Gimmicky sales techniques are tough. On the one hand, Hyundai’s 10 year warranty and Assurance buy-back program have helped it become one of the fastest-growing auto brands in the country. On the other, Chrysler’s free gas giveaway, “lifetime guarantee” and its latest, the “regret-free purchase” offer, have all come and gone without materially moving the needle for the beleaguered automaker. In fact, cars.com reports that just 21 buyers opted for the option of returning their Chrysler within 60 days instead of a financing deal. Which makes sense: people buy Chryslers because they’re cheap and they offer lots of incentives. If we’re honest, the option of returning a car because it is of lower quality than the competition shouldn’t really appeal to deal-minded consumers. Which is why only Ram now offers the “regret-free” deal, while the rest of Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge’s nameplates have loaded back up on incentives. It’s clearly what brings the customers in.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
For me, the appeal of the “regret-free” option is that it indicates the company is confident in their product. On the other hand, I’d be concerned that there is so much fine print in the deal that people generally couldn’t take advantage of it.
As for the “$2.99 gas” deal, it looks like Chrysler took a gamble and won: fuel is about that cost now, so it was nothing for them.
I think it fails for the simple reason that most people decide that they would want to return it before they ever make the purchase. So for anyone who would actually buy one of the things, it’s just free insurance. It doesn’t convince anyone to get an Avenger over a Fusion or Accord. With incentives, a logical buyer can at least say, “the Accord is much better, but the Avenger is much cheaper”.
The problem with these brands is that they are not perceived as innovators (unless heated and cooled cup holders are innovative) Where is their hybrid/ev program? How about advanced powertrain engineering (DI, turbocharging, advanced valve control)? World class vehicle dynamics? Top of the line interiors and multimedia technology?
While its true that they may be competitive on some fronts, in todays market, just being somewhat competitive earns you also-ran status. They make good used car buys though, thanks to killer depreciation.
Does the halo of tech innovation really help sell Caravans? I seriously doubt it.
IMO, people have some sense. They know that 60 days isn’t enough time for the new car high to wear off, so it’s a worthless promise. Even if they should regret it, they won’t get the hangover until after the promise is expired. They probably know Chrysler is the worst major car manufacturer in America, that it’s declared bankruptcy, and that every Chrysler product they see over 5 years old looks like a Hot Wheel that’s been left out in the sun too long. The brand is way too damaged for gimmicks to move cars.
it’s a “smart” program because now the marketing message can be spun that consumers love Chrysler product so much they don’t even want the option to bring back the vehicle. “We gave EVERY SINGLE person that bought a Chrysler product the option to walk away from it – and only 21 even took the option.” Of the tens of vehicles Chrysler sells every month, they will proclaim with confidence that only <insert single digit number here> of the 21 were turned in.
Remember when GM did it? “Only one person brought back a Corvette – and that was because they wanted an automatic CORVETTE instead. ” See how great the product is? Buyers aren’t obligated to keep the car, BUT THEY DO ANYWAY!!!
Kind like the old popsci ‘owners report’ things, where they’d breathlessly say that 90% of owners liked the car’s styling. Ya think? How many people say to themselves, “this POS is uglier than a shaved cat!” And plunk down a check?
How many people say to themselves, “this POS is uglier than a shaved cat!” And plunk down a check?
I don’t know. How many people have bought an Acura TL this year?
It was a gimmick when GM did it and it is a gimmick now. There is a lot of small print on these deals, and there is an option for an additional rebate or cut-rate financing in lieu of the right to bring back.
If you had a bring-back guarantee good for a year, maybe this would bring in some new people. Otherwise, anybody in a Chrysler showroom right now is likely looking for a good deal (or is a minivan buyer, or both).
When Chrysler tried the lifetime powertrain warranty, this had some appeal to people who would keep a car for a long time. If Chrysler could eliminate the 2.7 engine, it may be able to offer a lifetime powertrain warranty without too much expense. My 99 Town & Country has nearly 196K on the original engine and transmission, and it drives just fine. The 2.7 is another story, however.
I agree with most of you, a good long warranty would bring more customers.
I respectfully disagree with your opinion of the much maligned 2.7. I own a 2000 Intrepid with the 2.7 and have faithfully changed the oil every 3000-3500 miles. It has 130k miles on it and has never had a problem. My son has the car in Minneapolis and has several friends with similar vintage LHs with very high mileage 2.7s and all report the same thing. There is nothing wrong with the 2.7.
@Angela von Arlington: The troubles with the 2.7 are well-documented. A friend just had his die early a few months ago (spun a rod bearing), and a replacement engine would have cost more than the car was worth.
You may have gotten a couple of good ones, but the vast majority of the 2.7s out there are horrible from what I see.
I’ve owned a couple of Chrysler minivans with the 3.3/3.8 engines, and they were great until they died from electrical problems around 120-150k miles and 9-12 years of age.
@gslippy – The 2.7 was bad for the first couple years in the LH, but it’s been decent in its other applications. And even the bad ones tend to hold up with fastidious maintenance (and frequently using synthetic) – admittedly, more than the typical buyer of a base Intrepid was looking for.
I would wager that at least in the beginning, Hyundai’s ten year warranty was gimmick also. When you bought a cheap-ass Accent, did you intend to keep it for 10 years? No. So it was sold long before the warranty ran out. Now that they make much better cars they will have a lot more warranty claims from people in their 8th, 9th, and 10th year of ownership (provided there isn’t a lot of fine print exclusions).
I think the question is, if you can afford to buy a new car every couple years, would you buy an Accent? A lot of econbox drivers keep their cars til they can’t afford to keep them running, not out of love but frugality. And I expect many of those drivers were attracted by the 10-year warranty.
My mother-in-law just bought an Elantra.
Because it was cheap and had a good warranty. She expects it to last her the rest of her driving days.
The Kia I just bought second-hand still has the balance of a 5/60 warranty on it, which is better than some mfrs offer new.
For everyone buying an Accent to own for the “rest of their life” there were 3 buying them as a disposable car or a starter car until they worked their way up the automotive food chain to something nicer.The majority of early 10 year warranty Hyundai’s never made it to 10 years of original ownership. That may be changing now, but it will take another 5 years to know for sure.
I still say that the bigger problem is that other than the new Grand Cherokee and maybe the Challenger and Voyager, nothing on the Chrysler lot has any appeal. The designs are often lagging by years and the interior and exterior fit and finish is usually terrible. The PT Cruiser was the last interesting car I can recall, although the 300 was briefly exciting. Look at the Dodge Journey. That’s supposed to compete in the crossover space? It has a minivan nose from 6 years ago. Who would pick it over an Edge, let alone the imports?
While I rarely agree with Mr. Niedermeyer, especially as regards Chrysler, in this case I must. The last decade has been brutal on Chryslers reputation, and yes, it’s partially self inflicted. I have often spoken out about the (Chrysler) third world dealer experience, and I don’t know how the company can woo back so many disgruntled customers. For sure though, they must offer the customer a substantial and effective warranty, combined with a born again service/sales commitment from the dealers. Otherwise I don’t see how they can survive. Personal tastes aside, most vehicles these days are very close in terms of overall product, so the difference must come down to the customer experience, and in that area Chrysler sucks big time. I believe Sergio can get the product right, in time, but can he fix the dealer body, or can they fix themselves? Have they been frightened enough in the recent past to learn some new methods and stick to them, or is it just more of the same old? Only time will tell.
Cerberus ownership killed Chrysler for the last 10 years. Fiat is a much better match, but it may be too late.
Cerberus didn’t own Chrysler until 2007. Daimler consumed them in 1998. The bad Daimler juju really hit from 2000 onwards. they are still responsible for the majority of Chrysler’s problems.
+1 windswords…
The problem with Chrysler offering a longer warranty is that owners would be forced to use them. Once you buy one of these heaps, there is little if any hope of dumping it off on anyone else for anywhere near the loan payoff….so you just keep driving it….and it starts to fall apart long before most others. Hyundai, KIA and even Suzuki can offer 10yr/100k Powertrain Coverage because they have the quality to back it up. Although I do agree with the idea that, at least in the beginning, they didn’t expect anyone to keep a Rio or Accent for anywhere near ten years or 100k miles. But now they’re damn good cars, at least the Elantra, Forte and up are!
I often ride in Chrysler products that have well over 100K on them with no major repairs on them, just normal maintainance and maybe a water pump. My next door neighbors had 2 Grand Cherokees until recently, one of the first ones, a ’93, and a ’98. They recently had to retire the 92 after an accident, but it had over 400K on it, with the original engine and transmission. They had 5 driving aged kids and both parents, driving the hell out of the half dozen cars they own at once. The Honda Accord they had didn’t make it it 10 years, it spread the transmission about about 150K all over the street, and was making some odd noises when it was in reverse, just like it did before the first time the trans went. They traded it on a Dakota, and so far it’s been great. The VW Jetta has been a major turd electrically, and it’s seats are breaking down. It’s one of their newer vehicles, too. I think it’s an ’05, could be off a year either way.
For one reason or another, I have borrowed several of their vehicles over the years and I have to say the Chrysler cars have held up as well or better than any of the others. The 98 GC I borrrowed a couple weeks ago, has well over 300K on it. The interior is worn, but the AC works fine, the motor (4.0 straight 6) ticks like they always did, but it runs fine. The factory CD player is dead though.
People are always claiming that Chrysler cars and trucks are so bad, yet in my experience, it’s not true, not even close. And the two local dealers with have treated me fine, and I have nothing bad to say about either one of them.
nrd515- The 1st generation Grand Cherokees were actually exceptionally well built and a lot of them were very reliable. I have a ’95 JGC with 205k miles that my mom bought new in 12/94. It has been the most reliable vehicle any of us have (mom, dad, sis and myself) ever owned! The engine and tranny are 100% original and it drives great. The 4.0L Inline-6 standard in the JGC was actually inherited from AMC and isn’t a Chrysler design. The AMC/Jeep 4.0L is one of the most durable engines ever built, according to a lot of sources. The optional 5.2L V8 was a Chrysler engine and wasn’t as reliable as the 4.0L. The transmission used with the 4.0L suffered a lot of premature failures, but the key to avoiding that nightmare was to order either the Towing Package or Towing Prep Package which included a heavy-duty transmission cooler.
The 2nd generation JGC (’99-’04) took a nose dive in terms of quality and reliability. It looked awesome, but the new V8 and automatic transmission (which worked great, until they didn’t) were TROUBLE for thousands. The various 4WD systems were also more likely to have a major problem than not. The 3rd gen ’05-’10 model didn’t do much to improve things and they did away with the 4.0L engine, too….the ’11 JGC has the potential to shed all that baggage and be a world-class SUV!
As for Chrysler’s other reliability nightmares- the LH cars (Intrepid, Concorde, LHS) were a hellish nightmare for thousands of owners! But the absolute worst would be the Dodge Caravan (and Chrysler T&C, Plymouth Voyager)…I’ve never known anyone who owned one of the minivans who didn’t experience MAJOR transmission or engine trouble (often both) usually well before 100k miles! My sister had a ’99 Caravan with so many problems after six years and 80k miles that we were thankful when she totaled it! In her words, it was worth a broken wrist and a dozen cuts and bruises to get rid of that heap! Never again!
Then there are the dreadfully mediocre products, Sebring and Avenger instantly come to mind. The Caliber and it’s offspring (Compass, Patriot) are also crap-tastic. I recently had an Avenger as rental car and after two days, I returned it for a bare-bones Corolla instead. It was a wretched, horrible vehicle…they both were, but the Corolla was less so. I had it for four weeks while my Mazda3 was in the body shop….the Sebring and Avenger represent everything that is wrong with Chrysler…hopefully Fiat will change that???
Why pursue gimmicks when you can buy something with substance and durability?