Allpar Forums banner

561 - 580 of 665 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
Georgio was supposed to be scalable wasn’t it? In length and width? I could see that adding dimension may cause too much flex, but kind of a head scratcher. As far as charger- Updating the current platform is no problem for me personally, but am hoping for awd available for high hp cars. Electric parking brake. Maybe a couple more inches of rear legroom?
Does anyone know what needs to be done at Brampton to accommodate wider wheels down the assembly line?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,041 Posts
Georgio was supposed to be scalable wasn’t it? In length and width? I could see that adding dimension may cause too much flex, but kind of a head scratcher. As far as charger- Updating the current platform is no problem for me personally, but am hoping for awd available for high hp cars. Electric parking brake. Maybe a couple more inches of rear legroom?
Does anyone know what needs to be done at Brampton to accommodate wider wheels down the assembly line?
Its really beginning to look as if Giorgio is fast becoming another CUSW architecture, it seems. Both were promised to be the saving grace for front and rwd/awd vehicles. And yet neither seem to be the highly adaptable platforms FCA really could save money with. Now they seem to indicate they're going to keep the LX and update it which is a great way to keep the cars and not spend tons of money adapting Brampton to Giorgio. Now explain why the 300 has to die if they do this?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,386 Posts
When we first learned about Alfa being used for the next gen Lx cars many complained that it is too focused on European sports sedan needs and many were worried (including myself) that the unique American needs might not be met (big V8s for example). Many predicted it would suffer the same issues as the Dart. So we can’t have it both ways. One thing one can fault FCA is that there seems to have been a certain amount of flip flopping when it comes to the direction of the Lx. Part of this might be that 1.5 years ago they realized some of the strict EPA regulations might be dialed back and the V8 is here to stay for another decade. Hardly anybody thought that in 2016.

And all this complaining about the age of the Lx platform seems silly. Nobody is complaining or even mentioning that Ford Fusion’s CD4 platform is an evolution of Mazda’s 1983 midsize car G platform. It comes always back to perception. And auto journalists don’t seem to help...
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
5,646 Posts
I haven't had time to really go through everything in detail because work is kicking my butt, but did I read that Chrysler will remain in NA but not abroad and Fiat will remain abroad but not in NA.

If so, it would make sense, I think, to rebrand the 124 as a Dodge, because even though it doesn't offer a big engine, it could be argued that it is sporty and fun.
 

·
Jeepaholic
Joined
·
5,930 Posts
How much of a platform is genuinely original anyway? Don’t they all incorporate ideas and attributes of earlier platforms at least to some degree? They’re not reinventing the wheel with each new one I’m guessing, just incorporating new ideas and techniques. So updating and modifying an existing platform isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,017 Posts
It still has soild name recognition, which matters a lot, look at Hyundai/KIA their cars have come a long way since 90s, but most people today still won't even give them a look. Names matter

Take the Veloster turbo for example, most car people hate that car only because its a " Hyundai " now imagine how people would feel about it if it was a Chrysler instead!
Then it would be a hideously ugly Chrysler. Let Hyundai have it.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
5,646 Posts
If you haven't read the thread on negativity, I suggest you do so. If you have and have nothing but negative things to post, I suggest you reacquaint yourself with it.

Proper Forum Etiquette - Civility & Negativity (at https://www.allpar.com/forums/threads/proper-forum-etiquette-civility-negativity.169902/ )

This thread is not for complaining about what *YOU* think FCA should be doing or what they're doing wrong. It is to discuss the plan, as laid out, and what it means for the future. If you think that the future is that "The Sky if Falling" I suggest you refrain from beating that drum.

If you insist on doing so, you can expect to take a vacation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,389 Posts
When we first learned about Alfa being used for the next gen Lx cars many complained that it is too focused on European sports sedan needs and many were worried (including myself) that the unique American needs might not be met (big V8s for example). Many predicted it would suffer the same issues as the Dart. So we can’t have it both ways. One thing one can fault FCA is that there seems to have been a certain amount of flip flopping when it comes to the direction of the Lx. Part of this might be that 1.5 years ago they realized some of the strict EPA regulations might be dialed back and the V8 is here to stay for another decade. Hardly anybody thought that in 2016.

And all this complaining about the age of the Lx platform seems silly. Nobody is complaining or even mentioning that Ford Fusion’s CD4 platform is an evolution of Mazda’s 1983 midsize car G platform. It comes always back to perception. And auto journalists don’t seem to help...
o_O

You all have to let this Platform idea from the 80s go... its gone... the Dodo is more relevant. Maybe I am just inadequate at explaining it. Everyday since the 80s the computational power has increased exponentially. The Alfa is being used in the next model, its just the latest in the irrigative process of the vehicle development that has been introduced. In nature you would call it evolution, adaption to the environment. Imagine them more evolving to the application, not reused. The relevance of CUSW is that was beginning of the adoption and leveraging of that computational power toward evolved products. There is no flip flopping there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the state of vehicle development at this point of history. The reason it is confusing is because the state of development tools is changing at a accelerated pace also, on becoming obsolete inside a vehicle implementation cycle. The current evolved (I am using this term to help clarify) development process, is already obsolete and will be gone by them time the new Charger is launched. Learn the term Typographic Optimization... in a few year vehicles design will be basically grown based on the inputs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
26,427 Posts
It still has soild name recognition, which matters a lot, look at Hyundai/KIA their cars have come a long way since 90s, but most people today still won't even give them a look. Names matter

Take the Veloster turbo for example, most car people hate that car only because its a " Hyundai " now imagine how people would feel about it if it was a Chrysler instead!
You seem to be a big fan of Hyundai/Kia.

Mike
 
  • Like
Reactions: T_690

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,300 Posts
I'm really not trying to be an a__hole here but, I find it really odd that so many people are surprised that some Mopar enthusiasts might feel a little screwed over by yesterday's presentation. FCA all but abandoned Chrysler, Dodge and Fiat yesterday and that is not opinion that is a fact represented by the CEO's own words when he spoke of where resources would be spent in coming years.
While given the current trends in vehicle sales this is most likely a very smart move on his behalf and for the future success of FCA.
But if you actually think that it is something that true Mopar fans will be happy to hear you must be confused or believe that Mopar fans are all Jeep/Ram drivers.
For fans of those brands it's a great day, if Chrysler/Dodge/(Plymouth) were your idea of what "Mopar" was, it was a really sad day.
Paint it any way you choose but when Dodge cars get left behind in the future on their 20 year old platform, many a Mopar fan will be looking at other brands of enthusiast rides because they want a muscle car, not a truck.
And the BS story going around sites about "Giorgio" not being able to handle Hemi torque is utter nonsense as the platform was developed in Detroit and Turin (Sergio's previous words), and will still underpin Hemi powered Jeeps.
Lastly, this site has been my go to place for insider info for more than a decade now and never steered me wrong in the past. But I'm a bit surprised that if this blindsided insiders here, why is it not a big deal? Because it sure is IMO.

Now I got that off my chest, I'm gonna go have another coffee and enjoy a nice sunny day while trying to clear my head of anything Mopar, Cheers
 

·
Jeepaholic
Joined
·
5,930 Posts
DUDE... I don't know how to help people move past this. It is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the current state of development tools. It worse then call people a Monkey, they are calling people the Shrew under the dinosaurs foot that was just discovered. He not wrong the vehicle that vehicle produced in Brampton with have a evolutionary origin with the Alfa, it that he somehow equates that to a negative. Which is no more relevant or correct than pointing out a Shrew as common ancestor. I am not sure it can be explained properly on a forum.
If I understand what you’re saying, and I won’t pretend that I understand all of it or even most, your use of evolution as the term of choice seems entirely appropriate. My first degree is in Biology, so evolution is something I understand fairly well. Organisms do not simply adapt to their environment, or to a set of factors that are present within a certain time period within their environment. They either have a set of favorable traits that allows them to survive changes to their environment and therefore pass along the genes for their favorable characteristics to their offspring. Those who did not possess those traits do not survive, and therefore do not pass along their genes. Or through mutation of their genetic code, they are able to exhibit a favorable characteristic that allows them to survive and ultimately pass along those mutated genes to their offspring. Keeping in mind that most genetic mutations are not favorable, and may lead to illness or death. I won’t go on and on and bore people to death with this

Long story short, an organism like a platform may have certain attributes that allow it to be used or adapted for use for other applications. The degree of adaptation can be variable depending on the application. For example, using the basic vertebrate design, look at how many uniquely different animals there are or have been that evolved from that basic design. The degree of possibilities that branched off is mind boggling.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
26,427 Posts
I'm really not trying to be an a__hole here but, I find it really odd that so many people are surprised that some Mopar enthusiasts might feel a little screwed over by yesterday's presentation. FCA all but abandoned Chrysler, Dodge and Fiat yesterday and that is not opinion that is a fact represented by the CEO's own words when he spoke of where resources would be spent in coming years.
While given the current trends in vehicle sales this is most likely a very smart move on his behalf and for the future success of FCA.
But if you actually think that it is something that true Mopar fans will be happy to hear you must be confused or believe that Mopar fans are all Jeep/Ram drivers.
For fans of those brands it's a great day, if Chrysler/Dodge/(Plymouth) were your idea of what "Mopar" was, it was a really sad day.
Paint it any way you choose but when Dodge cars get left behind in the future on their 20 year old platform, many a Mopar fan will be looking at other brands of enthusiast rides because they want a muscle car, not a truck.
And the BS story going around sites about "Giorgio" not being able to handle Hemi torque is utter nonsense as the platform was developed in Detroit and Turin (Sergio's previous words), and will still underpin Hemi powered Jeeps.
Lastly, this site has been my go to place for insider info for more than a decade now and never steered me wrong in the past. But I'm a bit surprised that if this blindsided insiders here, why is it not a big deal? Because it sure is IMO.

Now I got that off my chest, I'm gonna go have another coffee and enjoy a nice sunny day while trying to clear my head of anything Mopar, Cheers
I disagree that Insiders were blindsided. To me it was simply an anticlimactic presentation geared toward investors. The goal of the meeting was to show investors where the most money will be made. It was not geared toward enthusiasts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
I try to stay optimistick about FCA plans and I remain so for the Jeep and Ram brands and the luxury brands. However I am a little concerned about Chrysler and Dodge and I could care less about Fiat. It appears to me that Chrysler and Dodge will survive only as long as money can be made on them without having to invest much money on them. I am beginning to wonder if we will ever see a rwd/awd Dodge performance based cuv based on the alpha platform, I can believe the bof Durango because it can be built for very little investment. The Chrysler Pacifica based CUV might make it, once again they won’t have to spend big money on it, beyond these I will believe it when they become official just before production. I believe the predicted Jeep and Ram coming products because those are FCA’s N.A. money brands.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,314 Posts
When asked about replacements for the Charger and Challenger, he took the air out of previous rumors that the next-gen sedan and coupe would use the rear-drive architecture from the Alfa Romeo Giulia. Instead, he suggested that the current cars’ LX platform—which dates back to the mid-2000s—could be reworked to remain competitive. “By the time we finish this architecture, you will not recognize it in terms of its origins,” Marchionne said. “The Alfa platform reflects more European performance; [the LX platform reflects] the American heritage of Dodge.” Never mind that the LX platform was originally created during the DaimlerChrysler tie-up with Mercedes-Benz.
In all seriousness if they can get a modified LX platform to get the cars below 4000lbs I dont think many will care, I know I won't. I like the ride and seating position of the current cars. Nor do I want some jarring Nurburgring car that'll never see a road course in its life, but will see the drag strip, pot holes and traffic jams.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,007 Posts
I try to stay optimistick about FCA plans and I remain so for the Jeep and Ram brands and the luxury brands. However I am a little concerned about Chrysler and Dodge and I could care less about Fiat. It appears to me that Chrysler and Dodge will survive only as long as money can be made on them without having to invest much money on them. I am beginning to wonder if we will ever see a rwd/awd Dodge performance based cuv based on the alpha platform, I can believe the bof Durango because it can be built for very little investment. The Chrysler Pacifica based CUV might make it, once again they won’t have to spend big money on it, beyond these I will believe it when they become official just before production. I believe the predicted Jeep and Ram coming products because those are FCA’s N.A. money brands.
The “alpha platform” belongs to GM. The word you are looking for is Giorgio and it belongs to Alfa Romeo of FCA.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,996 Posts
My question now would be what is going into Brampton to replace the 300? Is it no longer possible to build a GUS Dodge CUV on the same line as the Charger and Challenger now that we know that they are going to use a heavily re-engineered version of their current architecture? @TripleT

If this is true, wouldn’t there be a large capacity opening in this plant that would accommodate the 300 without too much work?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,389 Posts
If I understand what you’re saying, and I won’t pretend that I understand all of it or even most, your use of evolution as the term of choice seems entirely appropriate. My first degree is in Biology, so evolution is something I understand fairly well. Organisms do not simply adapt to their environment, or to a set of factors that are present within a certain time period within their environment. They either have a set of favorable traits that allows them to survive changes to their environment and therefore pass along the genes for their favorable characteristics to their offspring. Those who did not possess those traits do not survive, and therefore do not pass along their genes. Or through mutation of their genetic code, they are able to exhibit a favorable characteristic that allows them to survive and ultimately pass along those mutated genes to their offspring. Keeping in mind that most genetic mutations are not favorable, and may lead to illness or death. I won’t go on and on and bore people to death with this

Long story short, an organism like a platform may have certain attributes that allow it to be used or adapted for use for other applications. The degree of adaptation can be variable depending on the application. For example, using the basic vertebrate design, look at how many uniquely different animals there are or have been that evolved from that basic design. The degree of possibilities that branched off is mind boggling.
I am only using that term to help people understand the process now. The Engineering team is still guiding the "evolution" with specific goals in mind. Where in the past you would simply be forced to reuse components, now they are evolved... so now that is coming to the end and will be turned inside out, and grown from the start to the application... but that will still be rooted in data leveraged from the previous iterations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,389 Posts
My question now would be what is going into Brampton to replace the 300? Is it no longer possible to build a GUS Dodge CUV on the same line as the Charger and Challenger now that we know that they are going to use a heavily re-engineered version of their current architecture? @TripleT

If this is true, wouldn’t there be a large capacity opening in this plant that would accommodate the 300 without too much work?
That is where platform as a pure definition of build points could come it, someone at the plant would know, also the build window. That is also changing a plant simulations are increasing becoming adopted. Of course the current carrier points could be part of the process of even a original product. Ha Ha then there would be complaints that its still on the Diamler platform I suppose. The plant is due for upgrade so perhaps the plant would get some upgrades that function for both.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,389 Posts
Proof so far? Other then Alfa nothing has been built on Giorgio. Seems there were "plans" to make virtually everything that is north south off of this. Other then the Cherokee and Pacifica as of right nothing else is built of CUSW except for Grand Commander in China. Dart and 200 is in the past and neither filled their markets very well. I may have missed something, but what all was originally supposed to have been built off these?
Free yourself of the platform mentality.... There is no such thing anymore.

Associate something to a dying market segment, Product X didn't fill the need of dying market Z, therefore product V,W, and Y are bad... Ha Ha you could fill anything in X and the answer is true. Civic, Focus, Fusion, Camry, Accord, 200, Dart...... as long a Z is the Sedan market.

You using obsolete terms and concepts to try generate negativity.... is this on purpose or do actually believe this. I mean if it fun being incorrect to stir people up ..... please continue and enjoy.
 
561 - 580 of 665 Posts
Top