Last week, Chrysler announced they’d cancelled plans to build their super-sized 300, the Imperial sedan. Company Spinmeister David Elshoff cited new, more stringent EPA mileage and emissions regulations and added a moral spin: given the “current climate,” bringing the Imperial to production would have been "irresponsible." Regardless of the need to conform to political correctness and regulations yet to be enacted, the “poor man’s Phantom” had few friends in the punditry biz. (The word ugly featured prominently in their analysis.) And yet, deep-sixing the Imperial was a big mistake.
To recap: aside from Jeep, Chrysler’s LX platform cars have been the automakers only functional success since the 300 debuted in ‘04. In the first half of 2007, the 300, Charger and Magnum sold a combined 145k units (including the endlessly scorned fleet sales). That's a pretty impressive accomplishment considering that the base cars are saddled with an overburdened 190hp 2.7-liter six cylinder engine connected to a four-speed slushbox. Or the not-entirely-unexpected fact that Chrysler has done nothing to build on the models’ success.
This neglect lies at the heart of Chrysler’s boom-and-bust problem. The cycle is simple: teetering on brink of disaster, Chrysler bets the farm on a new car. The finished product is a good idea, adequately executed with bang-up-to-the-minute looks and acceptable functionality. The press goes wild. Chrysler lets its Savior sit and rot while competitors catch up and move forward. The company once again peers into the precipice of penury and prepares for yet another four-wheeled Hail Mary.
So here we are, with a three-year old Chrysler 300 and Co. Their interiors are still unacceptably bland and rubbery. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) still describes their side impact rating with a curt “internal organ injuries likely.” More disconcerting (from a marketing standpoint, not your liver’s), Chrysler doesn’t have a clue where the 300 and its platform siblings go next.
Ask Porsche or Jaguar; evolution is a bitch. Move too far away from a model’s original design and you alienate your base. Stand pat and at some point everyone who wants one, has one. Either way, after the initial surge, conquest sales are a constant uphill struggle. When you’re talking about a car with an iconic design and a tightly gathered brand proposition— 911, MINI, Beetle, Mustang, 300, Charger, Magnum— the struggle is even harder.
The Imperial was a bold attempt to extricate Chrysler from this predicament. Although stretching the brand to include a $50k stretched 300 may seem a bit of a stretch, Chrysler was once an upscale brand. A reasonably priced Imperial would have been just the thing to move the company upward and forward. Much as BMW’s 7-Series casts warm fuzzies on the “lesser” 5-Series, the Imperial could have served as a step-up for 300 drivers.
If Chrysler had decided to put the Imperial’s hypothetical budget into developing their existing LX cars— new engines, interiors, gizmos, suspension components, etc.—you could make a good case for ditching the XXXL LX. If Chrysler were spending the development bucks on rescuing the lame and lamentable Sebring, you could also—
Actually, no. Chrysler doesn't have a prayer of going toe-to-toe with Toyota. Test drive a four-cylinder Sebring and a four-cylinder Camry back-to-back, witness the utter devastation and then you too can see why Bob Lee, Chrysler’s head of powertrain development, called the Sebring an “embarrassing miss.” Besides, why reinvent the wheel? The LX cars were a hit. Stylish, big rear-wheel-drive cars differentiate Chrysler from Toyondissan. Connect the dots.
And if EPA regulations are becoming more restrictive, pulling the plug on the Imperial is not the answer. (In fact, it’s a particular craven solution.) How about lightening the load and/or fitting it with more fuel efficient engines, including Chrysler’s well-regarded three liter Euro-diesel. And anyway, given the volume of Chrysler 300s and Dodge Chargers, fuel economy need not be a selling point.
Let’s get real: people buying cars equipped with Hemi engines clearly aren’t gas pump sensitive souls. So what if these are not volume-leader automobiles? If the LX triplets were better products, higher margins could offset their lower sales numbers.
By killing the Imperial, Chrysler is yet again demonstrating a void where its automotive acumen should be. Stylish, big, powerful and distinctive ought to be the buzzwords on their dry-erase board. If you must, cross off “big.” But the other attributes should be treated like pre-safari inoculations.
When Chrysler sticks to this approach– the Charger, 300C, Magnum, Jeep Wrangler– it sees green. When it deviates– the Sebring, Avenger, Aspen, Compass– salesmen have to feed their kids toothpaste sandwiches. With the Imperial, Chrysler had a shot at selling a vehicle in the winning category. As far as stockholders and stakeholders are concerned, not building the Imperial was irresponsible. What was Chrysler thinking when they cancelled it? They weren’t.
IF YOU WATCH TOP GEAR, WARNING POSSIBLE SPOILERS!
It’s such a shame that Chrysler looks so battered; in fact, the whole episode in Chrysler’s life is a mirror of Rover. Chrysler, like Rover, got themselves a German wife, said wife cuckolded and abused them with shoddy platforms and poor managing. Then they were divorced acrimoniously and left to fend for themselves with very little. One story ends with it’s death, the other is on life support.
Chrysler are in a right pickle. They need a killer car to give their brand some life, something that’s cutting edge, but conservative. But they have very little budget and virtually no room for error. Toyota can afford to make costly mistakes due to their deep pockets. This shows what a bind Chrysler are in. They need a distinctive product, but not so outlandish that they alienate people. Remember, they’re a mass volume car maker, not a niche player, like Jaguar. If they go down the “Bold design is the way to get us noticed” then it is a risky roll of the dice because bold can go either way. Renault played this game and won. Their bold designs gave them new kudos. But for every Renault success story there’s many Edsel stories to tell. However, on the flip side, if Chrysler play the “appliance” game, that could be even worse, because Toyota already play that game and are masters at it. Also, the risk there is that Chrysler’s products will have an even worse reaction on the market, they won’t get noticed.
Also, what wouldn’t go a miss is some positive journalism for Chrysler. Someopne saying that their cars are worth buying. But alas, there’s doesn’t seem to be any. I’m still not convinced about the 300 (cheap looking sedan). Jeep is a brand that does have life….but in a dying market. But to use a rather laboured example Toyota have positive journalism coming out of their exhaust pipes. More will be coming their way when Top Gear broadcast to the world (was broadcast in the UK on 25.07.2007) their latest episode, where they drive a Toyota Hilux to the North Pole, something that has NEVER been done before! Experts said on the show that the Hilux would break and couldn’t do it and the Hilux proved them wrong! That is advertising that cannot be bought! And it seems to flow to Toyota all the time! Why can’t Chrysler get some? Answer is, they haven’t built that killer car yet! Even the crossfire looks like a shoddy attempt at a roadster and remember, that’s up against the Mazda MX 5 and the Pontiac division! It needs to be able to hold it’s own.
So, in essence, Chrysler need at least 3 cars, which are reliable, have a quality feel, have a good public image, can cope with the upcoming CAFE regulations, have a bold design which gets them noticed, but not too bold as to not be mass marketed, and be at a price which can compete with Toyota, Honda AND (as we always seem to forget) GM and Ford (They big 2.8 may be in trouble, but remember, they’re still competing against each other). I also forgot, they have to do these projects on a budget of virtually nothing! Tall order!
But, to be fair, Chrysler are doing their best with what little resources they have, I just wish someone would take a chance on them, they have the potential to be good. Instead, they got a 3 headed dog…..and he’s hungry…..
Justin:
You make some valid points in your article, escecially how Chryslerberus tries the old EPA figleaf to cover their retreat, but the fact is that the Imperial was a car too far.
Fact One: The Imperial is UGLY. Coyote Ugly. A horrible design that was poorly executed. Did I mention ugly?
Fact Two: Chryslerberus has no market for a $50K car. They’ve so squandered Walter P.’s legacy of engineering excellence that they are but a shadow of their former glory. When they’re struggling to move old-tech minivans, butt-ugly Sebrings, and Jeep Compasses and Commanders, they can’t waste their resources on a hand-job like the Imperial.
If they are able to revamp their fleet and make it truly competitive again, then and only then can they think about moving upmarket.
Better to spend the money on upgrading the 300’s interior, redesigning the Sebring, and euthanizing ther Compass and Commander. Make some money first, then MAYBE think about an upmarket car.
Thankfully, Chryslerberus killed the Imperial before they had a Phaeton on their hands.
God damn… That is an ugly car.
Not Aztek ugly though.
Imperial.. the car that rappers would be driving after they traded their Caddy Escalades.
Here’s the big problem. The US car manufacturers are caught in a horrid, downward spiral. They have no money and cannot take any risk. But to really compete with the boring japonoboxes they need to take risk.
They should have built that car. Ugly and yet, with a massive hemi, a reasonalbe yet appropriately cheezy US interior and a hot AMG style verions they might have been in with a chance…
The Imperial’s design is closer related to Chrysler’s last real design success (The 300) than any of their later releases (like the Sebring).
Chrysler set themselves up as “bling-kings” with the 300 and honestly the Imperial would have been going with that momentum. It’s not my style of car but it would have found an audience and maybe even secured a spot in the tiny “Big American Bling” niche that’s soley occupied by Cadillac.
The Sebring should have been the bold move, striking at the core of the family sedan market, stealing tons of sales from the 6/Fusion/Milan trio, pushing the Malibu/Impala further into the rental fleets and scaring the Accord/Camry/Altima. Unfortunately, one of the worst designs since the Ion, and raging mediocrity in a segment where even a terrific quialty car like the 6/Milan/Fusion is shunned by the buying public spells doom. It’s like Chrysler benchmarked against the plasticky Malibu — and came up short against even that straggler in the market.
Chrysler didn’t need the Imperial, it’s thankfully off the table for good. But I’m just not seeing any scenario where they come out of this tailspin. the Caliber is bizarre and leaves them with a niche econocar. The Avenger is a 3/4 Charger but wholly mediocre. The 300/Magnum/Charger were breakthrough designs that are aging fast and need companionship and updates. The Minivans are close to the bottom-end of the market with GM and Ford bailing out of the minivan game and Kia/Hyundai storming in. Their non-Jeep SUV’s are barely a blip on the radar screen.
I don’t know where Chrysler goes from here, but they have a ways to go down before they will ever clumb up again.
210delray –
My understanding is that the Pacifica has done “well” (even as a minivan-looking crossover?). I have come across several families who hate minivans…and wound up buying a Pacifica (though I realize the few families I know of does not make successful the Pacifica).
Gentlemen of the jury — can you provide sales figures for the Pacifica over the last few years (since inception)?
Solid points, Justin. I wonder how much money the company loses by continuing to produce the Viper? Put another way, killing the Viper would free up how much money to evolve some of these other marques?
Chrysler, with an entire fleet of ugly, malproportioned cars, deserves everything that happens to it. At least in the case of the Imperial (which might actually be a good idea if done well) they realized the error before it went into production.
The references to Toyota in some comments brings up something that’s much broader than Chrysler’s issues. What I just don’t get about the 2.X in general is how they continue to get their lunch eaten by the Japanese. (And even the Koreans.)
One would assume the domestic automakers have by now bought many Japanese cars, taken them apart, seen how they are made, reviewed the quality of the materials, examined the fit and finish, and noted the differences between their cars and those from the land of the rising sun. But they haven’t learned much, as they apparently don’t know how to do the same thing. It’s as if the Japanese have cracked some secret code of how to build good quality, durable, affordable cars that people actually want to buy. That can’t be rocket science, but it eludes the dimwits in Detroit.
Instead they see the way to sell more cars is to have something for every possible market niche, whether or not it makes market or financial sense. The 2.X need fewer models, not more, and need the ones they keep to be profitable so they will have a chance to rebuild share.
God damn… That is an ugly car.
Not Aztek ugly though.
Imperial.. the car that rappers would be driving after they traded their Caddy Escalades.
Here’s the big problem. The US car manufacturers are caught in a horrid, downward spiral. They have no money and cannot take any risk. But to really compete with the boring japonoboxes they need to take risk.
They should have built that car. Ugly and yet, with a massive hemi, a reasonable yet appropriately cheezy US interior and a hot AMG-style Viper engined verion they might have been in with a chance…
Night night Chrysler…
It doesn’t look like they spent any real time designing it. It looks like a last minute haphazard idea scrambled together so they would have something to show as a concept, made to fill a hole in there marketing not final product. You know “no such thing as bad publicity”, guess they figured out thats not always true.
That is probably why they killed it because it was meant to be a mirage from the start.
I really want to root for these guys compared to the other 2 losers but they make it more and more difficult. They have the potential to be a great American car company but with totally moronic leadership.
What they need to do is fix the 300’s(LX) faults to make it a real seller and develop a small RWD car from that perfect 300. Bring back the segment of cars that we have all wanted for 20 years. And there only competitor would be the BMW 1 series. An untapped gold mine IMO.
Admittedly, Chrysler did make this hole for themselves, but to find that product to cure all their ills is going to be tougher.
As I read on TTAC, there’s an old adage in engineering “Built well, well priced and on time. Pick two”. I’m sure Chrysler have scoured their competition and know EXACTLY where they’re falling flat, but time and money are two commodities that AREN’T on their side.
Toyota have made a few mistakes in recent years (recalls, engine sludge accountability, Tundras not moving) but their reputation and deep pockets have fixed all their problems. As I said in my earlier post, Chrysler need to built the next Camry on a budget of a Pinto.
Wouldn’t you say that’s a bit of a tall order….?
To see how in-demand a car is, I usually hop on over to the local one-price dealer to see how much below invoice they’re asking. Pacifica is going for 4K below invoice, Town & Country and 300C(! 7-10K off MRSP) are 5K below invoice. Pacifica is being canceled in a couple of years without a replacement, so I’ll agree with the declarations that it’s an overpriced, overweight, DOA dud.
Chrysler was supposed to go upscale with the intro of the Pacifica with higher prices, and we all know how that went. How the heck were they supposed to command 50k+ for the butt-ugly Imperial without a costly redesign, not to mention in-house competition with $30K 300Cs?
MgoBLUE: Gentlemen of the jury — can you provide sales figures for the Pacifica over the last few years (since inception)? The "By the Numbers" series tracks the sales of several different vehicles, including the Pacifica, over the past three years. The June installment is here.
An earlier poster asked “Why can’t the Big 3 produce a product to compete with the Janpanese?”. Then said “it isn’t rocket science”. I believe the difference is the relative power that MBA’s have vs engineer/scientists in the american automobile companies compared to Toyota and Honda. If you look at American aerospace/military supply companies they produce world class products but their focus is product 1st and marketing second. IMO
Maybe an Imperial with a totally different and good looking body and a well below $50K price would have been a good idea, but not pictured here. I think they should go the other way. Product an affordable RWD/AWD midsize sedan, like a baby 300c and keep the hemi as an option. There’s no competition in that segment at all.
At this point in time, I believe that these things need to be viewed within the context of the Cerberus acquisition.
The age-old strategy in fixing broken companies is to get rid of bloat, trim off the dead weight, sell off the components that lie beyond the scope of the core business, and create a lean, mean operation of whatever’s left.
I’d say that this is just one of many steps that will be taken to rationalize the product line. I believe that some of the next steps you will see — be sure to drop-ship some champagne to me if I’m right — will involve killing off some models in the existing lineup. By my count, Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep have 25 nameplates, which would be an acceptable number if times were good, but must be expensive to carry now that the company needs turning. So at the very least, I’d expect a few of the existing nameplates to get killed off, or at least shelved until a later date. This was a way to kill one unnecessary product off before it got started.
How about lightening the load and/or fitting it with more fuel efficient engines, including Chrysler’s well-regarded three liter Euro-diesel.
Americans don’t want diesels. They are but 3% of the market now, and probably won’t be a vital part of the business going forward. I realize that there is a TTAC contingent that loves diesels, but most Americans don’t care about them, don’t want them and won’t buy one. The last thing that the new Chrysler needs is yet another product that nobody wants.
Just to stay in the game, Chrysler will eventually need a hybrid or six, and seeing the other automakers scramble to develop their own is an indication that the others want a shot at riding on Toyota’s wave. But Chrysler can/should license that technology from somebody else, instead of trying to develop its own version. At this point, they need to focus on building a mainstream gas-engined car that people want, not on anything more esoteric or odd than that.
Katie:
“Chrysler, like Rover, got themselves a German wife, said wife cuckolded and abused them with shoddy platforms and poor managing.”
Rover was in deep doodoo well before they even entertained foreign sugar daddies. I don’t think it was possible to manage a company worse than Rover did before they started sleeping around with
every eligible manufacturer in the automotive universe.
The truth is, Rover was dead in the seventies, they just didn’t want to admit it. Somehow, they held on for another 30 years, before the truth finally caught up with them.
Rover’s last (and great) gasp was the 3500, after that it was downhill all the way.
Here’s the big problem. The US car manufacturers are caught in a horrid, downward spiral. They have no money and cannot take any risk. But to really compete with the boring japonoboxes they need to take risk.
This is where I think Mulally could really pay off for Ford. Boeing has a history of betting the company on a design (707, 747, 787) and has come out better for it each time.
Chrysler does have a hybrid system in the Aspen/Durango SUV. It’s the same as GM’s new system.
My roommate’s parents just traded in their Pacifica for a Sebring. It’s like trading a moldy hamburger for a hotdog with botulism-laced Castleberry Chilli Sauce.
Chrysler has just gone all in with a lifetime powertrain warranty. I don’t think anybody is going to call them.
Zarba
“Thankfully, Chryslerberus killed the Imperial before they had a Phaeton on their hands.”
For the record, the Phaeton is a technically superior car to most on the road, it just had one fundamental flaw. It’s brand. If VW had taken off the VW badge and put an Audi badge on it, I bet the sales would have gone through the roof.
If Chrysler want to compete, they need a mid range sedan to compete with the Camry and Accord. Trouble is, Toyota and Honda have had a 10 year head start…..
Pch101 “Americans don’t want diesels. They are but 3% of the market now, and probably won’t be a vital part of the business going forward. I realize that there is a TTAC contingent that loves diesels, but most Americans don’t care about them, don’t want them and won’t buy one”
I am not convinced. I refuse to buy a VW for the same reason I avoid domestic cars. Bad prior ownership experience, well earned reputation for poor reliability etc
So what if they offer a diesel?
But what if Toyota offered a Camry diesel? What if Honda goes ahead and offers an Accord diesel?
I would be willing to bet a lot of Americans will then want and buy a diesel.
The former big three and some still say Americans don’t want small cars and Toyota and Honda prove that assertion is wrong every day.
I liked the design of the Imperial. It reminded me of the limousine from the Green Hornet show of the ’60’s, and was a welcome departure from the generic melted candy bar cookie cutter design that everybody’s copied since the original Ford Taurus.
Sad part is, even if Chrysler did green light it and give it a five-star interior that was worthy of the Imperial name, it probably wouldn’t sell because folks are so jaded against the brand.
“This is where I think Mulally could really pay off for Ford. Boeing has a history of betting the company on a design (707, 747, 787) and has come out better for it each time.”
No. Building A380’s took huge bollox and a call that now probably will never pay off. Boeing is all about evolution.
Boeing is all about evolution.
I’d say 787’s all-carbon fiber fuselage is a definitely revolutionary.
A380’s software integration problems between their different design studios is one of the big reasons why it’s becoming a flying white elephant.
I would be willing to bet a lot of Americans will then want and buy a diesel.
Nobody in the automaking business believes this. Nobody.
If the mainstream automakers thought it made sense, they would have already been doing it a long, long time ago. (It’s not as if diesel was just invented a few years ago, it has been with us since the 19th century.)
I think that the problem with discussing these sorts of things in this context is that enthusiasts tend to drink their own Kool Aid. They focus on their particular interest area — V-8’s, RWD, AWD, rotaries, hybrids, diesels, or whatever — and assume that everyone will eventually see the same light if given a chance.
They won’t. Americans generally like a car that is either highly reliable, or if lacking that, has enough cachet value and luxury/performance appeal to make up for it. They want it to maintain its value. When fuel prices rise, they want somewhat better fuel economy, but without too much loss in performance. They like a nice interior, a decent stereo and good cupholders. They want a hassle-free warranty that goes beyond a couple of years. On the whole, they want a car that will start every time, or at least one that provides a free loaner and a latte if it breaks.
That’s pretty much it. For whatever reason, diesel fans are obsessed with the notion that getting more miles out of a gallon of fuel is the ultimate test, but that isn’t of that much interest to the American consumer. Hybrids are starting to sell because the electric motor is of interest to people, not because of the gas engine that helps to keep it running, but even they will need a decade or so to gain more critical mass. But that’s where the momentum is.
Chrysler does have a hybrid system in the Aspen/Durango SUV.
Thanks, I honestly forgot about Chrysler hybrids, although I don’t believe that the Aspen has come out yet. (Let’s hope that their prospective buyers haven’t also forgotten this…) Feel free to update/ correct that, please.
Pch101
I agree with everything you just said. I am not one of those build a RWD V8 etc etc types. I use to own 2 Honda Accords. That is precisely my kind of car. However, my point is that if a company like Honda and Toyota which have built up a lot of trust with customers like me, come out with a diesal Camry or an Accord which are basically like their gas Accords and Camrys but which get better fuel mileage. Then it is simply my belief that this “Americans don’t want diesels” will be put to rest. We simply haven’t been offered a nice well rounded car like the Camry or the Accord from a company we trust like Honda or Toyota before.
wait a second…Cerebrus is trying to make some smart moves…
1st, they tell dealers to pick up the sales big time, “or else”. Of course, there are state franchise laws, etc., but at least it shows a reality by the parent company that an overly bloated sales network is draining company resources.
2nd, and most important, they just announced lifetime warranties on powertrains on all Chrysler products. That is amazing–not only did they throw a bone to those dealers under the ultimatum, but they also now have given hope for their products…my wife and I are considering a Patriot, but I don’t like the idea of a Chrysler CVT and a 36k warranty. Now, with a lifetime warranty, it all of a sudden becomes a very serious consideration.
Of course, if Chrysler really goes down the tubes, they’ll probably find a way out of all the warranty claims. Still, for now, it sounds like Cerebrus is serious at stopping the corporate bleeding.
Chrysler needs to bring back the Plymouth, not the Imperial.
I’m not crazy about a big driveline hump through the middle of the car. FWD in a family sedan suits me fine, though many others still refer to it as “wrong-wheel” drive.
Fans of low-budget RWD have new Ford cop cars or used, over-equipped, over-Hemied 300s, Magnums, and Chargers to choose from.
How about a Plymouth version of the RWD sedan and wagon, base version priced $1000 below a base Impala ? Perhaps this Plymouth could be on a shortened and lightened 300 chassis so that the average guy could say “It’s damn quick for just a little V-6”.
Make a manual transmission standard. Nobody else in the domestic big car line offers one. No Japanese brand offers one in an affordable RWD.
Make a bare-bones, no-power-anything-but-brakes-and-steering Road Runner version–only make it a coupe, further distinguishing it from the Charger. The original Road Runner and Charger were the same basic car: one plain,one fancy.
Restore that order instead of making each the exact clone of the other.
Would a Magnum-based Plymouth pickup-car be out of the question? Done right-just 2 seats and 2 doors and a full 6′ box ( Take that! Useless Subaru Baja!),factory-lined in rustproof composite material,it could be solid niche-seller.
I’m not understanding this. How is killing the gas guzzling Imperial before it is ever produced a mistake, while at the same time, producing the gas guzzling Aspen a mistake.
Chrysler made the right decision to kill the Imperial. There was no buzz surrounding it, it was going the right car for the wrong time, a gas guzzling monstrosity luxury car. How can this be a mistake?
Kudos to them for instead announcing the new LX models to come in 2010. From everything I have read, the interiors in the new models are going to be greatly improved, along with new Phoenix V6 availability AND dual clutch tranny. Not to mention whatever styling tweaks they incorporate.
SuperAROD:
I’m not understanding this. How is killing the gas guzzling Imperial before it is ever produced a mistake, while at the same time, producing the gas guzzling Aspen a mistake.
Because the Aspen sucks.
For a car that looked like a terrible chinese knock off of a Rolls Royce (Imagine the uproar if the chinese had created this monstrosity), Chrysler for once made the right design decision and put this monster to sleep.
KatiePuckrik:
July 26th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Admittedly, Chrysler did make this hole for themselves, but to find that product to cure all their ills is going to be tougher.
As I read on TTAC, there’s an old adage in engineering “Built well, well priced and on time. Pick two”. I’m sure Chrysler have scoured their competition and know EXACTLY where they’re falling flat, but time and money are two commodities that AREN’T on their side.
Toyota have made a few mistakes in recent years (recalls, engine sludge accountability, Tundras not moving) but their reputation and deep pockets have fixed all their problems. As I said in my earlier post, Chrysler need to built the next Camry on a budget of a Pinto.
And how did Toyota get those deep pockets? Yes they can afford mistakes more than any of the Big 3, but this was not always the case. The reason Toyota is the top car company in the world today is due to engineering first, marketing second. Let’s remember how they started out, as a little company nobody knew, producing Japanese tin cans that had a built-in disdain in America, goin up against the power of GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Could they afford mistakes then? Somehow they managed to read the US market correctly and build a good reputation while the Big 3 squandered their unbelievable advantage away with poor service, poor design, and poor manufacturing.
Somebody mentioned a diesel Accord or Camry. My in-laws have a deisel Sentra from the early 80’s still running strong with several 100k miles on the original diesel engine. Not exactly powerful, but it gets good gas mileage and the engine was obviously built to last (which I’ve heard is typical for diesel engines). With all of that, how many diesel Sentras do you know of? This is the only one I have ever seen. It makes me wonder if a diesel would sell in this country, no matter who built it.
Frank – thanks for the link. Looks like the Pacifica has averaged ~7,000 units per month over 2 1/2 years now. That’s more than I would have guessed…but I’m not sure where we draw the success/loser line.
Pch101 — Toyota created this ‘wave’ because they were right about hybrids and produced the first sedan version. I, for one, believe the first mainstream diesel sedan will create a similar ‘wave’ as well. (Torquey and efficient?! Sign me up!) The VW diesels haven’t caught on because VW is only 1% of the US market and the brand has been scarred by
I realize I’m a koolaid drinker here, but I believe each of the 2.8 needs to WAGER on a new niche or new style or new something. We agree they are not going to beat the Accord at its own game. They need to create another game (300C, Explorer) that they can win at.
A safe play (ie, not a wager) only prolongs the suffering and the deathwatches.
zenith: I totally agree with you, and don’t think a FWD Camry fighter is going to help them. I think they just proved they can’t compete apples for apples with any of the Japanese. They need to use the strenghths they have and ditch this excersise of trying to be like everyone else.
They have a good RWD platform that actually sold good, draw from that, build your brand around that success instead of constantly failing at what you can’t do right. They aren’t as big as Ford or GM, they have to potential to be a nich American car maker, like a budget BMW. There is a segment just waiting for a car with almost no competition.
Why haven’t they developed a Hemi based 4 or 6 cylinder? They marketing potential is already there yet they have never even suggested that direction. I know there are already other manuf with hemi combusion chambers but Chrysler owns the damn trademark on it.
I lost a sentence and a half somewhere.
VW’s brand has been scarred by poor reliability and engine failures from ’03 to ’05. But I submit that of the units they have sold, the percentage of TDI’s (turbo diesels) to their I-4 turbo and VR6 is significant (anecdotal, but a telling story). Not sure if the TDI meets Cali standards…but they are very popular on the East Coast.
The appeal of diesels fifteen years ago, when gas was less than a dollar, is understandable. But now with more power and better efficiency than gas and less expensive than hybrid, I suspect there will be significantly more appeal.
Building A380’s took huge bollox and a call that now probably will never pay off.
That’s because Airbus misjudged the market (like Chrysler). Airlines want more fuel efficient planes they can fly point-to-point not a behemoth that relies on the old hub system. Boeing saw that and is reaping the benefits ($1.1 billion quarterly profit).
I’m glad they axed the Imperial. It was an ugly car with no market. I just don’t see many 300 drivers being able to afford the financing on a $50k car because let’s face it, if 300 owners had that kind of money, they’d be driving BMW’s already.
I would be willing to bet a lot of Americans will then want and buy a diesel.
Nobody in the automaking business believes this. Nobody.
Like anyone gives a crap what the american automakers believe. They obviously don’t have the slightest clue what people want. I would buy a modern diesel, and I can name at least 10 of my friends who would as well. Cheaper fuel, better mileage and tons of torque.
The best thing Cerebrus can do with Chrysler is take a risk and fire about the entire management. They won’t, but the management is the problem. Sure, the dealers suck and the pension problems are there, but the constant abandonment of product and short-term thinking has come to make people start recognizing that American cars are just pieces of crap.
Maybe the “well-regarded three liter Euro-diesel” doesn’t fit into this category, but my understanding is that many diesels can’t cut the EPA mustard (or the Cal-EPA mustard, for that matter).
We all want great gas mileage, but I’d like to know whether this diesel engine can be imported. If it can’t, it shouldn’t.
I for one am glad Chrysler shelved this version of the Imperial. Now to see if they have the gumption to design a real Imperial that doesn’t make me throw up. Even if somebody like this design, it would have been uglified by the time it made it to production. So where have all the great car designers gone? What are they learning in school?
The diesel option is gonna show up here on a lot of cars, and if fuel prices keep heading north I bet a lot of Americans will have one in their driveway. It’s already starting with trucks. I don’t know how they are selling outside of New England, but I am seeing a whole lot more sizeable pickups with diesels thumping away under their hoods than I did a year ago. Most have the logo of some tradesman on the door, but regular folks are getting them for hauling boats and campers.
I think when gas prices head north again (bound to happen) and there were some diesel options in mainstream cars like Camrys, Accords, Altimas, and even domestics like the Fusion or Impala people would start snapping them up.
For normal driving, a nice turbo diesel, even a 4 cylinder, ain’t all bad. Hell, in France a couple years back I got about 30 mpg running 90 to 100 mph in a turbo-diesel Nissan with four people and all their stuff for 2 weeks on board. Got 40+ mpg at more sedate speeds. That’d work for a lot of people.
But the diesel cars in the US aren’t gonna come out of the Big 2.X because they don’t see that it can. It’s the limited vision problem they’ve had for years.
Bender – I’m glad they axed the Imperial. It was an ugly car with no market. I just don’t see many 300 drivers being able to afford the financing on a $50k car because let’s face it, if 300 owners had that kind of money, they’d be driving BMW’s already.
I don’t know if that’s a good assumption.
The crowd that tends to congregate around 300’s probably don’t aspire to own any BMW other than the 7 series. It’s a big shiny car thing…and I don’t think a 5 series can quench that thirst. While there may be a small range of people that could look at both cars, I think they appeal to very different segments of the market.
Snobs and Sport/ Bimmer Entusiasts aren’t looking at Chrysler anyway.
People that need a spacious vehicle, fans big American sedans, or aspire to the “rapstar in a Bentley” image aren’t going to pull it off with a smaller car.
In the toss up between a very used 7 series or S-Class with an older body style..or the brand new shiny ride..the brand new shiny ride will win.
Fools, money, parting, etc.
I grew up in a Mopar family. When I was old enough to drive I started buying Fords. I always said if Chrysler ever brought back a V8 RWD design that I would buy it. Well, they did and I didn’t. The thought of shelling out 30k for a Chrysler product scares me, much less the prospect of paying 50k. If someone has 50 large to spend on a vehicle, they are not buying a Chrysler product, bottom line.
I do hope the Demon makes it, though. That could be a cool little car, albeit not very profitable.
This is just sad. The Town Car is old and horribly underpowered, the DTS is old, powered by the wrong wheels and moderately underpowered, and the STS is too small. There’s an opening for well-built and well-designed big American luxury car and a new Imperial could have grabbed sales from Lincoln and Cadillac, and maybe even some of the imports. Another opportunity lost.
The Pacifica was underpowered when introduced and then, shortly after they finally got a decent optional engine, they announced that they were going to discontinue it. How very much like GM.
The top-of-the-line Sebring Hardtop Convertible lists for $37,000! What an overpriced piece of junk! It should probably be priced more along the lines of $25,000 and, after the inevitable discounts, it probably will.
However, my point is that if a company like Honda and Toyota which have built up a lot of trust with customers like me, come out with a diesel Camry or an Accord which are basically like their gas Accords and Camrys but which get better fuel mileage… We simply haven’t been offered a nice well rounded car like the Camry or the Accord from a company we trust like Honda or Toyota before.
You raise a valid point and I will bet that a few extra diesels will be sold because they’ll have a trusted brand behind them.
But even the successful automakers can’t make consumer buy something that they don’t want. They’ll need a compelling reason to switch, and it isn’t just that compelling. Unlike hybrids, there’s no gee-whiz gadget-tech buzz or terrific eco-story here to light a fire under anyone.
The thought of shelling out 30k for a Chrysler product scares me, much less the prospect of paying 50k. If someone has 50 large to spend on a vehicle, they are not buying a Chrysler product, bottom line.
I agree completely. It’s simply the wrong price point for a mainstream sedan for this brand. They can sell the occasional Viper with a cheaper badge attached, but they don’t have the reach to sell a mainstream sedan at that point.
The Imperial was a waste of time and effort and Cerebus is right in canceling it. That money would be better spent in the redesign of the afore mentioned Charger, 300 and magnum. Along with upping the Dodge Hornet timeframe. Chrysler needs to decide what marketthey are going for and have a coherent plan.Right now the Imperial, bently rolls royce wannabe is not it.
Good for Chrysler.
Let’s be realistic for a second.
1) The 300/Magnum are likely the best selling car Chrysler has kicked out in the last 2 years. They are everywhere. I even own a Magnum and I love the thing.
2) What we have once again is people who are in charge are stupid.
Chrysler should go be building this car. They also SHOULD HAVE sold the 300 Wagon in the US instead of just Europe. Does this company want to cease to exist?!?!?!
I will say this will be last American car and I will be getting a Japanese car next, since I do not believe there will be an American car available in 5 years.
Hybrids and diesels have about the same cost premium over gas and offer roughly the same gain in efficiency over gas (depending on % of city/highway driven).
People will buy the Hybrid over a diesel because that is the “in” thing to do.
Chrysler cancelled the Imperial because they can’t afford to create their own proper “Cadillac” division. Heck, Honda can’t even get that right with Acura and they have a lot more resources than Chrysler.
I know I’m the only one who thinks this – but I’ll say it anyway. There is no Golly-GeeWhiz-Wouldyalookitthat! design that is going to be the salvation of the Domestic 3. You can sell some cars based on style, but not enough to stay in business.
The D3 have to start competing seriously on quality. They have to catch up with Camcords. It will take time, but it must be done. To fail to do this is simply to exit the auto business. If they have no intention of matching (and some day surpasing) the Japanese, then they may as well fold up shop now.
I won’t agrue the point. I know there are those of you who think the D3 can get by on pony cars or RWD police cruisers etc. I’ll just say that there is no segment the Japanese can’t enter. Toyota and Honda have lots of money to develop niche vehicles. They have cash because they pay attention to the bread and butter vehicles first.
As for the Imperial, I agree with those who say Chrysler is in no postion to sell any vehicle for 50 Gs. Ain’t gonna happen.
Someone mentioned bringing back Plymouth. I think that only makes sense if C/D/P were three distinct car lines. As far as I’m concerned, they can kill Dodge too, except for the trucks. They have to figure out where these two brands belong in the market and get them there. And make them separate.
As for diesels, I agree with those who think they’ll be a bigger part of the automotive scene. Introduced by the right companies, and marketed as clean and quiet, they’ll be accepted. (You meet the nicest people on a Honda. You meet the nicest people driving a Honda diesel)
There is no Golly-GeeWhiz-Wouldyalookitthat! design that is going to be the salvation of the Domestic 3. You can sell some cars based on style, but not enough to stay in business.
The D3 have to start competing seriously on quality. They have to catch up with Camcords.
It’s not an either/or situation — they need to do both.
The Big 2.8 must (a) surpass — not just match — the transplants on quality AND (b) provide styling that is interesting in fresh.
The reasons for quality are obvious. But there are two reasons for (b) — styling attracts positive attention, and it just so happens to be the Achilles heel of Toyota in particular.
You need to give the transplant-loyal customer a compelling reason to switch. If the Big 2.8 only kinda-sorta matches Toyota and Honda on quality, without providing any other additional benefit, they will fail, because sticking with the known quantity is a safer, less risky play for the customer to make. All things being equal, they will go Toyota or Honda, almost every time.
In the absence of some emotive motivators, buyers who prioritize reliability want an assured outcome, which means they’ll just stick to the real thing, i.e. the transplants. Without styling and/or some sort of intangible je ne sais quoi, you’re left with competing on features, which doesn’t work, and price, which kills margins.
That car would never, ever have sold in large enough quantities to make it worthwhile. First, as has been amply pointed out, it is butt ugly. Second, I don’t even think that the segment exists anymore. Yes, there is the Town Car but that is almost exclusively an airport limo now, the Crown Vic (Marquis), which is mostly copcars and cabs, and the DTS which is dated and waiting for it’s octogenarion buyers to pass away. I don’t see the point of producing a new luxury car for the fleet market, and I think that Chrysler stands just as much chance of luring the big car refugees with a high end 300. How about a 300 Imperial, with Laz-E-Boy seating, soft tune suspension, extra sound insultation and a built-in toilet donut? Just kidding about the last part. Nah, there time would be better spent on updating the 300 with a great new interior.
How about a 300 Imperial, with Laz-E-Boy seating, soft tune suspension, extra sound insulation and a built-in toilet donut? Just kidding about the last part.
With those new automatic toilet seats with built-in bidets, this could be the ultimate road trip vehicle. Just don’t get into a crash before you flush, as there are some things a seat belt and airbag won’t restrain…
The idea of a $50,000 over-the-top RWD ‘Got in my Chrysler its as big as a whale and its about to set sail’ Imperial may actually be a decent idea but this design had failure written all over it. Give Chrysler credit for cancelling this toon-town boat before they had spent millions of precious capital–exactly what GM didn’t have the guts to do with the Aztek. They may not be telling us the truth by using the fuel economy line but I have a feeling that someone inside Chrysler at a high level pointed out that this thing was just plain ugly. How many people sat in meetings and nodded that the Aztek was ok and then when the meeting was over complained to their co-workers about what a disaster this thing was going to be?
Wow. It’s like someone at Chrysler looked at their products, and tried to figure out what the company is selling, and how. The Imperial might not have been as ugly as some people think, but 50K for a Chrysler is hard to sell.
I wonder if they asked their dealers “do you think you can sell a $50k car?” and realized the pointlessness of the whole thing.
“It’s not an either/or situation — they need to do both.”
“The Big 2.8 must (a) surpass — not just match — the transplants on quality AND (b) provide styling that is interesting in fresh.”
I see your point, but my fear is they’ll let styling substitute for quality. That won’t work in the long run.
“The reasons for quality are obvious. But there are two reasons for (b) — styling attracts positive attention, and it just so happens to be the Achilles heel of Toyota in particular.”
It appears so right now, but I wouldn’t bet too heavily on that. Toyota can always hire an Italian design studio if they really feel they have to fix thier “blandness” problem. And given their increasing market share, it’s arguable that blandness isn’t much of a problem.
Anyway, I’m not convinced that people pay all that much attention to styling, as long as it isn’t butt ugly. But I’m willing to admit I may be wrong about this.
“You need to give the transplant-loyal customer a compelling reason to switch. If the Big 2.8 only kinda-sorta matches Toyota and Honda on quality, without providing any other additional benefit, they will fail, because sticking with the known quantity is a safer, less risky play for the customer to make. All things being equal, they will go Toyota or Honda, almost every time.”
I think the D3 can pretty much forget about bringing the transplant loyalists back into the fold. What they need to work on is not loosing any more customers than they have to. They will continue to loose share, because the quality gap is more than perception. But there are still a lot of people who’d prefer an American built car. They can improve quality and keep as many of these people as possible from jumping ship.
I’m uncertain about giving any of the D3 two things to concentrate on at the same time.
Anyway, I’m not convinced that people pay all that much attention to styling
When it comes to the two trusted leaders in quality, styling is less important. But for all of the other automakers, consumers do pay attention.
I think this point needs to be emphasized: Only Honda and Toyota have a sufficiently strong quality image to get away with dull styling. The others, including some of the other Japanese automakers such as Nissan and Mitsubishi, do not get a pass. Notice, for example, how Nissan had to sex up the Altima with transparent taillights and more edgy styling, in order to gain conquest sales; before the restyling effort, the Altima and Stanza before it were laggards.
When the Big 2.8 fans scratch their heads as to why narrowing the quality gap hasn’t helped, this is why. It is no longer just about quality. Twenty years ago, it was; today, it’s about much more than that. The Mustang and 300 did well initially because they were uniquely styled and made a statement. They need to apply those lessons to other segments, such as compact and mid-sized sedans.
NickR said “How about a 300 Imperial, with Laz-E-Boy seating, soft tune suspension, extra sound insultation and a built-in toilet donut? Just kidding about the last part.”
I wonder why Chrysler hasn’t done this; it could take over the limo and executive car market, which is surely big enough to justify the tooling for a taller roof and longer wheelbase. There’d be no direct competition!
And I wouldn’t dismiss the idea of a built-in toilet. There must millions of moms who have wished for a potty chair in their minivans. Rich geezers in their 300 Imperials would just park by the side of the road (or tell Jeeves to close the privacy curtain). No need to change the Depends!
We gearheads, who drive for fun, tend to forget there are people who want their cars to be as much as possible like private railroad coaches.
If this were a movie it would have a tag line like this: “Coming to a theater near you, Chrysler, the company that NO MATTER what it does is always wrong”. Build a small car with great gas mileage with a Chinese company? – WRONG!, Lifetime warranty on the powertrain? – WRONG!, cancel the A$$ ugly, gas guzzling Imperial concept? – WRONG!
In the sequel Chysler will hire all the engineers from Honda and Toyota to work on their new products and you know what? They’ll be WRONG! again.
Does anybody know what will become of the Sprinter now that the divorce is being finalized?
I still see Chrysler ending up as the automotive equivalent of Schwinn. A storied name slapped onto imported and/or outsourced products.
It will start with small cars from China. Then you will see a few good North American and/or Mexican factories sold off to companies like Magna who will do the actual manufacturing. 20 years from now I bet that the Chrysler company is a design and marketing organization which outsources everything else. If Cisco can be huge without owning any manufacturing capacity than why not Chrysler? If I were running Chrysler I would much rather have a set of supply contractors to negotiate with rather than the UAW thugs.
As for Diesel use in North America, I would buy one if I had the money, I do have a Diesel Tractor for cutting my large lawn, have had it since 1985 with little maintenance and it still runs well! That being said I saw a study somewhere that said that the Refiners dont make enough Diesel fuel to fuel the Diesels should the manufactures go that way? Make it interesting doesnt it.
My friends in Scotland drive diesel Toyota cars, they like them too!