Allpar Forums banner
21 - 40 of 71 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,295 Posts
Save cash. Drop development of the Chrysler 100 and Dodge B-C segment (below Dart). Bring Fiats over to be sold through the Fiat dealers who have invested tons of money with little return.

Durango is on the chopping block. If the revamped interior and 8-speed do not increase sales sufficiently, expect it to be dropped.

We already know the Cherokee and Chrysler 200 will consume 9-speed production until late 2014, early 2015 when the minivans will need it. What happens to Dart?! My prediction: Dart will get refreshed for 2016 with the 9-speed.

The danger I see is if the 200 fails to sell as well as 200/Avenger combined (like the Dart selling below Caliber levels) , we will see an overall loss of market share.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,758 Posts
Erik Latranyi said:
Save cash. Drop development of the Chrysler 100 and Dodge B-C segment (below Dart). Bring Fiats over to be sold through the Fiat dealers who have invested tons of money with little return.

Durango is on the chopping block. If the revamped interior and 8-speed do not increase sales sufficiently, expect it to be dropped.

We already know the Cherokee and Chrysler 200 will consume 9-speed production until late 2014, early 2015 when the minivans will need it. What happens to Dart?! My prediction: Dart will get refreshed for 2016 with the 9-speed.

The danger I see is if the 200 fails to sell as well as 200/Avenger combined (like the Dart selling below Caliber levels) , we will see an overall loss of market share.
The major reason the 200/Avenger are selling so well(and the Dart is lagging) is the heavy incentives on them. The Caliber always had at least $1500 on the hood ever since it came out, and even more than that later in its life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,262 Posts
Stratuscaster said:
And ignoring the fact that some folks absolutely will NOT buy a Fiat. Period.
I dont think that particular lesson has sunk in with upper management yet.

The disconnect is this. SM thinks that every brand in the Fiat empire can cover any other brand ( With some exceptions like Ferarri etc ), so that if he drops a Dodge, a Fiat can take up that slack. He also thinks that dropping a Chrysler and adding a Dodge will result in a net loss of near zero.

What reality is, is that a considerable amount of the buying populous is very attached to their "brand". Branding is all that we have been exposed to in the past 40 years really. So in the customer AND the consumers mind, Dodge =/= Chrysler =/= Fiat =/= Lancia.

I know you know this Strat, just saying it AGAIN in the hopes that someone in the right place DOES read it and maybe a different phrasing of the topic will change some minds. We can always hope :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,791 Posts
Danno said:
I dont think that particular lesson has sunk in with upper management yet.

The disconnect is this. SM thinks that every brand in the Fiat empire can cover any other brand ( With some exceptions like Ferarri etc ), so that if he drops a Dodge, a Fiat can take up that slack. He also thinks that dropping a Chrysler and adding a Dodge will result in a net loss of near zero.

What reality is, is that a considerable amount of the buying populous is very attached to their "brand". Branding is all that we have been exposed to in the past 40 years really. So in the customer AND the consumers mind, Dodge =/= Chrysler =/= Fiat =/= Lancia.

I know you know this Strat, just saying it AGAIN in the hopes that someone in the right place DOES read it and maybe a different phrasing of the topic will change some minds. We can always hope :)
Agreed 100%
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,862 Posts
Avenger deals yesterday at our local dealer where I went shopping were such that I would have to be stuck on teh tech and MPG of the Dart, as nice driver that it is to choose one over the Avenger. I prefer the handling of the Dart but the Avenger was 3 grand less with more stuff. I am waiting to see what comes of the 100 before making my final choice though.
 

·
Vaguely badass...
Joined
·
43,887 Posts
Danno said:
The disconnect is this. SM thinks that every brand in the Fiat empire can cover any other brand ( With some exceptions like Ferarri etc ), so that if he drops a Dodge, a Fiat can take up that slack. He also thinks that dropping a Chrysler and adding a Dodge will result in a net loss of near zero.
I don't think that Marchionne thinks there would be a net loss of near zero, but rather an acceptable loss that can be regained later. Now, what's acceptable to him might seem unthinkable to you and I.

That basic CUSW is under at least 6 models in the next few years. You're talking the consolidation of at least 3 separate platforms today into - essentially - one. There HAS to be a good chunk of cost savings involved.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,262 Posts
Stratuscaster said:
I don't think that Marchionne thinks there would be a net loss of near zero, but rather an acceptable loss that can be regained later. Now, what's acceptable to him might seem unthinkable to you and I.

That basic CUSW is under at least 6 models in the next few years. You're talking the consolidation of at least 3 separate platforms today into - essentially - one. There HAS to be a good chunk of cost savings involved.
But at the cost of how much market share?

I guess thats why they get paid the big bucks, and we just get to sit back and armchair it :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
424 Posts
Moparian said:
The major reason the 200/Avenger are selling so well(and the Dart is lagging) is the heavy incentives on them. The Caliber always had at least $1500 on the hood ever since it came out, and even more than that later in its life.
What about cash for clunkers? Wasn't the Sebring and Caliber the only ones up for grabs in the Chrysler lots during trade ins? That moved a ton of metal, but that was with them matching the $4,500 with a total of 9 thousand off sticker. I know a few people who nabbed calibers, kept them for a few years, and only were out a grand or two overall for several years of ownership. I can see why Sergio was spraying verbal boiling water on the person who thought that was a good idea.

Does anyone know the breakdown of sebrings/calibers moved directly from the cash for clunkers saga?

I dunno, my brother is in the camp still of wanting a Caliber for features for way less money. Power inverter, sirius radio, chill zone (big soda drinker for road trips), etc. He doesn't care about a soft dash and the damage he does to a hard one would tear up a soft one (and would be harder to repair)... He selected the car over the other ones for bang for the buck features that the after market wouldn't supply cheaply. Sure it wasn't the most powerful, nor the most fuel efficient, but over the life of the car he would be happy.

I just feel if it got the refresh the Sebring had, (although the interior was already pretty premium in its last year) it would be a huge victory on all fronts... but its gone now so there would be no way to know. The new tigersharks, a little more aero work, and spending the money pushing the updates and decking it out would have really made the caliber "pimped as standard". I don't know the costs involved with all of that, but I'm sure its less than building the dart.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,791 Posts
I wish they would have the power inverters in more models (And I mean 3 prong ones too) its super useful!
 

·
Vaguely badass...
Joined
·
43,887 Posts
trumpet12345 said:
What about cash for clunkers? Wasn't the Sebring and Caliber the only ones up for grabs in the Chrysler lots during trade ins?
Not just Sebring & Caliber.

The rules said the new car had to be no more than $45000 and must have a combined mpg rating that's at least 4 mpg higher than your trade-in's. Trucks only had to better your MPG by as little as 2.

Chrysler Sebring
Dodge Avenger
Dodge Caliber
Chrysler PT Cruiser (truck)
Chrysler Town & Country (truck)
Dodge Grand Caravan (truck)
Dodge Dakota (truck)
Dodge Journey (truck)
Dodge Nitro (truck)
Jeep Compass (truck)
Jeep Liberty (truck)
Jeep Patriot (truck)
Jeep Grand Cherokee (truck)

All of those vehicles qualified for CFC, depending on the vehicle you were trading in.

My Stratus is rated at 22MPG combined. The new car would have to get at least 26MPG combined. A new truck would only have to get at least 24MPG combined. Based on that, I could not get a new Caliber (which is a car and only gets 24), but I could get a new Patriot (which is a truck and gets...24.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
424 Posts
Oops, forgot all the weird rules of it. That explains the issue with the explorer vs prizm. Before I was into cars, after my dad past, we kind of got hosed in rapid fashion. Won't happen again know though lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Erik Latranyi said:
Save cash. Drop development of the Chrysler 100 and Dodge B-C segment (below Dart). Bring Fiats over to be sold through the Fiat dealers who have invested tons of money with little return.

Durango is on the chopping block. If the revamped interior and 8-speed do not increase sales sufficiently, expect it to be dropped.

We already know the Cherokee and Chrysler 200 will consume 9-speed production until late 2014, early 2015 when the minivans will need it. What happens to Dart?! My prediction: Dart will get refreshed for 2016 with the 9-speed.

The danger I see is if the 200 fails to sell as well as 200/Avenger combined (like the Dart selling below Caliber levels) , we will see an overall loss of market share.
If the Grand Wagoneer is off the table, highly unlikely Durango will be killed.

MoparNorm said:
Killing off a vehicle (Grand Wagoneer) that few had asked for and even fewer would buy, isn't a bad thing.
Using that energy and capital to create something that Jeepers have been asking for and they resist building, would be better.
A true XJ replacement and an MJ Jeep pickup come to mind.
The beauty of the Grand Wagoneer is 3 row seating like the Ford/ GM triplets w/ close to 30mpg with the diesel 8 speed combo. You would be surprised how well this vehicle sell.
 

·
Active Jeeper
Joined
·
31,129 Posts
70MoparMan said:
The beauty of the Grand Wagoneer is 3 row seating like the Ford/ GM triplets w/ close to 30mpg with the diesel 8 speed combo. You would be surprised how well this vehicle sell.
The 3 row seating isn't doing much to help Durango sales, but a diesel could change that.
It gets us back to the branding issue, what sells better, a Jeep nameplate that isn't a Jeep, or a Dodge SUV on a unit body?
Both versions have their detractors who don't like the compromises made to enable both the roll down the same line.
The Wagoneer would have been nothing more than a Durango with a Jeep grill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Danno said:
I dont think that particular lesson has sunk in with upper management yet.

The disconnect is this. SM thinks that every brand in the Fiat empire can cover any other brand ( With some exceptions like Ferarri etc ), so that if he drops a Dodge, a Fiat can take up that slack. He also thinks that dropping a Chrysler and adding a Dodge will result in a net loss of near zero.

What reality is, is that a considerable amount of the buying populous is very attached to their "brand". Branding is all that we have been exposed to in the past 40 years really. So in the customer AND the consumers mind, Dodge =/= Chrysler =/= Fiat =/= Lancia.

I know you know this Strat, just saying it AGAIN in the hopes that someone in the right place DOES read it and maybe a different phrasing of the topic will change some minds. We can always hope :)
I see your point. Chrysler has and always will be a luxury brand. Dodge, the performance brand, etc. For Chrysler/Dodge, creating "duplicates" of each style with different price points and options I think would be the way to go, similar to what they did in the early '90's. I see the Fiat brand being comparable to what Scion is to Toyota, appealing to the younger buyers/hipsters on a budget. They would focus on small, fuel efficient cars for urbanites. If they want individual brand unity, keep all pickups with the Ram brand. A mid-sized (Dakota) and a small-sized (Strada clone) would be a good fit for Ram given that there is a significant price difference between models. The whole point to this is keeping individual brand unity. If that means making "clones" between Chrysler/Dodge so be it, but make sure that the Chrysler models are more luxurious and the Dodge models are sportier (and adjust price points to match). That will differentiate the models. They should take a page from the '90's with for example the Concorde/Intrepid/Vision series. Same car, but had different price points, options, etc.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,295 Posts
Stratuscaster said:
Not just Sebring & Caliber.

The rules said the new car had to be no more than $45000 and must have a combined mpg rating that's at least 4 mpg higher than your trade-in's. Trucks only had to better your MPG by as little as 2.
Don't forget, that GM & Chrysler were both very low on inventory when Cash for Clunkers hit, benefitting Ford and the foreign manufacturers far more than it helped the two who needed it most.

nm05 said:
I see your point. Chrysler has and always will be a luxury brand. Dodge, the performance brand, etc. For Chrysler/Dodge, creating "duplicates" of each style with different price points and options I think would be the way to go, similar to what they did in the early '90's. I see the Fiat brand being comparable to what Scion is to Toyota, appealing to the younger buyers/hipsters on a budget. They would focus on small, fuel efficient cars for urbanites. If they want individual brand unity, keep all pickups with the Ram brand. A mid-sized (Dakota) and a small-sized (Strada clone) would be a good fit for Ram given that there is a significant price difference between models. The whole point to this is keeping individual brand unity. If that means making "clones" between Chrysler/Dodge so be it, but make sure that the Chrysler models are more luxurious and the Dodge models are sportier (and adjust price points to match). That will differentiate the models. They should take a page from the '90's with for example the Concorde/Intrepid/Vision series. Same car, but had different price points, options, etc.
Chrysler is not a luxury brand as it will be the sole minivan. Dodge is no longer performance based on the Dart. Fiat was not viewed as "special" until they put money on the hoods of those 500s that were piling up.

My point is that there is no effort being made to create brands by management. All brands will sell low and high-end models.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,000 Posts
Is the Durango that tough of a sell ?
I personally think it's one of the best vehicles out there. Too pricy perhaps ?
I just thought this new style Durango would do much better in the marketplace.
If I needed an SUV, I'd pick the Durango over the Grand Cherokee and likely the Grand Wagoneer as well. But I don't need an SUV so there's no sale to me.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,813 Posts
Stratuscaster said:
Not just Sebring & Caliber.

The rules said the new car had to be no more than $45000 and must have a combined mpg rating that's at least 4 mpg higher than your trade-in's. Trucks only had to better your MPG by as little as 2.

Chrysler Sebring
Dodge Avenger
Dodge Caliber
Chrysler PT Cruiser (truck)
Chrysler Town & Country (truck)
Dodge Grand Caravan (truck)
Dodge Dakota (truck)
Dodge Journey (truck)
Dodge Nitro (truck)
Jeep Compass (truck)
Jeep Liberty (truck)
Jeep Patriot (truck)
Jeep Grand Cherokee (truck)

All of those vehicles qualified for CFC, depending on the vehicle you were trading in.

My Stratus is rated at 22MPG combined. The new car would have to get at least 26MPG combined. A new truck would only have to get at least 24MPG combined. Based on that, I could not get a new Caliber (which is a car and only gets 24), but I could get a new Patriot (which is a truck and gets...24.)
All I know is that at the end of CFC, we had precisely 3 new cars total left on our lot. Was a weird next couple months...
 
21 - 40 of 71 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top