When a Chrysler PR flack called to ask about the source for the leaky-roofed Dodge Journey tested by TTAC reviewer Michael Karesh, I asked him why his employer would re-launch itself as the "New Chrysler" before it eliminated a third to a half of its tri-branded lineup. Surely they should make the cuts and then tell the world Chrysler's reborn; losing a bunch of models does nothing for a carmaker's rep (not to mention owners' residuals). A long silence followed. That was February. This is April. And we still don't know which models are going away. That said, ChryCo's executive vice president for North American sales is dropping hints. According to The Detroit Free Press, Steven Landry told students and alumni at a Northwood University event that "What we'll do in our business model is not build similar vehicles on the same platform that kind of look and act like they have the same DNA… To give you an example: Jeep Liberty and Dodge Nitro, basically a similar vehicle with different skin and a little bit of different interior; Chrysler Aspen and Dodge Durango, same platform; Sebring, Avenger, same platform. We're not going to have vehicles like that. We're not going to have twin vehicles, one for one brand and one for another." Does this mean the end for TTAC Ten Worst Autos winners Chrysler Aspen (9) and, more importantly, Jeep Compass (1)? Watch this space.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
It’s a dilemma when the list of cars worth saving is much shorter.
Hmm. Great deals on soon-to-be cut models to be had?
Even if they haven’t decided what models to eliminate, the important thing is that they’re swearing off rebadging. They may be moving slowly – they may even be moving too slowly – but at least they’re moving, and they’re moving in the right direction.
“Surely they should make the cuts and then tell the world Chrysler’s reborn”
Announcing their lame duck status would make it more difficult to convince suckers customers to purchase these vehicles.
The New Chrysler is even more screwed up than the previous model was. How sad is that?
If done properly, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with sharing platforms. It is, in fact, the Alfred P. Sloan model that got General Motors on track to becoming a world sales leader decades ago by establishing the GM ‘family of cars’. The key was being able to hide the component-sharing from the consumer so they thought they were really getting something better as they went up the ladder. That all went out the door when guys like Roger Smith became GM CEO in 1980 and stuff like the Cadillac Cimarron was built, a car that was supposed to compete with BMW but was all too obviously just a lowly Chevy Cavalier with a different grill and leather trim.
GM (and the rest of Detroit) ended up taking the original formula too far, bungling it badly by sharing virtually everything, save a grill, tail-lights, a few badges, and interior trim. It’s the reason both Oldsmobile and Plymouth died on the vine (with Mercury hanging in the balance). Towards the end of Plymouth’s life, the only thing that separated a Dodge Neon from the Plymouth version was that one had a “Dodge” badge on the front and the other had a “Plymouth” badge. Other than that small badge, they were both exactly the same. Whatever Chrysler exec was responsible for that little faux pas was the one that doomed Plymouth. At least Chrysler tried to rectify their mistake by making stuff like the Liberty/Nitro, Compass/Patriot/Caliber, Aspen/Durango, Sebring/Avenger, Town & Country/Grand Caravan more distinct in their execution.
The current problem with Chrysler isn’t really sharing platforms. It’s that the basic platform of all of them isn’t that great to begin with. The old adage of “You can’t polish a turd” applies.
If I was Cerberus Capital Management this is what I would do
DODGE
Viper – Axe – Low volume, high cost
Avenger – Axe – A Dog
Caliber – Keep
Charger – Axe – Pointless Gas Guzzler
Grand Caravan – Keep
Journey – Axe
Magnum – Axe – Pointless Gas Guzzler
Dakota – Keep
Durango – Axe – tarnished name
Nitro – Axe – a joke
Ram 1500-2500-3500 Trucks – Keep
Sprinter – Axe
Challenger – Keep as lone performance vehicle
CHRYSLER
300 – Keep – has following
Aspen – Axe
Crossfire – Already due for axe
Pacifica – Already due for axe
PT Cruiser – Keep with redesign
Sebring – Axe – tarnished name
Town and Country – Axe – a rebadge
JEEP
Wrangler – Keep
Compass – Axe
Grand Cherokee – Keep (despite tarnished name)
Commander – Axe
Patriot – axe – pointless
Liberty – Keep
Wrangler Unlimited – Keep
TATA COLLABORATION
Ace – Keep
Sloan’s General Motors worked because he developed and nurtured tangible brand value markers for each of the five car lines.
The Beach Boys rhapsodized, “nothing can touch my 409,” about a powerful Chevy V-8. I doubt the Chevrolet Equinox’ Red Chinese engine has Bruce Springsteen’s creative juices flowing, but not many buy them either. My late father was disappointed when he learned the Rocket V8 in his 1981 Oldsmobile was really a Chevrolet. Enraged Oldsmobile owners successfully sued GM.
I remember Dad proudly pointing to his new Buick’s ornate Body by Fisher door sill plate and saying with undisguised pride, “You can’t beat a Fisher Body.” That’s gone too, but not many people buy Buicks anymore.
Hmmmmm….
This is how i think it should turn out
Jeep:
Compass: axe
Patriot: keep – its “fuel friendly”
Liberty – Axe, If you wnat 4drs and go offroad get a grand or Wrangler Unlimited
Grand Cherokee- Keep
Commander – Axe
Wrangler – Keep
Now what about something that is actually a wrangler that isn’t the size of the house nor thirsty on Gas, something more to the size of an original Flat fender?
Chrysler:
300- Keep, axe low option models
Sebring- Make fleet only incl. Conv.
Aspen- Axe
Crossfire- do they still exist? axe if they do
T&C- Keep
Chrysler could really use one good car.
Dodge:
Caliber: Keep
Stratus: axe, why does it get better MPG than the Caliber???
Charger: Keep
Challenger: its digusting, axe after 4 yrs.
Journey: Keep
Nitro: Revise and Keep
Durango: axe
Dakota: Axe, sorry Raider lovers.
Ram: Keep
Caravan- Keep
Viper: who cares.
Dodge needs to add a real economy car, and re-introduce the small pickup again, since nobody but Ford makes a “small” pickup, or maybe give the Pickup to Jeep.
Then only have Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep dealers. And please make sure all your Dealers have removed the Plymouth Eagle signs, those are getting old. and basically Chrysler has no midsize cars, maybe they should contact Hyundai and rebadge a Sonata.
Sloan’s business model rested on differentiation of product lines. There was some sharing of body panels, most obviously between Chevy and Pontiac, but until the 80’s a Pontiac buyer got a different engine and transmission. Olds and Buick (and even Cadillac) shared some body parts, but the cars had different drive trains, trim and character. There was a reason each brand had its own following.
As for Body by Fisher, that meant something too. Fisher was once a separate company, and even after GM acquired it Fisher operated rather autonomously. The Fisher building, across the street from GM headquarters, was more impressive.
Roger Smith was a man who knew the price of everything and the value of nothing. Like Robert McNamara, who as secretary of defense thought there was no good reason for the Marines to have different belt buckles.
The Magnum has already been axed
keep the Avenger
keep the Patriot
keep the Sprinter
make Caliber sedan
keep Durango- make as large as Ram crew cab
Kill PT cruiser- it’s getting old
keep Journey
Having only one Chrysler brand vehicle is not a strange idea. For years they only had the New Yorker and Newport.
Bring back Plymouth?
“Kill PT cruiser- it’s getting old”
It’s beyond old, however it sold so well, that it must be worth a sequel, although Chrysler should have done this years ago.
“Bring back Plymouth?”
You have to be kidding, Chrysler needs another brand like it needs a hole in the head. Plymouth has no identity. If anything I would axe the Chrysler brand. I suppose they are forced to keep it because if you axed their marquee brand it would say to everyone, ‘Dead Auto Company Walking’.
“Dodge needs to add a real economy car, and re-introduce the small pickup again, since nobody but Ford makes a “small” pickup, or maybe give the Pickup to Jeep.That’s quite unlikely as the small pickup market (like the mid-size SUV which shares the platform) has virtually collapsed. That’s why the only remaining players in this field are Ford, GM, and Toyota. From what I’ve read, sales are so low that Ford is still undecided on whether they’re going to continue the Ranger at all and have only committed to building the current truck through 2009. Hell, it’s only had a couple of facelifts and been otherwise virtually unchanged since it was introduced in 1983.
None of you truly appreciates the differentiation between the Liberty and the Nitro. One has a singing wolf that regurgitates birds, the other blows up the cars it jump starts.
Should be obvious.
Kill the Viper? Interesting idea. Maybe the owners of current Vipers would love that, as it’d make the existing versions worth that much more. Nah, best to keep it. Every manufacturer needs its “halo” car to bring interest to the marquee. There is enough low-hanging fruit in the Cerebus line-up (Compass, Magnum, PT Cruiser, Pacifica, etc…) to cull the herd. There are a few gems that are worth keeping (and more importantly, improving) such as the Wrangler and possibly the 300 and Charger (yes, I think there are enough potential differences in the two to keep them both. 300 should be the luxury variant, classic and elegant…Charger needs to keep it’s bad-ass persona). And kill the Sprinter?? Are you kidding? Work that horse! It’s a potential game-changer in medium-duty vehicles. It may be the RV manufacturers saving grace, with its (relatively) fuel-efficient five cylinder diesel. UPS would do well to change over to an all-Sprinter fleet.
It’d be nice to pull into a Chrysler dealership and not see 45 of the same vehicle only wearing different badges.
I was thinking about Chrysler’s problems over the weekend and it’s pretty clear that Daimler guys have an awful lot of responsibility on their hands. This is not to excuse Cerberus in any way, but given the lead times for product development, the awful lineup Chrysler currently offers is a direct result of German mismanagement. How in hell could they have done such a thorough job of ruining the Caravan/T&C? It’s a disaster. And given the circumstances, it’s the one product in their lineup that just absolutely had to be right.
Considering that it was Chrysler’s positive cash flow that saved Daimler from disaster a few years back, it’s a crying shame. Had Chrysler not been starved so, they might have had a better chance.
“…the only thing that separated a Dodge Neon from the Plymouth version was that one had a “Dodge” badge on the front and the other had a “Plymouth” badge. Other than that small badge, they were both exactly the same. Whatever Chrysler exec was responsible for that little faux pas was the one that doomed Plymouth.”
No faux pas.It was planned to make the Plymouth and Dodge versions exactly the same. Normally the grills and talilights would be different, as well as the name. Maybe one version might have an engine/tranny combo that the other one didn’t. But the goal of the original Neon program was to have a PROFITABLE small car. Up to this time no domestic automaker had made a dime on their small cars. Despite selling millions of Escorts (remember the Focus had not come out yet) Ford lost money on every one. That’s why so many small cars today by the domestics are built in Mexico or rebadged Korean cars.
So to make the Neon profitable (it was built in Illinois by the UAW) they dispatched with visual differences between the Dodge and Pymouth versions and called it by the same name. This by itself save millions of dollars in developement and marketing costs. They installed only a 3 spd auto instead of a 4 spd. And some models didn’t have window cranks for the back windows. Despite being a new design with a newly developed engine, the Neon made money.
The other cars developed at this time did have different sheet metal (Stratus/Cirrus, Intrepid/Vision/Concorde/LHS), in the case of the original Intrepid, the interior was different than the other models, and the LHS was a streched platform that did not look remotely like the others.
Now back to today – I agree they need to bring back Plymouth. The Chrysler brand is such a mess now because they don’t have brand like Plymouth. The PT Cruiser was supposed to be a Plymouth, it had no reason to be a Chrysler. Chrylser should not have a minivan, that should be Dodge and Plymouth. And the Compass and Patriot would never have happened if Plymouth were around to sell a Caliber variant (or use the Neon model and make it exactly the same including the name). What they should do now is just make Plymouth a sub brand like Scion. If they made a Plymouth Barracuda and didn’t even advertise it thousands of buyers would get it just on the exposure it would create in the blogasphere.
“This by itself save millions of dollars in developement and marketing costs.”Maybe, but it was a short-term benefit which was a significant contributing factor to Plymouth losing its identity and, ultimately, cost Chrysler the entire brand. IOW, making the Neon virtually identical, whether it be a Dodge or Plymouth, may have won the short-term cost-cutting battle, but it definitely lost the war for Plymouth. Imagine how things would have turned out if Chrysler had made two of the stalwarts that kept them afloat in the sixties, the Plymouth Valiant and Dodge Dart, as identical as the Plymouth and Dodge Neon.
Now, Chrysler has no low-end marque to compete with Ford or Chevrolet, a faux pas for which they’re now paying dearly. It’s worth noting that Dodge was never intended to be a competitor to Ford or Chevrolet. Now, without Plymouth, Dodge has lost it’s target demographic, too, as the ‘mid-range’ line from Chrysler.
It’s even tough for the Chrysler line, the so-called ‘premium’ brand when they slap the name on the lowly PT Cruiser.
If Chrysler hadn’t screwed up with the Plymouth Neon/Breeze/Voyager (the final Plymouths, aside from the Prowler), they might have had a chance of keeping the corporate delineation which had served them so well for decades, and maybe maintained a clear identity for consumers in each market segment.