That’s it, the perfect marketing idea. Mazda was “zoom zoom” so Dodge can be “vroom vroom”.
TFL''s first look at the Hornet R/T
They had to be careful about not giving any actual "driving" impressions yet. And I find it interesting that this "fully optioned" one had non ventilated Alcantara seats indtead of ventilated leather seats...and that it had a sunroof delete. I'm still interested but I also wonder just how fast the cash is going to pile up on the hood, maybe I should wait.
1 - 10 of 119 Posts
The problem is Dodge decided some time back to abandon anything other than the tire smoking market and purposefully forfeit several markets.
Hornet makes sense as a bit more performance oriented Journey replacement. Hornet doesn’t really make sense as a “brotherhood of muscle” member.
I guess they’ve now seen the light and Dodge is trying to venture back into markets it said it didn’t want to participate in a few years back.
Hornet makes sense as a bit more performance oriented Journey replacement. Hornet doesn’t really make sense as a “brotherhood of muscle” member.
I guess they’ve now seen the light and Dodge is trying to venture back into markets it said it didn’t want to participate in a few years back.
The 500x came out not too long before Fiat stopped the requirement for separate studios. At that point, the Fiat franchise could be combined with any CDJR location.The problem with the 500X was that it was in these bespoke FIAT dealers that they didn't have enough of. It and the Renegade are definitely aimed at different markets (off-road versus on-road, like the Hornet/Compass). If it was in CJDR dealers it might have sold more. Then again, it might not have, but by now yeah, it's an old design that would need updating to do anything with.
The 500x continued to sell poorly and sit in inventory even with the possibility that more dealers could pick them up. But Fiat's poor introduction had re-poisoned the brand's image.
Well, the official-sounding reasons given for separating the trucks from Dodge were pure BS, so I believe they were to obscure the true motive - to keep the profitable trucks if the Dodge brand failed or was sold. The official excuses given:
1) To separate the car vs. truck accounting - like this wasn't possible with Dodge/Dodge trucks.
2) To separate car vs. truck styling. Again, no need to split to do this.
3) To combine trucks worldwide under a "global" truck brand - alsi BS because Fiat Professional continued.
In fact, the very way they were able to maintain Fiat vs. Fiat Professional showed they had no need to separate Dodge trucks unless they planned for Dodge to fail or be sold. They wasted a lot of money on the split at the time they were claiming poverty as the reason for slow new model introduction.
1) To separate the car vs. truck accounting - like this wasn't possible with Dodge/Dodge trucks.
2) To separate car vs. truck styling. Again, no need to split to do this.
3) To combine trucks worldwide under a "global" truck brand - alsi BS because Fiat Professional continued.
In fact, the very way they were able to maintain Fiat vs. Fiat Professional showed they had no need to separate Dodge trucks unless they planned for Dodge to fail or be sold. They wasted a lot of money on the split at the time they were claiming poverty as the reason for slow new model introduction.
No, the whole company is using a common VIN ID of C.I haven't checked lately, but arent' RAM Trucks still built using Dodge-brand VIN codes?
Doesn't matter if it's a Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, or Ram. They all start out 1C (US made), 2C (Canada made), etc.
The second VIN slot is no longer C/D/J.
And you would not have to split the brand to do that. Dodge truck development was separate from car development.Plus i wouldnt want the same Team working the Hornet to be alongside a 1500. Thats one benifit for splitting the 2 brands. Ram has its own CEO, its own design team, its own R&D.
The EV credit should apply for a lease or purchase. Last year 2022 you had to wait until taxes were filed to get it on a purchase where as with a lease it lowered payments. I thought there was supposed to be a change in that for 2023 for purchase.That might be an advantage, Alfa has some cachet in the US but there's also the Italian reputation for (lack of) reliability.
Personally I'm rethinking whether the R/T is right for me given the information so far. Especially since I don't have a 100 mile a day commute anymore. But I hear the R/T would still have a tax advantage if leased...which is interesting since that might overload the used market pretty quick.
The same rules on battery sourcing and assembly apply to both purchase and lease.It should, yes. But it doesn't because the rules for the EV credit changed this year (at least for purchases). The whole thing with it having to be assembled in the US and the batteries having to have certain mineral content sources, etc etc. That's another thing giving me pause, might want to give them some time to un-do the stupid changes to the EV credit system.
Any real tax advantages to leasing are going to when a car is used for business. Or if a vehicle qualifies for the EV credit and the buyer has no tax liability to offset.
Please get over the GM merger idea. That would have been the end of multiple brands and most FCA vehicles.So...they are related. Or not. Does not matter in the end customer in the end. What mattes is: are the development costs affordable by company? Does the company have the engineering ability to develop cutting edge rwd light weighted well packaged etc...at affordable cost esp for ev versions? Does the company have brands and nameplates and markets enough to amortize these and other costs over time (say 6 to 10 years)? Given ALL the other risks and costs? Personally i'd really have had the merger/hostile takeover with/of gm happen...as did marchionne. Stla large woulda been based for gm ultium etc....huge scale efficiency of amortization etc esp of electrification costs. Those costs are only going up in n america since a recession may be setting too.
Grand Cherokee would have been converted to a rebadged Tahoe eventually. The three truck lines would be the same eventually, and one or two would soon be unnecessary (Chevy, Ram, GMC). The Pacifica is the one bright spot as it might have ended up on a better platform than the mess it is on now. Gladiator would never have happened. Wrangler might stay as is, or get pushed to an adaptation of the Colorado/Canyon suspension.
Sorry your hero didn’t reach his dream goal, but personally I am grateful it never happened.
We were sold a lie about all the new products that would come from Giorgio for Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep. It could do all things from a rugged off road Jeep to a V8 muscle Dodge. It was simply an excuse to use American brand resources for an Alfa Romeo back when there were limitations on certain money moves.
Now rather than admit they were fooled, the excuse makers are saying anything with 4 wheels and large is now “derived” from Giorgio.
Now rather than admit they were fooled, the excuse makers are saying anything with 4 wheels and large is now “derived” from Giorgio.
1 - 10 of 119 Posts
Allpar Forums
A forum community dedicated to Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Chrysler, AMC owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
