It’s funny how some things stick in your head. I’ll never forget Hispanic actor Ricardo Montalban’s satisfaction with the 1976 Chrysler Cordoba: “I like what they’ve done to my car!” My mind also reserves a mental YouTube for the actor’s penchant for “soft Corinthian leather.” Of course, the fact that the term was invented by copy writers at Young & Rubicam, and that the hides in question were equestrian in origin, helped write the ROM. It’s not clear if the Cordoba campaign was the first time a car hooked into a post-modern ironic vibe, but it certainly set the tone for the company for years to follow. In fact, you could say that the 300 is the logical inheritor of this self-referential pomposity. Well, at least that’s what I thought this morning when I watched a beige 300 with arc eyes chrome wheels, a mesh front grill and a dark tan fake Landau roof (complete with matching trunk lid and, wait for it, gas door cover) roll into the local Amazing! porno store parking lot. Does that mean that Chrysler products aren’t just badge engineered, but somehow deeply forever faux? I know: let’s ask Jonny!
Find Reviews by Make:
My, my…how times have changed! For the better if you ask me. I mean, common…yesterday they were called Chicanos, nowadays Hispanics.
What does this have to do with cars? I don’t know…but it was mentioned in an auto-related article.
Thank the good Lord above those days have passed. Those Cordobas, Ford’s Long Traveler’s Dream (LTD…puke!!), and GM’s Caprice “CLASSIC”….Yeah, baby…NOW We’s Talkin’!!!
You ever look back and simply shake your head in disgust??? haha
Chrysler’s negotiations with a Chinese auto maker is a forecast of what will eventually happen to Chrysler and the rest of the American auto industry. It’s what I call the Walmart effect.
Anyone remember 15-20 years ago, when Walmart first started up? One of their bragging rights was that everything in the store was American made. How things have changed. Walmart has become the #1 importer of Chinese goods. Anything made in America in most U.S. retail stores is probably there by accident. Most U.S. manufacturing jobs have also gone overseas. Goods made in American with high labor costs cannot compete with foreign goods made with cheap labor in an open market that demands the lowest price.
In the coming years, we are going to see the slow motion spectacle of the U.S. auto industry toppling and falling. Either they will go completely defunct, and the Chinese will buy the names and the tooling; or else Ford, Gm & Chrysler will vanish from our shores, and magically reconstitute themselves as “Chinese” companies exporting cheap cars to the U.S.
In spite of all the public postering about how everything is better than we all can see it is with our own eyes, all of the planning for above scenario is probably already in the works behind the scenes. Truth to tell, it’s really only us, the car enthusiasts, who care about the history and legacy of the great cars this country has made. The head honchos in charge in Detroit today are a bunch of short sighted, soulless bean counters who are an embarassment to the legends who built the industry. There, is that blunt enough? Hate to say it, but I’m afraid it may well be true
Tell us what you really think.
If you want an example you can see right now, look at what happened to Zenith and RCA. The Koreans own the once-proud Zenith name and use it to rebadge low-end LG/GoldStar television sets. RCA’s fate was a bit better, but they still have nothing made in the U.S. Sadly, I see Chevrolet and Ford suffering the same fate one day.
A badge engineered Mercedes might save Chrysler (it probably still wouldn’t because it would still be too expensive), but at the same time it would kill Mercedes.
The only chance is to keep Chrysler as independent as possible and throw in a couple of hand-me-downs that are still better than anything Ford or GM can offer, like the E-Class drive train in the 300.
I think that Chryslers future isn’t as dark as it may seem. The Caliber seems to be very successful and I’m pretty sure that at least the Avenger will do well.
Hhmmm…
“Soft Corinthian Leather” – LOL
Well I think the 70’s was a great time to be raising herds of Corinthians – Chrysler was alwasy an eager buyer.
Ack! ..shudders at the thought of a Made in China Corvette.
I might amend my earlier rant. They might keep making some limited run “boutique” cars. Cars like the Mustang, the Corvette, etc. could be built here. One, they could charge a premium for them, so the cheap labor component wouldn’t be a factor. AND, although Japanese and the rest excel at making well built “appliance” point A to B cars, there ain’t no way they’re going to ever make a Mustang in Seol, South Korea.
The “human” factor in building cars isn’t that high. The highest costs are the machines and the materials. It makes sense to produce small, cheap cars in China, as the percentage of labor costs are higher, the cheaper the car is. But if you produce luxury cars, the cost difference between China and the US isn’t that big. And if you factor in hidden costs like infrastructure or the very big problem of intelectual property in China, all of a sudden producing cars there is a lot more expensive.
But again, low-tech, cheap, and small cars are the exception.
Like my new Chery Vette? I picked it up for $3,000 brand new…
Does anyone else out there think that maybe Chrysler made a mistake in doing away with the Neon? I thought that car was a success, I thought the market accepted it. I still see a lot of them, and I thought it was a handsome, fairly well made car (never mind the head gasket problems.) I especially liked the second generation Neons.
Does anyone out there agree? Did Chrysler make a mistake replacing the Neon with the Caliber? The Caliber seems like a pretty good car, but is it not just a hatchback? Does DCX not even make a small sedan now?
And another thing: what do you think of the Chrysler “Dr. Z” commercials? I like them, Dr. Z is funny. I especially like the ones where they pair him up with the redneck Hemi truck guy. And by the by, it is crazy that DCX is so heavy into trucks and suvs and so little into cars.
Darren,
Stop looking for support, and make your OWN decisions :) Don’t look for anyone to reinforce what you like, or dislike what you hate.
Go on girlfriend, so us your true Living Colors!!! DRIVE that lovely Neon for the WHOLE WORLD TO SEE!!! Now, I *DO* hope you chose (and chose wisely) that GODAWFUL radioactive Green/Yellow/Puke paintjob!! haha
Amusing… the NEW Dodge stratus only comes with a 4 speed automatic regardless of engine selection. Its a manumatic which is claimed to have “the performance of a manual transaxle with the convenience of an automatic” WOW.
Why would anybody want a stratus when an altima 3.5 SE costs about the same and has 60 more ponies of “grab life by the horns” than the Dodge. For nearly the same money you get a 5 speed auto or a 5 speed manual.
Whats the point… I’m sure Mr. Karesh could give us a more accurate price comparison than I’ve just made. Of course it all depends on just how eager DCX is to shift sheet metal at the time of purchase.
Ok, here’s the thing: everybody here understands the politics and the games played within the car companies. You have bureaucracies and lifers and fiefdoms, and they compete against the beancounters and marketing departments with their focus groups, and then there’s the unions and the car dealers, all of which have a hand in the pot and really fuck things up big time.
But still, I guess not being there on a day to day basis, I just can’t imagine what it would be like to be the one who greenlights some of the crap that these guys make. [Now for those of you who hate the Big 2.5 bashing, this could apply to just about any car company, American or foreign, so if it makes you happy then pretend I’m talking about the Toyota Echo or the last gen Sentra, or whatever.]
What is it like when a committee of group leaders get together and make their presentation to upper management on the next “must-have” car, and in reality they’re pushing the next POS Aztek/Rendezvous/Jag X-Type/Zephyr/[Whatever]?
What was it really like when a bunch of supposed car guys, including engineers and desingers, sat in a room and said, “this Malibu Maxx design is really sensational”? Or who was it that was the driving force behind the new Sebring you guys were talking about?
See, that’s the part I don’t get. What I would envision is endless arguments betweeen the designers and the beancounters. Lutz has had them. I remember something to the effect that he convinced the finance guys to spend a few hundred dollars more on each interior in order to increase sales. We all know how back in the day Mr. Earl had them, and I think Mr. Mitchell did too, no? (although that was a different era.)
RF or JL, If either of you have any insight into this part of the new car development process, I’d love to hear it. I consider it the missing link.
PS: Happy 5767 bruthas.
The Chrysler Cordoba is a great example of the postmodern condition in more ways than one.
In the early 1970s the Chrysler Corporation spent a fortune on a veritable Spanish armada of sporty compact and mid-sized coupes. The 1970-74 Dodge Charger wasn’t as timeless of a design as its smaller sibling, the Challenger, but it was noteworthy for its ballsy use of “wedge†styling.
Alas, Chrysler misjudged the market, which had shifted to luxury coupes. Red ink floweth and corporate warriors losteth testicular attitude.
Enter the next-generation Charger and its badge-engineered brother, the Chrysler Cordoba. This pair was among the 1970s’ purest examples of multiple-personality disorder. One must look very hard to find a single element drawn from Chrysler’s rich design heritage. Instead, the catsup oracles cut and pasted pictures of the competition’s most popular features onto a wall, stood back, and with a satisfied smirk barked to the design chief, “Hey, Van Gogh, give me a seamless collage!†(Well, that’s at least how I visualize it.)
Oh, sweet irony that such a forgettable design as the Cordoba is still etched in the memory of baby boomers everywhere because of a clever sound bite spoken with a romantic foreign accent.
Let this be a lesson to GM and Ford: The road to immortality is paved with mediocrity. Such is the secret to the current Chrysler 300’s success.
Where is Lieberman coming from? I thought we are talking about real products and events. To take any customized production auto from any manufacturer and comment on it as to being positive or negative is nuts. A 300 with a vinyl roof, mesh grill, and stylized wheels is someones idea (perhaps 1% of 300 owners )of pretty. To then say this is the work of chrysler is dishonest. Judge the 300 the way it looks from the factory; in fact judge any manufacturer’s autos the way the cars look from the factory, otherwise we have a false comparison of everything. This argument should appear in a rod or customizing magazine, not here.
Darrencardinal,
I owned a Neon for nearly 10 years, and I mostly liked it. If you can drive a stick, they are a lot of fun. Good steering, gearbox, and handling, at least compared to its peers.
I think the main problem was on the safety side. The Neon’s structural rigidity was weak. DCX takes a lot of pride in the fact that all of their new vehicle introductions earn 5 stars, and there was no way to get the Neon there without a completely new platform, which DCX can’t afford to do on their own given the relatively low volumes of the Neon/Cruiser.
And, as Rastus so sensitively pointed out, the “Hi” marketing campaign feminized the Neon, which didn’t help.
I suppose in a few years DCX could do a retro version of the Neon on the Caliber/Lancer platform, but it will be a lot heavier.
The Neon’s biggest problem was it’s name and association. If Chrysler had pulled the Neon for a year or so, tweaked the styling, and brought it out with a different name, it would have been even more of a hit.
As SherbornSean said above me, the car was a really decent drive. It reminded me of the Focus. (when Ford still cared about the Focus as a “driver’s car”) With several suspension tweaks and modifications, the Neon was a great autocross car right out of the box. And when the SRT boys were called in, fun times were to be had.
Name recognition, it can be a savior or a murderer.
Darrin:
No….no one agrees with you. Just thought you should know.
Sorry folks. I had a 77 Cordoba. Give it all the psychoanalysis you want, it was a damn nice car, rode well was a great highway cruiser, especially with the T/A radials.
Have a look atwhat the competition looked like back then. BMWs and Mercedes looked like crap in that era.
man- all this talk about such a great great commercial, and no link- for shame Farago :)
youtube video of the Cordoba commercial /
Maybe Farago and Liebermen don’t read the comments section. This was originally posted in the Chrylser Death Watch? article after a comment from Mr. Liebermen that “2 out of 3 cars” that Chrylser makes are trucks.
windswords:
September 29th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Jonny Lieberman:
September 29th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Why is it the UAW’s fault that more than 2 out of 3 cars Chrysler produces are not cars at all but dirt haulers and SUVs that no one wants to buy?
It’s about time we tackle this whole car vs truck thing. The ratio is not as bad as it would first appear. First, it is not the public or any manufactures association, or even vaunted auto journalists that decide what is a truck and what is a car. It is the EPA. Yep, those charged with keeping our air and water pure and pristine also get to tell us what type a vehicle it is that we are driving. As in is it a truck or car.
They also get to tell us what size classification it is. Got a car (or truck) that fits between your small offering and and your large offering? It’s a midsize, right? Not if the EPA says it’s not. Instead of going by where said vehicle fits in a manufacturers line up, the EPA decides based on interior voulume. They also decide how much volume a subcompact, midsize, and large car will have to make it a, err, subcompact, midsize, or large car.
So how do our friends at EPA decide if your driving a passenger car or “dirt haulerâ€? Well it’s things like a flat loading floor. This is how they classify minivans as trucks. Now to be sure there are minivans used to haul cargo, but we all know what this vehicle was designed to do; cart around mom and the kids in safety and comfort. The kicker is they are all now built off of CAR platforms. But no, they are trucks – so sez the EPA.
So let’s take a look at the Chrylser group’s current and near future lineup of vehicles and see how many of them are REALLY trucks:
Dodge Caliber/Jeep Compass – Looks like a mini-ute but it’s really a car.
Jeep Patriot – Don’t know how the EPA will rule on this one because it’s made off the Caliber platform. But I think we could get away with calling it a truck.
Dodge Stratus soon to be Avenger/Chrysler Sebring – car
Dodge Magnum/Charger/Chyrsler 300 – car – but according to a later post in Chysler Deat Watch? by DrVali September 30th, 2006 at 2:09 pm he states athat “Actually, the Magnum is classified as a SUV and hence goes under truck sales.” Great, so now sales of your station wagon incorporating modified suspension and other components of the Mercedes E-Class CAR are going to classified as a TRUCK – beautiful.
Dodge Caravan/Chrysler T&C – They call it a truck, but it’s a car, the modern station wagon. They are designed off of car platforms (Stratus/Sebring). Every time they come out with a new version of these midsize cars the new version of the minivan follows. Everyone remember what made these vehicles popular in the first place? They handle like a car, they have front wheel drive, they have a low step up height. They are NOT trucks. They are cars shaped like vans. Can you imagine hauling dirt in a leather lined, climate controlled, DVD playing, navigation equipped, powered liftgate T&C?
Dodge Durango/Chrysler Aspen – Truck. Even with the fancy trimmings an Aspen is still a body on frame truck.
Dodge Dakota – truck
Dodge Ram – truck
Dodge Sprinter – truck
Chrysler PT Cruiser – Car. The EPA says it’s a truck. Puh-leez. It’s based off the Neon platform which last time I checked was a car.
Chrylser Pacifica – Is it a minvan? An SUV? A crossover? It doesn’t matter because it contented (leather, navigation system, etc.) and used like a car. It was never intended for or marketed to truck users. It’s a car.
Jeep Wrangler – Truck. Looks like one, rides like one, used to do things that trucks do.
Jeep Liberty – I’m confused opn this one. Yes it can do what other Jeeps do, but it’s a lot plusher, it’s marketed to women as a “cute uteâ€, and it was the first Jeep to not have the traditional Jeep (truck) suspension. I’m leaning car here, but I’m open to reconsidering.
Jeep Grand Cherokee – Car. I know this is the most controversial. I am well aware of what this vehicle can do off road but consider that these vehicles almost never go off road. They cost almost $40k (maybe more now, I haven’t priced any in whaile) and they are crammed full of every luxury item short of an electric nose picker. Ever seen a GC towing anything? Substantial? Motorcycles or snow mobiles don’t count. Most cars can tow them too. Where do you find the most GC’s, on the farm or rural country, or at the golf club and rich suburban neighborhoods? I rest my case. It’s a 4 wheel drive car. It’s not even a body on frame vehicle.
Jeep Commander – Car. See above. It’s a Grand Cherokee extra large.
Ok, what have we got so far? 14 car and 7 REAL truck mocles. That’s a ratio of 2 cars for every truck. I would be interested in what the ratio would be if the sales figures were added up and compared.
Bottom line is a manufacturer has to make a vehicle that best suits its intended use. And if that’s a truck instead of a car or something that straddles the definition of the two so be it. What really matters is the sale.
You’re playing fast and loose with the facts. The Grand Cherokee and Commander are not cars. That’s ridiculous.
Let’s try this one: Chrysler hemoraged more than $1.5 BILLION over the last three months.
BILLION. Meanwhile Honda’s sales are up, especially in the passenger car segments. Care to explain this?
And Mr. Webber: Farago wrote that, not me.
Where did this 70% figure come from anyway? If the minivan is a “truck” then that would explain it.
Mr. Farago had better check his mental YouTube again. The term was actually “rich Corinthian leather” ;-)
go watch it again; it is ‘soft Corintian leather’ – the ‘rich Corinthian leather’ is just our failing collective memory
There was an AP article the other day about DCX not being immune to the “Detroit Disease”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15004014/
I think “Rich” Corinthian Leather came about as comedians of the late 70s started to mock the commercial. But then again, my memory could be failing too!
True about that one, but he did say it in later commercials. I’m old enough to remember it, but not too old, I think? :-O
Jazbot,
I am afraid you not idea whatsoever of what you are talking about.
Claiming that MB and BMW’s of the 70’s and 80’s look like crap very narrow minded statement. Given that the cars you are mentionning were pretty much superior in every single technical (at least) aspect you can imagine compared to even the top american offering!
The MB’s from the 70’s were so far ahead of their time that you could even compare them with early 90’s Cadillac, Linlcoln or top Chysler and still find them superior…Furthermore MB fans tend to think that the best MB of all times are the 60-80’s production cars…
As luck would have it, I finally got to examine and sit in a Crossfire the other day.
Or, should I say, tried to sit in a Crossfire? I’m tall – but not that tall – at a little under 6’4″. I’ve driven cars that I felt weren’t a really good “fit” but had other things going for them (usually cost). This is perhaps the most uncomfortable car I’ve ever sat in (The New Beetle is bad but not this bad, the old Beetles were OK). I was much more comfortable in a Ford Aspire than in the Crossfire. The Crossfire was absolutely undriveable for a person of my height. I don’t believe persons 6’2″ would be comfortable, either. Friends of mine who are as tall and taller have or have ridden in those little Mercedes coupes, say that they’re perfectly comfortable. What’s wrong with Chrysler that they can’t make a car that works for tallish people?
And, this is a car that takes “cheap plastic” to a new level. The interior reminded me of a Chevy Cobalt. The other day, someone remarked on “plastic from a model airplane kit,” which is what we had here, painted silver. And cheesy-looking controls. I recently found an older Mercedes roadster in the company parking lot with the top down and looked it over carefully. While not as up-to-date as the Crossfire, its interior could have been described as “spare” or even “utilitarian” but it also gave the impression of being much, much nicer. “Solid” or “durable,” perhaps.
I’m not a big fan of Chrysler/Dodge styling. I think the short, claustrophobic windows give the cars (300, Charger, Crossfire, even the Caliber, to some extent) a hunched look that hearkens back to those lowered rooflines from the ’50’s, a look I’d never admired. I’d always wondered if such cars had any headroom. Now, I guess I know; they don’t.
Jonny Lieberman:
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:30 am
You’re playing fast and loose with the facts. The Grand Cherokee and Commander are not cars. That’s ridiculous.
Let’s try this one: Chrysler hemoraged more than $1.5 BILLION over the last three months.
BILLION. Meanwhile Honda’s sales are up, especially in the passenger car segments. Care to explain this?
Johhny,
So are Chrylsers car sales:
http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/Projects/c2c/channel/documents/849128_Zahlen_Fakten_e_2005.pdf
And from Fortune: (June 2005)
Year Car Sales % Of Company Total
2003 564,435 26.5%
2005 296,608 30.6%
(first five months)
As to my my previous posting, it speaks for itself. GC and Commander are not used like trucks (in yours words “dirt haulers”). My point is classification be damned, it’s what the vehicles intended use is. These are people haulers. Gee, maybe we should call them small busses.
I can see it now – a future product planning meeting at DCX. They got an idea for a new vehicle that will get them another 150-200 grand in sales. Then one of them speaks up. “we can’t do this vehicle, it will be classified as a truck, and our truck to car ratio will go up to 80%. Think of what TTAC writers and posters will say!
OR
Do you say the heck with em and add to the 2,813,000 in worldwide sales (no this is just Chylser group, not Mercedes, they had another million or so) that you had in MY 2005. (yes I know there will be less in MY 2006, but we don’t know what that will be).
Not withstanding what is a truck or a car, the entire reason the Detroit mfg’s want as many things classed as a truck is to avoid the cafe requirements for cars. This truck thing is just a loophole to keep building gas guzlers and stay legal. But it also may be the big threes down fall, as each of these Detroit builders are now in a corner with too many trucks (or gas guzzlers if you don’t want to call them trucks). If they were more like subaru, they could have built fuel efficient crossovers that now would not be out of favor.
All vehicles less than 8,500 lbs GVW are counted in CAFE regardless of designation.
22mpg light truck
27.5mpg car
Jerry, you are correct you can avoid (some) regulations by classifying a vehicle a truck instead of a car. But when you consider the Dodge Magnum and the Chrysler PT Cruiser there is no reason (regulatory wise) to call them trucks. As for the Crand Cherokee and Commander, other than lower CAFE regs (22 vs. 27.5?) what safety features do these two vehicles lack that cars have? None that I can think of. Market forces have dictated that these two vehicles have all the same bells and whistles that traditional cars have.
I agree, once the magic word cross-over came in all sorts of things find new definitions. I used to think a truck needed a seperate frame to be rugged enough to haul and tow. However some cars (not many left) ie linciln town car, ford, mercury marquis have frames but are cars. I’m confused.
Knock corinthian leather and you will suffer the wrath of khan.
Ah the 70s…fine Corinthian leather (who raised the Corinthians?) the Symbianese Liberation Army (for a free Symbia) and the Chrysler Cordoba.
Like the Pinto, the Cordoba was a car everybody hated but everybody bought.