[TicoSalem]

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).

You can get 300 HP for 25k in a base trim Ford Mustang with a manual trans right now. There is an ecoboost Mustang sitting at a dealership near me with touch screen and automatic transmission for just over $26k after incentives right now. 315 HP I believe.

Dodge can't touch this for that price. At least not given how much heavier and less nimble the base trim Challenger is.

That being said chasing entry level Mustang would be too costly for Dodge given the size of the market for these cars. Challenger is all about a big retro 1970 ish cruiser with a V8 not a pony car. More like a Gram Torino than a Mustang.

As for the how do you bring a dresser home comment or the no useful back seat comments well that is why you buy a Mustang and a CUV and switch off with the wife every once in a while.

My future garage will be an ecoboost Mustang with 101A package and a Badlands edition of the Bronco Sport. Unless MOPAR can provide better value and alleviate my quality fears.

Yes I have owned many Mopars and Fords both.

The Mustangs two lowest trims are the best bang for the buck on the market today. But at 4000 cars a month sold or now even less, do you wonder why big automotive companies don't care? Any decent CUV can sell 3 or 4 times that easy. The return on investment is not there for Dodge.

Bottom line the market won't get bigger just because Dodge introduces an awesome low cost pony car. Instead Ford Mustang profits will be squeezed and Dodge will lose money too as they compete for share in a shrinking market.

 

[Tomguy]

Yeah, well who they going to call when they have to bring home a dresser or a couple sheets of plywood?

I could have picked up a 10 year old van for a song and still had my V8.

 

[Tony K]

Yeah, well who they going to call when they have to bring home a dresser or a couple sheets of plywood?

A rental agency. If you use a large cargo-capable vehicle sporadically to carry cargo, rental makes more sense fiscally. Heck, I got rid of my last pickup for a diesel Liberty that was capable of pulling 5000 lbs (2 1/2 tons). My diesel Grand Cherokee will tow 7500 lbs (3.75 tons), and both fit better in a 1978 2-car garage than a Ram 1500. I've towed with both, including towing a 2500 lb military surplus trailer home to Indy from South Carolina through the hills between Bremen, GA and Huntsville, AL.

Dodge has the formula right, which is make cars that specifically young people covet. And even if you have to settle for a V6 Charger or Challenger, it still looks the part.
The only thing Dodge is missing is a Civic Type R competitor...the Neon SRT is a legendary nameplate, it means something. I'm sure Peugeot has a small car that SRT engineers can tinker with...
View attachment 72893

You ain't putting a dresser or plywood sheets in my $55,000 Pacifica Pinnacle!

No, but you can probably rent a trailer for a day pretty cheap compared to a pickup. Back to the Dodge formula. I'd say the formula is right for sons and daughters of blue collar Midwesterners, and you're right about the Civic Type R competitor
.

As for the how do you bring a dresser home comment or the no useful back seat comments well that is why you buy a Mustang and a CUV and switch off with the wife every once in a while.

Exactly, and if that's still not big enough, rent a trailer or even a larger vehicle. Not everyone has room for a pickup in the garage or even on the street. I've parked a full-size pickup and a rental Armada on the street near Polk and Lombard in San Fran. There's a reason smaller cars and CUVs are rather popular in town.

 

[TicoSalem]

A rental agency. If you use a large cargo-capable vehicle sporadically to carry cargo, rental makes more sense fiscally. Heck, I got rid of my last pickup for a diesel Liberty that was capable of pulling 5000 lbs (2 1/2 tons). My diesel Grand Cherokee will tow 7500 lbs (3.75 tons), and both fit better in a 1978 2-car garage than a Ram 1500. I've towed with both, including towing a 2500 lb military surplus trailer home to Indy from South Carolina through the hills between Bremen, GA and Huntsville, AL.
View attachment 72897

No, but you can probably rent a trailer for a day pretty cheap compared to a pickup. Back to the Dodge formula. I'd say the formula is right for sons and daughters of blue collar Midwesterners, and you're right about the Civic Type R competitor
.

Exactly, and if that's still not big enough, rent a trailer or even a larger vehicle. Not everyone has room for a pickup in the garage or even on the street. I've parked a full-size pickup and a rental Armada on the street near Polk and Lombard in San Fran. There's a reason smaller cars and CUVs are rather popular in town.
[/QUOT
I have 4x8-ft trailer that I pull with i-2011 escape

A rental agency. If you use a large cargo-capable vehicle sporadically to carry cargo, rental makes more sense fiscally. Heck, I got rid of my last pickup for a diesel Liberty that was capable of pulling 5000 lbs (2 1/2 tons). My diesel Grand Cherokee will tow 7500 lbs (3.75 tons), and both fit better in a 1978 2-car garage than a Ram 1500. I've towed with both, including towing a 2500 lb military surplus trailer home to Indy from South Carolina through the hills between Bremen, GA and Huntsville, AL.
View attachment 72897

No, but you can probably rent a trailer for a day pretty cheap compared to a pickup. Back to the Dodge formula. I'd say the formula is right for sons and daughters of blue collar Midwesterners, and you're right about the Civic Type R competitor
.

Exactly, and if that's still not big enough, rent a trailer or even a larger vehicle. Not everyone has room for a pickup in the garage or even on the street. I've parked a full-size pickup and a rental Armada on the street near Polk and Lombard in San Fran. There's a reason smaller cars and CUVs are rather popular in town.

I have a 4x8 trailer that I pull with my 2011 Ford Escape. We specifically bought this vehicle new to haul stuff so it has a tow package. It looked nice in the garage in black next to the black Mustang.

 

[mopar22]

Yeah, well who they going to call when they have to bring home a dresser or a couple sheets of plywood?

Uhaul truck rental

 

[wolfsblood07]

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.

I like the idea. Call it Daytona. And at the same time bring back a sedan version with less sporty styling called Stratus.

 

[suzq044]

Why can't the shorter wheel base challenger platform be made into 4dr squarish ....

Because Photoshop isn't reality. Just because you can think it doesn't mean it's worth the cost. Not to mention, a 4 door Challenger is a Charger.

 

[Tomguy]

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.

Branding.
Jeep can be the luxury SUV/CUV brand very easily. They want to bring GC further upmarket. People are MORE than willing to pay for a $70+k Grand Cherokee. Same with Grand Wagoneer. So what do you do with the $35k to $45k ones? Sell them as Dodges.

Jeep Grand Cherokee base trim level should be a well-equipped Limited and 4x4 standard. Period. Want a 2WD GC?Chrysler. Want a 2WD GC with a Hemi? Dodge.

Want a Cherokee under $30k? Chrysler. Turbo 6 Cherokee, Dodge.

Future CUV and SUV product can easily go to the Dodge and Chrysler brands allowing Jeep to move further upmarket. Same platforms as existing (or upcoming) Jeep vehicles keeps R&D to a minimum. Different fascias, and base trims running at the same lines. Lower suspensions for better EPA numbers are easier too when you don't need to carry the weight of Jeep, because believe it or not they actually do engineer things like the Renegade and Compass models to still have a bit of off-road prowess.

No, it isn't cannibalizing sales IF you differentiate the models properly. This isn't a "Sell the same van as a Dodge, Chrysler, and Plymouth" thing. This is a "Wood trim with nappa leather and no plastics at all as Jeep, carbon fiber trim with suede and lightness as Dodge, fabric seats and plastics as Chrysler"

You can get 300 HP for 25k in a base trim Ford Mustang with a manual trans right now. There is an ecoboost Mustang sitting at a dealership near me with touch screen and automatic transmission for just over $26k after incentives right now. 315 HP I believe.

Dodge can't touch this for that price. At least not given how much heavier and less nimble the base trim Challenger is.
...
But at 4000 cars a month sold or now even less, do you wonder why big automotive companies don't care? Any decent CUV can sell 3 or 4 times that easy. The return on investment is not there for Dodge.

Exactly the point. Dodge has the L platform. The company isn't going to invest on a new platform for just a coupe when the Challenger on the L platform sells almost as well as the Mustang. And it's a whopping 300lbs heavier than the Mustang. Note: "Whopping" is completely ironic here. Calling the base Challenger heavier and less nimble than the Mustang is like saying a domestic pig at 800lbs is heavier and less nimble than its 750lb counterpart. While technically true, both are pigs, and they aren't meant to enter races that have turns. So should they invest a new L replacement for 1 car to save 300lbs? Especially when the Mustang and Challenger have two different buyer types. Mustang buyers typically drive alone, and don't usually travel as much. Challenger buyers often have at least 1 passenger, or want something more comfortable on longer trips. I hate to show bias here being a Chrysler fan site but seriously, the Challenger R/T was much more comfortable on my round trip to Boston from Scranton than the Mustang EcoBoost. And they got the same MPG for me (18).

 

[KrisW]

Another, and bigger, reason to differentiate is to sidestep the off-road performance expectations for Jeep. While it's true that only a small percentage of Jeep buyers actually bring their luxury crossovers to a trail, that percentage is far, far bigger than it would be for Hyundai-KIA. But meeting those expectations costs money, and weight.

Chrysler versions of the product would not require such reinforcements, and so would be weight-competitive with the likes of Toyota, Honda and Hyundai, allowing better fuel economy; Dodge versions would offer higher performance, and so would still require some extra rigidity, but would still avoid the weight penalty of Jeep's higher-travel off-road suspension.

This is not something that requires PSA's presence to do. It's something that FCA could have done at every new model into to date, but has not.

 

[turbonetic]

Performance V8's aren't going away anytime soon and with the pandemic people will need lower cost options, charger and challenger are very big cars that have run amuck cost wise. Most millenials and gen y are also single, they dont need a 7 passenger SUV or an $80,000+ electric SUV - those are for 35+ millenials, X'er s and boomers. A quick hashtag search of #scatpack #hellcat #mustang #camaro on instagram will show the momentum of the current pricey cars. I am saying lower the threshold and let the floodgates open - build an affordable performance car that dominates drag racing for the next 20-30 years as the fox body does now. Gilles has said he had interest in building an FRS/BRZ type coupe before, this would be it. Dodge needs an entry level muscle car, with superman marketing

 

[Tomguy]

Most younger buyers don't care. You're not understanding the market.

The FRS/BRZ don't sell well at all. Younger buyers just want a car. They care more about the tech in their pocket than what they drive. If they drive at all. Uber and Lyft are more than sufficient for them. Why spend $300+ a month on a car payment, insurance, gas, bla bla, when you can get faster internet, a 5G phone, and have more than enough left over to Lyft everywhere you need to go? Not to mention more and more cities are putting up meters that are a dollar to park at for 30 minutes, it's stupid.

People who buy cars fall into two categories: People who just buy the nicest they can afford in their eyes (in terms of luxury, comfort, speed, etc.) and people who just buy whatever they think looks good that gets a decent consumer review score on whatever sites they researched on.

 

[KrisW]

Speaking to my younger (mid-to-late 20s) American colleagues, I don't think it's fair to say "don't want". It's not that young buyers don't want nice cars, it's that they just don't have that kind of money to blow on a car. Some of that is due to extra expenses that their parents didn't have at that age, like smartphones and internet service, but it's also down to high rents, declining incomes for the majority of young Americans, plus the very high student debts carried by graduates into their first employment.

Credit isn't as easy as it was either. That $300 only gets a fairly ordinary car, but only if you're a high income homeowner in a steady job for a long time. A single renter with a less steady or shorter employment history won't get such a good deal. That's the paradox of borrowing: it's only cheap to borrow if you don't need to.

 

[Tomguy]

I didn't say they don't want nice cars, if they want a car. The point is that:

1. Most younger buyers don't want a car, they need it;
2. Those that want a nice car see nice as different than their parents or those of us posting here.

Nice is tech, and luxury, for younger buyers. Self-driving, blind spot monitoring, auto-stop assist, etc. These are the things that the 20-somethings want, over speed / handling / performance. A lightweight coupe isn't really high on their list of something to buy unless it happens to have those items, for the majority of the buyers.

So when those buyers can afford something nice, the kind of car that they do buy is often a Model S or Y with autopilot. This is the minority of those 20-somethings / younger millennials though, as you pointed out, for many of them working 40-60+ hours a week at $10 an hour or less.