After the K-Cars

6666 Views 81 Replies 24 Participants Last post by Doug D, 2 mo ago

hmk123

Discussion Starter · 3 mo ago

From reading allpar over the years I learned (if I understood correctly) that the Chrysler of the nineties was heavily influenced by AMC. Not just by vehicles like the LH cars and the Grand Cherokee but also engineering and production methodologies. I always wondered what Chrysler’s pipeline looked like for future models before they absorbed AMC. What would Chrysler have looked like in the nineties without AMC?

Reactions: 2

41 - 60 of 82 Posts

valiant67

· #41 · 3 mo ago

codypet said:
And if I remember correctly fleet sales were all Dodge right? Shouldn't have that been Plymouth technically? Shouldn't the mini Ram Van (later Ram C/V) been a Plymouth if the down market vehicles were supposed to be Plymouths? I know that was all considered Dodge Truck division, but it highlights what a mess it really was.

Fleet sales were mixed between Dodge and Plymouth. But it tended to be regional. For example, a strong Dodge dealership kept California running Dodge police cars when both the Dodge and Plymouth were basically identical. Ohio ran Plymouth, West Virginia ran Dodge - both as police cars and even down to the regular fleet cars like Spirit and Acclaim.
Good point on the minivan. Should have been Plymouth since it was low line, should have been Dodge since they had the truck division.
To further confuse things, Chrysler/Plymouth dealers could carry Dodge trucks back then.

Reactions: 4

85lebaront2

· #42 · 3 mo ago

One of the things we used to joke about AMC products was the fact that they used just about everybody's parts, I will just address the 6 cyl engines, ignition, could be a Delco or Autolite distributor, Carburetors, if it was the 196 power pack, it was easy, a Carter WCD 2 barrel, single barrel if I remember correctly, there were two Carter models and 3 Holley models. In order to give a customer a quote for a major tune-up, I had to look at the car and then see if I had the parts in stock and if not, call one of the local jobbers with a number and see if they had it.

LouJC

· #43 · 3 mo ago

aldo90731 said:
As bad as Daimler ended being for Chrysler, the RWD LX cars --300, Magnum and Charger, and its derivative Challenger, may never have come to fruition. These cars have been cash cows for Auburn Hills for many years.

At the same time, Grand Cherokee may not have gotten as soft as it is today. I test drove WK2 many times; was never able to pull the trigger: it felt more like driving a sedan than a Jeep.

I had this same feeling, about the WK2. I tried 4 of them, to possibly replace my old '07 WK-I. What I found:
interior light years nicer, much better quality of materials, etc
better ride quality
However:
you can't get a V8 without the air suspension, which I didn't really want due to repair costs & complexity
the auto trans programming in eco mode makes the Hemi feel SLOW...compared to my old '07 with the Chrysler 5 speed. In sport mode yes it feels like it should
harder to fit larger tires and suspension lifts, but all modern SUVs are like that. I don't want 60 series tires aired down on the beach, but that's what you get on the WK-II.
I really don't need or want all the gadgets, but again, it is impossible to avoid at this point
I guess I'll be forced into a Wrangler or Gladiator, nothing else they sell interests me.

Or, I can semi-restore the old '07.
I'm already doing that on my old '98. It will be a quarter century old next month!

See less See more

Reactions: 1

AdventurerSport

· #44 · 3 mo ago

hmk123 said:
From reading allpar over the years I learned (if I understood correctly) that the Chrysler of the nineties was heavily influenced by AMC. Not just by vehicles like the LH cars and the Grand Cherokee but also engineering and production methodologies. I always wondered what Chrysler’s pipeline looked like for future models before they absorbed AMC. What would Chrysler have looked like in the nineties without AMC?

Great question! I know that it cost some serious $$ at the time to buy out AMC/Jeep. I often wondered if they had put the same $$ into new platforms, what might have that been? Iacocca was pushing for more K-Car variants and updates, for sure, and AMC platforms (at least, the Premier/Monaco) helped lead the way to the LH cars, under the direction of Francois Castaing (who also come to Chrysler from AMC). Without him, we wouldn't have had the LH Cars and the Viper (at least, not as they came out).

We also gained the (at the time) state of the art Brampton, Ontario assembly plant that went on to build LH cars and later LX/LY platforms cars as well.

Plymouth may still be around had Daimler not killed them off. Plymouth was to be reinvigorated with the Prowler styling and the idea of the Kiosks in Malls may have taken off had it been given time. Of course, today, an App to build and price (and customize) a new Plymouth would be a great way to connect with young buyers. Scion tried the "customize me" approach but ultimately failed as no one had any connection to Scion. A customizable Plymouth as a "youth" brand could have been a success with the right marketing. Tying new Plymouth's to the old ones (Road Runner, Duster, GTX, etc.) would have a better impact (Rapid Transit System, connection to other Mopar brands as well). I'd market the new Dodge Hornet as a Plymouth and offer factory/dealer installed vinyl wraps that you could customize online as well as optional front grille/headlights, badges, and features to tie-in to the Plymouth Heritage while still feeling "custom".

JS

See less See more

Reactions: 1

AdventurerSport

· #45 · 3 mo ago

AHBGuru said:
The only reason Plymouth was weak is because of the exact reason I noted - Chrysler brass allowed it to happen.

You're forgetting brand loyalty was still a thing back then, even though the cars were largely badge-engineered by that time.

Brand loyalty could be a thing again, with the right marketing. That advantage was allowed to lapse, and it shouldn't have been. Marketing largely ignored the brand loyalists (in most fields, not just auto sales) as the logic was "fans will buy no matter what, we have to reach the undecided people".

JS

valiant67

· #46 · 3 mo ago

AdventurerSport said:
Great question! I know that it cost some serious $$ at the time to buy out AMC/Jeep. I often wondered if they had put the same $$ into new platforms, what might have that been? Iacocca was pushing for more K-Car variants and updates, for sure, and AMC platforms (at least, the Premier/Monaco) helped lead the way to the LH cars, under the direction of Francois Castaing (who also come to Chrysler from AMC). Without him, we wouldn't have had the LH Cars and the Viper (at least, not as they came out).

We also gained the (at the time) state of the art Brampton, Ontario assembly plant that went on to build LH cars and later LX/LY platforms cars as well.

Plymouth may still be around had Daimler not killed them off. Plymouth was to be reinvigorated with the Prowler styling and the idea of the Kiosks in Malls may have taken off had it been given time. Of course, today, an App to build and price (and customize) a new Plymouth would be a great way to connect with young buyers. Scion tried the "customize me" approach but ultimately failed as no one had any connection to Scion. A customizable Plymouth as a "youth" brand could have been a success with the right marketing. Tying new Plymouth's to the old ones (Road Runner, Duster, GTX, etc.) would have a better impact (Rapid Transit System, connection to other Mopar brands as well). I'd market the new Dodge Hornet as a Plymouth and offer factory/dealer installed vinyl wraps that you could customize online as well as optional front grille/headlights, badges, and features to tie-in to the Plymouth Heritage while still feeling "custom".

JS

One big problem was the purchase of AMC, plus Lamborghini, Gulfstream, etc. left little money for product development and the formerly ground-breaking K cars got stale.
Plymouth wasn't killed by DCX. It was in effect mortally injured much earlier. DCX only removed the life-support plug.

Reactions: 4

AdventurerSport

· #47 · 3 mo ago

valiant67 said:
One big problem was the purchase of AMC, plus Lamborghini, Gulfstream, etc. left little money for product development and the formerly ground-breaking K cars got stale.
Plymouth wasn't killed by DCX. It was in effect mortally injured much earlier. DCX only removed the life-support plug.

Maybe, but the plan to eliminate Eagle and pour those resources into Plymouth (along with plans for the Plymouth PT Cruiser, and retro-(Prowler) styled Voyager and Breeze) had been in place just prior to DCX formation. So, while Plymouth had been neglected for decades, there was a short term attempt to revitalize the brand in late 1997 prior to the 1998 "merger of equals" that ultimately, as stated, pulled the plug.

I would have loved to see what they could have done with Plymouth post 1998 had plans continued. A uniquely styled mini-van (Plymouth only) with the Dodge Caravan/Chrysler T&C continuing with conventional styling, retro Breeze, PT Cruiser as a Plymouth (car was a hit when released, may have been enough to justify Plymouth sticking around). When the Chrysler Pacifica CUV first came out, many critics pointed to the low initial sales due to the first ones being Fully Loaded and priced too high. Many folks, at the time, pointed out that a Plymouth version may have scored the "volume sales" to support the higher end Chrysler loaded models. I was working at a Chrysler dealership at that time, and the first Chrysler Pacificas that we got on the lot were fully loaded, 3rd row seat, AWD, large V6 (4.0L), leather, etc. A 3.3 or 3.8L Plymouth with FWD and 2 rows, cloth interior, would have been priced much lower.

When the LX cars finally debuted, (as a side, I heard from many sources that the RWD cars from Chrysler would have released in 02 or 03 had Daimler not put us back years in development to use their parts instead) a Plymouth version could have been uniquely styled, and played to the volume/economy market like before. A Plymouth Fury, with V6 standard, V8 optional, cloth interior, nice stereo, and similar size/shape to the Chrysler 300, would have sold. The Chrysler 300, by comparison, could have been leather only, V8 only, with AWD optional and upscale interior/stereo standard. Basically, a uniquely styled, Plymouth badged 300 Touring.

The Chrysler 200 mid-size (and Sebring before it, from 07-up) could have had a Plymouth (Acclaim) version that was 4 cyl FWD only, with manual and automatic transmissions available. The Chrysler model would be V6 Auto only with AWD optional. The Plymouth would have been the volume seller and would have made a great rental car as well.

Dodge would have been in the middle, with 4 cyl standard and V6 Optional (Avenger) and Charger would still be V6 standard and V8 optional, largely unchanged.

Challenger probably would not have been a Challenger at all, but a Cuda, and sold as a Plymouth.

New Hornet would be a Plymouth, not a Dodge. Chrysler 100 would have been made, but as a Plymouth (Scamp?)(Valiant?)

Fiat models would have been made to work as Plymouth's for the US market. Fiat 500 (2 door, retro) could still be a Fiat, but some of the other models (500L, 500X) could have been sold as Plymouth's. The 500L (I always thought) could have been the basis for a new PT Cruiser. The 500X could have been marketed as a Plymouth Duster or Trailduster with AWD.

The Voyager mini-van would still be a Plymouth and still the volume seller with the Chrysler as the upscale model.

JS

See less See more

jimboy

· #48 · 3 mo ago

aldo90731 said:
As bad as Daimler ended being for Chrysler, the RWD LX cars --300, Magnum and Charger, and its derivative Challenger, may never have come to fruition. These cars have been cash cows for Auburn Hills for many years.

At the same time, Grand Cherokee may not have gotten as soft as it is today. I test drove WK2 many times; was never able to pull the trigger: it felt more like driving a sedan than a Jeep.

Yes, and while we are mud slinging, let's not forget that Chrysler Corporation did almost nothing to protect its own interests from Daimlers predatory behaviour. That shows a level of business naivety? that is very concerning, in retrospect. Where was Chrysler's management and Board during the takeover? They had just done exactly the same thing with AMC several years earlier and wiped out their whole automobile line-up, yet they assumed Daimler would treat them differently? This constant blaming of Daimler for Chrysler's self inflicted wounds is getting really old. Most of the 'Bad stuff' foisted on Chrysler has turned into a huge cash cow for the company in the last 2 decades, so can we please stop whining about last weeks fish?

Reactions: 5

Erik Latranyi

· #49 · 3 mo ago

jimboy said:
Yes, and while we are mud slinging, let's not forget that Chrysler Corporation did almost nothing to protect its own interests from Daimlers predatory behaviour. That shows a level of business naivety? that is very concerning, in retrospect. Where was Chrysler's management and Board during the takeover? They had just done exactly the same thing with AMC several years earlier and wiped out their whole automobile line-up, yet they assumed Daimler would treat them differently? This constant blaming of Daimler for Chrysler's self inflicted wounds is getting really old. Most of the 'Bad stuff' foisted on Chrysler has turned into a huge cash cow for the company in the last 2 decades, so can we please stop whining about last weeks fish?

The Board and executives were paid off by Daimler to take the deal and not ask too many questions.

Reactions: 4

Adventurer55

· #50 · 3 mo ago

jimboy said:
Yes, and while we are mud slinging, let's not forget that Chrysler Corporation did almost nothing to protect its own interests from Daimlers predatory behaviour. That shows a level of business naivety? that is very concerning, in retrospect. Where was Chrysler's management and Board during the takeover? They had just done exactly the same thing with AMC several years earlier and wiped out their whole automobile line-up, yet they assumed Daimler would treat them differently? This constant blaming of Daimler for Chrysler's self inflicted wounds is getting really old. Most of the 'Bad stuff' foisted on Chrysler has turned into a huge cash cow for the company in the last 2 decades, so can we please stop whining about last weeks fish?

AMC had almost no auto lineup. As I recall, the Renault Premier, and the old AMC wagon was pretty much it.

Reactions: 1

AdventurerSport

· #51 · 3 mo ago

Erik Latranyi said:
The Board and executives were paid off by Daimler to take the deal and not ask too many questions.

Yup

AdventurerSport

· #52 · 3 mo ago

Adventurer55 said:
AMC had almost no auto lineup. As I recall, the Renault Premier, and the old AMC wagon was pretty much it.

The only "true" AMC engineered car at that time was the Eagle Wagon. The others in the lineup were Alliance and Encore.
The Renault Premier was quickly rebadged to Eagle Premier after the buyout, but many still had AMC part #s on them (I had a 90 Dodge Monaco version for a while, and even the emissions sticker under the hood said "AMC" for the 3.0L V6. Door tags and tire pressure stickers said AMC as well.

Chrysler had no intention of "saving" AMC but rather absorbing them and profiting from their manufacturing ways and Jeep products.
By the time Daimler proposed (in public) the "merger of equals", the persons in charge of Chrysler just took their payoffs and ran. They didn't care about Chrysler anymore than Chrysler had cared about AMC in 1986 or AMC leaders cared about Hudson in 1954 (one of the main demands of Hudson leadership during the merger talks with Nash-Kelvinator was that they didn't want the name Hudson to end in regards to vehicle production. Of course, the last Hudson was made in 1957, on a Nash platform).

JS

See less See more

aldo90731

· #53 · 3 mo ago

jimboy said:
Yes, and while we are mud slinging, let's not forget that Chrysler Corporation did almost nothing to protect its own interests from Daimlers predatory behaviour. That shows a level of business naivety? that is very concerning, in retrospect. Where was Chrysler's management and Board during the takeover? They had just done exactly the same thing with AMC several years earlier and wiped out their whole automobile line-up, yet they assumed Daimler would treat them differently? This constant blaming of Daimler for Chrysler's self inflicted wounds is getting really old. Most of the 'Bad stuff' foisted on Chrysler has turned into a huge cash cow for the company in the last 2 decades, so can we please stop whining about last weeks fish?

Got up on the wrong side of bed...?

Erik Latranyi said:
The Board and executives were paid off by Daimler to take the deal and not ask too many questions.

Yup. It was a sequence of events: passing over Bob Lutz, bringing in lame Bob Eaton, promises for a “merger of equals” which Daimler never intended to keep, sidelining Schrempp, etc.

Reactions: 4

jimboy

· #54 · 3 mo ago

aldo90731 said:
Got up on the wrong side of bed...?

Yup. It was a sequence of events: passing over Bob Lutz, bringing in lame Bob Eaton, promises for a “merger of equals” which Daimler never intended to keep, sidelining Schrempp, etc.

Maybe! But you have to agree that the failure was Chryslers as well, lack of corporate responsibility, is the term I was looking for.

Reactions: 1

jimboy

· #55 · 3 mo ago

Adventurer55 said:
AMC had almost no auto lineup. As I recall, the Renault Premier, and the old AMC wagon was pretty much it.

Kind of like Chrysler today. ironic, isn't it?

Adventurer55

· #56 · 3 mo ago

jimboy said:
Kind of like Chrysler today. ironic, isn't it?

Yes, and I remember posting that same thing a few months back. This company has a very short memory apparently. Once you abandon a particular market, it's very hard to reestablish a presence back in it. If they indeed follow thru with the "10 year Chrysler and Dodge plan", it's not going to be for the faint of heart. This company is not a risk taker at all. The only risk they have taken is the plow a Hellcat into anything that will accept it.

Reactions: 5

Erik Latranyi

· #57 · 3 mo ago

Adventurer55 said:
Yes, and I remember posting that same thing a few months back. This company has a very short memory apparently. Once you abandon a particular market, it's very hard to reestablish a presence back in it. If they indeed follow thru with the "10 year Chrysler and Dodge plan", it's not going to be for the faint of heart. This company is not a risk taker at all. The only risk they have taken is the plow a Hellcat into anything that will accept it.

Yes, breaking back into the midsize pickup market will be very difficult when Dodge was a top player in that market until someone cancelled the Dakota instead of updating it.....which would have taken minimal investment (Pentastar, 8-speed, Uconnect). Actually, the 2010 Dakota offered the NAV radio with Uconnect.

Reactions: 1

aldo90731

· #58 · 3 mo ago

After owning the midsize segment, Dodge let Dakota turn into a cheap, ugly dud. Again, under Daimler ownership.

I was at Mitsubishi Motors when Dodge launched the last Dakota. We had a bunch of Dodge people come to the reveal of the Mitsubishi Raider, which was based on and built alongside Dakota. After seeing how Mitsubishi spiced up Dakota’s interior, they admitted that they had totally dropped the ball with the truck.

It was a similar story with Chrysler Sebring convertible, and many other products. I owned a 1998 Chrysler Sebring convertible; it was a great car. By 2008, its successor had gone way backwards in every respect: styling, fit and finish, driving dynamics, quality of materials, etc.

When Chrysler went bankrupt in 2009, with few exceptions the product portfolio was a pile of garbage.

I owned a 2009 JK Rubicon at the time: the 3.8 V6 had outlived its usefulness, the interior was just terrible.

Having said that, CDJR dealers were so much easier to deal with then than today. One time the rear locker stopped working. They diagnosed the problem in one day; ordered a new axle overnight, and got my Jeep back at the end of the second day.

Today, good luck scheduling your Jeep within two weeks, having a dealer diagnose the problem in less than a week, another 10 days for Stellantis to approve the warranty work, and sending a replacement axle in less than a month.

See less See more

Reactions: 5

77 Monaco Brougham

· #59 · 3 mo ago

jimboy said:
Maybe! But you have to agree that the failure was Chryslers as well, lack of corporate responsibility, is the term I was looking for.

The term I would use, I think, describes the situation more accurately. ...KARMA!
And, of course, you know what they say about Karma...

Reactions: 2

movaldes

· #60 · 3 mo ago

AHBGuru said:
Was this the transverse torsion bar system designed by Chrysler's Bob Batchelor, who also did the M-body? There's an article about that somewhere on Allpar, too.

I don't think that's what he's referring to. The transverse torsion bar system was an evolution of the torsion bar front suspension Chrysler used for quite some time.
It made fitting a smaller vehicle with a torsion bar suspension possible.

I vaguely remember the front cradle he's mentioning but can't remember details of it.

41 - 60 of 82 Posts