Allpar Forums banner
1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
The design should be distinctive, smooth, luxurious and aerodynamic. It should not be generic, that is what Asian cars are for.

Full width taillight should return. The grill texture should be the thin vertical bars of the waterfall grill, but no grill or chrome should be above the headlights.

LeBaron GTS/GTC should be used for inspiration. 2001 Sebrings are also useful for inspiration, as are 1993 and 1998 Concordes.

Corporate design suggests CDJR. Each brand should have its own design language.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
Those things seem dated to me, whereas the 300 does not. Even the OG LX 300 somehow seems timeless.
I agree with Imperial crown. I would like to see more of the 1998 Concorde style.

What seems dated to me is the 300. The dates for the grill are 1930's, 1955 Chrysler Falcon, 1969 Lincoln Mk 3 and 1975-1985. The date for the rest of the car is 1996 Bentley Azure.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
My wish for Chrysler would be premium designs and unique models (shooting brake, coupe-ish CUVs, premium interiors) that aren't available in the other brands. If they allowed access to the cheaper EMP2 platform, modify it like Audi, Mazda, and now Acura does for RWD proportions. AWD, hybridization to full electric models should be what the brand is known for.
EMP1/CMP is the cheaper one.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
I think what CHRYSLER has now is quite good . I’m quite OK with rebadged Peugeots and DS on the short run. In the longer run IMHO, they should have an all new electric 300 that looks a lot like the present now iconic Engles inspired one. It’s a classic practical shape that contrasts with the look a like rest of the industry.
It's Engel and Chrysler, Engles and Marx. I don't want Engles anywhere near my car, it will turn into a 2 cylinder 2 stroke.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
The 99 Chrysler Concorde and LHS, but not the earlier Concorde and 300M, just look like aerodynamic dusbusters to me with that vacuum nozzle jet intake proboscis. IMO the 300M is a great look, best of the Chrysler branded LH cars.
The 98-01 Concorde and 98-04 Intrepid remind me of the Charger Daytona and Superbird. The 300M reminds me it was supposed to be an Eagle. I'm not a fan of the LHS nose that spread to the Concorde for '02.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
I don't think Chrysler's new design language is going to be found looking backwards.
The 300, the PT Cruiser, the cab forward cars were hits in their time but not necessarily a design I'd call timeless like Challenger or Wrangler. Could they share some cues with earlier designs?
The 300 and PT Cruiser were looking backwards the day they came out.

The Audi 5000/100 set the tone for all FWD sedans for a decade (the Taurus was a fat Audi). The cab forward LH cars set the pattern twice for all FWD cars going forward to this day. They were truly timeless.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
I feel that when it comes to Chrysler, this forum has regulars that try far too hard to go back to the glory days of the K-Car and 300M, and FWD platforms and stuff.

I think they could try making another attempt at the "Bentley for the middle class" like the 2005 300c was. If there's one thing we still really need right now with EVs, it's distinctive looking ones. Everyone's trying to make a pseudo Model S, or add too much tacky black plastic, or trying way too hard with the aero look.

At the end of the day, Bentley and RR have not given up on upright grilles and tall body panels. I think they could get pretty far with design language like the Flying Spur or Bentayga or the RR Ghost. Heck, when you look at the front end of the Ghost, it kinda looks like they copied Chrysler - it even has the C -shaped DRLs lol.

That, and a kickass RWD convertible like the Dawn would be worth it.

I think people still want large, comfy cars that can scoot. It's just that with so much focus on aerodynamics and stuff, cars have gotten too confined. We have a Cadillac at home and driving that isn't as comfortable as the 300 it replaced - the windshield is way too close! I can see why people would buy an Escalade.

I think the biggest thing holding Chrysler as a brand back, is the presence of Alfa Romeo and Maserati. Like, FCA wouldn't let Chrysler sell a luxury car because Maserati is supposed to be the luxury brand. But I don't think either of those brands would be able to pull off what Chrysler still can.

The funny part is, if they didn't want to commit to EVs and a new platform just yet, they still have a hell of an engine portfolio! You could do a very minor refresh on the 300c, give it a new interior and that giant screen the ram has, and stuff the hellcat V8 under the hood and some new tech and you've got a pretty solid contender.
You have a bunch on here who try far too hard to go back to the glory days of RWD and Chrysler as a high margin luxury brand that could compete with the Mercedes S class. It will never be accepted as such again. The RWD compact and midsize sedan at margins Chrysler can command is dead. But that isn't about design language. That's about platforms, and there are really 3 in Chrysler's future EMP1/CMP, EMP2 and Giorgio Global.

Plenty of people advocating for the return / continuance of the formal upright brick with poor aerodynamics. voiceofstl, ImperialCrown, Tony K, JeepandRams, freshforged, Lanciahf.

Plenty of people advocating for more sporting designs with good aerodynamics. Tony K, ImperialCrown, David S, Chrysfan, Doug D. I think the name 300 needs to be returned to the sporting side of the house.

As for the K platform it was offered with both formal upright design language and sporting aerodynamic language at the same time. So maybe Chrysler needs two design languages, and 3 platforms (FWD, FWD/AWD, RWD/AWD) to make all of its customers happy. It clearly needs a full lineup restored, and a move into SUVs.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
I think the biggest thing holding Chrysler as a brand back, is the presence of Alfa Romeo and Maserati. Like, FCA wouldn't let Chrysler sell a luxury car because Maserati is supposed to be the luxury brand. But I don't think either of those brands would be able to pull off what Chrysler still can.
I don't see Maserati as holding Chrysler (or Dodge) back. Maserati starts at $50K V6 SUVs. The 300 starts at $30K, the Voyager at $27K. There is no overlap, there should be no overlap, Chrysler should not move upmarket.

I see all kinds of overlap in Alfa and Maserati. Giulia and Stelvio are treading in Maserati territory, and the new small Maserati is a complete overlap with Stelvio.

Given the total sales failure of Giulia/Stelvio I think Alfa needs to go back down into the segments it has been successful in for the past 40 years and leave the luxury/sport segment for Maserati that always held it.

Now once you move Alfa back down into the segments where it belongs, there is all kinds of overlap with Chrysler and Dodge. This is why Alfa needs to go back to Europe and allow Chrysler and Dodge to be restored.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
Building another “aero” car like Tesla or Mustang Mach E would be a tougher marketplace than a more unique style with the “brutalist” look of the 300 that is already well known . I think there is a hidden market for a more formal car with a taller greenhouse that’s easier to get in and out of. A budget Rolls Royce looking car with the technology could be a home run. View attachment 79438
I think 300 sales show that "brutalist" look is a fad that has come and gone years ago.


2005144,048
2006143,647
2007120,636
200862,352
200938,606
201037,116
201136,285
201278,417
201357,724
201453,382
201553,109
201653,058
201751,237
201846,593
201929,214
202016,473


As for that Rolls Royce, it looks like an updated Chrysler E class with that laid back waterfall grill. Rolls Royce of the '80s was more upright and '40s to '60s style.

 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
The "upright brick" LX 300 had better aerodynamics than the LH models that came before it.
Wrong.

2013 LX 300 Cd .334, Present LX 300 Cd .320, LH 300M .31, LH Concorde Cd .288.


Then you have to take into account the lower frontal area of the LH. Much lower drag.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
So you think they should come out with another FWD cab forward thing? Wait, how many 300Ms and Neons do you still see on the road? I haven't seen one in about 10 years. lol. Chrysler can't sell a car that appeals to Honda and Toyota buyers because they'll never buy a Honda or Toyota. GM already tried to push the FWD cab forward thing past its deathbed and failed miserably with the Impala/Buick/Cadillacs.

I know that Chrysler HQ (and it seems like a ton of people here) live in Snow Country and therefore are terrified of RWD vehicles, but come on? FWD is dead. Long live FWD.
Given current fuel economy footprint regulations they need to go with shorter front and rear overhangs. The windshield should not go forward of the firewall. There is no need for a V6 to get 255 or 300 hp, a transverse 4 cylinder is fine. Given those changes they should update the 1998 Concorde.

Obviously when you are talking about a 15 - 25 year old non high performance car there won't be many survivors, that is true for any brand. That said the high school girl down the street got a Dodge Stratus for her first car, they are still around.

Chrysler made competitive FWD cars before, now that they have access to the PSA EMP platforms and aren't tied to the uncompetitive Mitsubishi and Fiat platforms they can do it again.

Large cars are dying. Don't point to large cars and make predictions about small and midsize cars.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
I think there is certainly a place for a more 'formal' design language at Chrysler. It really is what they do well, and Stellantis has nothing in that space, car wise, to compete with Cadillac and Buick. The original 55 Engels chryslers were classic IMO, so were the 64-66 Chryslers and Imperials, 69-74 Chryslers and Imperials, the original LHS and intrepid/eagle/concord, as well as the LX's. All were more classically styled Chryslers and all sold well, HMMM? If they could stretch the L and give it a little more rear seat, move to an AWD PHEV with the 3.6, They could sell it all over the world as a "Black Car' without substantially altering the profile or the look of the car. Call the stretched version Imperial, and the standard version New Yorker. Save the 300 name for something else.
The original Concorde (1993) was a low drag design with a Cd of .31. It was a breakthrough modern design, nothing formal about it. The best sales years for the Intrepid were '95,'96, '99 and '00, both generations sold equally well when new to the market.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
So you think they should come out with another FWD cab forward thing? Wait, how many 300Ms and Neons do you still see on the road? I haven't seen one in about 10 years. lol. Chrysler can't sell a car that appeals to Honda and Toyota buyers because they'll never buy a Honda or Toyota. GM already tried to push the FWD cab forward thing past its deathbed and failed miserably with the Impala/Buick/Cadillacs.

I know that Chrysler HQ (and it seems like a ton of people here) live in Snow Country and therefore are terrified of RWD vehicles, but come on? FWD is dead. Long live FWD.
The US is 51% AWD 40% FWD and 9% RWD, and a good proportion of that RWD figure is pickup trucks.

 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
CHRYSLER‘s upcoming design language is going to be rebadged DS and Peugeot. The real reason to save CHRYSLER and Lancia is to sell more than 60k DS cars a year. View attachment 79463
A midsize 508 cannot be turned into a full size 300. If this is the midsize 5 door then it is the LeBaron GTS. The car you need to photoshop to make a 300 is the DS 9 on a 4" longer wheelbase.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
I own a 300S and Buick Tourx.
I love my 300 but my wife loves her Buick.She loves the station wagon like styling and the all wheel drive. She also loves the fact we havent seen another Tourx around. While the style of the Buick is nice,the station wagon shape limits the cargo shape and size. We didnt want another minivan or a me too SUV.
The station wagon shape is the best for cargo without giving up the low center of gravity of a car and protection of a roof.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
The Lancia Therma was hilariously tone deaf. I can't imagine anyone was happy about it.

It was so out of character for both brands, that it would be like as if Volkswagen bought Chrysler and reintroduced the Dodge Viper as a Passat with a body kit.

Edit: For a quick survey of Lancia history, I suppose this video would do.

They mostly made smaller rally cars, sports car, and stuff of that sort.

There's even an episode of top gear where they cover an enthusiast company that takes Ferraris and shortens them to turn them into a 'modern Lancia Stratos'


As much as I love the 300, I think rebadging a 300 and calling it a Lancia was pretty tone deaf lol. I wonder why they did that.

The funny thing was at the time, I used to hang out on 300cforums a lot. There were a decent number of European fans on the site who were confused and disappointed. Once Lancia launched the Thema, you could no longer buy a 300 in Europe. At least, not where they were selling the Lancia. AFAIK. It made no sense. People who wanted a big Yank Tank wanted the silly street cred to go with it.

It's even funnier because Lancia is one of those weird narrowly defined brands like that. You could make a convertible sports car and call it a Jeepster because, Willys slapped the Jeep name on everything lol. Same with Chrysler really, they sold furnaces and train brakes and whatever else.
LOL. That's like saying Dodge mostly made Vipers. Here is the truth of the matter:

The top 4 are different generations of the Ypsilon, then the Delta, Beta, Prisma, Thema and Fulvia.

In other words they made slightly upmarket economy cars. The ones you post about were homologation specials that didn't add up to 60K cars total.

Same story for Alfa
Notice that only the FWD ones had decent yearly sales.
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Top