Allpar Forums banner

1 - 20 of 53 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Re-create the 5.0L fox body from the 80's and early 90's. Boxy - but stylish (67-69 Dart), 300hp turbo 4cyl base engine, stick shift standard, base price $24,989. *Optional engine 6.4L hemi, 6-speed standard, 8-auto $2000 more, leather more, sunroof more - max price with 6.4 and full load $35,989.

But what would you call it? Demon and Dart names already taken - kinda.
 

·
Registered
2014 Jeep Compass
Joined
·
186 Posts
About as improbable as the dozen or so people claiming that a total revamp of the Chrysler & Dodge line up, with about 10 cars deep (each) with PSA chassis' and engines underneath them that can magically happen with the budget Chrysler/Dodge are given.
Not even the LA chassis should go that cheap. The 124 probably can't take the 6.4L (and not like Mazda would allow such a powerful combo of a 300hp I4 and 485hp V8 into that chassis on that line in Japan), and there's no other chassis that could take the Hemi for cheap.
Their best opportunity, personally, is to re-re-revamp the chassis they have, add the 2.0T, create a new line of Forced Induction Hemi (like a supercharged 345/370?) or even just the 392, then a hybrid SRT. Keep the Challenger name.
 

·
Registered
2020 T/A 392, GoMango
Joined
·
3 Posts
Re-create the 5.0L fox body from the 80's and early 90's. Boxy - but stylish (67-69 Dart), 300hp turbo 4cyl base engine, stick shift standard, base price $24,989. *Optional engine 6.4L hemi, 6-speed standard, 8-auto $2000 more, leather more, sunroof more - max price with 6.4 and full load $35,989.

But what would you call it? Demon and Dart names already taken - kinda.
The idea is sorta cool. Never happen though but as long as we're waxing retro, lets bring back the Twister name along with a Looney Tunes character...

72861
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,291 Posts
You want 300HP for $25k? You're nuts. Sorry but you're talking like it's 2000 and there isn't such a thing as inflation. $25k in 2000 is $37,800 today. That's more realistic. Hell even since 2010, $25k then is just shy of $30k today. And you can get 300HP for $30k, in a Challenger V6.

If you want lightweight, you need to still pass modern crash tests, which makes it even harder, because you're talking huge R&D costs... for what? Mazda didn't even sell 8000 Miatas last year and the new one is by far the BEST of all of them (still light, way more power than an NA Miata, modern safety, etc). Where's the profit?

Pretend you're presenting to the CEO, make a business case, I'd love to see it. Seriously, small coupes are dead. The Fiat cost FCA almost nothing to bring to market because of the Miata, they let Mazda absorb the huge R&D cost for that experiment. Medium and large coupes are dying. The Challenger is holding on because of, let's face it, the Hellcat and Demon maintaining buzz. The Mustang is a cheap easy 500HP car with the 5.0, so it's survived. The Camaro is on life support. Coupes are the most useless of all car styles (2 doors, and most of them have useless back seats, nobody wants that when you can get a CUV that's just as fast and efficient with a slight handling penalty that 99.99% of drivers don't care about).
 

·
Registered
2003 pt cruiser, 1969 D200, 1966 Coronet 500, 1990 LeBaron Coupe
Joined
·
2,032 Posts
Why can't the shorter wheel base challenger platform be made into 4dr squarish like body similar to Plymouth Valiant 1967-1969 (with trunk over hang) + 2020 like bumpers similar to the dodge challenger & cab forward sloped windshield, with 4cyl turbo hybrid transmission Chrysler valiant. Acceleration would be electric motor and gas motor to maintain speed. So big enough gas motor to go over mountain passes 70-80mph and battery & maybe capacitors to provide electric boost to pass 4+ semi trucks on that mountain pass to push the car to 100-120ish. Plus maybe a PACIFICA sedan/cuv (sits lower than the van) spin off for hybrid and EV and van like sliding back doors kept. Chrysler Cranbrook. A name from the past.
 

·
Registered
2014 Jeep Compass
Joined
·
186 Posts
Why can't the shorter wheel base challenger platform be made into 4dr squarish
Any modification to that Challenger platform, particularly just to make a four door, would make the engine bay much smaller firstly, and would lack some space secondly. Everything would be more compact, and would cost big money to change the design to pass safety, while there wouldn't be much space left for a lot of hybrid components.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
37,286 Posts
Why can't the shorter wheel base challenger platform be made into 4dr squarish like body similar to Plymouth Valiant 1967-1969 (with trunk over hang) + 2020 like bumpers similar to the dodge challenger & cab forward sloped windshield, with 4cyl turbo hybrid transmission Chrysler valiant. Acceleration would be electric motor and gas motor to maintain speed. So big enough gas motor to go over mountain passes 70-80mph and battery & maybe capacitors to provide electric boost to pass 4+ semi trucks on that mountain pass to push the car to 100-120ish. Plus maybe a PACIFICA sedan/cuv (sits lower than the van) spin off for hybrid and EV and van like sliding back doors kept. Chrysler Cranbrook. A name from the past.
Since the 300 is already small-ish on the inside for a "large car", especially in the rear seat, I doubt making an even smaller version is going to attract more buyers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
288 Posts
They're not interested in selling us tech stripped cars for drivers.

You want the desireable engine you have to pay for all the creature comforts the non drivers and soccer moms want.

Driver's cars are a thing of the past.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,332 Posts
They're not interested in selling us tech stripped cars for drivers.

You want the desireable engine you have to pay for all the creature comforts the non drivers and soccer moms want.

Driver's cars are a thing of the past.
If there was a business case for it, don't you think Detroit would build them, legalities aside?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,291 Posts
The fact remains because there aren't buyers for tech stripped driver's cars.
There is countless proof of this.
Manual transmission cars are all but extinct.
Dodge had "Core" SRT models, and nobody bought them. Replaced with Scat Packs, nearly all buyers opt for the higher-end seats and tech packages. Including custom orders.

There is no business case to be made for cars nobody is going to buy in a segment that nobody cares about.

The reason? Everyone who asks for these "Affordable" vehicles does not actually spend their money on them, they are window shoppers. They are the people who go into a business, waste a salesman's time talking about the $3000 home theater system they want, and then buy the cheapest TV at WalMart because it's all they can actually afford.
(Note: This is a generalization, but it is true in 99 out of 100 cases. Sales numbers do not lie. Maybe you think you are (or you actually are) the 1 in 100, and you own or bought an SRT Core, or other similar stripped car with a hot engine in the last 5-8 years and are an outlier).

The people who do actually have money for these cars want more. I can't blame them. Comfortable suspension, ease of ingress/egress, reliability, and tech are the things that buyers care about. I care about it. I love a sporty, fun car. But not too sporty. I'm old. My back can't take a Camaro SS on a long trip. I need a car with more supple suspension. Sure, I can't take it around a track as fast, but do I care if I can't do that if I can actually fit my kids in the back, and go on a long trip, and not feel like I just got out of a 300 mile NASCAR race? A Charger R/T or Scat Pack is fun, and fairly comfortable. A Jeep Hemi is 7/10ths as fun, and an SRT one 9/10ths as fun, but even more comfortable. Based on sales numbers, it sure seems like most people agree with those feelings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
288 Posts
There is countless proof of this.
Manual transmission cars are all but extinct.
Dodge had "Core" SRT models, and nobody bought them. Replaced with Scat Packs, nearly all buyers opt for the higher-end seats and tech packages. Including custom orders.

There is no business case to be made for cars nobody is going to buy in a segment that nobody cares about.

The reason? Everyone who asks for these "Affordable" vehicles does not actually spend their money on them, they are window shoppers. They are the people who go into a business, waste a salesman's time talking about the $3000 home theater system they want, and then buy the cheapest TV at WalMart because it's all they can actually afford.
(Note: This is a generalization, but it is true in 99 out of 100 cases. Sales numbers do not lie. Maybe you think you are (or you actually are) the 1 in 100, and you own or bought an SRT Core, or other similar stripped car with a hot engine in the last 5-8 years and are an outlier).

The people who do actually have money for these cars want more. I can't blame them. Comfortable suspension, ease of ingress/egress, reliability, and tech are the things that buyers care about. I care about it. I love a sporty, fun car. But not too sporty. I'm old. My back can't take a Camaro SS on a long trip. I need a car with more supple suspension. Sure, I can't take it around a track as fast, but do I care if I can't do that if I can actually fit my kids in the back, and go on a long trip, and not feel like I just got out of a 300 mile NASCAR race? A Charger R/T or Scat Pack is fun, and fairly comfortable. A Jeep Hemi is 7/10ths as fun, and an SRT one 9/10ths as fun, but even more comfortable. Based on sales numbers, it sure seems like most people agree with those feelings.
I'll fully agree with you that they're tickling the nostalgia bone of retirees and laughing to the bank while doing it.

I was just a bit late on the last semi basic 6.1 cars. When I was ready to buy, they were no longer available and the price had inflated several thousand dollars in one year because of it. For a bunch of stuff I didn't want and would never use.

They did the same thing with the manual 6.4L Ram 2500s. When I was in need of a newer truck they were gone.

Fully accept I have to build my driver's car myself because there are more soccer moms and retirees buying cars than drivers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,332 Posts
Irrelevant to what I said.

I don't care why they won't do it. The fact remains.
There's nothing "irrelevant" about a lack of business case. Businesses have to make money. They don't have to cater to everyone's desires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
288 Posts
There's nothing "irrelevant" about a lack of business case. Businesses have to make money. They don't have to cater to everyone's desires.
I never said anything about it being sound business for profit. Which makes pleading the business aspect irrelevant to what I said. I stated they're not interested in selling cars like that. Which is true. I never said why. This is how relevancy works.

However FWI, the company I work for is willingly and strategically selling our latest designed machine at a NET LOSS of $100,000 per machine to get the machines out there. The machines capability is speaking for itself between owner operators and are already on pace for profitability on this new machine in 2 years. They're taking $100,000 loss per unit while undergoing a $20,000,000 plant expansion. Without asking for government assistance.

You dont ALWAYS have to profit on every single sale.
 

·
Move along, nothing to see here
Joined
·
2,445 Posts
I never said anything about it being sound business for profit. Which makes pleading the business aspect irrelevant to what I said. I stated they're not interested in selling cars like that. Which is true. I never said why. This is how relevancy works.

However FWI, the company I work for is willingly and strategically selling our latest designed machine at a NET LOSS of $100,000 per machine to get the machines out there. The machines capability is speaking for itself between owner operators and are already on pace for profitability on this new machine in 2 years. They're taking $100,000 loss per unit while undergoing a $20,000,000 plant expansion. Without asking for government assistance.

You dont ALWAYS have to profit on every single sale.
What you're describing is known as a "loss-leader". Selling a product at a net loss in order to get the customer in the door and then either sell them more profitable add ons or other products down the line. FCA five years ago might have gone along with this. FCA now will not. Sergio put a stop to it in 2016/17. Low margins on each sale are exactly why Dart and 200 were axed. It's exactly why no new models for Dodge or Chrysler have materialized either. As soon as they factor in development costs against what they can sell a new model Dodge or Chrysler branded vehicle the margins vanish. The only reason the existing cars are profitable is because they were developed over a decade ago. This is why I've been saying for a while now that you will never see a new Dodge or Chrysler model again. All the profits are in Jeep and they split the cash cow off of Dodge when they created RAM. There is no value in the Chrysler or Dodge brands aside from sentimental value in Mopar fans like us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,291 Posts
It might mean that no new Dodge or Chrylser sedans are made, but even then, with the revenue, sales numbers, and margins on the Challenger and Charger, they may very well develop new platforms. They just would take a back seat to the badly-needed Dodge and Chrysler CUV and SUV products.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tony K

·
Move along, nothing to see here
Joined
·
2,445 Posts
It might mean that no new Dodge or Chrylser sedans are made, but even then, with the revenue, sales numbers, and margins on the Challenger and Charger, they may very well develop new platforms. They just would take a back seat to the badly-needed Dodge and Chrysler CUV and SUV products.
I am a huge Dodge/Chrysler fan but just to play devil's advocate here, make a business case for a Dodge or Chrysler branded CUV/SUV. Jeep already has a full line of SUV/CUV's from small to full size and they sell at much higher margins "because Jeep." Why would FCA make a Dodge or Chrysler branded CUV when it costs about the same to build as the comparable Jeep but will have to sell for thousands of dollars less than that Jeep.

Face it, there is no viable business case for Dodge or Chrysler other than, "we want it." Ask yourself, if Dodge or Chrysler ceased sales of their branded vehicles next week, would the market even notice? They've been absent from the small and midsize CUV market since... well forever. They haven't made a small or mid size car in 4 years. Journey and Grand Caravan haven't been competitive in well over 5 years and sold because they appeal to the value shopper and fleets. I don't think anyone has really noticed that they stopped making either of those.

Point is, Dodge and Chrysler both have been absent from the market's most competitive and growing segments for almost a decade now. As far as most vehicle buying consumers are concerned, they already don't exist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
288 Posts
What you're describing is known as a "loss-leader". Selling a product at a net loss in order to get the customer in the door and then either sell them more profitable add ons or other products down the line. FCA five years ago might have gone along with this. FCA now will not. Sergio put a stop to it in 2016/17. Low margins on each sale are exactly why Dart and 200 were axed. It's exactly why no new models for Dodge or Chrysler have materialized either. As soon as they factor in development costs against what they can sell a new model Dodge or Chrysler branded vehicle the margins vanish. The only reason the existing cars are profitable is because they were developed over a decade ago. This is why I've been saying for a while now that you will never see a new Dodge or Chrysler model again. All the profits are in Jeep and they split the cash cow off of Dodge when they created RAM. There is no value in the Chrysler or Dodge brands aside from sentimental value in Mopar fans like us.
I don't give a care in the world why Fiat does anything. I don't work for them nor do I hold any shares in the company. None of their management or finance details/justifications natter to me. My only care is what products they offer to sell, which is nothing that I would buy.

Not sure why guys keep telling me reasons and justifications that don't matter to me as a consumer.

They (meaning all auto manufacturers that sell in my area) don't sell anything I want, so I buy the bare minimum because I need to get around.

To drive anything I enjoy, I'll have to build myself. No problem, there are lots of retirees to make profit off with loaded (bloated) cars.
 
1 - 20 of 53 Posts
Top