With 15 “new or refreshed” Chrysler Group products launching over the next 4 months [complete product plan in PDF format here], we’re about to find out definitively if a company’s product can be turned around in a little over a year. Given how complex automobiles are, and how deeply uncompetitive many of Chrysler’s products have been, the odds are obviously stacked against Auburn Hills… and Chrysler’s $50m loss on the Grand Cherokee launch is a sign of how scary things can get in a product blitz. But the real question here isn’t how many recalls Chrysler is risking, or how much money it could lose on launch costs and “associated industrial inefficiencies” but whether consumers will actually notice a difference.
The “mid-cycle refresh” is a familiar phenomenon for the American consumer, and few of them fundamentally change the character of a car. Though Chrysler is doing “deep refreshes” on cars like the 200 (neé Sebring), reworking the body, drivetrains, suspension and interior (also, the Durango, 300 and Charger will be “all new”), a number of the new launches will be of plain-old refreshes… like the 2011 Town & Country pictured here. Will the deep changes to some vehicles be lost in the flood of refreshed Chrysler Jeep and Dodge vehicles? More importantly, will refreshes like this one convince consumers that Chrysler has really changed?
That depends on what was wrong with the car at launch. For example, the Genesis Coupe is a neat car but has an interior quality problem – that could be fixed with a mid-cycle refresh and it would make it on my short list. The SS Camaro would be a similar case.
However, the Sebring needed more than a new interior or a few issues ironed out – it was mediocre to the bone. With new drive trains, a new interior, some new sheet metal and a new name, it may claw its way off the rental lots and into the hands of private buyers but that is a tough ask as this is a very competitive market segment.
The Genesis Coupe gets some interior changes for 2011.
Very true on the Sebring.
The T&C pictured here badly needed a restyle inside and out. Looks like the inside might have received the necessary fixes–though I’d like to see the center stack. The exterior, not so much.
A proper refresh can certainly help.
I wonder if strategically, Chrysler has made a grand mistake.
Instead of going up where there is real competition, perhaps, Chrysler should go downmarket, where their product is and where their customers are. Basic cars with low-rent interiors sold almost entirely on price to people who simply can’t (or won’t) pay more for a car.
That is, Chrysler might simply be the Wal-Mart of cars. Perfectly adequate, basic stuff for lower-income consumers. There are a lot of people who’d fit that profile. With the right financing arm, linked to factory-integrated GPS-tracking, these things could be leased very effectively to fleets and credit risk people.
Of course there’d be stigma from the rest of the industry, but that’s the hole they’ve dug themselves into.
SVX,
I disagree. If I have a choice between a $20K Accord and a $15K Avenger, I’ll take the 3 year old Accord for $12K every time.
When you go downmarket, you’re competing with 200 million used cars that will always be better values.
SVX, they’d have to improve their quality, even with a new-car warranty. People would rather buy a used Accord with no warranty than a new Bunkusmobile that is likely to need several warranty repairs and become a money pit the day the warranty ends.
SVX Pearlie
I DISAGREE ENTIRELY.
Chrysler needs only to improve their interiors and put out cooler, more feature rich cars – while keeping their current pricepoint to stay competitive. There are huge nubers of people ready to buy the new Hemi. And at 500HP, the new SRT8 is going to be incredible.
I think it will take more than just a refresh, especially for the Sebring. It was such a TWAT worthy car I shudder when I see a non-rental version on the road.
I think the Sebring IS getting more than an interior refresh. It’ll be getting the pentastar V-6, and I believe they dropped the 2.7 as the base engine, and the suspension is being tweaked. You can’t underestimate the power of a comfortable, quality interior – that’s where people spend the most time.
A friend has a Sebring, and when the 2.7 blew up under warranty, it was replaced with a 3.5. He took it to a shop that reworked the suspension and put better brakes on it, and it’s a much better car than a rental I had. Except for new front seats, my friend did nothing to the interior, which badly needed an upgrade. If Chrysler-Fiat makes all those changes, it’ll be a major improvement, to the point of being a different car.
If Chrysler can de-crappify their cars, than they sure can turn their fortunes around. I think people will get over Chrysler’s past pretty soon. Good marketing and a good product will deliver good profits. The reason Chrysler fell wasn’t a lack of good employees, engineers and designers. It was management, most of what I read at allpar gave the impression that Chrysler was in a state of employee vs. management; hopefully under better management Chrysler will produce the cars it has always been capable of producing.
Sure – If the “refresh” is primarly a cosmetic one and my only problem with the earlier model was how it looked. Two cases in point come immediately to mind for me:
I’d love a Mini but the regular is too small and the Clubman is too goofy looking. If they could fix the Clubman’s looks, especially from the rear end (if they even just make the back look like that of the regular Mini), it would rocket right to the top of my list of possible next cars.
Second, it’s not as high on my personal list, but I have to believe that if Acura would just “refresh” the nose of the TL, they’d change a lot of people’s minds about it.
Not sure where this leaves Chrysler, though. They may have bigger problems than their cars’ looks.
To answer this I think you need to quantify what distinguish a good car from a bad car.
If it’s handling, powertrain or interior then I believe that all can be improved during a refresh. If it’s interior space or visibility then these can’t be much changed without complete redesign
These new interiors might be old-hat for ya’ll, but for we Chrysler faithful– us folk that watched our stylish, plush, powerful 1990s cars morph into the scheissboxen Daimler forced us into– this is a return to our roots. Chryslers were never the cars Daimler eventually let us have. These refreshed automobiles are more akin to what a Chrysler ought to be, and that is very beautiful.
Hooray for trim that isn’t painted silver! And details. Ohh, how I’ve missed detailing in a Chrysler motorcar!
+1 +1 +1 !!!!!
I agree iNeon. Everything I have read or seen regarding the development changes from the late 1990’s to three years ago, Chrysler appear to be around despite some approvals that should never have been provided. For the re freshening, I do believe that done right, re freshening can sway someone who has come to making a decision between two vehicles, but I am concerned that a refresh in the way that Chrysler is providing for the Compass, Town and Country, etc. will not bring new bodies to the show room floors. For fear of scorn and thrown pumpkins, Chrysler, Ford, and Nissan are generally my first considerations, so I might consider a refreshed Sebring over a Fusion, but if someone is not even considering a Town and Country, rather only the Odyssey and the Sienna, a refresh probably will not help. I believe it will take word of mouth and years of positive reports to reinforce a good refresh.
I thought the problem was that Detroit let their cars wither on the vine year after year while the imports were making timely improvements to keep their cars competitive. So a refresh ought to be a good thing, especially in the minivan segment where Chrysler is already doing well. As for the Sebring anything will probably be an improvement.
Yes. In the case of these Chryslers, the problem has been poor interior aesthetic quality, dull styling and incoherent marketing. If Chrysler keeps pricing at similar levels while adding design and equipment sophistication, e.g. alloy wheels as standard, then they have a shot at getting buyers to look. But they have to spend big $$$ to establish the new “200” name.
It depends if looks were the only bad thing (i.e. current Acura). then it can be fixed. but a car that inherently is bad in reliability and repair bills and resulting depreciation needs more than a refresh (I’m looking at you, Chrysler)
I’m not sure if Chrysler could move up. Even with the best product, it takes years to regain trust. Just for the fact that I know if a car is good after 5 years and 100,000 miles. But if Chrysler stays were it is (bottom) it won’t make any profit and at some time even low-income people will realize that a cheaper car can be more expensive if you spend $ 500 a month on repairs you might as well buy a Toyota at higher payment :-)
when Toyota/Honda bring a new model no one knows how good it will be after 100,000 miles. but people have faith based on past experience and track record. this kind of branding will be ahrd to achieve while selling cars at a profit.
In Chrysler’s case, I think so. Let’s take todays examples of the refreshed T&C and 200/Sebring.
T&C has been a good seller. It is a good vehicle with a lot of desirable features. It has not been saddled with crap powertrains, and its biggest problems have been cosmetic. There is not much you can do with the basic shape (I still think it looks like a toaster), but it is a shape that is acceptable to minivan customers. The biggest problems have been cheap trim and interiors. This refresh will fix everything that is really wrong with the vehicle, and it will still be competitive with newer offerings from Honda, Toyota and Nissan, because of the basic goodness of the platform.
Sebring has been a bigger problem. It is ugly, it is cheap inside, and it has been a recipient of that awful 2.7 engine. The suspension has been awful as well. I understand that engineers have been hard at work on suspension issues, and the car is supposed to drive much nicer. The 2.7 is gone. If the new Pentastar engine is as good as it is supposed to be, this solves a major problem. An interior re-work can pay major dividends, as this is what a prospective customer sees when he or she gets into the car. Again, the basic shape is set, but designers can play with trim to try and upgrade the look. I think that Chrysler will now have an entrant in a very competitive segment that is not an embarassment to the company. It will not be a runaway success, but it will be a significant improvement.
From the looks of the T&C photos, Chrysler has indeed made a leap forward in interior aesthetics… less so on the exterior. (What’s with the chrome bar across the lower grille? It appears to neither match the grille opening nor the curve of the bumper — just a tacky add-on.)
While these surface improvements may attract some folks who haven’t been near a newspaper or computer the past five years, it will take a lot more than gilding a Sebring to make the masses believe in Chrysler again.
I sure as hell wouldn’t take a chance on them yet, as long as I could afford a better product. I doubt I’m alone in that sentiment, either. I wonder if Chrysler will survive the years while those like me watch from the sidelines, waiting to see how Fiat’s grand experiment plays out. I’m not optimistic about their odds.
Looks like there will be some nice rental cars available over the next year, though…
Sure, a refresh can change perceptions, if it fixes the biggest problems. For Chrysler, it’s ride quality, external design and interiors were absolute merde. If those things are fixed, sure, but that’s a tall order. Chrysler better realize their primary competitors are Ford and Hyundai.
That’d be true if Chrysler engineering and quality were up to Hyundai or Ford levels. And those things are hard to fix after the fact – they need to be designed in from the beginning.
The speedo in the picture goes to 140… in a T&C. That’s funny!
No funnier, really– than a 160MPH speedometer in a 2.4/auto Accord.
Are Chrysler 2.7s still sludging?
I’d personally say no – my 2.7L Stratus is sludge free and I change the oil every 5K with synthetic…purrs like a kitten. My understanding based on the research I’ve done was that the early LH cars were the most problematic models due to an inadequate PCV system.
How many miles, if you don’t mind my asking? I’m thinking that once the new Charger bows, the SE 2.7 might do me well, and be within my budget. Mileage will not change much from my current PT wagon, and the power from the 2.7 didn’t seem as lacking to me as people have reported here.
Maybe just do the 3G Sebring and post about it alot ;) Wouldn’t that be a fun feature? People’s Keepers– 6-month updates on nary-do-well cars that the hardcore have fallen for, and won’t let go?
iNeon,
My Stratty currently has 71,000 miles on it, so admittedly kinda young yet…but it runs strong and gets decent mileage (23-24 mpg) in stop and go traffic.
If you’re going to get a Charger, I’d strongly recommend a 2006 or 2007 with the 3.5L – those two years use the 5-speed MB trans. They switched back the ancient 4-speed in 2008, the same one used with the 2.7L. As much as I hate to say anything nice about MB, they do make a good transmission and it really transforms the car – it never seems confused about what gear it’s supposed to be in and it significantly improves the mileage over the old 4-speed due to it’s internal efficiency.
My folks have a 2006 300 Limited with the 3.5L and the 5-speed. The only things that have gone wrong with the car was an o-ring seal on a connector going into the transmission (known issue – easily fixed with new o-rings) and a module that controlled the adjustble pedals…that’s it, all under warranty. The car delivers 29-30 mpg (hand calculated) on the highway in the hands of my parents (read: they drive the speed limit or slightly under) which is nothing short of astounding for a car that size.
I’d certainly tune in to read the updates.
My Mother’s Stratus has about the same mileage, and returns almost amazing economy numbers freeway. Better than my manual PT wagon! Those little Stratus cars are tremendous bargains, and are awfully sporting for a mid-line family sedan. Nice simple lines, too.
I’ll decline on the 5-Speed transmission. I’ve owned a Mercedes-Benz, and servicing the transmission cost more than a set of tires! I’m firmly in the MB hater’s camp. You see, it was a lifelong dream to own one. I’d promised my dear old Granny we’d have us a Mercedes-Benz to drive, and I made good on that promise my 25th year. Daimler does not keep their word as I expect, and I refuse to suffer them again– even if there is a winged-medallion on the hood.
I’ve had two 2.7s with a combined 100,000 km on them with no issues. One from a 2002 Sebring and one from a 2004 Sebring.
Re the new 300: my eleven-year-old Crown Vic refuses to get old. A cheap replacement of the stabilizer bar bushings meant a return of that new-car feel–even with 150,000 miles. A yearly spring cleaning of the interior does not reveal an aging queen. But. If a major component goes, transmission or air conditioning, fr’instance, the new 300 might be on my list. Maybe even a recent used one. What other V8 rwd sedan is available at prices a retiree can handle? The major caveat is this: the blue smoke I see emerging from the tailpipes of too many Chrysler products and the generally crappy reliability ratings from the whole Chrysler line-up.
I’m gonna go out on a limb. Feel free to saw it off if you know the answer.
I have this feeling that the “wood” on the steering wheel in the above photo was harvested from an avatar tree. As for the car that is now the Chrysler 200. No. It was beyond salvage. I have a great deal of pity for the engineers who had to save it.
Newsflash: a lot of cars have “litho” wood on the steering wheel – some just do a better job of making it appear real.
I’m pretty positive the Chrysler 200 will run with, or even better, the other domestics in its class (Malibu/Regal and Fusion/MKZ).
Yes. A refresh can do wonders.
I doubt that very much – neither Ford nor GM use such dated and low-quality platforms. For Chrysler to compete, they will need all-new platforms to build upon.
Memo to Fiat-Chrysler: Drop the 4 speed auto in four banger version of the Avenger and 200. Only offer the 6 speed auto, The competition is not just the Malibu and Fusion – but the very capable 2011 Hyundai Sonata as well.
SVX, The platform for the Sebring comes from Mitsubishi (albeit with Chrysler changes). This platoform was forced on them by Daimler as a (you guessed it) cost cutting measure. The old Chrysler would have developed it from scratch. Sergio won’t accept anything but the best and if they develop an all new 200 to share with FIAT it will be as good as they can make it.
Absolutely, especially in Chrysler’s case.
Turning the Sebring into the 200 is no different than what Ford did with the Five Hundred which they made into the Taurus and recently refreshed again into the current Taurus. Saleswise it looks to have helped Ford greatly.
After seeing the new Ram and Grand Cherokee in person I feel that if Chrysler focuses that much energy into the Sebring’s transformation they can surely make it into an appealing and competitive car.
The refreshes of the Charger and 300 look to be coming out very good as well. There’s some life in this automaker yet.
gated shifter on dash is worse looking vs old autostick on dash is betterloking (barely). i think a column shifter is cleaner and more genre appropriate and frees up dash space, thoughts?
I agree. There’s no shame in a column mounted shifter.
The dash gated shifter is stupid looking, IMHO. But Chrysler isn’t the only one. For some reason some people have strong opinions about column shifters. Go figure.
Considering that in a modern automatic the shifter does nothing but send an electrical signal to the tranny, why are they still using levers that take up space. Just put a touch pad in there with buttons or a dial. It’s not like anybody is driving a minivan like a semi-automatic.
@mike: you know, the 5,000+lb Mercedes R-class CUV has paddles on the back of the steering wheel, right?
paddle shifters on an automatic are boy racer window dressing. After the first week I doubt that more than 1% of the owners ever touch the paddles again – especially on a CUV. You could probably limit the auto selector to P, R, and D and 99% of the owners wouldn’t notice a difference.
I would say that if the refresh, be it minor or major done to ACTUALLY improve issues with the current ride, whatever that may be and sales improve, that’s fine and dandy, if not, well, not so much.
I’ll be honest, I’ve not liked much of what Chrysler has brought forth in the past few years, especially the Daimler based designs but with ONE exception, the 2004 Dodge Stratus my Mom has, not the most fancy looking nor the plushest thing on the road, what with its boring one shade of beige interior and plastics, it IS actually a halfway decent car, I drive it whenever I’m down to visit her, which is fairly often and it’s quite a decent little driver, ride is good over most surfaces, handling competent, road noise is not bad except on some rough surfaces (especially when grooved for repaving and I chalk that up to mostly the new tires she put on a year ago) but otherwise, it’s not noisy or droning too much and is fairly comfy as well and has decent acceleration and looks nice and has alloys to boot.
The avenger’s looks were OK, but not as nice as the Stratus IMO and I’ve always liked the Chryco mini vans from day one, but especially the 1995-2000 variants with their smooth lines, the new bodies just look clunky, as to virtually ALL of the current models with any Daimler influence so if they can soften the looks, improve interiors etc, then I think they’ll do fine – oh, totally redo the Caliber, nothing but issues with that piece of junk from nearly every source/customer that’s spoken about it.
I have an ’03 Stratus and it’s been a perfectly good car. The ’03 actually has quite a bit of soft-touch material in it that they cheapened from the ’04 – most of the door trim panel (‘cept the lower 1/3rd) is all soft touch, and the dash top is soft too. Sure, it’s all monotone black (which I actually like) broken up with a silver dash spear, but it’s not too bad a place to spend time in. The seats are fairly comfortable too.
Re; Caliber “nothing but issues” [and Compass and Patriot]: these three have average to better than average reliabilty according to CR and from what I have seen True Delta is finding the same thing
Isn’t it funny, as well, that Caliber and Sebring/Avenger pretty much only differ in cosmetics/transaxle?
The Avenger seems to have avoided the “crappiest car ever. EVAR!” BS, and I just don’t understand. If there is no perception gap between American and Asian automobiles– how the hell do we get one between cars only different in aesthetics?
Of course, this all assumes that customers actually have a real reason to come back to Chrysler.
When you look at the monumental number of choices in the marketplace, one really has to ask if there is a place for Chrysler at this point. They may be able to keep some previous customers in the fold, but can they attract NEW business through competitive product?
I cannot think of a single person I know who ever had Chrysler on their radar for a purchase.
Even if they bring out a whiz-bang product I don’t see it doing much for their bottom line. Look at Jaguar and their new portfolio: great press, great reviews, mediocre sales at best.
+1
+2 on the first sentence.
For those interested, there has been some solid academic research done on this. Hoffer and Korenok et al. at Virginia Commonwealth painstakingly sorted hundreds of product changes made on cars in the USA over many years into various degrees of alteration, from fascia updates to reskins to full new sheet metal etc etc. (Of course, there are huge challenges in figuring out how much change a given alteration involves.) Anyway, the results were pretty robust: a truly new car would improve a company’s fortunes (measured in rate of market share growth) substantially and the effect would last for years. But a modest “re-skin” or “refresh,” while providing a sales bump as well, generated a much smaller one AND the effect was gone within a year. My summary of all this makes the work sound stunningly banal but the paper (easily found on line) gives solid numerical data so one can figure out one’s own Chrysler forecast, given their product plans, if one wants…
Chrysler US may not have the in-house engineering staff to do multiple all-new launches in the short term. Mid-sized US cars is not exactly Fiat’s strongest suit.
With the all-new Hyundai Sonata on the market and who knows what Honda is up to with the Accord for 2012. Chrysler US may be able to keep the Avenger/Sebring/200 plant running at a reasonable loss or near break even for the next 2 years with the 011 refresh. Then again maybe not, but let’s hope they pull it off.
what is going to hurt chrysler more then anything, is what they are doing on the warranty side. I’m hearing all over the boards, they are turning down legitimate warranty claims. Bad enough people have issues, but to then say they won’t fix a legitimate claim?
LX (charger/300/magnum) are having catastrophic failures which render the vehicle undriveable… lousy $0.05 part which jams the transmission lever, but the only factory fix is a total shifter replacement of $500-$800 dollars. Aftermarket solution ranges from $20-$50 (minus labor), but it’s a permanent fix. One owner was told he abused the automatic shifter… this part see’s no load, strictly internal component.
My shifter replacement cost was $205.00 on Aug 5th. A recall was issued on the Automatic Transmission Shift Interlock Spring on Aug 30th. The part actually sees a load; it’s a spring hook that is failing.
Chrysler is reimbursing cost of repair and towing. Write them at:
Chrysler Customer Care
Attn: Reimbursement
P.O. Box: 21-8004
Auburn Hills, MI 48321
Include copy of all receipts of course and 6-8 weeks for reimbursement.
The best thing about the Sebring was the name. Now even that’s gone. “Hey, what are you driving these days”? “Got me a new 200” “Huh”?
+1. And am I the only one who thinks, “100 less than the good generally well-regarded car” when I hear Chrysler 200?
At the risk of sounding a bit snarky, Chrysler should really focus on making vehicles that can survive the intense rigors of rental car (ab)use.
That more than anything would change the company’s image in the eyes of fairly well-heeled potential buyers. I’ve lost count of how many of my colleagues there are who wouldn’t consider a Chrysler product because a piece of switchgear in a rental came off in their hand, the paint was peeling from the back bumper, power door locks acted as though they’re possessed, and the list goes on and on…
I wish Chrysler (or whatever it’s called today) would just F’ing die already.
It won’t work…
Glenn nailed what is truly the insurmountable issue for Chrysler… re-skins of unsuccessful vehicles rarely offer any long-term benefit.
On the used car side I see the exact same phenomena at the auctions. The ‘revised’ versions of the same vehicles don’t have improved values at the auctions.
A 1996 Mustang is not going to have a dramatic pricing curve difference over the 2000 models over the long run. They are both in essence the same vehicle and the minor improvements don’t make the car any more competitive over the long run.
However, there is even worse news. Even when a manufacturer cures the ills of a given vehicle within the same generation (bad engines, trannies, numerous recalls, etc.) the damage to the used car values is already done. Even when the vehicle has indeed become competitive from a quality standpoint, the perception gap remains and the valuations follow.
Chrysler won’t recover without product that is brand new, exciting, and competes as best in class when it comes to fit, feel and finish. It’s a damaged brand.
Even when a manufacturer cures the ills of a given vehicle within the same generation (bad engines, trannies, numerous recalls, etc.) the damage to the used car values is already done.
You hit the nail on the head with that one. Manufacturers are notorious for releasing an “all-new” platform with a carryover engine used in the first model year or two. It used to be something only done by the domestic makes, but now I see it being done by the Japanese.
And you’re correct in stating that Chrysler is a damaged brand. Anyone over 40 or so has lost count of the number of times Chrysler has lost its way and is headed toward oblivion.
At the risk of offending some of the more fundamentalist members of the Best and the Brightest, Chrysler has risen from the dead more times than the actor who plays the role of Jesus in a Branson passion play.
I think the point is though that this car merely serves as a “stopgap” until the truly new platforms/vehicles come on line. It’s certainly better than just leaving it alone if it helps keep the lights on until better days roll around.
However, there is even worse news. Even when a manufacturer cures the ills of a given vehicle within the same generation (bad engines, trannies, numerous recalls, etc.) the damage to the used car values is already done. Even when the vehicle has indeed become competitive from a quality standpoint, the perception gap remains and the valuations follow.
And that’s where us used car buyers can find the bargains – good cars that the mainstream ignore due to poor reputation – we’ll see in 5 years if Chrysler fits this bill?
Chrysler needs the 2008 EcoVoyager concept car to become reality; I liked that a lot, except the fuel cell idea won’t hunt.
Rewarming the old stuff saves money, but it will only win a few unsuspecting customers.
Ugh! Remind me to never buy a Chrysler!
They do make some nice looking vehicles (although we only get the 300 and the Voyager where I live), but the owner will be looking at the interior everyday.
Does that plastic-that-looks-like-fake-wood come with a barf bag?
And what’s with the shifter? It’s automatic, right? You use it four times a day, right? Why not move it out of sight?
Since when is it a reskin, if it gets a new powertrain, revised suspension, interior redesign and exterior changes?
The 09 Fusion was a reskin as well if thats the case.
I’ll go one-up with your thoughts, Roundel. If cars using the same chassis and engine of bad nameplates are notoriously lowly-regarded in resale and mindspace– What are we to think of cars such as: Contour, Escape, Jag’s entire Fordified line-up and the like?
The Escape, by TTACs definition, is a “refreshed” Mazda 626. See where this is going?
haters gonna hate….
The only refresh I paid any attention to was the 2007 Mazda3 refresh, since I had owned a 2004 since new. I preferred the older grille, and I really didn’t like the 17″ snowflake wheels that replaced the 17″ 5-spoke wheels. The refresh didn’t change my opinion of the car much, but I would have bought it with the 16″ wheels to avoid the snowflakes if I had been buying an 07-09 model.