Joined
·
851 Posts
I don't think the Ioniq 6 is a hatchback. I haven't seen the trunk.
Chryslers last stand
101 - 120 of 180 Posts
Joined
·
2,951 Posts
The LH cars were cutting edge and "people movers"
Joined
·
10,032 Posts
Sure. LH cars were “sedans,” too. But that’s not a brand positioning either.
The 200 and Dart were people movers and they are gone.
Joined
·
851 Posts
There was no wow factor to either of them.
Although the PT Cruiser had issues, it was a very different but memorable car, kind of a 2000s icon.
1966 Crown Coupe, 2016 200 S AWD, 1962 Lark Daytona V8.
Joined
·
17,612 Posts
The 200 was a vestige of the Sebring. The Avenger did better, but was arguably a better money value than the Dart. The buzz was that Avenger was going away as it was eating potential Dart sales & the JS platform was an aging leftover from the Daimler days. It was based on a Mitsubishi Galant platform. The 'triplets' were also derived from this, as the Caliber, Compass & Patriot.
Successful, but not Stellar.
The UF-body was short-lived. It's main reason may have been a test-bed for the Pacifica (RU) launch. A lot of hardware designs & build methods for the Pacifica came from the 200. It was mainly thought of as a rental/lease car, not necessarily something that you would go to a showroom to consider buying.
My 200 test drive was a 3-day rental car while the Caliber was getting fixed. I was impressed as soon as I opened the door & saw chrome bezels with stitched upholstery. The 2.4L MultiAir was adequate & the 9-speed was already in 3rd gear when crossing an intersection. Fuel economy was better than the 2.0L/CVT in the Caliber. I liked this car & considered something like this as a future consideration. It felt European & had Alfa-Romeo DNA built into an American car.
I liked the 1998 V6 Sebring convertible as it was 'right-sized' for me, was reasonably comfortable, economical & was a hoot to drive on a nice day. It was beginning to get a bit 'ratty', but still drove nice.
The Sterling Heights assembly was needed for the Ram 1500. I won't argue with Chrysler money decisions. You have got to build & sell what moves. It was trucks at the time.
The 3 Chrysler LH models were well-spaced, each had an appropriate spot in the hierarchy. The Concorde was a good value as an entry-level Chrysler, like a Newport. The NYer/LHS was a more formal package with awesome styling like the C-pillar curl and tail lamps reminiscent of tail fins.
The 300m was a hit from day one. Reviews were positive & sales were good. Chrysler was looking at ways to tweak the assembly line for more of them in place of Intrepids.
The formal, rear-drive 300C was another smash hit, but very different style than the swoopy 300m. A baby Bentley. Again I heard that Chrysler was trying to shift the LX production line to more 300 cars in lieu of Chargers & Magnums.
A future technology sedan is going to need the attributes of the past & present. A model spread will help define a hierarchy & pricing strategy. Gasoline V8s may be ending soon for passenger cars. A sprinkling of Alfa-Romeo road-dynamics would please me.
Successful, but not Stellar.
The UF-body was short-lived. It's main reason may have been a test-bed for the Pacifica (RU) launch. A lot of hardware designs & build methods for the Pacifica came from the 200. It was mainly thought of as a rental/lease car, not necessarily something that you would go to a showroom to consider buying.
My 200 test drive was a 3-day rental car while the Caliber was getting fixed. I was impressed as soon as I opened the door & saw chrome bezels with stitched upholstery. The 2.4L MultiAir was adequate & the 9-speed was already in 3rd gear when crossing an intersection. Fuel economy was better than the 2.0L/CVT in the Caliber. I liked this car & considered something like this as a future consideration. It felt European & had Alfa-Romeo DNA built into an American car.
I liked the 1998 V6 Sebring convertible as it was 'right-sized' for me, was reasonably comfortable, economical & was a hoot to drive on a nice day. It was beginning to get a bit 'ratty', but still drove nice.
The Sterling Heights assembly was needed for the Ram 1500. I won't argue with Chrysler money decisions. You have got to build & sell what moves. It was trucks at the time.
The 3 Chrysler LH models were well-spaced, each had an appropriate spot in the hierarchy. The Concorde was a good value as an entry-level Chrysler, like a Newport. The NYer/LHS was a more formal package with awesome styling like the C-pillar curl and tail lamps reminiscent of tail fins.
The 300m was a hit from day one. Reviews were positive & sales were good. Chrysler was looking at ways to tweak the assembly line for more of them in place of Intrepids.
The formal, rear-drive 300C was another smash hit, but very different style than the swoopy 300m. A baby Bentley. Again I heard that Chrysler was trying to shift the LX production line to more 300 cars in lieu of Chargers & Magnums.
A future technology sedan is going to need the attributes of the past & present. A model spread will help define a hierarchy & pricing strategy. Gasoline V8s may be ending soon for passenger cars. A sprinkling of Alfa-Romeo road-dynamics would please me.
Joined
·
851 Posts
@ImperialCrown Your thoughts on my Wagoneer-based Imperial Sedan/liftback?
I don't think you specifically gave me your thoughts. Do you think, if it added some extra Chrysler styling, could be the next generation of the sedan body style?
I don't think you specifically gave me your thoughts. Do you think, if it added some extra Chrysler styling, could be the next generation of the sedan body style?
And there is no wow factor to defining a brand as a people mover. A city bus or an airplane is a people mover. So is an escalator.
Joined
·
1,301 Posts
What is a Chrysler? Is it a does it look like a duesenberg? Barnstorming 485 hp sedan? Minivan? Pt cruiser? Fwd turbo 4 convertible that talks to you? A prowler (yes they made those too)?
I’d say Chrysler is a style. And older more mature touch, or flair. An extra bit of leather or chrome, a touch more tech. A more grown up and reserved version of an existing product.
I’d say Chrysler is a style. And older more mature touch, or flair. An extra bit of leather or chrome, a touch more tech. A more grown up and reserved version of an existing product.
Joined
·
851 Posts
That would make them look a bit more old school, but I agree- Chrysler needs to be formal and Classy. That's how I best think of them. Rolls Royce on a budget.
Nobody considers Chevy or Toyota a "wow" brand either. But people keep buying them.
Joined
·
851 Posts
They have decent to great reliability respectively. Reliability will get people in the door.
Chevrolet, like Ford is a hit or miss brand. When they do something right, it's pretty good.
No, Toyota’s wow factor is their quality. That is a factor that matters to a lot of people.
Chevrolet has a decent performance reputation and a getting better quality image.
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
25,871 Posts
I would never argue branding with Aldo, but I think you can create branding around a set of cars with sufficient marketing AND actual tuning. It's taken Mazda decades, but they really did get the whole "zoom zoom" thing set up so that buying a Mazda does not subject you to dismissive comments from your neighbors (in the way buying any American car that isn't an oversized SUV or pickup does). People know what to epxect from Mazda and Mazda has doubled down so their ride is frankly way too rough and stiff — but it’s consistent with their imaging, and I've been seeing a lot more new Mazdas around (mostly the crossovers). I've also seen people who could easily afford BMWs buying Mazdas instead because what does BMW really have that Mazda doesn’t in the 3 series of both?
Dodge has that branding around the big engines, though you can buy their cars with the smaller ones. I suspect they could tune the V6 Dodges to better “feel” fast than they do.
I don't know how Chrysler proposes to brand, but Bob Sheaves’ research with Lincoln shows there is a definite desire for a 1930s elegance type of car in today’s market. The PT tapped into that to a degree and I think it could have done more had Tom Gale’s plan been pursued with a retromod Plymouth Voyager. As some of us know, the PT was systematically destroyed over the years until it wasn’t a desirable car... perhaps a joint plan from Detroit (not liking retromod) and Germany (not liking successful Mopars). Before they cheapened and redesigned it, it was definitely tapping into something beyond just “new and different.”
When the LH came out, Chrysler tuned all their cars the same way. You had a sort of luxury performance feel with Dodge, Chrysler, and Plymouth alike — which I don't think was the ideal; they really should have differentiated the tuning more. But that all disappeared under Daimler anyway and the man who tuned those cars’ suspensions left or was kicked out, I don't recall which. For a while Mazda used almost that same tuning feel—they don’t now.
I think Chrysler can brand itself beyond using retro cues in modern cars, but they have to have something more, some essential consistency, and they have to really work it into the cars with a discipline they don't have today and generally have not had in the past. When you get into a Chrysler you have to know what it is. It's more than an analog clock, which the Daimler people picked up on as "the Chrysler cue." In the 300M, you saw that modern elegance big time. Bob S. said the hands on the dials were big expense items—when I noticed that the 300C had blunt hands. Saving pennies here and there won't cut it. The original engineers had to give something up to get those sharp-edged hands on the instruments and clock, they knew it was important.
Chrysler was never a true upscale brand; it was always midrange between the mass market and the true luxury. When it came out, it beat the [email protected]&#^! out of true luxury brands in performance, but it wasn’t a luxury interior by any means. Compare 1930s Chrysler interiors to 1930s luxury interiors and you see the gaps. But it all went into engineering. I honestly don't know where they should go now but if it were me, I'd use Bob’s research for Lincoln (and his research methods) and go from there... but I’d make sure that was done on inside, outside, and engine/motor and suspension tuning.
I'd also take a truly serious look at Dodge and maybe have the Challenger be the lead for all other Dodges...
Dodge has that branding around the big engines, though you can buy their cars with the smaller ones. I suspect they could tune the V6 Dodges to better “feel” fast than they do.
I don't know how Chrysler proposes to brand, but Bob Sheaves’ research with Lincoln shows there is a definite desire for a 1930s elegance type of car in today’s market. The PT tapped into that to a degree and I think it could have done more had Tom Gale’s plan been pursued with a retromod Plymouth Voyager. As some of us know, the PT was systematically destroyed over the years until it wasn’t a desirable car... perhaps a joint plan from Detroit (not liking retromod) and Germany (not liking successful Mopars). Before they cheapened and redesigned it, it was definitely tapping into something beyond just “new and different.”
When the LH came out, Chrysler tuned all their cars the same way. You had a sort of luxury performance feel with Dodge, Chrysler, and Plymouth alike — which I don't think was the ideal; they really should have differentiated the tuning more. But that all disappeared under Daimler anyway and the man who tuned those cars’ suspensions left or was kicked out, I don't recall which. For a while Mazda used almost that same tuning feel—they don’t now.
I think Chrysler can brand itself beyond using retro cues in modern cars, but they have to have something more, some essential consistency, and they have to really work it into the cars with a discipline they don't have today and generally have not had in the past. When you get into a Chrysler you have to know what it is. It's more than an analog clock, which the Daimler people picked up on as "the Chrysler cue." In the 300M, you saw that modern elegance big time. Bob S. said the hands on the dials were big expense items—when I noticed that the 300C had blunt hands. Saving pennies here and there won't cut it. The original engineers had to give something up to get those sharp-edged hands on the instruments and clock, they knew it was important.
Chrysler was never a true upscale brand; it was always midrange between the mass market and the true luxury. When it came out, it beat the [email protected]&#^! out of true luxury brands in performance, but it wasn’t a luxury interior by any means. Compare 1930s Chrysler interiors to 1930s luxury interiors and you see the gaps. But it all went into engineering. I honestly don't know where they should go now but if it were me, I'd use Bob’s research for Lincoln (and his research methods) and go from there... but I’d make sure that was done on inside, outside, and engine/motor and suspension tuning.
I'd also take a truly serious look at Dodge and maybe have the Challenger be the lead for all other Dodges...
1966 Crown Coupe, 2016 200 S AWD, 1962 Lark Daytona V8.
Joined
·
17,612 Posts
Chrysler has that certain 'underdog' appeal. 😉 Our family, more or less has been driving Chrysler products for 70 years. It just works.
I don't support GM or Ford because they are too big & arrogant. They don't have as big a vested interest in your satisfaction and continued allegiance as the little guy does. I think that the main Chrysler issue is 'perceived quality', oh yes I hear the horror stories too.
Brand loyalty is very strong with truck owners. Maybe not so much with passenger car owners. My barber gets a great deal on leasing Toyotas. He isn't averse to owning any other brands, just that Toyota leasing works for him. He doesn't take long trips. The scheduled maintenance is free. His car never gets 'old'. For the daily point 'A' to point 'B' the car meets his needs. He likes other cars, but is 'stuck' in the lease cycle. There has always been a Corolla or a Corolla-equivalent waiting for him.
The 'Drive Chrysler' marketing campaign of the 1990's needs dusting off, revamping & updating for re-introduction.
![]()
I don't support GM or Ford because they are too big & arrogant. They don't have as big a vested interest in your satisfaction and continued allegiance as the little guy does. I think that the main Chrysler issue is 'perceived quality', oh yes I hear the horror stories too.
Brand loyalty is very strong with truck owners. Maybe not so much with passenger car owners. My barber gets a great deal on leasing Toyotas. He isn't averse to owning any other brands, just that Toyota leasing works for him. He doesn't take long trips. The scheduled maintenance is free. His car never gets 'old'. For the daily point 'A' to point 'B' the car meets his needs. He likes other cars, but is 'stuck' in the lease cycle. There has always been a Corolla or a Corolla-equivalent waiting for him.
The 'Drive Chrysler' marketing campaign of the 1990's needs dusting off, revamping & updating for re-introduction.
Joined
·
10,032 Posts
There’s no WOW factor in “people mover,” either. That’s precisely the problem with trying to use “people mover” as brand differentiator.
Joined
·
851 Posts
There's a clear brand direction for Chrysler that makes sense, and most people, even in executive positions don't see it.
"Innovative, practical, Range leader."
Chrysler should be the one to experiment with new body styles, but keep in mind what buyers prefer.
Joined
·
12,649 Posts
It goes to show how incompetent Sergio was that he would utter those words "people mover" and his arrogance that would make him believe he would be taken seriously.
Joined
·
37 Posts
Chrysler, they are claiming will be (a) pure bev (b) be first of all the other stellantis brands with the stla brain (tesla style centralized single computer) electronic architecture with (c) the new ai techy digitized interiors out of the new but fca era jv with foxconn. Chrysler has airflow concept on stla large 800v ev. Also remember: the Portal concept. So there u have it as brand positioning?....Chrysler as stellantis' set piece technology demonstrator (plus bev minivan.) They may not make money on it but it would be a sortof technolgy and quality futurist masthead for the corporation stellantis aka ex f C a in the usa? A Tesla Vibes by stellantis?
The Chrysler as EV leader idea was debunked by all the 4xe Jeeps. Plus figure the largest (percentage of sales, anyway) EV market is going to be Europe for quite some time, a market where Chrysler is an almost non-entity, so this idea, like a lot of other FCA claims, makes no sense.
101 - 120 of 180 Posts
