Or, to be fair, maybe they are waiting for the mass produced version of the 1.5T to get out of development and testing.
Or, to be fair, maybe they are waiting for the mass produced version of the 1.5T to get out of development and testing.Yeah their priorities are really odd. The one thing no one ever answers is, if it's the crack management team here that says, let's keep the 2.4 around because we don't want to spend much on the lower Fiat based Jeeps, or something else.
I understand it though I don't practice it. I will admit Chrysler's recent attitude towards replacement parts has me worried about our other cars.I gave up on brand loyalty a long time ago. I'm as loyal to Chrysler (or any other company including my employer) as they are to me. You probably know how much that is 😉
Closing Belvedere would make sense if they never intended to have a car in the midsize SUV space... the space where Toyota sells 475,000 vehicles per year. Windsor's been closed for parts shortages but in the past has done 150,000-200,000 cars a year.oh Like Belvedere & Windsor too? ok
I absolutely agree with you, but if you were running the company, would you shut down the factory, or would you plan a better replacement for the Cherokee?The problem is there’s no desire to keep the current Windsor and Belvidere products flowing and resources are diverted elsewhere. That tells me they are low margin. Likely expensive to produce versus the price they can get. Much was made about moving the minivan upscale at Pacifica launch. That didn’t go as planned. Cherokee has almost always had high incentives since launch. The same reason FCA left the sedan market (low margins from less than competitive entries) is now being felt in the CUV space.