was actually from the August, 2016 edition of Motor Trend. I obviously can't speak to the credibility or accuracy of the claim, nor do I wish to but it was not a random forum post. Otherwise, I'll wait for anybody with the actual data to prove or disprove; however, for the record, Honda being profitable doesn't guarantee the Civic is....
     
  12. Adventurer55

    Adventurer55 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2015
    Messages:
    879
    Likes:
    883
    Read the lukewarm responses to the all new Accord coming. In a nutshell, it'll be a good car, but why bother CUVs are where it's at. And this is Honda, not Chrysler they're talking about. Wow
     
    AvengerGuy and danbek like this.
  13. Deckard_Cain

    Deckard_Cain Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2016
    Messages:
    418
    Likes:
    657
    Honda being profitable does not mean that the Civic is. After all, the CR-V sells more than the Civic and I bet with you they have better margins on it than on the sedan.
    And while I won't dispute that the Civic may be profitable, I'll argue that having a car with a 1% profit margin is a drag when you can have a SUV with a 10% profit margin in the same production line...

    So even if the Civic is profitable, which I believe it is, it's not in the best interest of FCA to stick to a segment where they're not leaders. The market leaders dictate what the rest of the segment does. They can have higher margins.
    The other competitors have to compete on price and crush their margins.
    So Honda has an interest in propping up the sedan market, since they dominate it. FCA has an interest in disrupting it, so they should bring different products: SUVs. However, they're not doing their best.
    The Compass is good but is just one model. If they want to capitalize on the compact SUV trend, they must produce a Chrysler and/or Dodge compact SUV as well.
     
    Prabhjot, DAGAR and eastcoaster like this.
  14. Hemidakota

    Hemidakota Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2017
    Messages:
    521
    Likes:
    304
    It will be an interesting next two model years on the expectation of seeing new models for FCA.
     
  15. Well, I always give fair warning with the cranky Chrysler retiree part. Allpar's accuracy on the historical portions of the web site (at least the time period I was involved) -- is damn good. Really damn good.
     
    #115 73PlymouthDuster, Jul 17, 2017
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 17, 2017
    GasAxe, danbek and Dave Z like this.
  16. Agreed. Way too much of the product line was rushed into production in the 1970's, years before it was ready (not enough testing). Quality was bad, government regulations were out of control and Chrysler's small size made them the most vulnerable. In their defense during this era -- out of the 3 compacts, Vega, Pinto and Valiant.... I think we all know which one history looks upon as the best offering.
     
    wtxiceman and jerseyjoe like this.
  17. MJAB

    MJAB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,475
    Likes:
    2,621
    But Ram Promaster City having lowest warranty claims of all FCA US LLC product portfolio is not about Fiat brand only, but all brands included, Jeep Doge, Chrysler and Ram.
     
    ScramFan likes this.
  18. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    32,109
    Likes:
    14,535
    In the 1970s?!? “We insist you have shoulder belts (1974?), reduce your emissions to levels that are easy to reach with available technologies if you don’t assume this is something that will go away after a year, deal with unleaded fuel since we discovered lead is really really bad, and, um, that’s it.”

    (Lead IS really really bad.)

    Oh, yeah, out of control.

    And if you think the emissions reductions were on an aggressive schedule, you really have to consider what Congress faced. Auto executives told them with a straight face that, if they conformed to 1974 Clean Air Act rules — which were so minimal my Valiant can hit them, without a catalytic converter — that cars would be unable to hit 60 mph, would get single-digit gas mileage, and do 0-60 in over 20 seconds.

    So yeah, maybe Congress was too aggressive, but only because industry leaders were being a bunch of babies. They could have said, “Yes, we have a problem, and this is a realistic timetable for solving it,” and probably gained a few critical years. But no, they figured if they said “This is completely impossible, period,” that they wouldn’t have to change ANYTHING.

    Do you remember looking at New York City and seeing a dense gray dome of pollution? I do...

    Head of production engine tuning Pete Hagenbuch said all he needed was a single fuel injector in the throttle body to solve all the problems, and they could have done it years before they did. Management didn't want to put any money in, regardless of his recommendations. If they hadn't been so cheap, they would have saved every penny with the first warranty claim, AND had the most drivable American cars. By that time high gas prices and insurance rates had killed off the muscle car engines, so it wasn’t as though they couldn’t use fuel injection.

    As for the “cost to the consumer,” think about the cost of maintaining those carburetors, in time or money. The average buyer went to the mechanic two or three times a year for a tune. The second trip would pay off the injector cost.

    But no, they played around with EGR, feedback carburetors, and other nonsense... all to save the cost of the injector.

    (I had a 1979 VW Rabbit, made in Pennsylvania by union labor, with four-point fuel injection...no maintenance needed for the first hundred thousand miles. Chrysler could have had that, too. They didn't even make a start until the last minute for the 1981 Imperial, but if they'd begun work when the technology really became practical, they would have been fully ready by the mid/late 1970s. Oh, and the catalytic converter, which cost as much as the fuel injection? Not necessary! because of the fuel injection.)

    I know there’s a certain amount of nostalgia for the simpler times, and that’s good, we SHOULD miss the simplicity of the old engines, but how far do we go? Do we curse the automatic transmission? Do we whine about the evils of hemispherical heads? Do we love or hate electronic ignition, which can after all be disabled with an EMP? What’s reasonable?

    How many people today would buy a car with a carburetor?
     
    Mr. Fusion, bluskye, somber and 3 others like this.
  19. Deckard_Cain

    Deckard_Cain Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2016
    Messages:
    418
    Likes:
    657
    It seems many people over there in the US take the current clean air and rivers for granted without understanding that they are only like that because of regulation.
    Here in Portugal, our rivers started to become clean in the 00's thanks to the EU regulations on water treatment. Not all regulations are evil. Some are necessary to force companies to invest in superior products instead of keeping the money for shareholder dividends.
     
    jerseyjoe, bluskye, Zagnut27 and 3 others like this.
  20. valiant67

    valiant67 Rich Corinthian Leather
    Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    31,486
    Likes:
    10,561
    I understand that regulation, like most things, is best in moderation. Sometimes things go off the rails like the 1974? seat belt interlocks or the laws which pushed MTBE gasoline which was a cure worse than the original problem.
     

Share This Page

Loading...
Terms of use and privacy policy. We are not affiliated with FCA. We make no claims regarding validity or accuracy of information or advice. Custom material copyright © 2001-2017 Allpar LLC.