Yesterday, we speculated whether or not Chrysler would hang fire on trimming union jobs dud models until after the United Auto Workers (UAW) convinced Ford members to work without job guarantees. Turns out Chrysler didn't even wait for the ink to dry on its union agreement before axing its first three losers. The Detroit News quotes "people close to Chrysler" and "people familiar with the situation" (that could be you!) saying that the PT Cruiser, Dodge Magnum and Chrysler Pacifica will get the chop. Oh, and maybe the Jeep Commander. And possibly the Dodge Dakota pickup. And the Chrysler Sebring and Dodge Avenger. Meanwhile, Chrysler hired former GE exec L. John Cataldo to assume a newly created position: vice president of business development and mergers and acquisitions. Cataldo is in charge of hooking-up with other automakers and selling the family silver. Speaking at the Magazine Publishers of America annual conference in Boca Raton, Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli reiterated Chrysler's 'focus on cash.' The company is moving to sell off $1b in "unneeded real estate and facilities." Not to go all TV Land on you, but I'm hearing "They call him stripper, flipper; faster than lightning."
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Ultimately, Chrysler may be looking to partner up with a foreign automaker to compete with real global players like General Motors and Toyota,” said David Cole of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor. – The Detroit News, 10-30-07
Carlos Ghosn come on down!
I just hope they don’t enter an unholy union with a Chinese manufacturer.
I wonder how fast Nissan factories in Japan can slap a Chrysler grill onto the Teana sedan and allow “new partner” Chrysler LLC to sell it as their mid-sized sedan? How about the South Korean Renault-Samsung SM5 rebadged as a Dodge mid sized sedan? Bring back the Dart name plate (?)
I would not be surprised to see the immediate discontinuation of the Commander, Dakota, Sebring and Avenger – except I have to wonder if the Sebring convertible might continue for awhile. Unless, of course, it is simply not profitable to do the convertibles without the sedans.
PT Cruiser, Pacifica and Magnum all deserve the guillotine. For that matter, so does Sebring and Avenger!!! For sure.
I was always amazed at how much guys ten years older than me went for the PT Cruiser. To me it looked like one of those VWs with the add-on grille.
The first step in treatment is admission that you have a problem. Of course, for Chrysler, the problem is the majority of their product line. You gotta feel bad for those that are going to be fired, but man did the old hag Chrysler need this. The wonders of being privately owned – getting to do what you f’n please with your company.
Donal: it always reminded me of a pregnant Neon, much like the Geo Metro was the pregnant roller-skate.
Gentlemen, Easy on the PT! I have never owned one, but remember they sold like hotcakes for several years after introduction. It was Chryslers’ halo vehicle in a corral of 300M’s, Concordes and so on. It was a groundbreaking design of retro, and it made people take notice. As for the rest, Pacifica (fat minivan), Magnum (badass with Hemi) and the rest… good riddance.
The PT Cruiser was dynamically the modern equivalent of the car it was patterned after – a competitor’s 1934 vehicle. It was/is awful.
Then too, the Chrysler designed four cylinder engines for Neons and some of the export PT Cruisers had a nasty habit of blowing head gaskets, which is what finally moved me away from US badged car companies (can’t say moved me to foreign car makers since my Neon was made in Mexico, I live the the US and my wife’s new Sonata was built in Alabama).
Chrysler’s mistake was not following up the PT Cruiser with a replacement. I liked it, found it a good utility vehicle, and thought that it did fill a niche for many folks. But it’s old and gray now. Too bad, it was one of their good ideas. I’m also saddened by the Magnum’s passing. I love station wagons and I love performance wagons even more. With so many bone heads driving around in big SUVs for no reason other then a problem with a certain part of their anatomy you’d think there would be a market for a real wagon with balls. I was really considering one, but with the only choice being an automatic I couldn’t do it.
The PT Cruiser was a nice alternative – much better platform than the Neon it directly replaced – just wasn’t better in quality or reliability. It however played on the nostalgia and found many buyer in its early years. The fad has worn off and Chrysler needs to reinvent the car to keep it fresh instead of letting it die on the vine some 8 years after its introduction. Seems Detroit can make a decent car but they do not keep it fresh and slowly let it die off and ruin the momentum they created or lucked out on.
While I never owned one, several times I rented PT Cruisers and found them a pleasant surprise (room, manuverability) for their price point. $15k? Not too bad. Sadly they were never (or couldn’t be) truly updated.
I also wish they had stuck the 300 nose on the Magnum (like in Europe) – the car’s weakest point was its lame front end.
I can’t say I ever took the either the Cruiser or the Pacifica, but I will miss the Magnum wagon. I love wagons (I have mostly owned wagons and they were getting scare there for a while) because of their car comfort but SUV utility. The Magnum added a bad ass to an otherwise tame lot.
Maybe it will come back taller as a CUV?
I understand the Pacifica’s demise, what with Chrysler probably getting a version of the uninspiring Journey. But why did they not put some work into the PT? The styling wasn’t for me but having rented one I found the seating position was almost perfect and it was a pretty decent ride. As for the Magnum, I can’t believe they will kill this off. Sure they don’t sell very many, but how much could it cost them to put a wagon body on a Charger/300? Who else has a wagon like this? Again, put some work into it. I guess a stripped down Chrysler is better than no Chrysler at all.
When the PT first came on the market I really liked it (although having seen the concept at our local auto show complete with 20″ chrome wheels, the stock appearance was a let down). Now, however, I’m filled with the urge to vomit when I see one.
That’s the problem with nostalgia – it has a very short shelf life. Of course, had Chrysler bothered to refresh the design (rip off another vintage auto) it might still sell well enough to keep it a viable product. Take the HHR for example – it is apparently selling reasonably well. There is no reason that the sixth year PT Cruiser could not have taken that type of radical change in direction.
I’m reminded of a local radio station that burst onto the scene a few years ago with a format that played a lot of “hit” music from the 80s and 90s. Within the first year it became the number one radio station in the market – unseating the decades-long ratings leader – propelled by nostalgia of people in their 30s and 40s. But then people realized that the reason they hadn’t heard these songs for so long is because the songs weren’t that good and they had tossed the CD away fifteen years ago. So now the ratings have plummeted and the station is middle-of-the-pack. The moral: like I said, nostalgia has a short shelf life.
Oh my! What in the world are Thrifty and Dollar going to do?!
Conceptually the PT was great. The practicality was like the old xB. The biggest problem was the details of the styling. Great concept, lousy execution–goofy grill andpokemon eyes. It was a lousy rendition of retro. And of course, the driving dynamics were not exactly compelling.
a) PT Cruiser – died of neglect
b) Dodge Magnum – a wagon with a post office box opening for the storage area…brilliant
c) Chrysler Pacifica – waited for final year of production for decent drivetrain, maybe the first year would have been a good idea?
Right from the start “retro” styling looked like a dead end to me. How do you “update” retro? Do a “more modern” retro? Go 40’s instead of 30’s.
It’s paint your self in the corner big time.
Wait till the next ‘Stang. Do they stay in the past? Go way forward?
Future icons are not created by looking back.
Leave it to experts…like Morgan.
Bunter
Dropping the Dakota? Does that mean Chrysler is leaving the mid-size truck market entirely or does this pave the way for a different vehicle? As many have said here before, there is a niche for a truly economical small truck. With Ford dropping the Ranger and with the Tacoma and Frontier morphing into bigger (and thirstier and more expensive) creations, Chrysler could be onto something.
Re: The PT cruiser, IIRC, there was a redesigned PT. It’s just that it was made by Chevy and called the HHR. I seem to recall reading that the HHR was designed by the same team that came up with the original PT. In any case, I actually test drove an HHR and I have to say that I think it’s a better execution of the same idea (retro-wagon) compared to the PT. The PT didn’t really know whether it wanted to be a car or a wagon, whereas the HHR is unmistakably copied from the panel trucks/suburbans/sedan deliveries of the 40’s. They even came out with a “panel truck” version (although I would pedantically consider it more of a sedan delivery.)
Chrysler must have HHR envy by now surely..
I never really appreciated the PT Cruiser until I had the misfortune to rent a Dodge Caliber. What a POS! (The Caliber, not the PT.)
If anything, they should be discontinuing the Caliber and keep building the PT until they can get a decent replacement.
Well, I for one will shed a tear over the Magnum. Even in its 3.5L V-6 version, it was a much better alternative to most SUVs.
As for the PT, indeed, it was updated, just not by Chrysler. The HHR actually looks good.
The Pacifica? Good riddance. Overweight, overpriced, and underpowered. I’m sure Chrysler wasn’t too thrilled with its Benz hardware either. It is notable for having the best interior of ANY Chrysler product.
The good news to this is that all of these cars should soon be excellent deals in the used car market.
An AWD Hemi-powered Magnum would make for one hell of a winter beater.
Rather than axing the Magnum, they should listen to the peanut-gallery and find ways to improve the utility with a slight redesign of the “wagon” part of the vehicle.
I’ll shed no tears over the demise of the PT cruiser based on aesthetics alone, but I too remember the golden days when that thing had a strong following. Chrysler let it rot on the vine and what was “retro cool” years ago is just boring now. I give them credit for being among the first to cash in on the retro market though.
The Pacifica? Bah. Rest in Pi…zza boxes.
So, does this mean that under the new contract some of the UAW workers will not get their walking papers?
As for the PT, indeed, it was updated, just not by Chrysler. The HHR actually looks good.
A-Ha! I knew I wasn’t the only one who thought so.
The HHR would have been a contender for my next vehicle but for two things:
1. No AWD
2. Just a little too short (I like at least 6″ of uninterrupted cargo room so I can fit it out as a camper.)
GM should really consider making this available with an AWD platform. It would be a much better CUV than their current Equinox which is afflicted with the tiresome “angry kitchen appliance” look of too many GM vehicles.
They’ve already come out with a panel version, which is very cool looking.
With HHR SS on the horizon and the HHR sedan delivery out (and I will chime in and say it looks pretty good to me) the PT Cruiser was hemmed in all sides.
I still have to wonder what is going to happen with the Challenger. I expect it will be launched with great fanfare, then fizzle.
I can see the Sebring biting it, leaving just the Avenger (which was somewhat better received) and the Sebring convertible to keep the production line going.
For God’s sake, axe the frickin’ Aspen. And do they still actually manufacture the Crossfire?
NickR:
The Crossfire got axed for ’07 (stateside), and then came back unchanged for ’08. Neat, eh?