Allpar Forums banner
21 - 40 of 115 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
One potential path of least resistance would be to capitalize on the Chrysler name, but rebadge existing and near future small to medium CUVs from Stellantis brands in lieu of trying to bring various European brands to America that have never been here, or haven't been here in a long time, or haven't been successful under their current brand name (e.g. - Fiat et al). Would not keep the American plants in operation, but it could be a win-win for keeping the Chrysler brand alive without setting up 6 or more new dealerships models for foreign brands.

Another option that would be more beneficial to the American plants and workers would be to draw a line in the sand and declare Chrysler is to be "soon reborn" as an all-electric vehicle company - no ICE and no hybrids. Now that would set Chrysler off from other brands, foreign and domestic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,452 Posts
Boy, this is tough, as I can see the reasons for letting Chrysler die, but I honestly think it could be made viable again, they should focus on getting some Elecrified CUV/SUVs that look great and I cant see why they would not sell, but that's just my opinion.

For my warm n fuzzy feeling, I certainly hope they can keep Chrysler :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,719 Posts
One potential path of least resistance would be to capitalize on the Chrysler name, but rebadge existing and near future small to medium CUVs from Stellantis brands in lieu of trying to bring various European brands to America that have never been here, or haven't been here in a long time, or haven't been successful under their current brand name (e.g. - Fiat et al). Would not keep the American plants in operation, but it could be a win-win for keeping the Chrysler brand alive without setting up 6 or more new dealerships models for foreign brands.

Another option that would be more beneficial to the American plants and workers would be to draw a line in the sand and declare Chrysler is to be "soon reborn" as an all-electric vehicle company - no ICE and no hybrids. Now that would set Chrysler off from other brands, foreign and domestic.
Exactly!......OR......to put it in fewer words:

OPEL = Chrysler :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,801 Posts
So let me get this straight - they had 60 vehicles and felt no need to sell any of them?
I wouldn't have been interested in anything they had in stock but since nobody greeted me in the showroom, or while I roamed the lot, I have to suspect that you might be right. I imagine it's pretty hard to get enthused when they can't even order new cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
I want to give kudos to the person who created this thread has it put in a lot of research and time. I've also considered this a number of times. I will state though that I don't think that dropping Chrysler is a good idea. The lack of searching for Chrysler has more to do with the fact that the brand has been ignored since FCA was involved and cut down to size. FCA did not grow cheap by leaving the brand in neutral, they grew it through an aggressive marketing strategy and stretching Jeep into Chrysler and Dodge's territory. While we are living in an era of SUVs and fake SUVs being the popular market, market trends can still change. If for whatever reason that we may not see today, SUVs become unpopular as station wagons, minivans, and sedans are today, Jeep and the company as a whole will be trapped.

There is an advantage to having different divisions that appeal to different customers. There is also an advantage to having more than one flavor on a particular platform. I can give you an example for my own life. 2 years ago I gave an honest thought to buy a Dodge charger. The styling appeal to me, the personality fit me, and the way it drove was what I wanted. Due to some unexpected event from last year, it now no longer appeals to me. It was way too loud, rode way too rough, the seats were way too hard, and the windows are too small and I felt claustrophobic in it. While I have never really liked the LX styling on the 300 from either generation, I could see myself buying a 300 at some point as It is comfortable, it is easier to get in and out, and it is an obnoxiously loud inside and out. Dodge is a division that is focused on a youthful buyers with its current marketing strategy. Chrysler being a more luxurious brand needs to fill the gap of offering a vehicle that appeals to middle-aged to senior buyers.

While I understand that to invest money into Chrysler has its risks, the same was true when FCA decided to invest so heavily in Jeep and look at the result. The last generation 200 sold very good until Sergio opened his big fat mouth and slammed it for it's flaws but for some reason chose not to slam the Cherokee which has much of the same flaws except the 200 was good looking and the Cherokee wasn't and still isn't.

Going through the history of failed models is important to see what Chrysler has failed at but a person also needs to bear in mind The full reason why these failed. A strong case could be made that the original compass and Patriot were failures too they were very slow sellers on very inexpensive models. And let's not forget about the failure of the second generation liberty or the commander for that matter. Remember that even the Grand Cherokee had lost a lot of ground during those years. But FCA decided not to give up on fake Jeeps and continued to invest in them and massage them until they were successful. And they didn't give up on Jeep just because of Liberty in the second generation failed as did the commander for the lost ground on the Grand Cherokee. They just came up with a different model that was more marketable.

In the case of the crossfire, the car was not attractive, the interior was bad, the engine was underpowered, it lacked Chrysler's strongest marketing weapon at the time (namely the hemi), and It was all around an outdated rebadged Mercedes. Yes, the Aspen failed and so did the Durango. That generation did not have good styling, good interior, had horrible fuel efficiency with high fuel prices, and they didn't differentiate it enough from the Durango. The PT Cruiser was a short-term market niche that ran its course. The first generation Pacifica was also a flop but so was the Mercedes that was the same kind of offering. It's called they tried to create a new segment and it didn't work. Claiming the Chrysler brand is as good as dead because FCA has put almost zero effort into it outside of the new minivan is not evidence that the brand has failed.

In a strategy to rebuild Chrysler, it needs to be done slowly and carefully. I would recommend bringing over whatever European models and whatever segment they think would work the best but first massage it to fit American customers tastes. I would say the best thing to do is to focus whatever Italian division they want to keep in the US as the brake my wallet aka BMW competitor and I would focus Chrysler on more soft luxury near the more entry level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,482 Posts
I still remember back when the Chrysler 300 was first introduced to the world. It was the best car on the road at the time and i wanted Chrysler to produce so many of its wonderful concept vehicles it created since the early 2000s.
- Imperial / ME Four-Twelve / Firepower / Airflite / ecoVoyager / Nassau to name a few

Unfortunately for us we never received any of these vehicles and we never received any new vehicle outside of the rebadged Crossfire and Aspen (200 was a replacement for Sebring and the PT was moved over due to Plymouth).

I have heard two areas of focus for Chrysler as we move into the future
  • Chrysler = people mover brand
  • Chrysler = affordable luxury

As an Armchair CEO I don't think that there is a viable path forward for Chrysler down either of these paths.
1. Why put a people vehicle in a brand that has zero (or close to zero) general public interest?
2. Why put affordable luxury vehicles in a brand that hasn't been able to sell 'affordable luxury' for decades now or why would we sell it under Chrysler when Jeep is Stellantis' luxury name plate that has proven it can move product?

How do we quantify some of these items?

Lets first take a stab at my proposition that outside of our little community that people don't care about the Chrysler brand.
We can use Google search to get a sense of how frequently people are talking about / looking up info on a brand.

First observation is you will be hard pressed to find a car brand that has lower search engine traffic than Chrysler. It was low years ago and it is still low today. What is surprising about this is that for the majority of the population Chrysler isn't just a car brand and that it represents the entire company (Chrysler / Dodge / Jeep).
View attachment 83385



You can look at similar trends for General Motors and notice that a company search team does bring value as GM is searched at the same rate as Buick. So the fact that Chrysler is so low when it is our 'company' and a 'brand' is telling.

View attachment 83401



And when we compare these search terms to the other FCA brands its a bit telling.
1 and 2 are Dodge and Jeep
3 is Ram
4th is Chrysler

And what is interesting is that in 2020 Jeep outsold Dodge by a range of ~ 3 to 1 and yet still had similar search results. So this speaks to the cache that Dodge brand has brought with is marketing positioning as of late (sales volume has gone down over the 2010s yet its search results go up).

View attachment 83386



Next let's chat about can Chrysler sell "affordable luxury"

Below is a snippet of a companion on when Chrysler had a 'new' product in a popular segment 'near luxury large SUV'. One can come up with other comparison vehicles but if there was momentum behind the Chrysler brand the sales could have looked better with the Aspen.

Chrysler Aspen sales by year
YearAspen's soldYukon's soldSequoia's sold
20067,65673,45834,315
200728,78871,47623,273
200822,25463,42830,693
20095,99629,41116,387

And most brands are moving towards being an SUV brands (maybe having 1 or 2 cars to go along with the SUVs).

Ford
14 SUVs / trucks / vans
1 car

Chevy
11 SUVs / trucks / vans
4 cars

Lincoln
4 SUVs / trucks / vans
0 cars

Cadillac
4 SUVs / trucks / vans
2 cars

to name a few brands. SUVs are the dolomite product of choice. So if that is the case do we leverage Jeep to sell the near luxury products or do we use Chrysler as either way ~75% of the product will be that of an SUV. Jeep has shown that they can sell ~$100k MSRP vehicles with the trackhawk. I don't think people would buy at the volume that we need if we were to sell the same product as a Chrysler.



So what should Stellantis do next?

1. Position Jeep as its Acura / Lincoln / Cadillac / Lexus / etc. It has the brand recognition and it has shown it can sell in volume with these products. Potentially split Jeep from CDJR dealerships and sell Jeeps with Stellantis higher end brands(?)

2. Shutdown the Chrysler brand and position Dodge/Ram as its Ford / Toyota / Honda / Chevy / etc. Convert the 300 over to a Magnum (give it an inch lift) and convert the Voyager/Pacifica to Caravan/Grand Caravan combo.
I do believe that Dodge/Ram may need a mid-size car/hatch along with a true-mid size SUV. Convert the Durango over to Wagoneer platform and position it against the Tahoe. While we are at it -> stop giving products to Fiat in NA and hand over the 124 over to Dodge. It would never had sold in the hundreds if it was under the right brand.
So from analysis of one tertiary statistic with poor correlation to sales and profits you have determined the one Stellantis brand of seven sold in the US that deserves summary execution without a 10 year stay is Chrysler, not Fiat, Alfa or Maserati. Let's look at the totality of the circumstances instead.

Of course interest in Chrysler has been essentially a steady flat line with a little blip for the bankruptcy, it has been abused and neglected by Daimler and Fiat for 20 years. It presently has a 17 year old large RWD/AWD car and a 5 year old minivan. Not only are they old, they are in two of the worst selling market segments in the US. Of course Chrysler still holds 34% of the Minivan market segment and 6% of the large car market segment.

Daimler was intentionally hurting Chrysler because it remembered that Chrysler was a competitor to Mercedes just 30 years before. It got the PT Cruiser and Voyager from Plymouth instead of Dodge as an intentional insult to hurt the brand. The Mitsubishi based Sebring/200 was an exercise in cost cutting. No replacement FWD product for the 113" wheelbase Concorde was forthcoming. The 108" wheelbase Alfa based 200 was intentionally too small to compete with a Ford Fusion running on a 112" wheelbase, to protect Chrysler 300 sales. Prowler and Crossfire were 2 seaters inconsistent with Chrysler's image, Prowler being intended as a Plymouth and Crossfire being a Mercedes idea. Then there were the Pacifica crossover and Durango with a chrome grill Aspen.

300 and Pacifica/Voyager are all that is left. 300 sales are being sacrificed for Charger sales, no significant restyle and no more SRT 300.

There are two kinds of show cars, fantasy and possible production. Imperial / ME Four-Twelve / Firepower / ecoVoyager / Nassau fall into the fantasy category, while Airflite was a 4 door Crossfire. No loss for any of them.

Let's look at what affordable luxury is.

Chrysler started affordable luxury with the Newport. It was essentially a Plymouth Fury with a 4" wheelbase stretch and a Chrysler grill. It offered luxury car room at an affordable price. The next step along the line was the Chrysler Cordoba, which admittedly was a Dodge Charger with a chrome grill and leather seats. In the '80s the LeBaron/T&C added plush interiors, turbo engines and chrome grills to the Aries/Reliant. The Chrysler Laser, LeBaron GTS and GTC added to this. Finally in the '90s the minivan got the leather and chrome treatment along with the T&C badge from the wagon. Then came Daimler/Fiat and the Plymouths offering less for less instead of more for less.

Acura, Lexus and Infiniti copied Chrysler of the '80s with their Integra, Vigor, Legend, RSX, ILX, TSX, TL, TLX, RLX, CL, ES, G20, I30, and JX, QX30/50/60, UX, NX, RX, RDX, and MDX.

If you think a 119" wheelbase BOF SUV represents affordable luxury you don't know what affordable luxury is. It's not some chrome plated gas guzzler based on a pickup.

Let's be clear, FWD/AWD Jeep sales suck. Renegade, Cherokee and Compass are far from the top of their segments. No one is under any illusions that they could be affordable luxury either. Not that you seem to care about affordable luxury with your crowing about $100K Jeeps. Stick a Hellcat in a 300 and you can have expensive Chryslers sell in low numbers, which is exactly what the expensive Jeeps do too.

So your plan is basically continue the Daimler/Fiat brand mismanagement based upon a fait acompli of starving Chrysler of new product for 20 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
I just hope in this time while we see Dodge and others brands update or come out with newer models Chrysler is prepping and waiting for the right time to enter the room (2005 300). Dodge has its special edition models and relaunching of a dedicated parts supplier. I'm sure over at Chrysler they are working on something great because we are missing a whole market. I believe the years ahead are going to be great!!! #Optimistic
 

·
Registered
'67 Hillman Gazelle, '72 Hillman Hunter, '05 PT Cruiser, '10 300C, '16 500X AWD
Joined
·
44 Posts
Starting now, the Chrysler division has 10 years to prove that it is worth saving to corporate.
Chrysler needs a robust mission and new product. We have an impressive new leader that Stellantis chose to save the division:
and with great respect I have even seen this lady let alone read or heard anything she has said. I have been driving Chrysler branded vehicles since 1967 and the cars must by now number 30 or more...but I think the name is dead in the water.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
The Chrysler brand name is pretty much dead, neglected for the last 10 years of any real investment and models. Dodge is a niche maker of high powered cars and some SUV/CUV's but with EV's taking over in the next decade that will kill the brand unless go to a smaller niche of performance EV's. Jeep and Ram are the only brands left in the NA market for Stellantis that sell, have the best future worth investing in. Sadly the Chrysler brand will soon be joining Oldsmobile, Plymouth, in the car brand graveyard.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
38,908 Posts
The Chrysler brand name is pretty much dead, neglected for the last 10 years of any real investment and models. Dodge is a niche maker of high powered cars and some SUV/CUV's but with EV's taking over in the next decade that will kill the brand unless go to a smaller niche of performance EV's. Jeep and Ram are the only brands left in the NA market for Stellantis that sell, have the best future worth investing in. Sadly the Chrysler brand will soon be joining Oldsmobile, Plymouth, in the car brand graveyard.
Which leaves Stellantis very vulnerable if (actually when) tastes change. That’s the problem with FCA’s “every brand is a niche” strategy. Today’s high profit niche can be tomorrow’s extinct market. CUVs are hot now. Minivans were hot in the 90s. What if there’s a resurgence of sedans? Drop Chrysler and where do you put sedans? Not everyone is impressed by Dodge’s street racing ads. So throw more customers to Hyundai, Kia, Toyota, Honda.
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
37,778 Posts
Well... all do respect to Frank Rhodes... the Chrysler name has one major problem: people associate it with the bankruptcy, the near-bankruptcy, and the two bailouts. You can argue all you want about how they paid back the loans early, in both cases; about how unemployment checks alone would have paid for any losses regardless, and how it's a strategic industry, and letting Chrysler fail would have meant nearly all domestic suppliers failing; Chrysler's name is mud with many.

I found it odd that Plymouth and Dodge escaped all the associations until I was running Allpar and people kept asking me about Pontiacs. The average person on the street has almost no knowledge of cars, other than Chrysler is always a basket case and Dodge is power and Japanese and German cars are all better (which they believe until buying their first German car, and sometimes, thanks to cognitive dissonance or luck, afterwards, too).

I do wonder about Maserati as a replacement for Imperial, the wildcard of Alfa Romeo, whether Chrysler is going to go mainstream or upscale—but too far upscale and it bumps against Maserati unless they play it for luxury alone.

There's room for a lot of brands. I think some flavors they could use are (with examples):
1) Muscle (Dodge)
2) Sports/Performance (Porsche)
3) Comfort (Buick and, formerly, Lexus)
4) Value: cheap but good (Hyundai)
5) Affordable sports (Mazda)
6) Mildly upscale but not too snooty (original Chrysler, Dodge Bros)
7) Mr. Reliable (Toyota, 1930s Plymouth)
8) "A little pricier but a great value" (1930s Plymouth)
9) Economical (vs affordable / value)
10) Technologically advanced / well engineered (early Chrysler)

I'm sure there are more you can think of. These are what I came up with at 100 words per minute.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
912 Posts
I do wonder about Maserati as a replacement for Imperial, the wildcard of Alfa Romeo, whether Chrysler is going to go mainstream or upscale—but too far upscale and it bumps against Maserati unless they play it for luxury alone.
The way to save Chrysler is obvious, take the cars and suvs from the other brands and reskin them with Chrysler style. There are plenty of people who would rather buy a Chrysler than an Alfa, Fiat or Maserati, even if the platform was the same, but the look was more American. Same with Jeep, if the Durango can exist, so can Chrysler versions of the Jeeps, without all that makes it a Jeep.

Didn't we learn anything from the ME Four-Twelve? Given the same base, Chrysler engineers can make something beyond expectations with an American style in less time and a lower cost. A style made in 2004, that too me, looks a lot like the current Corvette.

With the plans to have different levels of electric powered vehicles, Chrysler could aim at equipping their cars with the highest range possible as oppose to Dodge's goal of providing the best muscle 'power' performance.

Yes, it will be hard to get over the decades of neglect and mismanagement, but there is an easy way to recover and get people in the showrooms. Having nothing in the showrooms certainly isn't the answer.
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
37,778 Posts
I do wonder if the Ghibli, toned down a little in interior appointments and given a less expensive engine, would do well for Chrysler. I suspect it would. I haven't driven the Maserati SUV, but the Ghibli and Quattroporte are terrific grand touring cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
The way to save Chrysler is obvious, take the cars and suvs from the other brands and reskin them with Chrysler style. There are plenty of people who would rather buy a Chrysler than an Alfa, Fiat or Maserati, even if the platform was the same, but the look was more American. Same with Jeep, if the Durango can exist, so can Chrysler versions of the Jeeps, without all that makes it a Jeep.

Didn't we learn anything from the ME Four-Twelve? Given the same base, Chrysler engineers can make something beyond expectations with an American style in less time and a lower cost. A style made in 2004, that too me, looks a lot like the current Corvette.

With the plans to have different levels of electric powered vehicles, Chrysler could aim at equipping their cars with the highest range possible as oppose to Dodge's goal of providing the best muscle 'power' performance.

Yes, it will be hard to get over the decades of neglect and mismanagement, but there is an easy way to recover and get people in the showrooms. Having nothing in the showrooms certainly isn't the answer.
They could easily create the same lineup that Lincoln has by reskinning Jeeps and offer them at a lower price point than Lincoln to cut into their sales. Not everyone wants/needs Jeep capability and if what was saved by eliminating off-road kit was then used to make the interiors nicer, it would be a hit.

I see the GC L being turned into an Aviator competitor for 85% of the cost, for example.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Dodge will remain a performance brand. It is clearly working for them and to try and change it to mainstream is too risky.

Chrysler can fulfill a big need.....fuel efficient CUVs that are affordable and aspirationally styled, like the 300. This could allow Jeep to drop all the 2WD variants. Jeep's base trims are moving upmarket already. A Grand Cherokee L Laredo is difficult to find for less than $45k even though it starts at $39k.

Let Chrysler have the $30k RWD 3-row that tops out at $50k. It will not have all the Jeep luxuries, but it would cover a real need in the marketplace. At the same time, by sharing the platform, it gives economies of scale for both Dodge and Jeep (if Dodge keeps the Durango on the Grand Cherokee architecture).

Yes, this would put Chrysler on target after Toyota, Honda and Kia. Not an easy place, but right now, Stellantis has nothing to compete with those brands.

I also do not advocate for a full lineup for Chrysler. Chrysler should stay in mid-size, full-size and minivan. That is it.
Does anyone actually buy the 2wd SUVs outside of fleets perhaps?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
Chrysler is done. Has been for quite some time now. Same with Dodge. Breaks my heart to say it but it's been obvious for a long time now. No product, just promises. Always pushing back the five year plan to where they are no longer even mentioned. When Sergio switched the Dodge Ram to Ram (even though everyone considers it a Dodge truck) the handwriting was on the wall for all to see. It's Ram and Jeep and for some reason they keep spending tons on Italian product that will NEVER return their investment. NEVER. Their record speaks for itself. They'll run the current large car platform for a few more years. The 300 goes first, the Charger / Challenger will run out the string for a few more years. If they update safety stuff they'll go even quicker. No product = no future. It's been a VERY long time for the five year plan now that's never coming for those brands. Just pushing people into Hyundai's and Toyota's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,482 Posts
Chrysler is done. Has been for quite some time now. Same with Dodge. Breaks my heart to say it but it's been obvious for a long time now. No product, just promises. Always pushing back the five year plan to where they are no longer even mentioned. When Sergio switched the Dodge Ram to Ram (even though everyone considers it a Dodge truck) the handwriting was on the wall for all to see. It's Ram and Jeep and for some reason they keep spending tons on Italian product that will NEVER return their investment. NEVER. Their record speaks for itself. They'll run the current large car platform for a few more years. The 300 goes first, the Charger / Challenger will run out the string for a few more years. If they update safety stuff they'll go even quicker. No product = no future. It's been a VERY long time for the five year plan now that's never coming for those brands. Just pushing people into Hyundai's and Toyota's.
They have Tavares now and he is making changes. There is hope that hasn't been there in 20 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,482 Posts
I do wonder if the Ghibli, toned down a little in interior appointments and given a less expensive engine, would do well for Chrysler. I suspect it would. I haven't driven the Maserati SUV, but the Ghibli and Quattroporte are terrific grand touring cars.
Basically a new Cordoba. Put a turbo on the Pentastar, who cares if it is down 25 HP from the twice as expensive Maserati version of the Pentastar.
 
21 - 40 of 115 Posts
Top