[Adventurer55]

The issue what could they actually do with a sedan to make it a compelling choice over a CUV.
What would say make a person trade their Honda Pilot for a Chrysler 300?
It’s a tall order even if the 2029 300 is executed with a flawless launch and is beloved by the automotive press…

Thats the problem. Modern sedans must be very aero. Making them a pia to enter and exit. Unless they make them with gull wing doors.

 

[DarkSky]

The issue what could they actually do with a sedan to make it a compelling choice over a CUV.
What would say make a person trade their Honda Pilot for a Chrysler 300?
It’s a tall order even if the 2029 300 is executed with a flawless launch and is beloved by the automotive press…

Don’t think a Honda Pilot customer be the target customer for a sedan.

A more attainable group would be the people who buy semi-premium 2-row compact or midsize SUVs. Think Buick Envision, Nissan Murano, Toyota Crown Signia/Venza, Chevy Blazer, Genesis GV70, etc.

Those all put style above pure practicality considering they don’t have a third row, often have compromised cargo capacity with a sloping roofline, and a lower ride height than more traditional SUVs.

 

[freshforged]

Thats the problem. Modern sedans must be very aero. Making them a pia to enter and exit. Unless they make them with gull wing doors.

Why? Efficiencies in the realm of powertrains (EV vs ICE) have largely made that moot. Yes, there is the range hobgoblin, but that is a pail consideration next to a much bigger problem—initial cost.

 

[Doctor No]

Sadly enough two months ago I joked that this would be the 2028 Chrysler Halcyon.....looks a lot like the Motor Trend image.

 

[Adventurer55]

Why? Efficiencies in the realm of powertrains (EV vs ICE) have largely made that moot. Yes, there is the range hobgoblin, but that is a pail consideration next to a much bigger problem—initial cost.

I don't disagree that there isn't really a need, but low aero in sedans doesn't appear that it helps selling them today. I'm 6'4, there's no way I'd buy a sedan today. They're simply hard for my 65 year old frame to get in and out of. But the last car I owned was a then new 1985 Aries wagon. We outgrew it two years later and bought a van.

 

[suzq044]

This is one of the problems CDJR faces: They have a lot of history to draw on.

They keep bringing back old names on new cars that have little to nothing to do with even the design aspect of the vehicles beyond say vague shape. lol
Jeep's only retro design is the Wrangler.. but it's getting stale because it's already gone almost a decade on JL. It's time for an update that isn't a sticker package.
Dodge's only retro design is the Charger. We know what happened there.
Ram sells pickups and doesn't need retro since it's 'brand' only goes back to like 09.

Chrysler has what? The 300? Sebring, Cirrus, Prowler, PT Cruiser, Neon? Yet they chose the 300. Which is going to repeat the same mistake they made with Charger, if it goes swoopy sedan instead of chunky, understated muscle. The armed guard to the action star. If a new 300 doesn't have that presence that the original 300 did? It's gonna fail.

The original had presence. Big, blocky, brutal, presence. Which is why I think the Charger should've been a 300 with inspiration from the fuselage-era to keep the R-wing aero. But if you make it look like the Halcyon? .. it's not gonna sell. It's too supercar, and the Chrysler 300 is more musclecar than supercar.

So they need to be putting Chryslers non-minivan presence back on the map well before this supposed 300 debuts. And it shouldn't look like it would slice through the air.

The other reason it was called the baby Bentley wasn't the stupid grille, though it was certainly the first of the big-grilled vehicles of the era. It was because it has presence. It still does. Baby Bentley was to me always a misnomer when it had more of a Rolls Royce presence to me. Poor-mans variation that it was in the beginning but -- wide, planted, muscular. Not the most aerodynamically efficient. It didn't need to be.

Neither does a Rolls'.

 

[Dave Z]

Personally I find Rolls front ends a bit gross, like a Lincoln that got out of hand... but overall I agree.

They keep bouncing around. One day it's 800V or nothing with FSD, the next it's a new affordable PT Cruiser, now it's a 300, and it's always too far away.
For God's sake, guys, just change the Wagoneer S into a Chrysler 300E, so you can get around the slow start to sales. Make a Chrysler Newport or Saratoga or whatever out of the Charger, using a 2.0T or 1.6T/H or Pentastar V6 or whatever's cheapest but good enough. Just do something already. We all know Chrysler's not going to challenge Cadillac again. Maserati and Alfa Romeo will try to do that, no matter how stupid it is, so let them. Chrysler itself has only ever really been a Caddy competitor rarely.

 

[Marantzer]

Do you hear that sound in the distance? Its the fat lady singing.

 

[johnb300m]

2029?
What a joke. They're basically lying to our faces at this point.
This goose is cooked.
They're not doing anything of substance.

What makes me the most angry is Feuell's whole team.
Even after the CTC layoffs, that place still has as many staff as there were in the DCX days, maybe more.
What on earth are these all even doing?
I can't even comprehend what kind of a money furnace that place is, producing nothing, when a company of similar or smaller size, was pumping out products for various brands, and they were nearly full lines.

 

[12soldier]

Maybe it'll be more like an CUV. Acura is doing it with its RSX. Or maybe a supercar that takes on the Vette?

 

[Ian]

Whyyyyy 2029??? 🙄 Gosh that company....

 

[johnb300m]

Whyyyyy 2029??? 🙄 Gosh that company....

As someone else mentioned, they could do a face and butt lift to the Wagoneer S, make it glitzy and plush, and it would be a pretty nice Chrysler SUV!
Alas.....I don't think they're doing that...
tic toc tic toc

 

[MIKE3187]

I dont see anywhere that the company itself confirmed this is happening, let alone a 2029 launch date. Seems to be more speculation with no actual facts 😑

 

[Zagnut27]

I hadn’t noticed it, and scanning through the thread I don’t think anyone else mentioned it either….but an estimated price of $65k??

 

[mentalicca]

I hadn’t noticed it, and scanning through the thread I don’t think anyone else mentioned it either….but an estimated price of $65k??

Motortrend is estimating that, not STLA. Not sure where pricing really would be on something like that, these days.

 

[movaldes]

Motortrend is estimating that, not STLA. Not sure where pricing really would be on something like that, these days.

I think a more important question would be Why?
Where did they get that number from? Is a new Chrysler 300 at that price point something that will sell?

 

[ScottNH]

$65K seems fine to the brass at Stellantis. Everything else they sell is overpriced, under-engineered, and with the lowest quality you can imagine. In other words, status quo.

 

[Adventurer55]

Motortrend is estimating that, not STLA. Not sure where pricing really would be on something like that, these days.

Next thing you know, someone runs with it and soon the headline reads, STLA prices 300 at 65k. And the "Are you kidding me"? Starts.

 

[Zagnut27]

Motortrend is estimating that, not STLA. Not sure where pricing really would be on something like that, these days.

I don't think STLA has confirmed any part of this, its all just speculation on MT's part unless I'm mistaken (as Mike3187 also said above)

 

[rmtodd]

If a Chrysler 300 EV was offered for $65,000 in 2029, who would buy it? Cadillac already offers 2 EV CUV's for significantly less, and will likely add an EV sedan or two under $60k. The market is already overloaded with expensive slow-selling EV's. The original 300 offered a lot for the price. Ford and GM (Lincoln and Caddy) and Hyundai/Kia and Tesla seem poised to do that in the EV space.