Well, since "FDA" is already taken, yes you need Chrysler...LOL!

 

It could still be called FCA if Jeep, Dodge, and Ram were collectively called the Chrysler Group. That way the name survives as the overarching American division of FCA.

 

.
I'm one who doesn't want to let it go. There are others, so this will simply be another voice in the chorus that the Brand needs nurture and careful management. That it needs another two or three models; which should be very carefully chosen so we don't just get a new name on another model without distinguishing features.

I also don't like what it is now, and find Mainstream as an unacceptable place to go for the Brand - but there it is, though.

I'm in the minority where pursuing an Imperial is concerned. Yet, I could accept a Chrysler Imperial.

It's very, very true, however, that Chrysler is languishing currently. Don't know quite what to do to rescue things.
.

 

So what happened to the people who all used to drive Concordes, LHSs and 300Ms? Sure, many are now driving CUVs. Well, then it is time for Chrysler to come out with a pair of CUVs that redefine that market. Give me even more room in a clever way, make it nice inside, bold outside and give it outstanding driving characteristics.

And while everyone says don't take away my 300C. Well, sometimes you might have to take something away for a while in order to be able to bring it back to be appreciated. If Chrysler had had an RWD V8 sedan throughout the decades does anyone think the success of the 300C would have been as big? People often want what they can't have. Take something that nobody wants anymore away and all of a sudden interest rises again. Just look at how many people want the 300 SRT back now that it is gone...

 

So what happened to the people who all used to drive Concordes, LHSs and 300Ms? ..

Most of them are or soon will be in nursing homes.

 

The Chrysler brand is nowhere near redundant.

(a) it's main current problem is NOT the absence of bigger lineup. It is its excessively expensive cost base, since as yet its models do NOT have the scale economies to justify that cost. Since so far Chrysler has no share-ability with any other FCA brand that may be centered in other world market regions, nevermind cusw 'commonization'. Do recall that the first thing they did post-2009 was try to get additional scale by trying to relaunch Lancia in parts of Europe on the back of rebadged Chryslers. Why do you suppose?

(b) Chrysler as a brand will be very attractive at least to some weak-or-absent in the usa/canada car firms, and there are several, since future Chryslers can be versions/avatars of their models (or jointly developed but more inexpensively manufactured: through scale, outside of the usa.) Just Dodge would not do for a prospective merger/whatever potential 'partner'/mate, since Dodges are necessarily much too 'americana' (muscle or not), and more than slightly 'blue collar' in ethos? Also, in any case, Dodge seems well-down-the branding path to being a more-specialist/focussed 'muscle'-type brand, much to its benefit and market prospects it would appear?

(c) Chryslers have a large potential, albeit slow-to-come-to-a-boil, in China, which in turn would necessitate Chrysler surviving and selling minimally well in its home market, exactly a la Buick. They will hopefully, and as planned, be launching the C200 there, locally made, in 2017/18, as a (imo very delayed) start?

(d) Also China-related is the prospect of Chrysler as FCA's specialist, all-round (p)(h)EV brand, when the commercially viable time for that arrives, which presumably is post-2019/2020. The Pacifica hybrid will be the showcase for FCA's phev abilities, including interms of cost-competitiveness: a technology demonstrator model for all of FCA's brands (esp Maserati, Alfa, and Jeep too at some stage?)

(e) I believe M has by-now realized and has been tom-tomming it from the rooftops that the car business is too deeply commoditised, and over-competitive. i.e., it is the BRAND 'equity' (of whatever type) and the marketing+distribution-coverage+scale/cost-competitiveness that matters, that is a differentiator, NOT actual lineups and model-ranges. Also: by definition QualityDependabilityReliability cannot be a usp for any FCA model in the usa.

Chrysler is down to just the 300 and the Minivan because they are the only models that leave Chrysler as a brand with any clear identity and 'equity'/image? I suspect therefore that if they launch an entry-level recession/slowdown-fighting 100-type model: it will be a 'sporty' yet inexpensive Dodge? Other than maybe the Journey replacement (should be either outsourced or shared with FIAT europe+latam) and absolutely also be/have a phev-variant. CAFE for 202x!

Chrysler may lack any great equity, but the Pacifica (esp hybrid) could rebuild that gradually where the C200 failed-to. Meanwhile therefore: they need to cut its cost-structure, imo by shifting focus strongly to China as a manufacturing base, and/or 'outsourcing' a model or two and/or getting THAT craved-for, sought and imo necessary 'merger'/big-strategic-deal done at some point (say by 2020?) IMO there's no doubt that Chrysler as a brand that retails out of such a large network of multibrand dealerships (usa+canada) would make FCA's case/pitch for such a 'deal' more rather than less attractive. Which is why IMO there's no chance of him selling the rights to the brand, either, anymore than they will 'sell off' Lancia.

 

FCA hasn't really proven it can create a margin generating CUV/SUV without the Jeep name on it. So I'm not so sure this addition of these vehicles will save Chrysler. The original Durango and PT Cruiser are the only CUV/SUV entries in Chrysler history that were really successful without the Jeep name on them.

300C was a success for the same reason Intrepid was. When Intrepid came out, most FWD large cars were poor designs and the big sellers were RWD on ancient platforms. Intrepid was different. When 300C came out, most of the competition was FWD and the only other RWD car offerings were an ancient platform. 300C was different. Now 300C is the ancient platform, but it's still different as most competition is FWD.

Right now, I don't see much path forward for Chrysler. 200 is going away. No miracle low cost producer has stepped up to continue the car. 300 is old and not going to get a large investment for at least 3 more years (if then). Pacifica is going to hit a wall due to high prices, like the 200 did so it's either discount time or drop time. People will favor a Jeep SUV/CUV over Chrysler because Jeep has brand equity and people know Jeep will still be around. Chrysler's thin lineup and schizophrenic brand and model history don't convey that same security.

 

The good part is that FCA will probably never shut Chrysler down......they will continue to limp along like poor Lancia has done.

 

I think that Chrylser's owners have spent quite a bit of money over the last few decades on the idea that they needed a "full slate".

They should have stuck to large sedans and minivans with the Chrysler label because that is what sold well, and got great reviews.

Chrysler did not need a Neon, it did not need a Sebring/200 (rental fleet darling), and it didn't need the (CS) Pacifica. I thought the Crossfire was awesome idea, but it was not what it could have been in a better integrated DaimlerChrysler AG; a true sibling to the SLK would have made people notice.

The 300 and the T&C/Voyager/Pacifica minivan should have been enough to carry the Chrysler brand.

The Neon/Dart/Sebring/200/etc. belong in the Dodge stable. You can do a "full slate" there, because it is the "everyman" brand.

Chrysler should have been kept more asperational.

 

Let me start off by clarifying, this is not a doom-and-gloom thread about how Chrysler is dying. I'm aware that new models are coming. This is simply a thread where I'd like everyone to let go of nostalgia and think practically: Is Chrysler still a relevant brand to keep around?

There was a short discussion in another thread about the Pacifica becoming a Dodge, and that got me thinking. With only two models left, Chrysler is in a strange situation. More models are coming, but neither the 300 nor the Pacifica are in high-volume segments capable of sustaining the brand for long. Sales of the 300 have steadily declined since 2012 while sales of the Charger have increased and stayed fairly level.

The Pacifica is an excellent vehicle. Personally I see it as leading the minivan category by a wide margin. Unfortunately though, the continued production of the Dodge Grand Caravan is going to hurt the Pacifica as buyers see the price difference in showrooms. I understand the reason for keeping it around since the Pacifica is a new vehicle and is considerably more luxurious in upper trim levels while the Grand Caravan is sufficient for families who don't need every feature.

Would it not be more cost efficient to incorporate current and future Chrysler models into the Dodge lineup? The 300 and Charger could be combined fairly easily by creating a more luxurious Charger, while the Pacifica has styling elements that would fit the Dodge brand well. The current Dodge van could be rebadged as the Caravan, while the Pacifica could become the Grand Caravan. The Journey replacement destined for the Chrysler brand could simply be a second-generation Dodge Journey.

There are a few benefits to consolidating models into one brand rather than two.

- In the event of a merger or buyout, right now Chrysler and Dodge seem fairly unappealing to potential buyers due to incomplete lineups and lack of major vehicle redesigns.

- With a full lineup, Dodge has a greater chance to become a Chevy and Ford competitor than if the lineup was split between two brands.

So with all of that said, I ask you guys to look past the nostalgia and think about the future viability of these brands. I am not excited about the possibility of the Chrysler brand disappearing, but I'd much rather see it folded into Dodge than see both brands continue to suffer until the new models arrive. I know this is not going to be a very popular idea, but I'd like for everyone to refrain from heated discussion and remain open minded - I'm interested in hearing everyone's point-of-view...

I agree with most of what you say here. I just wanted to address something to the area I highlighted in your post.

I think a strong argument could be made that FCA might actually be far more appealing to a buyer/merger partner, WITHOUT the Chrysler brand.

I'm thinking specifically of GM here. We already know that Sergio wanted (and probably still wants) to merge with GM. In that light, you could see why they might choose to axe the Chrysler brand.

From a car fan's point of view, I wold hate a GM merger, but from a dispassionate financial point of view, it's hard to argue with the logic behind such a merger.

 

The “cure” for all auto industry ills always seems to be to cut brands and models. DeSoto, Plymouth, Imperial, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Saturn, Hummer, Mercury, Edsel, Studebaker, Packard, Hudson, Nash, Eagle. All those car brands were lost during just my lifetime, and I probably missed several. The number of models lost in an attempt to stem financial bleeding is staggering.

There have been times when Chrysler Corporation models had premium prices tacked on the window sticker and waiting lists that lasted for months. Cordoba, PT Cruiser, Sebring convertible. Just memories today, but at one time they were best sellers.

I don’t know the real cure, but killing brands isn’t. I also know that milking the styling cow for 14-15 years isn’t the answer. The current 300 was a hit when it arrived, but after a decade and a half of the same body with different britework, it doesn’t turn eyes anymore. My wife owned two of them, but had no interest in a third. Dodge sells the same car for far less money, and it does change looks a little bit.

My first mini-van was a Grand Caravan, and I liked it. It was a reliable workhorse and less expensive than the Town and Country I really wanted. Then I retired and bought the least expensive Chrysler version. I loved it enough to buy another a few years later, then another…each time moving up a trim level. I now drive a 2014 Limited and I absolutely love it for practicality and comfort, though it has become a reliable appliance, not something to love for its personality and joy of driving.

When the Pacifica photos hit the net, I was awed by the styling, but turned off by the name. It recalled the disappointing crossover, and an even less memorable, Californian-pleasing Dodge model from thirty years ago. When I stopped in to look at the new van, I was less than impressed. Really nice exterior styling, but my T&C has a plusher interior, and the new color selections are bland. It better fits a Dodge than a Chrysler. Yes, some of us still see Chrysler as a step up.

In my age-skewed opinion, the 200 would have sold well as a Plymouth. Despite being a nice car, it doesn’t fit the image of a Chrysler in many minds. They tried that trick with the Laser and Sebring sedans without lasting success.

That said, I will probably buy a Pacifica if the coming year offers better colors and a return to softer plastic. It will be my last wheeled appliance and will probably last the rest of my driving life. For driving fun, I will still have my fifty and sixty year old real American Mopars built by the Chrysler Corporation in Detroit.

 

The problem is that no matter how "volume leader" they claim it to be, Chrysler has always been the premium big brother to Dodge. The vehicles have always carried an air of "working man's luxury." However the problem is that in order for that to fly you need a strong Dodge (or Plymouth) as your volume leader. And right now their plan seems to be having no duplication of the models across those lines. Sooo... I think Chrysler as a brand doesn't know what it's supposed to be right now. Is it necessary? I think so. But given the current state of both Dodge and Chrysler's lineups I don't see how it is supposed to maintain relevance.

 

Chrysler is absolutely relevant. The problem right now is that its product-starved. The 300 is absolutely its own car, and I cant see a lot of its customers moving to a Charger...as similar as they are, the execution is VERY different. And it still sells.

Lets face it, the 'Chrysler is mainstream' thing was dumb. Just like making SRT its own brand. They did a 180 on that, so can they too with Chrysler. 'Mainstream' really has little meaning, if you think about it. I guess that's supposed to mean boring faceless appliances which only ToyHanSanDai can only really sell. So FCA has to find a way to offer basically the same thing as those blobs but do it with that extra 'mojo' that makes people want American cars. They did it with the LX cars, PT Cruiser, Sebring convertible, '94 Ram, Wrangler, etc. Anything with 4 wheels and 4 doors can make a practical family car...that's something you 'need' to own if your situation demands it. Why should you WANT that vehicle? Personal gratification is the answer, and whether that's a touch of luxury/class, sportiness, performance, or offroad capability THATS how its done. Chrysler as a brand has to do everything those beigemobiles do but give a prospective owner something to brag about. For 'Chrysler', they need to recapture the magic that is the 300 and the PT Cruiser and sprinkle some of that on everything they sell.

 

Product starved is the main problem. Of course, as more American brands get cut, more foreign/Asian brands come online, but that does not mean they are better cars by any stretch.

FCA really hasn't done anything for this side of the pond besides Dart and 200, everything else is little changes, which are nice, but there has yet to be anything dramatic enough to say "NEW" in big, bold advertising. Yes, Durango is nice, minivan is nice (changed the name, overall, still looks like the previous year's model from a distance, so not anything really "new"), everything else, low volume, actually, surprised they sell any of them the 300 is so stale. Stale as a crouton actually. Does one get rid of a brand because it is stale because you ran it into the ground by not making enough changes to be able to call it new?

Over the years, when Chrysler was having bad sales numbers, lo and behold they would throw something out there and everyone would love it. I would actually like to see something in both a 2 door and a 4 door, like the old days, something Chrysler hasn't had in how many decades now? I guess it would be nice to see something other than a Suburban/minivan/SUV/CUV looking something. If someone would just build something that looks like a nice coupe and sedan, instead of offering us a 13-14 year 4 door and a 4 door FWD model or nothing.

 

To me the 300 still has a LOT of presence. Love the way they look when coming down the road. And they are real nice inside. Just not sure how you make them get the same attention that the Dodges are getting. I do admit, when I see the new S90 I can see how a 300 could use some upgrades. But this isn't the same 300 as in 2004. 8 speed, updated engines, new interiors... Most people who buy 3 series and A4s drive highways, not mountain roads. I would still try to steal from those markets since a 300 offers so much more for highway driving... IMHO.

 

Best selling car in their class in case you all forgot.

 

Just for clarification, do you mean the 300 on its own, or combined with the Charger? I know the 300's sales have increased with the '15 refresh but I was thinking the Charger outsold it.

 

Although I am sorry to see the (plymouth) 200 go away, it was not the right vehicle for Chrysler Brand. I would rather wait for something better matched to the individuality of the 300's and Pacifica's. I certainly think there is room for a "Town and Country" crossover as well.

 

Can I ask why you think it is not the right vehicle for Chrysler?

 

Don't want a luxury Dodge tractor. Want a car that does not offend my senses. Down wlth it dodge

 

I've thought for a while that the Chrysler brand isn't needed. Transition the Pacifica to Dodge. The Charger can be made just as luxurious as the 300 is now. For those that think that just because the C in FCA is Chrysler, that means you need the brand to justify the corporate name, think about GM. None of their brands are mentioned in the corporate name.

By concentrating on Jeep, Dodge and Ram, the next priority should be improving the quality (both perceived and actual).

 

Slowly by slowly Chrysler is being gotten rid of and it shouldn't. Yes, you can make a Dodge just as luxurious as a 300 and the result is an overpriced charger Sedan and history shows they sell in very low volume, it just doesn't work. Can you see getting rid of, for example, Cadillac, and having an Impala costing $75K? I don't think so. They have been fighting to move Chrysler downward in demographics and that isn't what Chrysler ever was. The 200 looks just too much like a Hyundai or Kia, I am constantly glancing at them and not recognizing them, they just look too much like other cars out there, and Chrysler has never been that way, so a design flaw to fix. At the same time, agree (Plymouth) 200, or at the least, Dodge 200. Chrysler is for the businessman or professional, Dodge is for the worker family (and some performance minded individuals), but then the Maserati, well, it is just a little bit too high above the Chrysler to fit as a replacement and would not work, the gap between the Dodge and the Maserati is just too large to remove Chrysler and not lose out. FCA needs to notice this gap, get something new in the lineup and brag about having the perfect saving grace vehicle perfectly placed between Dodge and Maserati.

 

The problem is that gap is where they want to put Alfa Romeo.

 

Problem is, Alfa Romeo is not and never has been a replacement or swap for Chrysler, no way, no how, won't work. Now, it might be a little bit different story if there were a Hemi under the hood, an almost rebadged AR, but right now, if you took 100 Chrysler drivers and told them the new model was not going to be a Chrysler but an AR, you would be able to count the number of purchasers on one hand. There was a reason why AR was out of the USA for more than 25 years and it wasn't because Chrysler was eating into AR sales.

 

You see that and I see that. But wishful thinkers in Italy see the US market taking to Alfa Romeo in large numbers in the price range between Dodge and Maserati.

 

I know, and if we liked things like the size of the Fiat 500, they would be selling ten times better than they are. The differences between driving in Europe and the USA is the difference of planting a garden or planting a 100 acre farm. If they haven't figured that out with the Fiat 500, it is all of us that lose.

 

A 200 made from the show car is what it should've been. I know hindsight is always 20/20, but it wasn't that hard to figure out. All lower priced midsizers are fwd, this would've been rwd. Chrysler by definition now has to be completely different. They can't at this time win taking on the competition with a generic vanilla sedan.

 

Making an exact replica of the 200C concept wouldn't have helped them. I've said it before, but reviewers would bash it for being on an "ancient" and "heavy" platform (LX).

 

Seems like a light platform to me, when I look at the Challenger’s relatively small weight disadvantages vs the Mustang and prior Camaro, vs its large space advantage!

Bob would be pissed right now because a platform doesn’t weigh anything.

 

I agree with you, I'm just saying that all of the L platform cars are constantly criticized because of their "outdated" platform. I personally love the platform and its continued refinements, I own a Challenger and am considering purchasing a Charger in the near future.

The weight difference is a small price to pay for the increased interior space in the Challenger over the Mustang and Camaro, but for a "practicality first" family car, I would think think that a more efficiency-minded architecture would be a better option.

 

We agree on both points then

 

With the halt given to god knows how many of the planned new vehicles, I don't think Chrysler will get anything new for the foreseeable future.

 

Chrysler is and have been mainstream..maybe upper mainstream?, some one wrote " working mans luxury car" to me thats a good definition
of Chrysler. Dodge have a more complex stigma just like chevvy, trucks, Challengers, minivans and econoboxes...and for some reason
it works!
- iwe said it Before! Badge engineering, look at Vag- skoda. seat, Volkswagen, audi, porsche! Much the same but still different.
Why isnt there a Chrysler Challenger- a two door 300?
Why isnt there a Chrysler SUV based on Cherokee? ( and were is the Dodge one? )
Why isnt there a crossover based on renegade? ( Dodge again!)
Why isnt there a Big Chrysler suv based on the Durango/ GC ?
- i can go on and on....heck maybe even a Chrysler 1500 truck!
Some styling differences, different settings for chassi, different settings for Engine and tranny...voila, you have a different car!

 

Chrysler is and have been mainstream..maybe upper mainstream?, some one wrote " working mans luxury car" to me thats a good definition of Chrysler. Dodge have a more complex stigma just like chevvy, trucks, Challengers, minivans and econoboxes...and for some reason
it works! - iwe said it Before! Badge engineering, look at Vag- skoda. seat, Volkswagen, audi, porsche! Much the same but still different.

Why isnt there a Chrysler Challenger- a two door 300?

Why isnt there a Chrysler SUV based on Cherokee? ( and were is the Dodge one? )
Why isnt there a crossover based on renegade? ( Dodge again!)
Why isnt there a Big Chrysler suv based on the Durango/ GC ?
- i can go on and on....heck maybe even a Chrysler 1500 truck!
Some styling differences, different settings for chassi, different settings for Engine and tranny...voila, you have a different car!

In this copy-cat world, I believe that's all they'll do ( copy ); but even that's half-hearted.

I would think they could move a sports coupe, but since V8 cars will be gone for the most part and they're moving to Turbo Fours and V6es perhaps the better platform would be a 200-sized car. A Performer, yeah, but Luxe first ( even though they'd only likely make it a near-luxe car, if they would give-in to the idea at all ). The Challenger as a basis might be too big and heavy. If they lean on some of the 1950's cars as but one source of inspiration - such as the Nash-Healey Coupe* (the format, not as a styling rip) - that might work. It would be different.

But I don't think they'd ever want to be a risk-taker again; so they'll basically go along with the established program.

= = =

Wikipedia Photo : Nash-Healey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia