Allpar Forums banner

61 - 80 of 366 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,628 Posts
That's debatable, especially given Mr. Tavares' record with PSA. People have been declaring the imminent demise or sale of Chrysler and/or Dodge since at least the Cerberus debacle, yet, they're still alive, whatever their health status.

Here's some food for thought on how a Chrysler, Dodge, or perhaps Lancia product fits into the PSA modular platform structure, but isn't a badge engineering process. EMP2 is the PSA compact/mid-size platform.

Modularity and flexibility for large scope of applications and brand differentiation

Thanks to the high level of modularity combined with a variety of chassis parameters, many model variants are possible. EMP2 in particular offers a huge bandwidth that can be explored:

  • four different track widths,
  • five different wheelbases,
  • two different cockpit architectures,
  • two rear axle architectures,
  • several rear vehicle modules for various versions (short, long, five or seven-seater, single seats or rear bench, combustion engine or hybrid)
  • and up to six different rear vehicle assemblies, which can be produced on the same assembly line.


In addition to the possibility of combining the various elements, EMP2 also provides each individual Groupe PSA brand the option of personalising every car so that it perfectly matches the respective brand. This flexibility ensures that an Opel or a Vauxhall model is distinctively different to a sister model (Peugeot, Citroën or DS Automobiles).

Source Rüsselsheim R&D Center at the heart of Groupe PSA's technology - Groupe PSA (at https://www.groupe-psa.com/en/newsroom/brand/russelsheim-rd-center-at-the-heart-of-groupe-psas-technology/ )

Nothing new compared to FCA's platforms.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,894 Posts
But here’s the problem. Would Windsor be profitable without Grand Caravan volume? Unlikely. So volume is needed or profit goes away. Something popular has to take Grand Caravan’s place and Voyager isn’t going to be it.
Dodge wouldn't be the brand to get that product though.
 

·
Move along, nothing to see here
Joined
·
2,386 Posts
Because Jeep CUVs are overengineered for offroad ability, therefore they are not going to be as pocketbook friendly on fuel due to the added weight and being geared more for offroad and towing capacity. My Daimler-era WK is a perfect example. A Chrysler version of that vehicle with the MB V6 turbodiesel would have been given highway gears and probably gained 2-5 MPGs. The CUVs were not given to Chrysler in the short term to 1. protect Jeep and 2. shore up FCA finances until they were in a better position/merged. Presumably a Chrysler CUV would be Pacifica-based, therefore it could have been on the drawing board awaiting funds and getting updates in the mean time. Well, that's my semi-educated non-auto engineer guess. As for your presumption that C&D are most likely dead brands walking, I don't see the logic in killing off two mainstream brands in the biggest auto market not named China, when you're merging with a French-based automaker who desires a U.S. presence. Way easier for PSA-FCA to fix the U.S. brands than to try to enter the U.S. with one of it's brands cold-turkey. Show the U.S. what you're capable of with existing brands, then bring on Peugeot and Citroën.
Again, you're assuming and presuming that vehicle A, B, or C is coming to Chrysler or Dodge. FCA has signaled their intent based on letting anything not called Jeep or Ram rot.

Also for a couple of "mainstream" brands, they're not involved in any of the mainstream segments of the market. No CUV's. No compact or mid-size sedans. No trucks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,005 Posts
Nothing new compared to FCA's platforms.
I was more interested in the point of PSA's noting the brand differentiation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,005 Posts
Again, you're assuming and presuming that vehicle A, B, or C is coming to Chrysler or Dodge. FCA has signaled their intent based on letting anything not called Jeep or Ram rot.

Also for a couple of "mainstream" brands, they're not involved in any of the mainstream segments of the market. No CUV's. No compact or mid-size sedans. No trucks.
Look, nobody KNOWS what's going to happen 2 years from now AS IS, but Tavares has more going for him WRT C&D than you seem willing to give credit. FCA is only half the equation going forward.
 

·
Move along, nothing to see here
Joined
·
2,386 Posts
Tavares can't do any worse for Chrysler and Dodge than FCA has recently, so I'm hopeful.
It's very strange what has happened under FCA. 2011-2015 everything seemed amazing. New product for all brands, massive improvement on all product lines, refreshes, etc. And then something changed between 2015 and 2017 and it's like the wheels fell off. FCA became obsessed with finding a merger partner and core brands have been allowed to stagnate. Abandonment of key market segments, planned vehicles for growth segments quietly shelved or vanished, refreshes pushed back or cancelled, future confirmed product pushed back.

It's not that FCA has gone out of their way to kill Dodge/Chrysler, but rather they're letting them die through attrition. It's like when a company decides to downsize, but rather than lay off their workforce, they stop hiring or replacing anyone who leaves and let it wind down via natural attrition. That's what the Dodge and Chrysler lineups feel like. Just let all the vehicles run until they retire and not replace any of them once they're gone.

If D/C are going to survive it's going to take more than an executive to say they won't kill them. Both brands are going to require active interest and investment to continue beyond any of their current models which are ALL close to end of life. This is what is very worrying to me for the future of these brands.
 

·
Plymouth Makes It
Joined
·
8,107 Posts
With the current offerings and projections for the next few years I'm legitimatey thinking I won't be buying another Chrysler, I'm due in a few more years but they don't really have what I want at reasonable prices.
A reasonable price for me is 6k so I'm out of the new car market.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
246 Posts
Considering how old so many models are we just know all the tooling is long since been paid for ! Challenger and Charger are in a very good position as is the 300. The Challenger keeps selling well so why mess with it ? Yet there is a yearning for a Challenger " rag top " and some lower tier engine updated to keep up with the competition or smoke e'm. These beasts are heavy and the new lighter platforms keep being pushed ahead 3 years every 3 years .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
443 Posts
Discussion Starter #73
It's sad when I owned a 2005 Chrysler 300C and I could buy one in 2019 and it's the same thing pretty much. ;) But it also owes a testament to the longevity of the vehicle. They did such a good job with it, and sadly now just ride it's coat tails till they drive it into the ground.

(I know the interior improvements and visual changes, blah, blah, blah. I get it)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,005 Posts
It's sad when I owned a 2005 Chrysler 300C and I could buy one in 2019 and it's the same thing pretty much. ;) But it also owes a testament to the longevity of the vehicle. They did such a good job with it, and sadly now just ride it's coat tails till they drive it into the ground.

(I know the interior improvements and visual changes, blah, blah, blah. I get it)
It hasn't been the same vehicle under the skin since 2011 when the 300 went to the LD platform variant that was developed for the Charger. Quite a bit of changes were made in 2011 as far as the suspension and ride height. The 2011s more or less exorcize all the MB DNA from the LX, short of the transmission, until the 8 speed was integrated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tlc

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,727 Posts
Well if we look at the 300's competition that moved to FWD, Ford Taurus, Chevy Impala they didn't make it. So FCA made the right move in just sticking with the RWD platform. Its just too bad the interior has not been given any love since 2015 as the bones, both chassis and powertrain are still more than competitive.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
36,919 Posts
Considering how old so many models are we just know all the tooling is long since been paid for ! Challenger and Charger are in a very good position as is the 300. The Challenger keeps selling well so why mess with it ? Yet there is a yearning for a Challenger " rag top " and some lower tier engine updated to keep up with the competition or smoke e'm. These beasts are heavy and the new lighter platforms keep being pushed ahead 3 years every 3 years .
Tooling wears out. It may have been "paid for" but when a car is made longer than planned, tooling does have to be replaced.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
246 Posts
Tooling wears out. It may have been "paid for" but when a car is made longer than planned, tooling does have to be replaced.
As a retired FCA Die Maker I can attest that tooling doesn't "wear out ". The line and prog dies are routinely sent to PM areas where they are steam cleaned, inspected as they are torn down. Sections/details/punches, etc. are rehabbed as needed. This is a common practice and can go on for years and years even on high volume lines like say 300,000 vehicles per year, more or less. Low volume vehicle dies can last past our life times with proper PM.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,894 Posts
I just deleted a bunch of off-topic posts. This thread is to speculate about future Chrysler/Dodge products, not to argue about whether safety and technology features should be standard equipment. Make another thread if you want to talk about that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tlc and Tony K
61 - 80 of 366 Posts
Top