[Jerry Simcik]

Politics may have been one of the factors in a decision to manufacture an SUV/CUV, but it certainly is not a factor in the resulting success. In my case, when I replaced my Dodge Stratus with a PT Cruiser, I did so because I got a good deal on it and liked it. My wife had a Concorde at the time. After having my PT for a few months, my wife told me that her next car is going to have a hatch and be like the PT because she loved not having a trunk to to the ease of loading shopping bags, etc., and she also loved the seating position much more than her Concorde or my Stratus. So she ended up with a PT Cruiser, and to this day we both still have them. My daughter had a Neon at the time and graduated to a PT Cruiser of her own. None of these purchase decisions were forced on us, nor were we being puppets. We found we greatly preferred everything about the CUV.

Precisely what I was saying. The regulations put in place (and the unevenness of them with regards to cars vs trucks) caused automakers to focus on development and refinement of trucks rather than cars. There are certain benefits to a truck-type vehicle that are hard to give up. Room, ride height, ease of entry and egress, capability, etc... Those are only a few! Once you got into a truck, it became hard for you to get out of one. There are many out there who share a similar story. The market has shifted; it's not going to go back unless there is a seismic change. Until that time, the sedan will play second-fiddle to CUVs and trucks... Sedans will continue to become more and more of a niche product (Which is why I think the Charger is in a GREAT PLACE.) and CUVs will become more and more common...

 

[Dave Z]

Jerry, I may agree with your point, but what you seem to be also saying is that people are buying crossovers and such not because of regulations, but because they are a superior format, in which case we would have been flooded with them anyway. Jeep did not make the Cherokee to evade fuel rules, they made it because they made Jeeps. The Cherokee's runaway success brought numerous other SUVs (including the rather lame Explorer). Then the crossover came as a cheaper and more efficient way to make SUVs. Now they're selling wagons and calling them crossovers. I think Honda and Toyota, which do NOT have any problems meeting economy rules, woudl have preferred to keep making Camrys and Corllas and Civics and Accords by the million, but the market shifted.

Originally I will say you were right - in the 1970s, a small number of people started buying trucks because they “needed” V8s and such, but small cars were easily whupping those in performance and they pretty much stayed a niche. Minivans were a breakthrough product but they weren't launched to avoid CAFE, Chrysler has zero problems meeting CAFE back then.

 

[Jerry Simcik]

Since you seem to want to air this in public, this can serve as a public announcement: if you post off-topic, political posts, then continue to complain all day that you weren't allowed to break the rules, yes, you will receive a warning.

If you want a place to discuss whatever you're trying to say here, do it somewhere else--preferably somewhere that it isn't against the site rules that have been in effect for years.

Discussing regulations that directly caused a market shift and led us to where we are today and which will continue to lead us into the future is ABSOLUTELY, 100% ON-TOPIC to this discussion. This is a discussion of the future products from the company. The company's products WILL be governed by any regulations that are in place. The company will have to make decisions that best protect their future in that regulated environment. This is PRECISELY what this thread is for.

If a mandate for EVs is passed, for example, there will be no Hemis or Tornados... If safety standards grow even more stringent, vehicles will get larger... And so on and so forth. Many people will not be able to buy what they want; either their preferred product will not be available or they will not be able to afford them... This is not "political"; this is historical! There are NUMEROUS examples of this sort of thing in the auto industry and others already that can be witnessed! These things (the present, the past, the future, and politics) CANNOT be separated!

 

[Jerry Simcik]

Jerry, I may agree with your point, but what you seem to be also saying is that people are buying crossovers and such not because of regulations, but because they are a superior format, in which case we would have been flooded with them anyway. Jeep did not make the Cherokee to evade fuel rules, they made it because they made Jeeps. The Cherokee's runaway success brought numerous other SUVs (including the rather lame Explorer). Then the crossover came as a cheaper and more efficient way to make SUVs. Now they're selling wagons and calling them crossovers. I think Honda and Toyota, which do NOT have any problems meeting economy rules, woudl have preferred to keep making Camrys and Corllas and Civics and Accords by the million, but the market shifted.

Originally I will say you were right - in the 1970s, a small number of people started buying trucks because they “needed” V8s and such, but small cars were easily whupping those in performance and they pretty much stayed a niche. Minivans were a breakthrough product but they weren't launched to avoid CAFE, Chrysler has zero problems meeting CAFE back then.

There's s more nuance to it than that, but you've got the jist...

There are certain benefits to trucks. I love trucks! I actually use mine as it was intended regularly, but most of the time it's still just "a car". But there are a LOT of people who do not need them at all and who would, honestly, be better served by a larger car. But car's haven't really evolved like trucks have and cars also continue to cost more to produce while returning fewer profits. The incentive for development isn't there. Until something changes in the regulations, I don't see that changing...

Your Jeep example is a bit of a cop-out. Cherokee wasn't made to "evade" fuel rules, per say, but those rules contributed to its development instead of the development of other products. Furthermore, what was the most efficient Jeep at that time? It likely was the Cherokee. Will you not agree that the quickest and simplest way to solve any new problem (regulations) is to stick to what you know as much as possible (building Jeeps) and take calculated risks into a new territory? If you were exploring an unknown region of the world without a map and you came across a river or a road, would you not follow it? That's what Jeep did, IMO - they stuck with what they knew best and tried to make it fit into the new world... What projects was Jeep working on before the regulations came that never saw the light of day??? Was Cherokee even on their radar???

I think, in general, trucks would still "win" in the long run, but I don't think you'd see the penetration you do now. I think cars would still be more common if the automakers were not penalized for making them... Furthermore, I think we'd see far more specialty concepts and varied design approaches - there'd be 27 ways to solve the same problem, each with their own benefits and advantages - were it not for our very heavy-handed regulations. We'd end up with much more refined & a sustainable solutions, that's for sure...

 

[Adventurer55]

Rising fuel prices and the need to offset that with higher mileage was the main reason the 84 Cherokee was downsized.

 

[Dave Z]

There's s more nuance to it than that, but you've got the jist...

There are certain benefits to trucks. I love trucks! I actually use mine as it was intended regularly, but most of the time it's still just "a car". But there are a LOT of people who do not need them at all and who would, honestly, be better served by a larger car. But car's haven't really evolved like trucks have and cars also continue to cost more to produce while returning fewer profits. The incentive for development isn't there. Until something changes in the regulations, I don't see that changing...

Your Jeep example is a bit of a cop-out. Cherokee wasn't made to "evade" fuel rules, per say, but those rules contributed to its development instead of the development of other products. Furthermore, what was the most efficient Jeep at that time? It likely was the Cherokee. Will you not agree that the quickest and simplest way to solve any new problem (regulations) is to stick to what you know as much as possible (building Jeeps) and take calculated risks into a new territory? If you were exploring an unknown region of the world without a map and you came across a river or a road, would you not follow it? That's what Jeep did, IMO - they stuck with what they knew best and tried to make it fit into the new world... What projects was Jeep working on before the regulations came that never saw the light of day??? Was Cherokee even on their radar???

I think, in general, trucks would still "win" in the long run, but I don't think you'd see the penetration you do now. I think cars would still be more common if the automakers were not penalized for making them... Furthermore, I think we'd see far more specialty concepts and varied design approaches - there'd be 27 ways to solve the same problem, each with their own benefits and advantages - were it not for our very heavy-handed regulations. We'd end up with much more refined & a sustainable solutions, that's for sure...

1) Most people own trucks for image reasons, not utility. That's based on the market research.
2) Cherokee most likely had lower ratings than the light CJ did. Cherokee had nothing to do with emissions. Low sales of the Wagoneer were the issue. Wagoneer was expensive, truck-like, and, well, launched in 1962.
3) Toyota and Honda were never penalized for making cars and they are having a hard time with the switch to crossovers.
4) Our regulations are hardly “heavy-handed.” That said, I personally think a carbon tax or universal target would have made more sense.

 

[patfromigh]

The minivan development was started before CAFE regulations. Remember Lee worked for Ford at that time. The minivan sort of followed him to his new employer. I haven't read Dave's minivan book, so I don't know if the Ford project is discussed.

The downsized Jeeps of the 1980s happened because the sales of the larger BOF Jeeps were dead. (Except for the CJ,) The price of fuel was forcing the changes, not regulations.

 

[hmk123]

My Dart is very easy to get into and out of, front and back, and it's supposedly smaller than the 200 was, so midsized sedans can be quite large inside and carry five tall people. (The Dart also has good leg room. It's really really close to being midsized. Trunk is large, too.)

It's hard to believe on the inside that the 300C is two size classes bigger than the Dart, except maybe for width.

I once fit three car seats in the back seat of a PT Cruiser. There was a space efficient car! Really liked that thing, kinda wish I'd kept it, other than mileage.

Our Dart Limited was really a comfortable car. We were super impressed by it. If it hadn’t been in an accident we would have kept it for a long time. I don’t understand why it wasn’t more successful.

 

[NWbyNW]

To get this topic back on future speculation and what-not... I am working on a "fictional" future for Chrysler and Dodge with pictures! At least I hope to release it... I might realize I am doing to much and then just not do it. Lol. But it will lay down a speculative future that includes what Chrysler and Dodge need, plus some sedans most of us want.

 

[Chebby7]

To get this topic back on future speculation and what-not... I am working on a "fictional" future for Chrysler and Dodge with pictures! At least I hope to release it... I might realize I am doing to much and then just not do it. Lol. But it will lay down a speculative future that includes what Chrysler and Dodge need, plus some sedans most of us want.

Can't wait.

 

[tlc]

Our Dart Limited was really a comfortable car. We were super impressed by it. If it hadn’t been in an accident we would have kept it for a long time. I don’t understand why it wasn’t more successful.

I agree. I have driven my Dart on a few long distance trips. 1 being 22 hours in 1 day. 4 total stops totaling 45 minutes. Felt good when I stopped. Just tired. Other trips were around 17-18 hours. So far, it's been very reliable. Only adding 2 quarts of oi total between oil changes. Almost 69,000 miles on it. 2.4.

 

[Dave Z]

Seats are very nice. Aero is not as nice, though - stiff suspension (lowered the way an aftermarket company would do it). Also, I discovered when they specify premium fuel, they MEAN it. Anything less than perfect means shuddering, power loss, check engine lights, loss of cruise control, turbo refusing to engage, etc. (That includes “premium” from less than honest vendors - thanks, Chris Christie, for slashing Weights & Measures.)

 

[77 Monaco Brougham]

Seats are very nice. Aero is not as nice, though - stiff suspension (lowered the way an aftermarket company would do it). Also, I discovered when they specify premium fuel, they MEAN it. Anything less than perfect means shuddering, power loss, check engine lights, loss of cruise control, turbo refusing to engage, etc. (That includes “premium” from less than honest vendors - thanks, Chris Christie, for slashing Weights & Measures.)

Since Chris Christie dropped out of the national spotlight some years ago, I haven't bothered to keep up on what's been going on with him.

By any chance...Has he managed to keep HIS OWN "weight and measure" under control?

 

[sickboy]

Show of hands.
Who would like to see a longer minivan? Sort of, maybe, full sized?
Whether a long wheelbase Pacifica or maybe just longer body. Enough room for a 4th row, or longer bed, or a place to upfit a living space of some sort. Maybe extra utility space. Or room for multiple wheel chairs
A mini bus if you will.
Might need more power, but that can be done. Already has provisions for awd.
But best of all, who else is in this market spot? Chrysler owned the minivan, let it dominate the mini bus too. shouldn’t Chrysler do what it does best?

 

[jimboy]

Show of hands.
Who would like to see a longer minivan? Sort of, maybe, full sized?
Whether a long wheelbase Pacifica or maybe just longer body. Enough room for a 4th row, or longer bed, or a place to upfit a living space of some sort. Maybe extra utility space. Or room for multiple wheel chairs
A mini bus if you will.
Might need more power, but that can be done. Already has provisions for awd.
But best of all, who else is in this market spot? Chrysler owned the minivan, let it dominate the mini bus too. shouldn’t Chrysler do what it does best?

It would be nice to have them more customizable from the factory, Maybe a camper version, or bring back the rear folding bed, do a "weekender" version like the old westfalia, or a surf wagon. They have lost some of their innovation on the basic concepts, what about a swb version for seniors or young people? Plenty of possibility, not much imagination being used, maybe a shake up at Chrysler design?
And yes they could really use something for the black car market, a stretched and maybe slightly re-designed version would be a serious player in that space.

 

[77 Monaco Brougham]

It would be nice to have them more customizable from the factory, Maybe a camper version, or bring back the rear folding bed, do a "weekender" version like the old westfalia, or a surf wagon. They have lost some of their innovation on the basic concepts, what about a swb version for seniors or young people? Plenty of possibility, not much imagination being used, maybe a shake up at Chrysler design?
And yes they could really use something for the black car market, a stretched and maybe slightly re-designed version would be a serious player in that space.

Just out of curiosity...Has the Pacifica enjoyed any degree of success with the Livery trade?

 

[sickboy]

Just out of curiosity...Has the Pacifica enjoyed any degree of success with the Livery trade?

It’s my experience that livery vehicles are usually ex rentals. Especially as far as minivans go. They almost always Go cheaper vs nicer

 

[Zagnut27]

Since Chris Christie dropped out of the national spotlight some years ago, I haven't bothered to keep up on what's been going on with him.

By any chance...Has he managed to keep HIS OWN "weight and measure" under control?

He supposedly had some type of gastric surgery to help with his weight. I think he must’ve found a workaround for that “bypass” because I think he’s as big as ever currently.

Show of hands.
Who would like to see a longer minivan? Sort of, maybe, full sized?
Whether a long wheelbase Pacifica or maybe just longer body. Enough room for a 4th row, or longer bed, or a place to upfit a living space of some sort. Maybe extra utility space. Or room for multiple wheel chairs
A mini bus if you will.
Might need more power, but that can be done. Already has provisions for awd.
But best of all, who else is in this market spot? Chrysler owned the minivan, let it dominate the mini bus too. shouldn’t Chrysler do what it does best?

Cough...Jeep Pacifica Overlander....cough....

 

[AmbassadorSST]

Seats are very nice. Aero is not as nice, though - stiff suspension (lowered the way an aftermarket company would do it). Also, I discovered when they specify premium fuel, they MEAN it. Anything less than perfect means shuddering, power loss, check engine lights, loss of cruise control, turbo refusing to engage, etc. (That includes “premium” from less than honest vendors - thanks, Chris Christie, for slashing Weights & Measures.)

That's why I didn't get the Aero...turbos are notoriously finicky. I got the Dart GT...it came fully loaded. The only 2 issues that I have had with the car was the trunk randomly popping open when I first bought it, and suspension and tire issues due to our great American road and highway infrastructure.
Haven't had the oil burning issues that other Tigershark 2.4 owners have had.
The only issue with the Dart that for myself I can see is that it is underpowered. The GT gear ratio gets it going quick but on the highway you have to literally floor the 2.4 to get it going.
I don't drive slow, mind you. LOL

 

[77 Monaco Brougham]

He supposedly had some type of gastric surgery to help with his weight. I think he must’ve found a workaround for that “bypass” because I think he’s as big as ever currently.

That news really doesn't surprise me. It seems that the majority (or at least many) who undergo the procedure end up with results that...over the long run...are less than satisfying.

I knew someone years ago who had the procedure and proceeded to lose about 100 pounds...only to...over the course of time...to slowly see ALL the weight come back, PLUS even more besides. Not only that, but now he has to take a multitude of mineral / vitamin supplements daily to help replace what his body now has difficulty processing / absorbing.

Not long ago, I considered the option of a gastric procedure myself, but made a mental checklist of the positives and negatives, and quickly decided [email protected]%+# NO!