Allpar Forums banner
121 - 140 of 172 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,244 Posts
Plans have not been announced yet but the next 2700 mm (106.3") wheelbase SUVs should be FWD/AWD on STLA Medium, whether the Jeep version gets the Cherokee name is completely up to Jeep marketing, but there should be a Chrysler version as well. That should be the debut model for STLA Medium which according to the chart released puts it at late 2023 for the 2024 model year.

I asked @Erik Latranyi , not you.

Big plans for US were made for STLA Large platform.

My question for Erik is. Planned MY debut for the new Cherokee. Electrification technology choice. Platform choice.
Let's say that I know 2 out of 3.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,835 Posts
I asked @Erik Latranyi , not you.

Big plans for US were made for STLA Large platform.

My question for Erik is. Planned MY debut for the new Cherokee. Electrification technology choice. Platform choice.
Let's say that I know 2 out of 3.
I really do not care what you know. You have been wrong plenty of times.

My post was speculation. It says right in the post.

So, instead of playing "gotcha" with me, try to actually comprehend what I write instead of just have an emotional reaction.

Lastly, this is a thread about Chrysler, not Jeep.
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
0 Posts
Once again we hear the sedans are dead nonsense. Large RWD sedans are dead due to EPA regulations, large FWD sedans are "dead" due to the ignorance of automotive journalists who insist on calling them midsize despite the fact they are large. The result is the present situation described by Valiant67 above. Compact and midsize sedans are alive and well, they are among the top 5 market segments in the US. Pointing to the half hearted Dart/200 effort and the shortsighted decisions of GM and Ford management does nothing to change that fact.
"Dead" was hyperbole. Even though longsighted Toyota is discontinuing the full-hearted efforted Avalon I am aware they will likely continue to make a Camry for us all for many years to come.
 

·
Valued Member
Joined
·
2,671 Posts
There is one thing that maybe we can all agree on that Chrysler needs. A smart looking, well equipped, medium to larger CUV preferably built in Windsor or Belvidere. They could use this really bad. I assume that if said product is coming it'll be based off the new architecture.
Looking forward to new products such as the previous one here from 1965:

Tire Wheel Car Automotive parking light Vehicle
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,835 Posts
"Everyone is missing the entire point that Chrysler is covering up the fact that Ms. Soave was having an affair with the head of the ad agency that she hired to handle Fiat’s affairs," posted registered Automotive News commenter R Taylor. "In addition, auditors were sent into the agency’s offices to investigate fraud."
First, Ms Soave's private life did not affect the failure of the highly flawed Fiat.
Second, no fraud was found, unlike the smoking gun note showing Sergio was bribing union leaders.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
No, interior room in the 300 IS NOT "fine". Compared to a traditional full size car, it is narrower and poor room in the rear seat. Have you owned one and tried to take 4 adults on a long trip? The trunk's biggest failure is the small opening which limits what you can put in it.
Disagree. My Magnum is ALWAYS the car of choice on road trips, because of its spacious interior, long wheelbase and cargo capacity. If anyone thinks those barges from the 60's were better in any way for function, space utilisation, performance, comfort, not a chance! My mother drove Cadillacs, my uncle drove Lincolns, neither one could touch a modern car in any definition except length and width. P.S. My car also seats 5 very comfortably and would take 6 if it had a front bench.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,182 Posts
"Dead" was hyperbole. Even though longsighted Toyota is discontinuing the full-hearted efforted Avalon I am aware they will likely continue to make a Camry for us all for many years to come.
Sorry, I see you are new on here. There is a group on here who don't take it as hyperbole. They aren't really discontinuing the Avalon/ES, just the Toyota luxury sedan they didn't need, no market segment has been left, they are just trying to shift sales to Lexus. Yes, Camry will be with us for a long time to come, though the V6 days may be numbered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
Chrysler ME412 that would bring interest to the brand..

A hot new Chrysler 300 including a Hellcat version before this model is gone/send it off being a legend!!!

Please not just electric vans and suv's,need those too,but they need some nice cars with real engines! One thing about the Daimler era they actually had lots of Chrysler cars..Sure they needed better quality, but they had several cars!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
38,571 Posts
Let's compare the 300 to the last other "full size" RWD car sold in the US.
The Mercury Grand Marquis had 6 cubic feet more interior space. It also was an easier car for elderly people to get in and out of due to the shape of the door openings.
The 300 has MORE trunk space by 3 cubic feet. However, the layout of the space and especially the short deck lid (forcing you to push items to the front of the opening under the rear shelf) made the space less convenient than in the Mercury especially for bulky objects which I usually ended up carrying in the rear seat. .
The 300 still meets the EPA definition of a large car (120 cubic feet or more of passenger and cargo space) with 103 passenger and 24 cargo. But it isn't as roomy as past large cars and traded "sportiness" for some functionality.

The last big FWD Chrysler Concorde had more passenger room (107 vs the 103), but the Concorde's trunk was smaller by 5 cubic feet.
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
37,204 Posts
Discussion Starter · #131 ·
I've been in those Grand Marquis. The Concorde was way larger inside. Heck, the 300M was larger inside, in terms of human usable space.

The Mercury was fine for some things, but handling, braking, fuel economy, and acceleration were not even in the same league.

On former Chrysler exec told me that in Europe, three execs were driven to the airport in a car that Americans would consider "compact." They were picked up in Chrysler's largest available car in the US. Their suitcases did not fit in the long, low, sleek trunk, and had to be brought into the cabin. They noticed there was not much more legroom inside this car which was several feet longer than the European car from the same company. Packaging improved dramatically with the Omni and K-cars... I think the PT Cruiser was the ultimate triumph of car packaging. Wide enough for three child seats in the same row, very usable hatch area, room for four adults inside, and over a foot shorter (bumper to bumper) than a Neon.

The 300C was a bit of a packaging disappointment to me after the 300M, but they needed space for the 6.1, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,182 Posts
Let's compare the 300 to the last other "full size" RWD car sold in the US.
The Mercury Grand Marquis had 6 cubic feet more interior space. It also was an easier car for elderly people to get in and out of due to the shape of the door openings.
The 300 has MORE trunk space by 3 cubic feet. However, the layout of the space and especially the short deck lid (forcing you to push items to the front of the opening under the rear shelf) made the space less convenient than in the Mercury especially for bulky objects which I usually ended up carrying in the rear seat. .
The 300 still meets the EPA definition of a large car (120 cubic feet or more of passenger and cargo space) with 103 passenger and 24 cargo. But it isn't as roomy as past large cars and traded "sportiness" for some functionality.

The last big FWD Chrysler Concorde had more passenger room (107 vs the 103), but the Concorde's trunk was smaller by 5 cubic feet.
I've been in those Grand Marquis. The Concorde was way larger inside. Heck, the 300M was larger inside, in terms of human usable space.

The Mercury was fine for some things, but handling, braking, fuel economy, and acceleration were not even in the same league.

On former Chrysler exec told me that in Europe, three execs were driven to the airport in a car that Americans would consider "compact." They were picked up in Chrysler's largest available car in the US. Their suitcases did not fit in the long, low, sleek trunk, and had to be brought into the cabin. They noticed there was not much more legroom inside this car which was several feet longer than the European car from the same company. Packaging improved dramatically with the Omni and K-cars... I think the PT Cruiser was the ultimate triumph of car packaging. Wide enough for three child seats in the same row, very usable hatch area, room for four adults inside, and over a foot shorter (bumper to bumper) than a Neon.

The 300C was a bit of a packaging disappointment to me after the 300M, but they needed space for the 6.1, right?
Wrong again on your numbers. Here are the actual numbers from the website:

1984 models
LeBaron 96 interior 15 trunk
E Class/New Yorker 97 interior 17 trunk
Newport/5th Avenue 99 interior 16 trunk
Executive 101 interior 14 trunk
Grand Marquis 111 interior 22 trunk

2004 models:
Concorde 107 interior 19 trunk
300 M 105 17
Grand Marquis 109 21

2021 model
300 106 16


The last Grand Marquis had 5 more cubic feet in the trunk than the 300. The Concorde had 3 more cubic feet in the trunk.

As I said the old style cars had width for a bench seat, that didn't give any extra usable space for 4 people, six fit much better.

I don't call a short tall vehicle a triumph in packaging. It is an old Eurasian concept to minimize vehicle shadow while maximizing interior space by going vertical. This is discouraged by the present EPA footprint regulations that actually give an advantage to the traditional lower longer wider US car style. The real triumph is making a 50-53" tall car with good headroom for a 6'2" driver.

PT Cruiser 98.9 cu ft interior 21.6 cu ft cargo (measured as a station wagon, so not directly comparable to a sedan like a hatchback would be).
LeBaron GTS 98 cu ft interior 18 cu ft cargo. (measured as a hatchback, so directly comparable to a sedan).

The LeBaron GTS it the real triumph in packaging, right way to package that interior volume for most people in the US.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
38,571 Posts
Wrong again on your numbers. Here are the actual numbers from the website:

1984 models
LeBaron 96 interior 15 trunk
E Class/New Yorker 97 interior 17 trunk
Newport/5th Avenue 99 interior 16 trunk
Executive 101 interior 14 trunk
Grand Marquis 111 interior 22 trunk

2004 models:
Concorde 107 interior 19 trunk
300 M 105 17
Grand Marquis 109 21

2021 model
300 106 16


The last Grand Marquis had 5 more cubic feet in the trunk than the 300. The Concorde had 3 more cubic feet in the trunk.

As I said the old style cars had width for a bench seat, that didn't give any extra usable space for 4 people, six fit much better.

I don't call a short tall vehicle a triumph in packaging. It is an old Eurasian concept to minimize vehicle shadow while maximizing interior space by going vertical. This is discouraged by the present EPA footprint regulations that actually give an advantage to the traditional lower longer wider US car style. The real triumph is making a 50-53" tall car with good headroom for a 6'2" driver.

PT Cruiser 98.9 cu ft interior 21.6 cu ft cargo (measured as a station wagon, so not directly comparable to a sedan like a hatchback would be).
LeBaron GTS 98 cu ft interior 18 cu ft cargo. (measured as a hatchback, so directly comparable to a sedan).

The LeBaron GTS it the real triumph in packaging, right way to package that interior volume for most people in the US.
I used the EPA numbers, 2005 300 vs 2005 Mercury Grand Marquis. Here's the original 300c, the current 300, the Concorde and Grand Marquis.
Product Car Font Screenshot Rectangle
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
37,204 Posts
Discussion Starter · #134 ·
The numbers, sadly, are not necessarily directly comparable. For example, look at the 2005 vs 2021 300 interior and trunk space. Interior space numbers can be thrown off by width and roof height.
 

·
Registered
2014 Jeep Compass
Joined
·
696 Posts
Chrysler ME412 that would bring interest to the brand.
Might as well close up Chrysler and or Dodge at that point: it made more sense to build it when Dodge was still a "lets build everything to touch all bases" brand, so that Mercedes-AMG powered supercar would've fit Chrysler well.
Now? Build a faster car then what Dodge can for Chrysler, there's no point to Dodge, and no one would buy a ME412 today because there's no justifiable way to get people to walk in.
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
37,204 Posts
Discussion Starter · #137 ·
Wow, gooseneck hinges really cut into trunk space in the second-generation 300.
Oh, that would explain the difference in the numbers. Maybe they are comparable. I've just kinda learned never to trust Ford numbers (EPA numbers are provided by the automakers). Especially from that era. Anyone remember how they set a precedent by suing the web site which exposed their lies about Mustang power ratings?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,182 Posts
I used the EPA numbers, 2005 300 vs 2005 Mercury Grand Marquis. Here's the original 300c, the current 300, the Concorde and Grand Marquis.
View attachment 82448
Interesting. '05 and '06 claims are 103 and 24. '07 claims are missing. '08 claims are 104 and 18, '09-'10 claims are 107 and 17. '11-'21 are all 106 and 16
As there weren't any significant changes from '05 to '10, I can only conclude that the '05 to '10 numbers on the fuel economy site are junk. Edmunds and a half a dozen other sources said 106.6 cu ft and 15.6 cu ft (107 and 16). That trunk size is verified by C&D and MT reviews from the time. So the '05-'10 fuel economy site numbers are bogus. There isn't any way an LX 300 had a 24 cu ft trunk.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,182 Posts
Might as well close up Chrysler and or Dodge at that point: it made more sense to build it when Dodge was still a "lets build everything to touch all bases" brand, so that Mercedes-AMG powered supercar would've fit Chrysler well.
Now? Build a faster car then what Dodge can for Chrysler, there's no point to Dodge, and no one would buy a ME412 today because there's no justifiable way to get people to walk in.
Best selling segments in the US and what Stellantis sells in them.

First half of 2021
Subcompact SUV 665.036 (#10 Renegade, a moderate performer, #29 500X an abysmal performer)
Compact cars 745.330 (Not present)
Midsize cars 765.825 (#25 Giulia an abysmal performer)
Large pickups 1.166.475 (#2 Ram a top performer)
Midsize SUV 1.614.971 (#2 Wrangler a top performer, #4 Grand Cherokee a top performer, #16 Durango a poor performer)
Compact SUV 1.966.581 (#11 Cherokee a moderate performer, #17 Compass a poor performer, #35 Stelvio an abysmal performer)

Jeep midsize SUVs and Ram full sized pickups are Stellantis' stars. If two divisions deserve to die in the US they are Fiat and Alfa. Their performance doesn't deserve another 10 years in the US.

You seem to want to pull another Fiat with Chrysler and Dodge. "Oh our half hearted efforts with Renegade/500X, Dart, 200, Cherokee and Compass didn't do well, let's abandon the segments to the Asians." Well we aren't dealing with FCA anymore, or Daimler- Chrysler so forget about the ME-412.

This is what Dodge and Chrysler need to do with the segments:

Subcompact SUV = PT Cruiser / Raider People in this segment don't want real off road performance. HR-V is a wagon, Crosstrek is a jacked up Impreza. Renegade/500X were heavy for no reason.

Compact Cars = Daytona/Laser/Shadow/LeBaron GTC The people in this segment are here for 2 reasons. Low price and low center of gravity. Don't bother with high roofs here, send those people over to look at the PT Cruiser and Raider. 50"-53" is fine here.

Midsize Cars = LeBaron GTS / Stealth (Mitsubishi got the Lancer name) See compact car above.

Midsize SUV FWD/AWD vehicles are half the segment. 2 row Aspen / Nitro 3 row Journey / Durango / T&C
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
Plenty of differing opinions here, nice to see! Everyone has their own idea about running the American arm of Stellantis, me included. I think we can all agree that the main idea is to bring Chrysler back from the brink and map out a future for both brands that allows them some individuality. I am prepared to give the company about one more chance to do something right with Chrysler, but time and my patience have nearly run out. So here's my advice to Stellantis about N/A brands....Get going or get lost, the world won't wait any longer for you to get your act together.
 
121 - 140 of 172 Posts
Top