Allpar Forums banner
21 - 38 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
Well then now they really need to get that Airflow ready. Or import and rebadge some DS models to give us while we wait for new dedicated Chrysler models.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,083 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
Well then now they really need to get that Airflow ready. Or import and rebadge some DS models to give us while we wait for new dedicated Chrysler models.
There is nothing close to ready to do this, given the difference in regulations. The closest may be some Peugeot models since PSA was considering bringing Peugeot back to North America if the merger failed.

But those were plans and not actions. Also, given the global supply chain collapse taking place, it may not be feasible to do anything in the short term.

It would be best to get this right and wait until 2024-2025 for a properly designed and purposed Chrysler.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
Apparently, Chrysler's back down to two models now. The Voyager, which the cheerleaders claim that ex Grand Caravan owners would flock to is now a fleet only vehicle.
The only good thing is that the Voyager is only going to be available with stow-n-go second row seats (the one feature that really sets it apart from the competition). So, when they show up on the used lot they'll at least have that feature.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
Alfa also need to offer more engine choices in Stelvio and Guilia. The 2.0L mild hybrid from Ghibli/Levante should be on its way. And why doesn't Alfa sell the 200hp 2.0L in USA? Got plenty of power for most people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
I don't think Stellantis or even FCA was behind pushing Alfa over Chrysler and Dodge. I think it has more to do with Chrysler's management. They allocate a certain amount to each brand, but Chrysler would rather sink that money into Jeeps and Rams than Chryslers and Dodges. Similarly Fiat sunk more money into Alfa Romeo than Fiat or Lancia. From a marketing stand point. Alfa dropping the Romeo would have probably sold more vehicles. Alfa just sounds better. However, that opportunity is now lost as there is an Alpha Motor Cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,334 Posts
I don't think Stellantis or even FCA was behind pushing Alfa over Chrysler and Dodge. I think it has more to do with Chrysler's management. They allocate a certain amount to each brand, but Chrysler would rather sink that money into Jeeps and Rams than Chryslers and Dodges. Similarly Fiat sunk more money into Alfa Romeo than Fiat or Lancia. From a marketing stand point. Alfa dropping the Romeo would have probably sold more vehicles. Alfa just sounds better. However, that opportunity is now lost as there is an Alpha Motor Cars.
That they haven't stopped selling Alfa and Fiat in the US or reintroduced Chrysler and Dodge in Europe is proof positive they are pushing Alfa over Chrysler and Dodge. Then there are the product announcements, which exist for Alfa but not for Chrysler.
 

·
Move along, nothing to see here
Joined
·
2,556 Posts
I have yet to see anything to change my mind that Chrysler and Dodge are headed for the scrap heap after their existing models can no longer be manufactured.

The Dodge EV "announcement" was deliberately vague. They announced something while announcing nothing. The "vehicle" shown was all light and shadows and was obviously a CGI rendering.

Meanwhile we've got new and refreshed Jeep models launching and investment in every other brand but Dodge and Chrysler. You telling me it requires this many years of "development" to reskin a Compass, Cherokee, or Grand Cherokee with Chrysler styling and interior appointments? Ha.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,083 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
I have yet to see anything to change my mind that Chrysler and Dodge are headed for the scrap heap after their existing models can no longer be manufactured.

The Dodge EV "announcement" was deliberately vague. They announced something while announcing nothing. The "vehicle" shown was all light and shadows and was obviously a CGI rendering.

Meanwhile we've got new and refreshed Jeep models launching and investment in every other brand but Dodge and Chrysler. You telling me it requires this many years of "development" to reskin a Compass, Cherokee, or Grand Cherokee with Chrysler styling and interior appointments? Ha.
The bad news: It takes time to design a vehicle

The good news: The new Dodges and Chryslers will not be based on FCA platforms. They will be on the next generation STLA platforms so they can be ICE, PHEV or BEV without any changes to interior space or configuration. Peugeot's CMP has demonstrated this in production now. So rather than Dodge and Chrysler getting hand-me-downs designed 5-10-15 years ago, it will be the latest and greatest.

Dodge will show the concept next year.

Chrysler just got a CEO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,277 Posts
The bad news: It takes time to design a vehicle

The good news: The new Dodges and Chryslers will not be based on FCA platforms. They will be on the next generation STLA platforms so they can be ICE, PHEV or BEV without any changes to interior space or configuration. Peugeot's CMP has demonstrated this in production now. So rather than Dodge and Chrysler getting hand-me-downs designed 5-10-15 years ago, it will be the latest and greatest.

Dodge will show the concept next year.

Chrysler just got a CEO.
PSA CMP has obsolete rear suspension scheme for BEV subversion.

And no, upcoming platforms, both ex PSA and ex FCA developments, have very different battery integration in comparison to CMP. Battery integration is very similar as on eMini.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,334 Posts
PSA CMP has obsolete rear suspension scheme for BEV subversion.

And no, upcoming platforms, both ex PSA and ex FCA developments, have very different battery integration in comparison to CMP. Battery integration is very similar as on eMini.
Just as the MiTo and Punto had torsion beams. Newer forks will have independent setups. Yes, skateboard platforms are coming, no more battery in the spare tire well.
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
37,450 Posts
PSA CMP has obsolete rear suspension scheme for BEV subversion.
Shame you can't change suspension designs within a platform.

Oh, wait...

[remembering Dart and, um, Chinese Fiat Dart]
[remembering Neon-based PT Cruiser]
[remembering front-suspension-choice of Wagoneer]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,688 Posts
CMP does support different rear-suspensions, but it is limited to twist-beam only in BEV variants because there’s not enough room for the battery and independent rear suspension.

That’s the problem: packaging of smaller CMP cars is really poor. It’s a lower-cost compact-car platform that was squeezed into duty for subcompact cars. Why did PSA have two compact-car platforms? Because CMP was developed with Dongfeng for use in Chinese domestic models as well as European product.

I personally don’t see a long future for EMP1/CMP in Stellantis, and there’s some interesting discussions about production of the combustion-engined FIAT 500 that might lend more weight to that.

EMP2 is a different animal altogether, and is very competitive for passenger cars. I expect it to become the foundation of STLA Medium, but it’s not going to be a direct transfer, as EMP2 currently cannot deliver anything for Jeep, and sales show it is less suited to LATAM than FCA’s Small-Wide.
 

·
Jeepaholic
Joined
·
6,265 Posts
The Ford Maverick uses a rear twist beam in Hybrid form, and it can’t accommodate AWD. AWD gets paired with an independent rear suspension in the non-hybrid form.

This reminds me of something Bob S had said about platforms…and I‘m paraphrasing here, a platform doesn’t necessarily dictate whether a vehicle is FWD or RWD biased, but the parts you want to use need to fit. If they can’t fit, then it ends up being one or the other. I suppose that works for anything you want to put under the vehicle…it works if it fits.

I wish I could find the exact quote, but I’ve tried a few times to no avail. Smart man, that Bob S.
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
37,450 Posts
EMP2 is a different animal altogether, and is very competitive for passenger cars. I expect it to become the foundation of STLA Medium, but it’s not going to be a direct transfer, as EMP2 currently cannot deliver anything for Jeep, and sales show it is less suited to LATAM than FCA’s Small-Wide.
Another reason why it makes little sense to have Jeep sharing a platform with everyone else. It screws up both Jeep and everyone else.

The Ford Maverick uses a rear twist beam in Hybrid form, and it can’t accommodate AWD. AWD gets paired with an independent rear suspension in the non-hybrid form.
Interesting.

This reminds me of something Bob S had said about platforms…and I‘m paraphrasing here, a platform doesn’t necessarily dictate whether a vehicle is FWD or RWD biased, but the parts you want to use need to fit. If they can’t fit, then it ends up being one or the other. I suppose that works for anything you want to put under the vehicle…it works if it fits.

I wish I could find the exact quote, but I’ve tried a few times to no avail. Smart man, that Bob S.
That sounds right. It makes sense. Those who remember the PT Cruiser may recall that the rear suspension was devised to fit within the space they had, and it worked out extremely well for the most part. The vehicle they ended up with was good enough (until Daimler cheapened it too much) to outsell their original projections by a huge margin, and so the unique parts were pretty much paid for with extra volume.

Parts sharing is good, but if you go too far with any ideology or idea, you get bad things. Forcing the PT to share too many dimensions and parts with the Neon would have killed it - it would have ended up with less interior space, more exterior footprint, and overall probably higher costs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,277 Posts
The Ford Maverick uses a rear twist beam in Hybrid form, and it can’t accommodate AWD. AWD gets paired with an independent rear suspension in the non-hybrid form.

This reminds me of something Bob S had said about platforms…and I‘m paraphrasing here, a platform doesn’t necessarily dictate whether a vehicle is FWD or RWD biased, but the parts you want to use need to fit. If they can’t fit, then it ends up being one or the other. I suppose that works for anything you want to put under the vehicle…it works if it fits.

I wish I could find the exact quote, but I’ve tried a few times to no avail. Smart man, that Bob S.
Absolutely. With PSA platforms packaging is major constraint.

I must correct @KrisW on one thing.
CMP indeed has rear twist beam suspension and it's fine. FCA even know how to offer AWD with it.
The issue is with BEV version. It has rigid or if you prefer live axle. I'm unaware of any European passenger car with such solution. It's no good for modern times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,334 Posts
The bad news: It takes time to design a vehicle
The good news: The new Dodges and Chryslers will not be based on FCA platforms. They will be on the next generation STLA platforms so they can be ICE, PHEV or BEV without any changes to interior space or configuration. Peugeot's CMP has demonstrated this in production now. So rather than Dodge and Chrysler getting hand-me-downs designed 5-10-15 years ago, it will be the latest and greatest.
Dodge will show the concept next year.
Chrysler just got a CEO.
PSA CMP has obsolete rear suspension scheme for BEV subversion.
And no, upcoming platforms, both ex PSA and ex FCA developments, have very different battery integration in comparison to CMP. Battery integration is very similar as on eMini.
Shame you can't change suspension designs within a platform.
Oh, wait...
[remembering Dart and, um, Chinese Fiat Dart]
[remembering Neon-based PT Cruiser]
[remembering front-suspension-choice of Wagoneer]
CMP does support different rear-suspensions, but it is limited to twist-beam only in BEV variants because there’s not enough room for the battery and independent rear suspension.
That’s the problem: packaging of smaller CMP cars is really poor. It’s a lower-cost compact-car platform that was squeezed into duty for subcompact cars. Why did PSA have two compact-car platforms? Because CMP was developed with Dongfeng for use in Chinese domestic models as well as European product.
I personally don’t see a long future for EMP1/CMP in Stellantis, and there’s some interesting discussions about production of the combustion-engined FIAT 500 that might lend more weight to that.
EMP2 is a different animal altogether, and is very competitive for passenger cars. I expect it to become the foundation of STLA Medium, but it’s not going to be a direct transfer, as EMP2 currently cannot deliver anything for Jeep, and sales show it is less suited to LATAM than FCA’s Small-Wide.
Another reason why it makes little sense to have Jeep sharing a platform with everyone else. It screws up both Jeep and everyone else.
Interesting.
That sounds right. It makes sense. Those who remember the PT Cruiser may recall that the rear suspension was devised to fit within the space they had, and it worked out extremely well for the most part. The vehicle they ended up with was good enough (until Daimler cheapened it too much) to outsell their original projections by a huge margin, and so the unique parts were pretty much paid for with extra volume.
Parts sharing is good, but if you go too far with any ideology or idea, you get bad things. Forcing the PT to share too many dimensions and parts with the Neon would have killed it - it would have ended up with less interior space, more exterior footprint, and overall probably higher costs.
Absolutely. With PSA platforms packaging is major constraint.
I must correct @KrisW on one thing.
CMP indeed has rear twist beam suspension and it's fine. FCA even know how to offer AWD with it.
The issue is with BEV version. It has rigid or if you prefer live axle. I'm unaware of any European passenger car with such solution. It's no good for modern times.
Let's clear up the confusion about the platforms.

First the origin of the EMP1/CMP platform. From PSA in 2015, 3 years before EMP1 launched: "The EMP1 platform, which will be called the Common Modular Platform (CMP) in China, will underpin the next generation of B (subcompact) and entry-level C (compact) cars for the brands." It was always intended for B class cars. The DS3 crossback was the launch vehicle in 2018, followed quickly by 208 and Corsa F in 2019. All of them are on a wheelbase of 100" +/- 1". That is B class in Europe, B being a European origin term without a fixed definition. Technically the vehicles are EPA compacts on the low end of the range, compact being a US origin term with a fixed definition. Dongfeng came out with the Aeolus Yixuan in 2019 which rides on a 105.5" wheelbase, C class in Europe and technically an EPA compact on the high end of the range. It is actually classified category A in China which is for hatchbacks under 4.5 meters and their sedan versions with engines under 1.6 L. Dongfeng puts a 150 HP 1.5T gas 4 cylinder in the car, in addition to a 125 HP 1.0T 3 cylinder from PSA.

Second the further development of EMP1/CMP and EMP2/eVMP. From the slide in Tavares' April 15 presentation we can see that a new version (fork) of eCMP, eCMP v2, is due to come out in the fall of 2022 for model year 2023. Thus any new models coming out on eCMP will not share the same exact hardware as in the DS3, 208, Corsa F and Yixuan. Beyond that eCMP v2 is being directly replaced by STLA Small in 2026. The only logical conclusion from the slide is STLA Small is eCMP v3. STLA Medium coming out in fall of 2023 is none other than the previously announce eVMP (EMP2 v4) which shares much with EMP2 v3 which came out this year with the 308 III. This is the first version of EMP2 that was designed with the US market in mind, for the stillborn 308 crossover wagon that never came to the US.

Third this Fiat fan concept that EMP1/CMP has poor packaging. You want to hold EMP1/CMP fixed in 2018 while Fiat platforms get endless modernized forks (1996 Palio, 2001 C2, 2003 Mini, 2005 SCCS). The complaint is also very Eurocentric. A longer wheelbase is an asset in the US and China, which is already 50% of the world market. Canada and Australia follow suit.

In the US vehicle footprint regulations have just about killed off the sub 3000 lb, sub 150 HP car. The 100" wheelbase and 59" track of the Peugeot 208 gives a 41 sq foot footprint, which is exactly the bottom of the vehicle footprint S curve. There are advantages in making a car footprint bigger up to 56 sq ft, a 120" wheelbase by a 67" track, or a 134" WB with a 64" track. The truck footprint curve gives advantages up to 66 to 74 sq ft depending upon model year. This is why trucks keep getting bigger.

In China the lowest class is 4-4.5 meter hatchbacks with a 1.6 engine, but longer sedans fit in the class.
In Japan they simply have Kei 3.4 meter 0.66 liter and compact 4.7 meter by 1.7 meter by 2 liter.
India has A1 which is Kei cars, A2 which is sub 4 meter cars, A3 which is the same as China's Category A 4.5 meter hatchbacks and A4 which is the same as Japan's 4.7 meter compact.

From a global perspective it is the Fiat Mini/eMini platform that has incredibly poor packaging, the vehicles fail to meet the global 3.4 m x 1.48 m and 4 m x 1.7 m size classes. It really has little appeal outside of Europe.

For all the complaints about EMP1/CMP it seems to be doing fine in Europe. The Corsa and 208 twins were the #6 and #7 selling cars in Europe last year. With 206.905 and 194.357 sales their combined total was 401,262 sales, higher than Golf sales. Only the A3 remains a Golf twin, Octavia and Leon have grown bigger.

EMP2 isn't really the platform being targeted at LATAM, that is EMP1 CMP. 208 is being made in Argentina.
FCA is dead, it never produced any EMP1/CMP models, it can't offer it with AWD, that would have to be Stellantis.


 
21 - 38 of 38 Posts
Top