Allpar Forums banner
21 - 40 of 85 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,815 Posts
Yes, the horribly flawed 2.4 did not help the 200 win customers. It was the engine of choice for rental fleets as well, leaving those people with a bad experience.

The design flaws of the 200 were also more visible for rental car customers who took their families on vacation and hit their heads on the rear seat openings.

Then, having the CEO come out and throw the designers under the bus was one of the most disgusting and evil things he could do.....when he approved the design himself, but blamed others. He was a small man.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,179 Posts
Not as much size as poor layout, the roofline compromised entry into the front and rear seats. Once in, room wasn’t bad.
The problem with the 200 is it should have been a Dodge Avenger and the Chrysler should have been a version with a 4-5" longer wheelbase. There is room for a sporty short wheelbase midsize car, but it belongs at Dodge not Chrysler.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,815 Posts
The problem with the 200 is it should have been a Dodge Avenger and the Chrysler should have been a version with a 4-5" longer wheelbase. There is room for a sporty short wheelbase midsize car, but it belongs at Dodge not Chrysler.
Yes, the FCA stupidity of taking "no overlap" too far bit them on their rear.

Anyone could plainly see that Avenger/200 was a stronger seller than 200 alone.
Anyone could see that Compass/Patriot was a stronger seller than Compass alone.
Anyone could see 300/Charger was a stronger seller than cheapening the 300 and focusing only on Charger.

Only the arrogant, customer-blind leadership were oblivious to what we knew the market wanted.
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
37,173 Posts
The problem with the 200 is it should have been a Dodge Avenger and the Chrysler should have been a version with a 4-5" longer wheelbase. There is room for a sporty short wheelbase midsize car, but it belongs at Dodge not Chrysler.
We agree on something again.
Admittedly a wheelbase change would have been a huge risk.
I think I would have done a Dodge sporty wagon (crossover between Cherokee and 200) and kept the 200 as it is... but if CAFE allowed, gone V6 only.
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
37,173 Posts
Anyone could see that Compass/Patriot was a stronger seller than Compass alone.
They did replace it with Compass/Renegade which are now on the same platform. I thought Compass vs Patriot was pretty clever if done well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,815 Posts
They did replace it with Compass/Renegade which are now on the same platform. I thought Compass vs Patriot was pretty clever if done well.
Yes, but made at two different plants, negating any cost savings. North American Renegades should be built in Toluca next to Compass, just as they do in Melfi. It makes no sense to ship Renegades across the ocean when you have a low cost plant that can make them here.

But propping up the Italian plants is required because they need volume they do not get in their home market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David S and cdjr77

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,179 Posts
We agree on something again.
Admittedly a wheelbase change would have been a huge risk.
I think I would have done a Dodge sporty wagon (crossover between Cherokee and 200) and kept the 200 as it is... but if CAFE allowed, gone V6 only.
CAFE didn't allow. When Ford Fusion was doing a 1.5T and 2.0T on a 112" wheelbase since 2013 the huge risk was what they did, 108" wheelbase and NA engines without direct injection. They made a Buick Regal when they didn't have a Malibu/Fusion in the lineup.
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
37,173 Posts
Yes, but made at two different plants, negating any cost savings. North American Renegades should be built in Toluca next to Compass, just as they do in Melfi. It makes no sense to ship Renegades across the ocean when you have a low cost plant that can make them here.

But propping up the Italian plants is required because they need volume they do not get in their home market.
Negating any production cost savings, you mean? I suspect at their volumes it's still cheaper. The main savings is in engineering. Like Scion, which had several bodies for the Echo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,815 Posts
Negating any production cost savings, you mean? I suspect at their volumes it's still cheaper. The main savings is in engineering. Like Scion, which had several bodies for the Echo.
We know production costs in Italy are higher than in Mexico. Add overseas shipping to that and all the required paperwork, inspections, customs, etc and whatever engineering savings you had are out the window.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David S

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,685 Posts
Only if you imagine it would be free to set up the supply-chain for the Renegade’s bill of materials in Mexico, and install tooling that won’t be fully utilized based on NAFTA volumes alone.

Remember also that Toluca is over 600 miles from any part of the USA: and as per-mile shipping of goods with low volumetric weight like cars over land is more expensive than over sea, any saving in freight is probably not as significant as you are imagining either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,244 Posts
We know production costs in Italy are higher than in Mexico. Add overseas shipping to that and all the required paperwork, inspections, customs, etc and whatever engineering savings you had are out the window.
Melfi made more than 300k Small Wise cars in some years. That number excludes years when they've built Snallt based car, Fiat Punto.

So it seems that they may have an edge because of volume.

Anyway I agree that Toluca should gain something but with switching to a new platforms it's not straightforward thinking.
It seems that next generation Renegade and next generation Compass will not share platform anymore. One should stay at Melfi with other going to Zaragoza.
Next generation Compass could stay at Toluca but it seems that Renegade will not join it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,815 Posts
Only if you imagine it would be free to set up the supply-chain for the Renegade’s bill of materials in Mexico, and install tooling that won’t be fully utilized based on NAFTA volumes alone.

Remember also that Toluca is over 600 miles from any part of the USA: and as per-mile shipping of goods with low volumetric weight like cars over land is more expensive than over sea, any saving in freight is probably not as significant as you are imagining either.
Your first part is a good point. However, other than sheet metal, most of the supply chain for Compass will work in the Renegade....and that has already been established.

Your second point is ignoring the fact that Stellantis has a long-established shipping chain from Mexico north. I assure you the trains and trucks cost far less than a ship and trains and trucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David S

·
Plymouth Makes It
Joined
·
8,189 Posts
Too many layers of management. Chrysler needs an Independence Day
 
  • Like
Reactions: Adventurer55

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Rear entry was big enough alone to kill 200... SM just didn't want to invest any further in Dart and 200. All they needed were some enthusiast powertrains to stoke excitement and make them respectable; no one was going to buy a Dart or 200 for reliability as they would a Corolla or Civic, but if FCA had invested in larger displacement I-4 turbos sooner and/or stuffed the 3.2 Pentastar in the Dart, along with SM not bashing them like a real a**, they would have at least lasted longer. The CUV craze has proved to be a car-killer, but it didn't have to result in premature deaths of some actually great FCA vehicles.

I don't know that different wheelbases are needed between Chrysler and Dodge... just different bodies, powertrain options (think SRT on the Dodge side), and marketing. Tuning, tires, and suspension adjustments can make otherwise similar chassis (monocoque) vehicles feel very different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,240 Posts
Rear entry was big enough alone to kill 200... SM just didn't want to invest any further in Dart and 200. All they needed were some enthusiast powertrains to stoke excitement and make them respectable; no one was going to buy a Dart or 200 for reliability as they would a Corolla or Civic, but if FCA had invested in larger displacement I-4 turbos sooner and/or stuffed the 3.2 Pentastar in the Dart, along with SM not bashing them like a real a**, they would have at least lasted longer. The CUV craze has proved to be a car-killer, but it didn't have to result in premature deaths of some actually great FCA vehicles.

I don't know that different wheelbases are needed between Chrysler and Dodge... just different bodies, powertrain options (think SRT on the Dodge side), and marketing. Tuning, tires, and suspension adjustments can make otherwise similar chassis (monocoque) vehicles feel very different.
Dart or 200 wouldn't had made it regardless of Power train.. Dart was Too heavy though it had better Passenger Volume than Leader Cruze. and 200 was to Small for its Competition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,815 Posts
Dart or 200 wouldn't had made it regardless of Power train.. Dart was Too heavy though it had better Passenger Volume than Leader Cruze. and 200 was to Small for its Competition.
Dart was a "tweener". Larger than compact and smaller than midsize.

That is fine, but the Dart did not offer anything compelling. No performance version. No great fuel economy. No great safety technology. No quality or reliability. No great customer service.

The 200 was hamstrung by poor design. Exterior was bland compared to recent Chryslers (300, 200C concept). While they offered the 3.6 that delivered great performance, it was never advertised as such. A Dodge Avenger with only the 3.6 would have been better. The problems with the FCA cheapened 9-speed also doomed the 200 to failure.

Dart was built to gain 5% ownership of Chrysler. Therefore, they would not invest much into it....leading to lousy quality. 200 was built to continue to Chrysler 300 luxury image, but its design flaws and cheap transmission that was flawed prevented many owners from having a great experience.

FCA threw away Town & Country and replaced it with Pacifica for some inconceivable reason that no sane leader can comprehend. But they kept the 200 name after the original was bashed over and over.

It was almost like they wanted the 200 to fail.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,685 Posts
Dart was made too big in order to share engineering costs with KL Cherokee.

The Alfa Giulietta that Dart was based on was a touch wider than the Corolla. All that was required for a sedan was a wheelbase stretch. (A Giulietta wagon was even in development at this point, which could have served as a donor)

Widening Dart made it heavier, on top of the extra weight needed for FMVSS, and that pushed it beyond the capabilities of the power trains available. The Giulietta is a fast car with the 1.4T engine; but the Dart struggles.

The 9-speed problems should be rightly addressed to ZF. Every single customer using this transmission had the same issues. The bigger problem is that FCA was the only one using it in non-premium brands, and the less you charge for a product, the more people are likely to complain. (Case in point, Range Rover, whose Evoque has the same problems, but buyers just accept it as part of the price to own a Range Rover)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
38,541 Posts
The 9-speed problems should be rightly addressed to ZF. Every single customer using this transmission had the same issues. The bigger problem is that FCA was the only one using it in non-premium brands, and the less you charge for a product, the more people are likely to complain. (Case in point, Range Rover, whose Evoque has the same problems, but buyers just accept it as part of the price to own a Range Rover)
Blaming ZF does no good. FCA chose them as a supplier. once you chose a supplier, their issues become your issues.
FCA also made certain decisions that amplified the 9 speed issues.
 

·
Registered
2014 Jeep Compass
Joined
·
691 Posts
The 9-speed problems should be rightly addressed to ZF. Every single customer using this transmission had the same issues. The bigger problem is that FCA was the only one using it in non-premium brands, and the less you charge for a product, the more people are likely to complain. (Case in point, Range Rover, whose Evoque has the same problems, but buyers just accept it as part of the price to own a Range Rover)
I know I heard some things about Honda's when they decided to start running the 9 speed.
I know some techs who've been replacing them to this day.
 
21 - 40 of 85 Posts
Top