[Powdered Toast Man]

Hard to argue that, except that the reason it's so loaded up is that if they sold the Renegade or Compass as a Chrysler or Dodge, sales would presumably be much lower.

Branding is a poison to supply-and-demand curves and assumptions of buyer rationality.

Well, this is exactly the problem. FCA has been milking Jeep brand equity for short term sales and profits but at the same time mortgaging the long term health and future of the brand. Basically it makes them money right now to slap the Jeep name on everything rather than spend time, money, and planning trying to build equity for their former core brands.

Wonder why I'm not a fan of either Mike Manley or Sergio? Look what the two of them combined have done to Jeep and the Chrysler/Dodge brands over the last 10 years.

 

[Milkman123]

The problem is you are railing against car companies for offering features that are often required by law. No amount of posts on this forum is going to change the automobile regulatory climate.

People here are generally not proponents of that line of thought, they are trying to tell you that is the way the automakers have it, and for good reason: when they do offer the kind of car you want, not enough people buy it.

You can talk about how great sedans or coupes or barebones performance cars are until you're blue in the face, but look at what's selling, and you can see why there are so few. Bare-bones performance? They tried the Scat Pack cars, cut out a bunch of features from the SRT but kept all the performance in, and they barely sold. Asian automakers have had similar experiences with hot hatches and such. Coupes? Sales figures have been dismal since the 1980s. Sedans? The current Corolla, Civic, Accord, and Camry are all great cars, near the best they've been (I think the 1980s Camry and 1990s Corolla were better, for the times), and sales are barely being kept alive by tossing features at people without lowering prices.

The sales numbers are the sales numbers. Heck, I love the Duster and Road Runner ideas, but given where things are today, they've hit the end of the line — except perhaps for the $35,000 Tesla, which is indeed stripped-down, bare-bones performance, with quality that makes the worst Mopar since 1976 look pretty good.

I understand a lot of terrible things sell really well with the science of marketing.

Your points about what sells and what doesn't in large numbers don't matter to a driving enthusiast, but to a potential investor.

We can all cry till we're blue in the face. I don't care how well FCA can sell jeeps to people who drive downtown or how many fancy looking Rams they can sell to guys who will never haul a thing. I'm not interested in buying.

FCA doesn't sell what I'm interested in buying, I couldn't care less as to the why. I know what non driving enthusiasts are buying, I understand there is good money to be made selling poor quality products to the common buyer.

Why am I not allowed to voice my wants and likes and/or dislikes here? Many of us understand the bad jeeps sell in numbers, we don't care.

 

[Dave Z]

Your points about what sells and what doesn't in large numbers don't matter to a driving enthusiast, but to a potential investor.

Uh-huh. Because a driving enthusiast wouldn't want to know why they can't get what they want?

I'm trying to explain to you why you can't get what you're asking for. And feel free to complain here. Nobody's saying you can't. But don't blame FCA for not wanting to go bankrupt.

 

[Doug D]

Well, this is exactly the problem. FCA has been milking Jeep brand equity for short term sales and profits but at the same time mortgaging the long term health and future of the brand.

Basically this what Norm (may he rest in peace) feared. That water downed Jeeps would hurt Jeep in the long run. He didn't mind the Grand Cherokee too much, but the rest, in his mind, should not exist as Jeeps. As a Dodge or Chrysler that would be acceptable, but not as a Jeep.

I'm not a Jeeper and in general Jeeps don't interest me, however, I do recognize the capability of a Wrangler is what draws people to Jeep. When I think of Jeep I think of a vehicle that can go (almost) anywhere. Renegades, Cherokee and Patriots don't fulfill that need to me.

 

[Powdered Toast Man]

Basically this what Norm (may he rest in peace) feared. That water downed Jeeps would hurt Jeep in the long run. He didn't mind the Grand Cherokee too much, but the rest, in his mind, should not exist as Jeeps. As a Dodge or Chrysler that would be acceptable, but not as a Jeep.

I'm not a Jeeper and in general Jeeps don't interest me, however, I do recognize the capability of a Wrangler is what draws people to Jeep. When I think of Jeep I think of a vehicle that can go (almost) anywhere. Renegades, Cherokee and Patriots don't fulfill that need to me.

It's just interesting. The same people who applauded splitting Ram trucks off from Dodge and killing off volume sellers like Grand Caravan because, "Well Dodge is PERFORMANCE! You can't have Hellcat Challenger next to a Journey!" seem completely ok with selling a $23K Compass Sport next to a $100K Wagoneer or Trackhawk. How does Wrangler or Rubicon reconcile with cheap FWD on road Jeeps or $100K race engine SUV's? There was NO problem with Dodge selling Darts and Avengers and Caravans next to Challengers and Vipers and pickup trucks. This whole "each brand has to have a specialized focus" argument kinda goes out the window when you look at the 2021 Jeep lineup.

 

[hmk123]

While I think something like this new Rogue would have made a nice Chrysler Journey replacement I think I am one of thoss on here (maybe it is the silent majority? ) who doesn’t think the sky is falling all the time. Maybe I am more flexible. For example, if I was in the market, sure, I would prefer something like a Chrysler 300 SRT but since it isn’t available I can live just fine with a Charger. So far they still offer enough vehicles I am interested in.

The other thing I noticed is that it is continously being pointed out that it takes like a decade to change the perception of a car company. And while it would be nice in the case of the Chrysler brand to at least get started again I don’t think it makes sense to point things out every week as if these things that take years to change will look different from one week to the next. I think there is a saying for that in English. Something about a horse...

 

[Zagnut27]

Honest to God if Stellantis could figure out a way to market a minivan as a Jeep they would.

Cough...Jeep Overlander...cough...

 

[Erik Latranyi]

As an adverb, just can literally mean;
1: EXACTLY, PRECISELY
(Source: Just | Definition of Just by Merriam-Webster (merriam-webster.com) )
As an adjective, like can also literally mean;
1: the same or nearly the same (as in appearance, character, or quantity)
(Source: Like | Definition of Like by Merriam-Webster (merriam-webster.com) )

In any way, shape, or forum, just like means that I am exactly the same, or nearly the same, as like those you stated. Taken quite (yes, it's pretty much my favorite word) literally, you said I'm exactly like those that want a vehicle that is bare bones.
Being the same means I am someone that wants bare bones.
I don't think my comprehension is that far off. What you seemingly meant is quite different to how I took it as.
That's using an online chat room for you.
All you needed to say is that "the market does not cater to someone with needs that don't 'justify designing, testing, certifying and marketing vehicles' that the majority are found to want, but the minority don't."
Which is a completely fair statement and avoids all this.

Wow.

I apologize if you felt lumped into some group. That was not my intent.

But I think you know what I means and I am not going to dance on the head of pin over semantics here.

 

[Erik Latranyi]

I've driven traded-in rogues with only a few years of driving on them and they were all squeaky, loose, rattling junk. A RAV4 with 250,000 on it is more solid. The new one might have a bigger screen and a few nicer materials but I doubt its any better quality wise.

Nissan is trying to reinvent itself.

That usually does not happen overnight, so you are probably right.

But people who drove a Kia 10 years ago are stunned by a Kia today.

At least Nissan is showing some effort to change.

 

[Milkman123]

Uh-huh. Because a driving enthusiast wouldn't want to know why they can't get what they want?

I'm trying to explain to you why you can't get what you're asking for. And feel free to complain here. Nobody's saying you can't. But don't blame FCA for not wanting to go bankrupt.

The thing is they could stand to do a niche car or two if they weren't managed so poorly. A few manufacturers seem to be able to almost do it, they're just not my style.

If the Japanese manufacturers can still offer an inexpensive stick shift car, FCA should be able to also, but apparently it's impossible. My civic was super cheap, it's stick shift, reliable and I don't fear it breaking down. The only explanation why FCA can't offer this is piss poor management.

 

[Tony K]

As an adverb, just can literally mean;
1: EXACTLY, PRECISELY
(Source: Just | Definition of Just by Merriam-Webster (merriam-webster.com) )
As an adjective, like can also literally mean;
1: the same or nearly the same (as in appearance, character, or quantity)
(Source: Like | Definition of Like by Merriam-Webster (merriam-webster.com) )

In any way, shape, or forum, just like means that I am exactly the same, or nearly the same, as like those you stated. Taken quite (yes, it's pretty much my favorite word) literally, you said I'm exactly like those that want a vehicle that is bare bones.
Being the same means I am someone that wants bare bones.
I don't think my comprehension is that far off. What you seemingly meant is quite different to how I took it as.
That's using an online chat room for you.
All you needed to say is that "the market does not cater to someone with needs that don't 'justify designing, testing, certifying and marketing vehicles' that the majority are found to want, but the minority don't."
Which is a completely fair statement and avoids all this.

No, this is not what he said, and it's understood in the plain reading and context of the complete quote. "Just like" here means "in a similar manner." Note below the final sentence, which is the comparison. What you are "just like" is the fact that you are in a category that is not large enough to economically support (justify design, test, certify and market vehicles.)

You do not represent the widest part of the market.....just like those who want a "bare-bones" vehicles with minimal electronics and manual transmission.....they are not a large enough group to justify design, test, certify and market vehicles.

It's just interesting. The same people who applauded splitting Ram trucks off from Dodge and killing off volume sellers like Grand Caravan because, "Well Dodge is PERFORMANCE! You can't have Hellcat Challenger next to a Journey!" seem completely ok with selling a $23K Compass Sport next to a $100K Wagoneer or Trackhawk. How does Wrangler or Rubicon reconcile with cheap FWD on road Jeeps or $100K race engine SUV's? There was NO problem with Dodge selling Darts and Avengers and Caravans next to Challengers and Vipers and pickup trucks. This whole "each brand has to have a specialized focus" argument kinda goes out the window when you look at the 2021 Jeep lineup.

Sorry, but who is saying that? Not me. I'll argue that Ram is a done deal and successful. I won't argue that "Dodge is performance" means no base cars, or that Jeep should have all the SUV/CUVs in the American brands. Maybe they should and maybe they shouldn't. That's neither here nor there when Dodge is two LX cars an an SUV (that Stellantis says isn't be supplanted by new JGCL), and Chrysler only has RU and 300 coming into a big merger with a company looking for an outlet for smaller and medium cars and CUVs that don't fit Jeep.

The thing is they could stand to do a niche car or two if they weren't managed so poorly. A few manufacturers seem to be able to almost do it, they're just not my style.

If the Japanese manufacturers can still offer an inexpensive stick shift car, FCA should be able to also, but apparently it's impossible. My civic was super cheap, it's stick shift, reliable and I don't fear it breaking down. The only explanation why FCA can't offer this is piss poor management.

I don't think you'll find too many people disagreeing with you on (pardon the pun) less than stellar management in FCA. Japanese manufacturer practically own the small non-performance stick market in the US. Take rate on sticks was so low in 2009 when I bought the Challenger, the 6 speed Tremec was a cost option ($1000+ IIRC) at first. You can't even get a stick on Giulias in NA. Sticks are dying, even in Europe, albeit slowly. 8+speed automatic transmissions are killing them, and electric pretty much will. You can't get an inexpensive stick car that isn't an Asian brand in NA because it costs too much to certify something with that low of a take rate in the NA market. "Nippon Motors" buys so many MTs, the costs are not a problem. Not yet, anyway.

 

[Milkman123]

I don't think you'll find too many people disagreeing with you on (pardon the pun) less than stellar management in FCA. Japanese manufacturer practically own the small non-performance stick market in the US. Take rate on sticks was so low in 2009 when I bought the Challenger, the 6 speed Tremec was a cost option ($1000+ IIRC) at first. You can't even get a stick on Giulias in NA. Sticks are dying, even in Europe, albeit slowly. 8+speed automatic transmissions are killing them, and electric pretty much will. You can't get an inexpensive stick car that isn't an Asian brand in NA because it costs too much to certify something with that low of a take rate in the NA market. "Nippon Motors" buys so many MTs, the costs are not a problem. Not yet, anyway.

Would have been extremely easy to throw the 6 speed into the Avenger or 200, I would have considered buying one of them (albeit with much skepticism of unreliability). No chance in hell in spending $43,000 (minimum to start) for a 2 door car just to stay with Chrysler. It's sad and pathetic they won't do it. If they can't compete, it's because of bad management. The company has a reputation of poor quality because of bad management. They have a reputation of poor customer service because of bad management (at both dealership and corporate levels) because of bad management.

I'll always love (vintage) Mopar, I'll even keept my 79 D100 until it rots away. I'll still put my 440 into a C body. But they have literally nothing I see worth buying today unless I were looking to spend half what my house cost me.

 

[hmk123]

Nissan is trying to reinvent itself.

That usually does not happen overnight, so you are probably right.

But people who drove a Kia 10 years ago are stunned by a Kia today.

At least Nissan is showing some effort to change.

In case of Hyundai/Kia we need to keep in mind it helps a lot if you "own" 49% of your home market...

 

[Powdered Toast Man]

Sorry, but who is saying that? Not me. I'll argue that Ram is a done deal and successful. I won't argue that "Dodge is performance" means no base cars, or that Jeep should have all the SUV/CUVs in the American brands. Maybe they should and maybe they shouldn't. That's neither here nor there when Dodge is two LX cars an an SUV (that Stellantis says isn't be supplanted by new JGCL), and Chrysler only has RU and 300 coming into a big merger with a company looking for an outlet for smaller and medium cars and CUVs that don't fit Jeep.

It's been a pretty common defense of ending certain models with no replacements.

I'd also argue that when they stripped Ram away from Dodge they tore the heart out of Dodge with that move. As I pontificated in another post, Dodge was the counterpart to Chevy or Ford - the "working man's" vehicle. Take away the trucks and you also take the work out of Dodge. Now Dodge's entire brand position hangs on an idea based around a roughly 8 year period from 50 years ago when a few of their models were muscle cars.

I think Ram's current models would be just as successful as Dodge Rams. In fact the DS used to wear a Dodge nameplate when it was originally released. I remember something about he crosshair grille being an issue for the designers of one or the other and now neither Dodge or Ram wear that grille anymore.

 

[Tony K]

I'd also argue that when they stripped Ram away from Dodge they tore the heart out of Dodge with that move. As I pontificated in another post, Dodge was the counterpart to Chevy or Ford - the "working man's" vehicle. Take away the trucks and you also take the work out of Dodge. Now Dodge's entire brand position hangs on an idea based around a roughly 8 year period from 50 years ago when a few of their models were muscle cars.

I look at it as Dodge taking advantage of its greatest notoriety, the muscle era. Everyone is familiar with a certain Hemi Orange Dodge Charger from a 70s TV show.

I think Ram's current models would be just as successful as Dodge Rams. In fact the DS used to wear a Dodge nameplate when it was originally released. I remember something about he crosshair grille being an issue for the designers of one or the other and now neither Dodge or Ram wear that grille anymore.

Probably true, but this is about more than just the marketability of a line of vehicles. Re-merging the two will cost something, not to mention cause unnecessary disruption within both Dodge AND Ram divisions. Just the signage issues alone are a thing. Gotta deal with all the administrative costs. Ram VIN was still Dodge until 2012, IIRC. I'm really agnostic about Dodge Trucks vs Ram Trucks, but how much is it really worth to Stellantis to re-merge the two? I say fix Dodge's problems as-is and march on.