From the article (and not a dig on the writer but on the FCA decision making):

There will only be a Chrysler minivan, coded RU, to be followed by after some time by a Chrysler full-sized crossover, coded R-something (probably not RV or RX). This will be the second Chrysler minivan-based crossover, after the acclaimed but slow-selling Pacifica.

I love the irony in this plan. There aren't enough sales to justify keeping two minivans (both of which ARE selling well) but we've got enough resources to chase a market where Chrysler could not compete even with a very good product (Pacifica was good, maybe it was too far ahead).

 

From the article (and not a dig on the writer but on the FCA decision making):


I love the irony in this plan. There aren't enough sales to justify keeping two minivans (both of which ARE selling well) but we've got enough resources to chase a market where Chrysler could not compete even with a very good product (Pacifica was good, maybe it was too far ahead).

While I agree, Pacifica was roughly five years too early.

Mike

 

I wager that in due time, 3 row CUVs will have the same stigma attached to them that Minivans currently suffer. I also suspect that when that happens, a new market will emerge, but only after a slight resurgence in Minivan sales. Practically speaking, nearly all of the CUVs offer nothing but compromises in practicality next to a minivan. Appearance aside, there is not a single advantage to CUVs, with the exception of AWD being more available.

And in a twist of Irony, CUVs are more the soccer mom mobile than Minivans as it is. When I picture soccer mom's, I picture suburbanite, vain moms who are very image conscious - transporting their perfect soccer playing children to where ever - they'd be more likely to want to more positive image associated with CUVs. My anecdotal support to this is: I see far more soccer ball window stickers on CUVs these days than I do minivans. It's the rest of us more "average Joes" that lean toward minivans. My house isn't perfectly clean, my children aren't the cool kids in school. My wife doesn't wear make up every day (She is great the way she is). And I live out in the sticks. I want something that gets the job done, gimme a minivan.
Once the CUVs get uncool, I predict the practicality of the minivans will become tempting to many.

I'll confess though, right after getting married with our first kid on the way my wife initially wanted to look at a Pacifica. Feeling we didn't quite need a minivan. Started car shopping, it didn't last long - AT ALL. Our focus turned to minivans right away. That said, I'll say again, that if Chrysler could justify 2 minivans and a pacifica back then. It should be able to now.

 

I wager that in due time, 3 row CUVs will have the same stigma attached to them that Minivans currently suffer. I also suspect that when that happens, a new market will emerge, but only after a slight resurgence in Minivan sales. Practically speaking, nearly all of the CUVs offer nothing but compromises in practicality next to a minivan. Appearance aside, there is not a single advantage to CUVs, with the exception of AWD being more available.

And in a twist of Irony, CUVs are more the soccer mom mobile than Minivans as it is. When I picture soccer mom's, I picture suburbanite, vain moms who are very image conscious - transporting their perfect soccer playing children to where ever - they'd be more likely to want to more positive image associated with CUVs. My anecdotal support to this is: I see far more soccer ball window stickers on CUVs these days than I do minivans. It's the rest of us more "average Joes" that lean toward minivans. My house isn't perfectly clean, my children aren't the cool kids in school. My wife doesn't wear make up every day (She is great the way she is). And I live out in the sticks. I want something that gets the job done, gimme a minivan.
Once the CUVs get uncool, I predict the practicality of the minivans will become tempting to many.

It is what is it Right now and it going to take awhile for the Stigma to change.... My wife for example.... flat out stated she will not drive a minivan, period. Does it have more room?, does it seat better?, better fuel economy?, is it less expensive? Check, Check, Check, Check..... will she drive one NOPE.... and that does seem to be the trend.... will it change maybe in 5-10 years but I bet longer. She has a Durango Citidel.... you can bet you pants I rather have paid for a T&C.

I see far more Grandparents in Minivans then Soccer moms....... but in the end many of the CUVs are minivans just better styled minivans.... and styling does count.

 

If Chrysler wants to participate in big volume markets, it should put a lot more effort into the 200.
Like the Dart it is an OK car, not a standout that will draw in a significant chunk of the market.
I wonder if any CUV that's not a Jeep will be a big draw in the growing market.

 

Very, very good question. Only time will tell.

 

Dodge should never have had a minivan. It should have been a Plymouth exclusive, like turbo cars were a Dodge exclusive, except for the ones Chrysler also got, and like Daytona was usually a Dodge exclusive, except for one year (two?) of the Laser.

 

PS> I agree CUVs will cool but will never disappear.

 

random thought: the turbo SRT cuv, coming out a month after the Dart redux.. what if that's your new Caravan (sans the Grand, obviously)? lol

 

I hope they don't put the "Caravan" or "Grand Caravan" name on anything but a minivan.

 

Can somebody clarify the release date? The article says this:

"August 2015: Launch of the 2016 Chrysler Town & Country"

and then says this:

"December 2015 or January 201[6]: First RU production"

So which is it: August 2015 or December 2015/January 2016? I see that those dates came from different sources, so is the actual production launch still relatively unknown?

 

Summer 2016.


Just suppose 2016 Town and Country may not be RU. Dodge and Chrysler RT production continues until early 2016.

 

I believe production launch is late 2015, while unveiling is August.

 

Well since the Grand Caravan is going away I guess I'll have to buy a stupid Toyota or Honda. My wife doesn't like the T&C at all. By the way her 34,000 dollar crew came better optioned then the 36,000 dollar T&C we test drove.
Mick

 

Except, of course, that even the T&C will be an all new vehicle so any reference to the current van and its placement is nonsensical. Maybe after the new van is seen and driven opinions can be made but until then such comments are purely emotional.

 

The CUV is just the latest evolution in popularity before it runs its course.
1) Station wagons are boring. We need something better.
2) Minivans make us seem like a dull family. We need something better.
3) SUVs are overkill for us plus they use too much gas. We need something better.
4) CUVs will do for now, until they are no longer the "something better".

 

Spot on!
Amusingly enough, CUVs are more like an evolution of the station wagon than anything else. While it has taken from SUVs, I'd consider the CUV a combination between a station wagon and a Minivan when you get down to it. So much so that "station wagons" are all but dead - they basically all got taller roofs and people started calling them Cross overs. Meanwhile, the Minivans are holding on. And probably will. They already survived the SUVs, the CUVs didn't really really eat away at it anymore. Whether Chrysler chooses to stay the leader in this game thought, remains to be seen.

 

You guys have some bad info. There will be an abbreviated 2016MY RT beginning next summer before switching to RU in early 2016.

 

I kinda figured that when the revised dates came out. Means we have to change either the page name or something else...

 

Back on topic, I feel that there is still a profitable market to keep both Vans, what else can you get for sub 25k that hold 7 people?

My Mother n Laws 2012 SXT came in a 26k and was very well equipped.

 

Back on topic, I feel that there is still a profitable market to keep both Vans, what else can you get for sub 25k that hold 7 people?

My Mother n Laws 2012 SXT came in a 26k and was very well equipped.

Not only the pricing, but the style. I think Chrysler is focusing too much on the pricing of the GC (keeping the RT) while in fact, you have distinct buyers for both vans. A T & C might not appeal to a GC buyer. There is one model I would buy and it's a CG Crew plus. If a salesperson was trying to sell me a T&C, I would just walk out the door. When the new T&C comes out, I would still most likely choose a Crew plus sitting beside it.

Keep the T&C, fine, but you will only hurt yourself and your minivan market share while your Dodge buyers will go to Kia or even Toyota.

 

IMO You have the minivan owners that are happy with what it is and looks like and then you have people that do not like the tall wagon look. So if you change the look, do you gain sales? This is one reason to keep two minivans, a traditional and one with out of the box exterior styling.

Two out of the box renderings.

 

It is quite reasonable to assume the new van, being a Chrysler, will bear more resemblance to the current Chrysler van than the current Dodge van. It's a matter of personal taste. In fact, I think the assumption that the new van will appeal more the the T&C buyer than the Caravan buyer is not out of line.

 

Not from what I have seen. No more than the 200 to new 200. The sheetmetal between the 2 is nearly completely shared. There will be no common sheet metal to the new model.

I will 100% confidence can say that the current Dodge and Chrysler (which in a dark parking garage at a rental lot you have to walk to front to identify) will bear 1000% more resemblance than the Current T&C to the new T&C.

 

I'm sure it will be different this time - yeah right.
They did away with Plymouth and total minivan sales went down.
They did away with SWB vans and total minivan sales went down.
They do away with Dodge and total minivan sales will go down.
But a CUV will pick up many of those lost customers and attract new ones.
Did that happen when Journey replaced the SWB vans?
There's nothing wrong with chasing new markets, but why turn your back on a market you dominate to do it?

 

I'm sure it will be different this time - yeah right.
They did away with Plymouth and total minivan sales went down.
They did away with SWB vans and total minivan sales went down.
They do away with Dodge and total minivan sales will go down.
But a CUV will pick up many of those lost customers and attract new ones.
Did that happen when Journey replaced the SWB vans?
There's nothing wrong with chasing new markets, but why turn your back on a market you dominate to do it?

Why any car maker exec can't see the logic in this is beyond me.

 

The "new" corporate look van will still favor the old T&C, not the Grand Caravan.
Line up a 2014 200 and a 2014 Avenger and ask someone with no car knowledge which one the 2015 200 shares styling cues with and they are going to pick the 2014 200, not the Avenger. The same will apply to the vans.

 

Think 2015 200....

 

I wonder how many of you have actually done the market research necessary to make the claims a lot of you are making about what market each van appeals to and how many independent customers each has etc.

My guess is none.

 

There is nothing to agree with or disagree with the idea that the new van would like more like the T&C then a the Caravan which is just a taillamp and front clip version of each other is just plain silly.

If all it takes is a grill to describe corporate styling then again I got nothing for you....

The new Van will share no single stamping with the current van, the current TWINS share nearly each.... if the grill style is why you would go out and buy a Toyota or Honda... DO IT!! Cuz you will pay more and either look like the Dodge grill in fact since the grill seems do be what defines it from a styling point as a Dodge....they both more resemble a T&C grill.

Fact is the Discount Dodge will be made up to the point the new Van is released.

BOHOHO no Dodge Minivan.... guess what I am #1 Dodge fan over all the other division and I am crying no more of there not being Dodge minivan because it doesn't fit. If I want I minivan on the same lot, in the same show room there will be a minivan. Oh no without a Crosshair grill WHAT EVER WILL I DO :'(

 

300M and 300C design elements in common.... were pretty minimal... now look at the LH cars vs the K-based predecessors.

 

How does the fact new minivan does not share a panel with the old one matter? Neither did the 2015 200 but it looks a lot more like a 2014 200 than an Avenger. Not everyone will have your tastes. The lack of a Dodge styled van WILL matter to some people.

 

A. the 2015 200 does not look like the old 200 not in the least... if you took off the brands and asked people they would have no clue they where the same named vehicle

B. the Avenger is not a sheetmetal twin, they have few shared component have very distinctive styling.

C. The only thing that make the Dodge minivan a Dodge is the equipment, parts of the rear fascia and lamps, and parts of the front fascia and grill.... It isn't a Dodge styled vehicle its a minivan with a Dodgish grill.....

it those who are Dodge fans (minivan fans) go buy a Honda, Toyota, Kia, or Nissan because they don't have a Dodge version of Chrysler corporate Minivan ... then I got nothing, NOTHING it simply defies logic.

Now if they buy a KIA because the margin on Chrysler have been driven up to point that the Kia is a better value, I get that, sorry. FCA is hunting a better margin customer and more residual value, good luck with the Kia.

 

Kia in particular seems to directly compete with the Caravan, not the T&C. Toyota and Honda both look to me like they compete with Chrysler. I have come to this conclusion strictly based on my diligent research of watching 2 or 3 commercials. The one thing that has been proven by research on buyers who were left stranded when Plymouth and Pontiac were killed, is that buyers did not automatically go to the stable mate brands. I believe it was only a third or so.

 

That was in a Era prior to dealership consolidation.... Darn I even think that was at time they were pushing separate showrooms for Chrysler/Plymouth and Dodge.... Maybe it was Jeep/Eagle.... anyway a dealer buddy was complaining about it. Remember that Lutz said in a interview that he didn't want to kill Pontiac but is was part of the buyout deal.

 

You're right that the Death of Plymouth TM was in another era and Pontiac was the Governments pound of flesh taken from GM (I wish they took that pound out of GM management and not Pontiac, but c'est la vie). But however it played out, buyers have more brand loyalty than company loyalty if they search for something more than a rolling appliance.

 

Since the CDJR consolidation, you would hope that there would be better retention, but I think that the plan will be to scale back fleet sales drastically so there will be volume decrease there, to shed the low margin business so there will be Customers shed to KIA, hopefully to down stream products like a CUSW CUV which ever brand it appears..... So with the fleet, low end, and those so Dodge oriented that they buy a HONDA?!!? (remember Dodge still exists just not the minivan) I bet 1/3 is about right for the retention, that capacity going to the new CUV which likely would even see better margins then the Minivan....

 

Once again:

Chrysler = mainstream brand, with trim levels and equipment that range from Plymouth basic to New Yorker luxury. Think Ford or Toyota. Also includes minivans.
Dodge (includes SRT) = aspirational specialty performance brand, with muscle cars and other testosterone-inspired vehicles.
Jeep = sport utility vehicles.
Ram = light trucks and commercial vans.

Plus:

Alfa Romeo = performance-luxury, competing with mid-range cars from European and Asian manufacturers.
Maserati = performance-luxury, competing with upper-range cars from European and Asian manufacturers.
Fiat = in America, smaller, definitely European cars; outside North America, a global brand.

 

http://www.allpar.com/cars/concepts/chrysler/200C.html

The only evidence I've seen for it being LC based is the plan to make it at the same plant

Keep in mind they dropped the “dual headlights” thing and went to integrated LED DRLs. The concept does not look street legal in terms of lighting. There are definite differences. Some were likely needed to be legal, most are because the styling matched Chrysler cues of five years ago.

From the back. Apparently Marc likes worm’s-eye views and I like head-level views. There's a bit more in common from the rear but both are pretty generic. The concept wisely avoided alignment-sensitive “both trunk lid and rear fender” lighting.

 

http://www.allpar.com/cars/concepts/chrysler/200C.html

The only evidence I've seen for it being LC based is the plan to make it at the same plant

Keep in mind they dropped the “dual headlights” thing and went to integrated LED DRLs. The concept does not look street legal in terms of lighting. There are definite differences. Some were likely needed to be legal, most are because the styling matched Chrysler cues of five years ago.

From the back. Apparently Marc likes worm’s-eye views and I like head-level views. There's a bit more in common from the rear but both are pretty generic. The concept wisely avoided alignment-sensitive “both trunk lid and rear fender” lighting.

http://www.motortrend.com/future/concept_cars/112_0901_chrysler_200c_ev_concept/

Chrysler shortened the rear-drive LX platform by four inches for the 200C, and though the exterior is new, some shadows of the 300C remain. This should be expected and it's not a bad thing by any means. Recently promoted VP of Chrysler design Ralph Gilles oversaw both vehicles.

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/future/concept_cars/112_0901_chrysler_200c_ev_concept/#ixzz3GL5QMrh8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_LX_platform#LC

Concept vehicles using this platform include:

• Chrysler 200C EV sedan

There were also SAE Automotive Engineering magazine articles at the time backing this up.