[Jacksson]

Just because you consider them to be doesn't make it true.



The prolonged life of the Charger, Challenger, and 300 has everything to do with the previous FCA management and nothing to do with Stellantis or Opel. Hence why even have this thread - Chrysler has finally been given a budget so they can actually produce new products.



Cars have become enormously more complicated than before. I am thankfully Stellantis has enough sense to not rush some half-baked vehicle to the market just so it can lose money. The 4-6 year development timeline for brand new cars has been the norm for decades. You could make an argument for rebranding DS cars and bringing them over here as Chryslers but it's clear they're trying to do the brand reboot correctly from the start utilizing the latest technology.

BUT
Now we have computers, sophisticated computer software and better educated, knowledgeable, skilled, imaginative engineers, designers tool designers, modern machining centers, and yet, WHERE ARE THE NEW VEHICLES ????

 

[68RT]

Raymond Loewy, Tom Kellogg, Brooks Stevens, Richard Teague, Gordon Brehrig, Dutch Darrin, could design on a shoe string budget, a short turnaround, while making the old look new without benefit of computers & software.

The basic wiring, DRIVELINE, etc. was not changed often and was not complicated by regulatory requirements. No crash test, no pedestrian safety, no emissions or other safety mandates. Drawing a basic car design is easy compared to certifying that every detail meets regulations and won't come back for a recall. Takes a lot more people to make a drawing into a saleable vehicle.

 

[serpens]

BUT
Now we have computers, sophisticated computer software and better educated, knowledgeable, skilled, imaginative engineers, designers tool designers, modern machining centers, and yet, WHERE ARE THE NEW VEHICLES ????

Like I said, it takes 4-6 years to make a new [competitive] car from scratch. If development just started a year ago…I think you can do the math. This isn’t a Stellantis thing, it’s standard across the industry.

 

[AceHanlon]

Chrysler should have released a new product yesterday not tomorrow. Chrysler is more or less a corpse that is wheeled out every now and then to present a new product. Then put back in the closet when needed.

 

[valiant67]

We product is years out because there was real zero development going on under FCA. Despite rumors of products (Chrysler version of extended Cherokee, CUV built of Pacifica, etc) all FCA made was excuses. I think they should do a bit more to hype and refresh what they have now. That’s all there is for a few more years. Anything to show the brand isn’t dead.

 

[DarkSky]

Sorry, to me, I still consider them to be Grand Cherokee extensions rather than new vehicles.
Besides, based on price point, I'm sure each one is a cash cow that generates loads of profit.
I don't waste my time bothering about vehicles that cost more than my first house.

You’re something else.

You’re essentially saying “I consider your facts to be wrong because I don’t want to admit you’re right.” I can’t take anything you say seriously with that kind of flawed logic.

You want to say the new Grand Cherokee is just a reskin of the old one? Go drive a WK2 and a WL and tell me the new one doesn’t have massively improved driving characteristics. I traded my WK2 for a WL and while I have my share of complaints about the new one, it feels much more stable and comfortable. In fact, I drove a WK2 last week and was shocked at how much worse it felt now that I’m used to the WL.

 

[Erik Latranyi]

We are STARVED for SOMETHING, ANYTHING NEW.
It doesn't take much time or effort to make a few minor changes to an existing vehicle, change the nameplates, slap on a few decals. Chrysler Corporation has been doing it since the 1960s and is still at it with "NEW" Chargers, Challengers and 300s. The folks holding the purse strings are more interested in generating profit off of tooling paid off over a decade ago and applying the profits to reduce the debt associated with PC's purchase of Opel and the creation of STELLANTIS.

Tooling does not last a decade. It lasts X number of cycles, then you need to buy new tooling.
What you are saying is a MYTH and not reality.

 

[Erik Latranyi]

BUT
Now we have computers, sophisticated computer software and better educated, knowledgeable, skilled, imaginative engineers, designers tool designers, modern machining centers, and yet, WHERE ARE THE NEW VEHICLES ????

Do you think the regulatory agencies move faster today because the manufacturers are using computers and modern equipment?

Some agencies are still using floppy disks!

Allpar is a place where we deal with the REALITY of the auto industry.

 

[mentalicca]

Some agencies are still using floppy disks!

You probably have no idea how right you are. I'm not sure I can get too far into specifics, but a small part of my job involves implementation of gov security requirements for our systems (IT). Security through obsolescence is the name of the game when it comes to federal rules and regulations. And it's not "our way or better/more advanced". It's "this is the only way" and the documentation alone will melt ones brain, it's 99.99999999% political speak and 1000s of pages. And each agency is allowed to have it's own interpretation of those rules (which are now 10+ years old and highly obsolete now), not to mention how many times the rules directly and explicitly contradict one another.

I guess if nobody knows how to log in to a system, it's pretty secure

 

[Adventurer55]

If it is so "new", why didn't they change it's name to reflect that newness?
They changed the name of the Town & Country to Pacifica after the most recent styling revision even though the name Pacifica had been recently and previously used on a totally different style (CUV) of vehicle.
And with the Town & Country there was no pressure from the Native American community and society to move away from ethnic names. The leaders of the Cherokee Nation had been informed by the company that a change would be considered. So much for that. What names are on the horizon for new models: Chief, Braves, Indians, Redskins ??

Why in the hell would they change the name? It's an established nameplate. It works. They should've never flushed the Caravan name. The Pacifica was a compromised vehicle when it first showed up in the early 2000s and wouldn't have been my pick for a new minivan name.

 

[Adventurer55]

The name references a tribe of Native Americans at a time when sports teams are FINALLY bowing to Social Sensitivity and removing Native American names from their teams. (Are you listening = Kansas City Chiefs and Atlanta Braves) The company HAD previously PROMISED the leaders of the Cherokee Nation that the continued use of the name "Cherokee" and "Grand Cherokee" would be reviewed and evaluated. While the Town and Country morphed into the name of Pacifica, the lengthened Grand Cherokee, (a perfect time to christen this LONGER Version with a NEW Moniker), simply through the extensive brain power of corporate executives became the...............................................................................
DRUM ROLL..........................................................................................................................................................................
Grand Cherokee L !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey you are have a point. They could've called the 2 row a Cherokee and the 3 row a Grand Cherokee. But they didn't. If I were them, I'd use the underpinnings from the current WL make a body similar to the Commander and call it the new Cherokee.

 

[Dave Z]

Before we start blaming everything on government delays, ... the main issue with the time it takes to engineer a vehicle is the time it takes to engineer a vehicle, not the time it takes to provide test data to the EPA and DOT. While those agencies are processing, the automakers are still working. They don't wait.

Let's say it took two years in 1965 to design a car. (The Valiant timeline can be found here on Allpar and probably on valiant.org, by the way, for an insider's view of what really happened in the late 1950s in car development, and we have other stories here telling about the actual process for automotive engineering.)

In 1965, people were okay with a 3.7 liter engine that generated 100 net horsepower, when tuned perfectly, and returned maybe 25 mpg highway, and periodically stalled, and powered a car from 0 to 60 in 12 seconds, and required annual maintenance.

That is no longer the case. Today a car has to pass all sorts of safety tests, go without tuning for 80,000 miles (or as automakers call it “100,000 miles”), use the same spark plugs for that entire time, and if it has a 3.7 liter, people expect around 300 horsepower and 30 mpg highway.

People do not replace alternators, ball joints, etc. every few years. People do not get lube jobs or traditional check-the-timing-and-mixture tuneups twice a year.

It is a different world and it takes longer to develop a car now, but you get a heck of a lot more car.

PS> I own and drive a car from 1974 (not as a daily driver) so I can easily compare the "crappy" 1.4 Dart to the beloved old Valiant slant six. Believe me, there are very few places the Valiant comes out on top. So wait and in 2025 you'll start seeing new Chryslers.

PS> If you really want to compare cars designed in a couple of years to those designed in 3-5 years, look at the performance of a 1970 and 2020 Challenger.

 

[Fast Eddie]

Big deal !! They can make all the new cars they want but they don't know how to market them.
They have "comedians" doing commercials for the Pacifica of all things.
Remember the Dart. The first commercial was another comedian playing a keyboard sitting in a garage singing "don't touch my Dart" with no mention of any qualities of the car and just a glance of the front end of the car.
Big woop !!!

 

[Adventurer55]

Big deal !! They can make all the new cars they want but they don't know how to market them.
They have "comedians" doing commercials for the Pacifica of all things.
Remember the Dart. The first commercial was another comedian playing a keyboard sitting in a garage singing "don't touch my Dart" with no mention of any qualities of the car and just a glance of the front end of the car.
Big woop !!!

Thank you. Glad I'm not the only one that thinks that.

 

[DarkSky]

Big deal !! They can make all the new cars they want but they don't know how to market them.
They have "comedians" doing commercials for the Pacifica of all things.
Remember the Dart. The first commercial was another comedian playing a keyboard sitting in a garage singing "don't touch my Dart" with no mention of any qualities of the car and just a glance of the front end of the car.
Big woop !!!

I’m not sure TV commercials are the best measure of marketing strategy anymore.

 

[keitho]

Chrysler needs vehicles. They so mismanaged the car portfolio. 300 was forgotten while they let the dodge boys go.
It needs to be brought back. It still amazes me that no mid size cars are made by the big three besides the malibu and buick

 

[Zagnut27]

Chrysler needs vehicles. They so mismanaged the car portfolio. 300 was forgotten while they let the dodge boys go.
It needs to be brought back. It still amazes me that no mid size cars are made by the big three besides the malibu and buick

I don't think Buick makes anything but CUV's now either, at least not in the US.

 

[Powdered Toast Man]

I looked into what they actually said. The timeframe is 2025-2028. That makes sense when you consider it takes 4-5 years to develop a car, and they have a lot of platform and technology combining to do along the way. Looks like Frame will stay Mopar, while Large is likely mostly FCA based, and Small and Medium will be Peugeot designs — but those have to be modified for BEV variants, AWD, more hybridization, etc. So yes, it's gonna take a while. That explains the Hornet. It might take a while to get here but it's new, fills a major gap, doesn't cost much to develop (in context), and may help CAFE.

Chrysler’s future, from two CEOs: Opening the spigot, but be patient

Way back in January, we reported that then-new Chrysler CEO Christine Feuell was planning an expansion or revitalization of the brand. It will require patience: for example, she reported that “a large utility vehicle” is on the cards for launch any time from 2025 to 2028. She was careful not to...

www.stellpower.com

To me these timelines only confirm what some of us have been saying for years already: that the former FCA had absolutely zero in the pipeline for Dodge and Chrysler. There were no plans for either brand beyond the usable life cycle for whatever they were already building.

I mean, it’s nice to hear that the new company wants to revitalize them, but again, show me the vehicles and I’ll believe it.

 

[Dave Z]

To me these timelines only confirm what some of us have been saying for years already: that the former FCA had absolutely zero in the pipeline for Dodge and Chrysler. There were no plans for either brand beyond the usable life cycle for whatever they were already building.

I mean, it’s nice to hear that the new company wants to revitalize them, but again, show me the vehicles and I’ll believe it.

I won't argue except to note that the Grand Cherokee WL, Wagoneer / Wag L, and Hornet were in the pipeline. As for "show me the vehicles," the fact that they are rebuilding two major factories, adding an engine line for 2025, building battery factories, and so on tells me they are very serious.

2025-2028 is the timeline here.

You can't have it both ways - either the pipeline was empty, in which case new cars take 3-5 years after the merger to appear, or they show you new vehicles now, in which case the pipeline was not empty.

Another possibility: the pipeline was not empty but STLA decided to abandon everything in it and start over, just as FCA did when they started Giorgio and dropped the Lx replacements.

 

[Adventurer55]

"Another possibility: the pipeline was not empty but STLA decided to abandon everything in it and start over, just as FCA did when they started Giorgio and dropped the Lx replacements."

I would be inclined to believe this is what's going on. This is why mergers in the auto business are so risky and often fail. By the time the company is fully integrated, they are still behind the competition. So in this case they kinda have to play leapfrog and hope what they already have will get them through till new products come into the pipeline. My worries with going all electric is, the public in general isn't on board yet.