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...
Discussion in 'Rumors and Speculation' started by Dave Z, Sep 13, 2017.
Fiat is the modern day Plymouth...without the sales.
Renault, in Europe, shifted many of its model to crossover style.
Add two inches of height with an AWD system and you got yourself a fine crossover there. Just need to square off that boat tail. Never been a fan of those.
Interesting. I didn't know that.
Although, I have worked with Renault: they are hardly an act worth following.
No, I'd absolutely debate that point. Like others have said, opportunities were missed but Tim has made the best out of what he has been handed. I wouldn't hang Sergio's boondoggles on Tim.
"Since Chrysler shares showroom space with three other brands, no brand has to have a full lineup; but someone has to fill the gap when Dodge focuses on muscle and Jeep keeps all its SUVs and CUVs off-road-ready (at least in Trailhawk trim). Chrysler has to fill the gap that remains."
Since Jeep has THREE vehicles with front wheel drive trim levels that aren't "trail ready", the only remaining gap across the board for Chrysler to fill with is the minivan.
Why waste money on a badge engineered front wheel drive "Chryslerokee"? Factor in the decade long gutting of the Chrysler brand and who would even care about it outside those of us who post here?
"A three row version of the Cherokee, modified to fit the Chrysler brand (and to take the place of the current Dodge Journey) may come within the next year to two."
Whoa....what happened to that nearly endlessly delayed Stelvio-based Journey? It's gone? Imagine that...
"The large crossover based on the Pacifica probably will not begin production until after the Grand Caravan stops, but that timeline lines up well if the 300 ends production ends a year or two later, say, in calendar-year 2020."
Ahhh, yes. "Chrysler...America's Minivan Headquarters!" YAYYYYYY!
Only thing left to do at that point is to dig up Doug Henning to tell us how Sergio made Chrysler disappear...
Yes, it's hard to really gauge the performance of people down the hierarchy ladder. They're often constrained by the demands of the folks above. Remember, excrement has a tendency to flow downhill.
I disagree. You don't want to abandon the gas only model. Electric doesn't have enough of a foothold to go that route. And there are plenty of people who don't want to pay the premium for a hybrid model. I think it would be smarter if Chrysler offered hybrid, and maybe electric alternatives, to a traditionally powered lineup.
No, you're just misunderstanding. The Chrysler CUSW-based crossover was always supposed to replace the Journey. The Dodge crossover on the Giorgio-US isn't a 1:1 replacement for the Journey, hence the wording.
It sounds like I am more willing to give this entire Chrysler "vision" a chance, but you touch on some key points:
Comparing this to Nissan really nails it. Nissan's culture suffers from this pervasive squizophrenia by which they feel the need to toss out everything the brand is known for on a regular basis, constantly undermining their own efforts to move forward. Sounds familiar, doesn't it.
And I was trying to remember what that photo of the Chrysler concept looked like. Turns out, it looks like a bloated Nissan Murano from behind!
I had the opportunity to work with our innovation team, which specializes in helping organizations identify white spaces, and develop strategic innovations that result in commercial successes. I remember the head of the team telling me "innovation needs to be half familiar, half innovation." It wasn't until he said this that I realized our consumer data backs him up.
Market familiarity is the conduit by which everything else good happens. Without sufficient levels of familiarity, innovations are not allowed to take hold in the market. This was a key issue with Chrysler Airflow as much as it was with Nissan LEAF and now Toyota Mirai: when something just looks too foreign, it finds few buyers. On the other hand, a key to the success of Tesla has been to wrap all of that cutting-edge innovation into what otherwise looks like a relatively traditional luxury sedan --down to an unnecessary grille.
I am afraid, in its rush to break away from its past, this Chrysler "vision" is willing to toss out too much all at once, the good and the bad, leaving too little that is familiar with consumers to give itself a chance to take a hold in the market.
@Christopher I wouldn't worry, electric motors will be a phase in. ICE drivetrains will still be available. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a model without an optional engine or variant. Even the non-FCA brands who have announced they will be going full electric are actually just saying they will have full electric motors available for every model. Gas/Diesel isn't dead yet, just slowly winding down in certain areas.
Hybrid sales have fallen off, as a percentage of total. Electric car sales depend greatly on subsidies. I agree that gas needs to remain an option.
California Air Resources Board - "California’s ZEV Regulation for 2018 and Subsequent Model Year Vehicles"
Total ZEV credit percentage: 2018 4.5%, 2019 7%, 2020 9.5%, 2021 12%, 2022 14.5%, ...
That is why there will more electric and hybrid vehicles sold by FCA in U.S.A., or some states, soon.
Oops, let me rephrase my answer from above:
Hybrid sales have fallen off, as a percentage of total. Electric car sales depend greatly on subsidies or government requirements. I agree that gas needs to remain an option.
Let's keep in mind what happened to Nissan Leaf when just one state (Georgia) dropped the subsidy for electronic cars.
And tying EVs and Hybrids to my points above:
A key success of hybrids that continues to elude EVs, is that hybrid technology marries the widely familiar ICE powertrain with the unfamiliar EV technology, giving consumers a half-step to ease into green powertrains.
If this Chrysler "vision" has any chance of success, it better start including hybrids and some traditional sedans in the equation. Breaking with the past too much, too fast, will lead nowhere.
I am old timer, not looking forward to EV; not liking mandatory rearview cameras.
On the future of Chrysler, if WCM continues to be the farce it is, the company will soon be by the wayside. I am in plant & see the efforts made to "game the system" for quality efforts. Basic condition? Only implemented if basic condition returns us to the '80s. In reality, little or no effort by plant management is made to attain this condition, then build from there.
WCM audits are a joke; blaring problems are ignored as long as the audit path has fresh paint & new floors. Let's shut down production in an area that the audit tour may be passing through.
In other areas, traversing might require walking through the oil puddle that is a near permanent presence. "Reporting Unsafe Conditions" doesn't yield any sustainable results if any results at all. So, why bother? Don't report an injury as you might face discipline.
I've long held that the auditors must be either blind, not cognizant of the true processes or_____ ___ (you can fill in).
Internal auditors at one time were prohibited from covering an area where they had familiarity; IMO this was so the true discrepancies were easier to overlook. (Plausible deniability). Not sure if this prohibition is still in effect.
If FCA was interested in making fine vehicles, the quality efforts would be sustainable and substantial. I don't need another hollow alphabet program rolled out that is BS. I won't take that bait. I don't participate and make my position known.
I am impressed that the production Pacifica dash actually ended up being nicer overall than the 700 concept. Usually it's the other way around. Well done FCA!
Really? There are plenty who post in this forum with all of the answers to Chrysler's woes after only minutes of thought. Surely Tim can spare a few minutes and that will be plenty!
I am sure the number of suggestions at Allpar is inversely proportional to the number of FCA successes
Chrysler's original plan for the crossover has been in place since 2013. It usually takes 3 years (in the fastest situations) from drawing board to launch. Chrysler is right on schedule. Besides shifting from sedan sales to CUVs, the brand has had the foot work in place since they decided to go mainstream and the CUV minus the Portal has been written in stone. Now, with the shifting of plants, production will be able to start within the next two model years on the much needed vehicles.
2014 5 year plan released to investors