I’ll refrain from editorializing at length here because I’m genuinely interested in hearing the B & B’s take on Chrysler’s attempt to overcome what was one of the industry’s worst reputations for interior quality. The question here isn’t “are Chrysler’s interiors better?” because there’s no debate on that point. The question is: given that they’re having to do a 180 for Chrysler’s reputation, are they good enough? Personally, I find some downright appealing, some quite passable and some still lacking… and my major complaint is that I feel like the firm tries too hard to project a veneer of premium-ness on even its cheaper products, which make the interiors feel less than entirely “honest.” But that’s just my take… what’s yours? Video of Chrysler’s interior design boss Klaus Brusse, talking about the changes in Chrysler’s interiors, after the jump
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Not sure where all this interior focus comes from. Most people want
1) Reliability
2) Reliability
3) Reliability
After reliability is satisified ( I mean 200,000 mile reliability with tires, brakes, oil changes, ), they might look at the styling and interior.
Many people I know say “It looks nice, and the interior looks nice, but the reliability is not there, so no deal.”
As long as Toyota and Honda brands rank higher than GM, Ford, or Chrysler in long term reliability, Detroit is wasting time, money, and engineering resources on interiors.
I noticed the used car recommendations from Consumer Reports have almost no Detroit vehicles. This is the problem for Detroit. Forget the interiors.
If the interior turns off the buyers before they even buy the vehicle, how are they going to experience the reliability, whether good or bad?
Who cares about reliability if you lease a car for 3 years
Those who cares about resale, which should include those who lease.
Even if I’m leasing, I don’t want to be running the car to the dealer for repairs all the time for three years. There is some consolation in the fact that you can give it back at the end, but I still wouldn’t like it.
If the difference between “reliable” and “unreliable” is one extra visit to the dealer per year (which is pretty much where things sit today), I will happily ignore that and buy a car that I enjoy owning and driving.
Well I definitely think the reliability is an issue. Just yesterday this post made the front page of Reddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/hpjmt/chrysler_is_screwing_over_my_family_and_i_dont/
So that’s tens of thousands of people who saw this person’s complaint, not to mention the people on twitter who learned about it after the people on reddit started tweeting @Chrysler. On the bright side the public shaming seems to have gotten Chrysler to fix that guy’s problem but hearing about borked engines at 50K and warranty denials doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.
Still, the horrible old interiors were a big problem as well. The few times I had to drive a Chrysler (rentals usually) the interiors nearly drove me insane with their layout.
Did you actually read that? It’s complaining more about a bad dealership service manager than anything having to do with Chrysler corporate, who seem (at this still unresolved point) to be siding with the customer – in the customer’s own words. This happens to people with EVERY auto manufacturer. Your link only proves there are underhanded dealers out there that customers and corporations have to deal with – something the more enlightened commenters here on TTAC have known for quite some time and discussed at great length.
KalpanaBlack:
It doesn’t matter if it’s a dealer problem, the dealers are representatives of the manufacturer and Chrysler needs to ensure that their dealers reflect positively on them.
Reliability was the 90s problem, and now everyone (except VW) has it. Even Hyundai is reliable now.
Now that everyone has reliability, you need efficiency to do better in the transportation appliance market. Toyota’s been selling it for a decade. Ford’s getting it now. GM’s got a showpiece and a $50k SUV. Chrysler sells the Grand Caravan. The more things change, the more things stay the same…
My friend bought a 1999 Ram truck about a month after I bought my Silverado. 3 months later his head light switch came loose from the dash. Of course within 4 years my center console hinge broke & CD player stopped working Now 12 years later I still have my truck and it’s still in pretty nice shape, and he has a new Ram. Haven’t heard of anything falling off.
Not sure where the interior focus comes from? Have you looked at or sat in a Chrysler product between 2003-2008? Most of them were literally the hard hollow plastic trim with terrible graining and terrible styling.
That said, I think in addition to reliability many people buy cars based on looks or how special they feel when they sit in them. I don’t know about you, but for me that counts for a bit. Chrysler has done a good job of making their new products look and feel special inside. My family has had a few vehicles rated “worst” by CR in reliability and all of them were fine from a Jeep Grand Wagoneer to a fullsize Chevrolet conversion van and K1500 truck.
Anyway back to the point, I feel the majority of their new interiors are certainly good enough. In the case of the Grand Cherokee, Durango, Grand Caravan/Town and Country and 300 they are excellent. The Ram trucks, Journey, Charger and Challenger are all good enough given their missions. In the lower end cars, the Avenger, 200, Compass, Patriot, and Caliber the interior touch ups are welcome but more resources should have been spent making the cars much better than they are. I guess that’s hard to do without a thorough redesign, but if Chrysler’s current trajectory is any indication than the next model cycle could see a serious competitor from them in the mainstream sedan and compact class.
The worst thing about all their new interiors is certainly the carry-over nav radios they use. It desperately needs a more refined look and new software. The screen and OS they use in the new Charger and Journey is a bit better.
I think they look pretty nice! The steering wheel needs some work in most renditions – with the center of the wheel always looking bulky, plasticky and unrefined – doesn’t go well with the slim chrome detail around the instrument panel. It’s like they redid the interior, but forgot about the center of the steering wheel.
Agree with the point on reliability, but would like to point out that the Honda and Toyota interiors were, during the 80’s and 90’s, much more ergonomic and comfortable than comparable price US vehicles. Certainly if you can have reliability and a nice interior, you can charge a lot more up front.
Can we please just get over obsessing about interior bits and start focusing on basic ergonomics instead? I’d rather be surrounded by cheap plastic and hard surfaces than some of the “nicer” interiors with myriad buttons and nonsensical touch screens.
I currently own a 2010 Grand Cherokee, and I like it’s rather plain interior. Mostly black plastic with leather steering wheel and armrests, an actual aluminum panel in the center dash and good old fashioned knobs for the climate controls.
Not every car interior needs to be surrounded in chrome and pleather.
I’ll second that.
How about soft surfaces where you touch, which includes the doors and trans tunnel, along with standard switchgear?
Little Subaru at least gets the basic ergonomics right, so why can’t the big guys do it?
Uh they most certainly do NOT. I owned a 2008 Forester.
-The left driver’s armest was too far forward, the right one was too far back. The right one slid forward, but only within 1″ were they ever aligned, and then it’d block the cupholder. Both were worthless for long trips. Any taller or shorter I’d have to forfeit use of one.
-The steering wheel didn’t telescope
-The climate control was beyond worthless- the air vents were horrible for actually aiming air, but making matters worse they actually screwed up the 3-knob design with anything above ‘coldest’ being ‘scorching’ with the automatic climate control system.
-The stereo was unresponsive. Laid out well I suppose, but if the volume blasted it’d be 1-2 seconds before it would respond to my plea turn it down or off.
-The seats were horrible for anyone above 5’4″ on long trips.
Subaru is one of the only manufacturers I can recall that actually gets basic stuff wrong. They are all-around low quality automobiles.
Never driven a Forester, and I don’t use armrests – my hands stay at 9 & 3, or 9 & shifter… Non-telescoping wheel is an option you didn’t buy. No ideal about the CC system, but the things you touch are laid out right. Seat comfort sucks on almost all cars.
My BMW E60 is generally good, except for a rock hard wooden door insert where my left knee should rest, ignoring the 2nd gen i-Drive which is just a wierd toy. Of course, I have the uber-seats, which go a long way toward comfort.
My Benz W251 has totally f-d up stalks on the steering wheel. Benz ergonomics are totally ass-backwards. It’s like a case study of how not to do ergonomics in the modern era.
But my 1991 Subaru SVX has every switch exactly where it should be. Everything is at fingertip, and moves exactly how it should. You never have to look to have the control do what you want. And everything you touch is soft, or has excellent tactile feedback.
The Subie Impreza has good control layout as well, and the seat adjusted fine. No issues there. Not a pretty interior, tho.
@mikeolan
I own an 09 Legacy and had a Forester as a loaner car for a while.
My opinion on Subaru is 100% different from yours. The seating is the best in it’s class, partially thanks to the standard power drivers seat (which is not standard on Camry, Accord, etc.). There is less of a need for a telescoping steering wheel when you have a power seat (i.e. can adjust height and pitch of the seat).
The door is good that it’s flat. Unlike some other cars (Tahoe, H3 included) that had protruding chunks that eat into leg room.
BTW, I am 5’11”. My feeling is that the 09 model would be good for a 6’2″ at most but not more than that. The new model should be larger, but I have not tried it yet.
Interesting that you would pose this question today, Ed, since my next two reviews will be for the Journey and Durango. I hope to have the first one ready tomorrow.
…Rome was not built in a day…In the 2 years (under Fiat) the situation has progressed pretty well. Two years in the automobile world is a pretty short time to make major changes.
I understand how the Cerebus folks didn’t have a clue.
But Diamler? Chrysler was controlled by Diamler management for roughly 10 years – enough time to make decent interiors. I have a feeling Diamler was out of their element doing reasonably priced interiors. Whether their $70k cars have good interiors is up to debate – at those prices they’d better be good.
I think a lot of this work was actually done under Cerberus.
Agreed. The interior designer talked about working on interiors over the last three years in the interview, so they must have started in the Cerberus era.
I suspect Sergio has nudged things along a bit though.
Great. If Cerebus did the work, then they did well.
But what about the work of Diamler (master car makers ) for nearly 10 years? What happened?
I find myself in the position of being somewhat uniquely qualified to answer this question. Until 2005 my former employer was sponsored by Dodge, and the last year we suffered with Calibers, Sprinters and Ram pickups. Heck, even the Viper interior was extremely cheesy considering how much you pay for the car. Despite this, I bought myself an ’07 Dakota Quad Cab for a personal vehicle. Vehicle dynamics and ride quality aside (the thing rode like a motor boat) the interior materials were almost universally garbage. Hard, mis-matched plastics, grainy leather, oddly placed controls, the list goes on.
In March I rented a minivan for the 12 Hours of Sebring, and picked up a 2012 Grand Caravan at the Orlando airport. The interior was a quantum leap from the crap from just a few years ago. I couldn’t believe how much better the packaging was, not to mention the ride and power.
Maybe cars have gotten better and we need something to complain about or we’re just becoming girls. Probably both but I want a simi-hard dash so it doesn’t crack from sitting in the sun. I haven’t bought a dash topper or had to deal with them sliding around in decades and want to keep it that way. What’s this I’m hearing about leather covered dash boards? Who asked for that? Send them to me, I’ll straighten them out!
I don’t get where all the Chrysler interior bashing comes from. Every single Chryco product I ever owned was as good as anything out there if not better. If you want to talk flimsy plastics, any early 2000’s GM car/truck will provide a good example. The new interiors look good and I am sure look just as good in person. Splitting hairs as to say-
“the firm tries too hard to project a veneer of premium-ness on even its cheaper products, which make the interiors feel less than entirely “honest.”
..is ridiculous.. EVERYONE does this to some extent. Pontiac G6 comes to mind.. Hardly honest and plasticy cheap. Please.
The interiors look good. Let’s just call ’em as we see ’em..
Evidently, you’ve never driven a K-car, if you “don’t get where all the Chrysler interior bashing comes from”… I unfortunately owned a Dodge Aries wagon: horrible plastic everywhere, horrible fabric upholstery… cheap, cheap, cheap…
That does describe the interior of the 87 K I owned, but I also got
reliability
reliability
reliability
to the tune of over a quarter million miles with very few actual repairs, in fact no car I have ever owned required as few repairs. Lucky? Maybe, but it seems that there are an awful lot of lucky people out there…
@Halftruth, examine closely the 2011 Charger dashboard, including look and feel of materials and switchgear. Do the same with the 2011 Malibu. (Many other combinations exist, and it’s not necessary to invoke high-priced competition, either.)
Q.E.D.
Their reliability is much better. My 2006 Dodge Ram just got it’s first new brake pads at 97,000 miles. First repairs other than gas and oil changes. My wife’s 2006 R500 with 72,000 miles has had new pads twice already. My neighbor’s 2007 Toyota Sequoia with less than 50K is in the shop almost monthly. Agreed the interior is cheap looking and feeling but they seem to be making a lot of progress there too.
I don’t think we’re becoming girls. I recently rented a Chrysler 300 “touring.” This is not the stripper with the anemic 2.7 liter engine. This is the mid model with leather seating and the 3.5 liter engine. I actually thought the car was a nice car, except for the hard plastic on the dash and the doors, which simply didn’t belong. The engine wasn’t particularly helped by the antiquated 4-speed autobox, but that wouldn’t have been a deal breaker for me. The interior materials . . . I don’t know. A lot of people spend a lot of time in their cars in traffic commuting, etc., where all of the virtues of a “sports sedan” etc. are lost. It’s then when you really pay attention to the interior, the seats, the music system, etc. I haven’t seen the interior of the new model in the flesh, but I’ve read the reviews and seen the photos. It’s leagues better. As for reliability, I think there’s a zone of reasonableness which people will tolerate; and it’s pretty wide. After all, lots of people buy Audis, BMWs and Benzes; and none of them are particularly reliable. If people were seriously into reliability, they’d buy nothing by Lexus or Acura. The point is, for most people, they are reliable enough. On the other hand, Jaguar and Land Rover probably fall outside of the zone. They’re so unreliable that their other virtues don’t compensate.
Chrysler needs to bring its reliability up to be “in the zone,” which doesn’t mean they have to equal the best of Honda.
One of the Autoline After Hours podcasts (I think) had a commentary on the astounding amount of cost Daimler required Chrysler to pull from their interiors, so no wonder they were so cheap-looking. Clearly it is a major area of focus as they work their way through replacing and refreshing the various models.
I think every one of those interiors is a quantum leap above anything that came before.
Chrysler has some pretty impressive exteriors and powertrains, too.
The question that’s in my mind, however, is will it last. If Chrysler can keep the pace up for 5 years or so and not fall to the decontenting bug, while they prove everything is reliable, they could be in for one hell of a renaissance.
If not? Well, they had better hope they can sell on style. I’m already seeing Rams at HUGE discounts.
My work needed a new truck, and despite the ability to get a new Ram 1500 Outdoorsman 4×4 for 25k OTD, they still went with the much more expensive Ford. The trust just isn’t there yet.
The decontenting bug will be back soon. Money has been replenished at Chrysler – thanks to the taxpayer, but no fundamental change has occurred at Chrysler that makes them have a valid business model all of a sudden. Therefore, there is no reason why they will not have to decontent their vehicles soon again to make a profit.
The other thing they need to change is brand strategy. For a while (2005ish?) they were trying to put a relatively nice modern car in muscle car clothing, and the rentals I drove showed that they pretty much delivered this. They were nice enough cars, but they just weren’t a car that I personally would be interested in owning…
EDIT: I guess I’m talking about Dodge, but I’m hard pressed to keep Chrysler/Plymouth/Dodge separate because of the way they did their badge engineering when I was growing up and the thousands of commercials that I heard that always said Bob Smith Chryslerplymouthdodge as if it were word. It looks like they’re actually trying to change that a little bit now. Good luck with that.
Jimal and Outback_Ute have got it right. What you have seen for the last 10 years or so are DAIMLER interiors in Chrysler vehicles – not Chrysler interiors. I wish TTAC would do a series/investigation/retrospective of what Daimler did to FUBAR Chrysler. It really is THE automotive story of the first few years of the 21st century. Ed/Ronnie/Michael/Bertel/Steven/Jack could start with Bob Sheaves the former engineer who worked at Chrysler right before and after the “merger of equals”. His short take on the times over at Allpar.com was very revealing.
I’ve taken six Mopar minivans past 250,000 miles, two of them past 300,000, mostly on some of the worst roads and extreme weather in America (North Dakota and Northern Minnesota). They’ve been rock solid reliable. Radio and navsystem? Don’t use them and don’t need them. Interior? If it doesn’t crack at 50 below, it’s good enough for me. Power? A 3.3 has always been more than enough for me, even when towing full-size cars on a towing dolly, which I used to run dealer trades with. I think we’ve gotten pretty whimpy over time. A car is a transportation tool, not a formal drawing room.
As a father of three kids (5, & 2.5 yr old twins), owner of a German Short Hair Pointer and an owner of a 2008 Town & Country I have a few comments that are relevant. I purchased the T&C knowing that it had an interior that was very similar to a Tupperware container. The benefit of this being that we can clean the vehicle to an amazing degree of spotlessness relatively easily. It is really hard to get stuff like crayon off of a soft touch material. Again this is the family hauler/utility/hunting vehicle designed by people who get it. It being durability and ease of use. (I have the full size 2nd row, not stow n no you can’t make me seat there seats)
Ultimately the choice comes down to what you really value. Sure there maybe nicer interiors in other vehicles, but for myself and the approximately 150k-200k people a year that bought T&C’s & Grand Caravans they knew what they were getting and probably knew what they wanted. Now with respect to transferring that utilitarian philosophy to every vehicle, well I think we all know how that ended.
I was well impressed with the Chrysler interiors I saw at the local car show this spring, and on a couple of Jeep Grand Cherokee’s I’ve rented for long trips to remote areas.
I see Ed’s point about “too hard to project a veneer of premium-ness”; I got the same feeling a few years back when riding in my wife’s friend’s then new RX-350 after riding in my friend’s A6 4.2. With Chrysler’s current market positioning, they don’t have to compete with Audi or even Lexus – they just have to make a nicer interior than Honda or Toyota. From what I’ve seen of the 2011 models, they have.
Interior quality has a big impact on people’s perceived quality of the whole vehicle, so improvements here are worth pursuing.
I agree with DC Bruce’s comment about a reliability “zone of reasonableness which people will tolerate”. From looking at True Delta’s “Nada Odds”, it looks like most mainstream manufacturers are already there.
Dealer experience can play a big role in perceived quality as well – if problems are dealt with fairly and effectively, they will soon be forgotten. The 1990 LS 400 recall is probably the best example of this.
I like the trajectory Chrysler is on. They seem to know that they’re fighting for their life, and they won’t be able to rattle the begging bowl in front of the taxpayers again.
The interview with the interior designer was interesting. He acknowledges (rather than denies) their problems with interiors, and describes some concrete improvements. I also saw an interview with Ralph Giles where he said “I know what people think of our cars”. Acknowledging the problem is the first step to recovery.
I rented a 2010 Town and Country in February, and was shocked at the low quality of the dash plastics, and the cobbled-together look. It somewhat negated the nice handling and driving experience. There’s nothing wrong with hard plastics . . . as long as they’re executed correctly. Chryler’s interiors have been a disaster for the last few years. A couple I know wouldn’t buy one, as the interior quality of the 1999 Caravan seemed to be better than the new ones.
The 2009 Sebring and Patriot I sat in gave me the same impression of cheap, low quality — the Patriot even had rough, jagged plastic edges on their dash. Awful. Who at Diamler approved of this crap, and why? Did they think Americans are too stupid to notice the crappy interior quality?
Interior quality matters. Nobody needs expensive, soft-touch plastics everywhere. But low-grade, ugly plastic, cheaply clipped together in an insult to a consumer. They notice.
Having said that, I think Chrysler’s new interiors are fantastic.
Chrysler had some of the bst interiors in the 90s, they were robbed of all of that with Daimler.
Its amazing and confusing when people tell me that Toyota or Honda have high quality materials. I work at a rental car branch, I’m in and out of all different types of cars all day, and the few Camrys and Corollas that we have are downright nasty in their interior appointments. Mouse fur seats, playskool quality plastics, just generally oozes cheap. I wouldn’t care if they never broke down, I would never suffer through that day to day.
I feel Chrysler has come along way quickly, even the lipstick on a pig Caliber interior redo is above a Corolla, appointment wise. Chrysler may have deservedly gotten a bad call for interiors, buts its disingenious to dismiss other blatant offenders.
Right, blame Daimler for everything. The easiest thing to do is to try to blame others for your problems.
“best interiors in the 90s” – obviously a subjective, and grandiose statement.
If the shoe fits, wear it. Daimler ran the show for a decade, and pushed to take costs OUT of Chrysler products, resulting in cheap, poorly assembled interiors. Let’s not even get into how Daimler used Chrysler’s cash reserves to prop up its own business.
Even if you are a Detroit hater and a Toyota fanboi like no other, nothing can change the fact that Daimler engineered the failure of Chrysler products during their tenure. In fact, I’m surprised they were as “good” as they were considering Daimler’s attack was so vicious that I would have expected to find a rape kit in the glove box.
Get me the address of the rock that you live under and I’ll mail you the memo.
Chrysler had its head high above water going into the merger… the rest is history.
Just to pile on: Next time you go car shopping, be on the lookout for a Cirrus and a ~2005 Sebring. You’ll see that compaired to the newer Sebring, the Cirrus interior has better quality plastics, grab handles that you can’t bang your head against and a rear cup holder that folds away to make enough room to comfortably seat three across. If my memory serves, Daimler demanded $1,000 cut from every interior.
At the time of the merger, Chrysler stock was trading at $48 a share and they had $7.5 billion in cash on hand. One of the first things Daimler did was to get that money to Germany. Then Chrysler had no reserve and no money for product development. So yeah they were raped and robbed.
The design of the current Camry’s interior is bafflingly bad. The center stack looks like it was designed by a company that makes knockoff stereo systems sold for $29 at Walmart. The fonts don’t even match at different ends of the same panel. It’s not even materials, though those aren’t great; it’s that they just didn’t even *try*.
Speaking from someone who’s mother now drives a 2004 Dodge Stratus with an all beige interior, complete with hard plastics, but with black accents in things like the radio faceplate, the H/VAC control knobs and the like but the switch gear didn’t seem too cheap in my estimation, the audio is OK, a bit boomy but it IS the base CD player and speakers offered at the time (6×8 speakers in each door but I doubt contain true 2 or 3 way drivers) the CD head unit doesn’t even have a repeat function, how lame, the upmarket units do however.
While plain, it’s OK and the car itself is decent enough but I contend that most of what we see are from Cerebus and/or Daimler.
I think what we see now, while still has some issues at present are MUCH improved over the past interiors and from what they had to work with and in such a short time frame, they did good.
I suspect that once they do a FULL redesign, you’ll see even more improvements coming down the line, right now, things in some cases still look a tad blingy.
“the CD head unit doesn’t even have a repeat function, how lame, the upmarket units do however.”
Bingo. This is the major problem with Chrysler interiors, in my view — way too much missing content in low-end models. Like it or not, Chrysler is selling a decent number of vehicles to the rental market, and those cars are a huge part of the impression people get of Chrysler. And nearly every base-trim Chrysler I rent (and I travel a lot) has something obvious and annoying missing.
In many cases, they even have the button for the missing feature — e.g., the radio in the 2011 Grand Cherokee I rented had a phone button, but if you hit it, it just told you it wasn’t equipped. Surely if I can buy a USB Bluetooth adapter on special for $2.99 retail, they could include that feature standard; they’d probably save money by integrating it rather than having an add-in module. GM has done this, even in a lot of its fleet spec cars.
Minor rant, though — the 300 has the most awkward turn signal stalk I’ve ever seen; the center position for the stalk is angled like it should be the right signal position. Who approved that?
Back in 2006, I drove a Chevy Cobalt 4 door that I had to rent while my truck you see in my avatar was in the shop getting its master clutch cylinder replaced, it was pretty well loaded but still not top flight.
The painted plastic surfaces were already scratched off around the window switches in places and the general fit and finish was meh but the CD unit was NOT the bottom rack unit, it was I believe one notch above the base unit, perhaps two, but a mid level head unit and was decent and sounded fairly good, but with boomy bass.
I know as the instruction manual showed several CD head unit options available from I think a base AM/FM unit up to a top flight CD head unit, which today would automatically include USB/Aux inputs and/or Bluetooth integration and this car had the automatic light option installed as the dash lights and I think the exterior lights too came on and/or off as it deemed necessary if in auto mode. I just hit the lights once I started the car as that’s how I drive – always.
Mom’s 04 may or may not have come from a rental, but I suspect it may have been from one although she bought it barely a year old and its manual indicates several head unit options and it is the base CD unit and does offer traction control/anti skid, however, it’s not installed on her car the big button isn’t on top of the steering column where it’d have been if installed and I didn’t find the car too decontented, just rather plain Jane inside more than anything else as the driver’s seat is electrically operated and has alloy wheels, as did the Cobalt that I had rented.
I don’t know if the content in rentals are spelled out by the automakers as much as it is the rental agencies as at one time, you didn’t get a tape deck except in some high end rental cars, all you got was an AM/FM radio, now, tape decks (when still available) or CD head units are common in rentals these days, but even a regular buyer at a dealer won’t necessarily go for the top flight audio system, which for Chrysler has and still is I think made by Infinity.
Recently, Mom had to rent a 2010 Hyundai Elantra while my oldest sister and her hubby who have hit hard times were borrowing her car as their 2000 Dodge Grand Caravan got totaled while they found, or rather, were given a 2001 Caravan to have and it was a nice enough car and its CD head unit had the USB/Aux though probably not the ultimate head unit and sounded fairly good for non top flight factory units, had I think power driver’s seat and I forget what else but had plastic wheel covers that made the car look even more pedestrian than it would be otherwise, a shame really. Over a year ago, she had her car in the shop for the steering rack decided to go and Enterprise rented her a Dodge Caliber that had no electric seat, the remote fob didn’t work, and to add insult to injury, the guy didn’t even bother to go over the car with her but seemed more interested in renting than doing good proper customer service and she wasn’t feeling all that well at the time so that colored her perceptions of the Caliber. I don’t know what all else it had or didn’t have as I was not there when she had it so can’t comment either way. But as I said, I think it’s more the rental agencies specifying what goes into the cars and it varies by make, model and the rental company.
Plus, back in 2004, Chrysler was still under the influence of Daimler as Mom’s key fob still says Daimler on the back.
I barely heard of Cerebus and their involvement of Chrysler, but, damn, all the issues that surrounded Chrysler and Daimler were legion.
I’ve checked out the new RAM, the 200, the 300, Journey, Charger, and Caravan, and I’m very impressed with the improvements. I think they’re right where they need to be – or would have been without Daimler’s presence.
A 300S with the red leather interior may very well find its way into my garage.
But as exciting a step as these interiors are, I’m really curious about what’s coming in the next generation of vehicles.
I’m glad Chrysler is trying, because there was so much bad press about their interiors, which were admittedly bad. Though I don’t understand the new fad toward soft-touch, near-premium, alacantara-clad ipod connected blue-tooth-touch-screen headliner blah blah blah. Does anyone but auto-journalist actually care about this stuff? I, for one couldn’t care less. All I’m asking from the interior of a car is that I can find all the functions without opening a book, everything fits tight and is in an intuitive place, and that it is durable over time. So long as it fits those criteria and doesn’t look like a 90s Pontiac, I’m good.
The reason interior quality is important is this: If the company is slashing costs where you can see and feel it, imagine what they are doing to the stuff hidden from view. Also, if the car is not appealing, this limits sales and hurts resale value.
Intuitively that makes sense.
But the recent generation of Toyotas with hard plastic dashboards that don’t line up are still very nearly trouble free cars.
A couple generations back VWs felt like 40,000 bucks inside – which considering inflation and exchange rates is about what they’d cost today – but three years into ownership it was pretty clear that very little of that money made it under the hood.
I like the interior of the new Jeep Grand Cherokee.
“…my major complaint is that I feel like the firm tries too hard to project a veneer of premium-ness on even its cheaper products, which make the interiors feel less than entirely “honest.” ” Exactly! I absolutely hate plastic that pretends to be plated metal. Look at some of the good interiors of the past from Volkswagen and Honda. They use relatively high quality plastic in simple, attractive designs with minimal ornamentation. Contrast with Pontiac.
This Office Space clip sums up in seconds both the problem of too much “flair” and the image problem of cheap hard plastic.
I read a few years ago that Chrysler’s designers didn’t design bland, cheap interiors, but the bean-counters de-contented everything to death and what came out of the factory was the result. A month or so ago, I was in the Detroit area on business, and a co-worker had a 300 rental. Probably a 2009 or 2010 model, as it had the most plain interior I have ever seen, but truth be told, my rental Altima 2.5S wasn’t any better. By comparison, my 2004 Impala’s interior is sheer luxury and beautiful!
Contrast that with Chryslers’ 2011 offerings, and they’re exquisite! At our recent auto show, my wife and I were quite impressed with the interiors on the 200 and Compass and Patriot. The new 300 was on a pedestal and wasn’t availble to get a good look at.
Chrysler appears to be on the right track, so let’s wait and see if the reliability matches.
the correct way to say that would be “honest goodness” which canotes a more sincere overtone than simply saying “honest” because Im here to tell ya, whose honest anymore?
“Trying too hard” to enhance perceived interior quality? Now I think I’ve read everything.
I was enamored with the design and reliability of my ’72 Plymouth Duster.
So basic a Yugo factory could build it.
Comfy and everything worked, even the manually-operated vents down by one’s feet.
I miss my Duster.
I even liked the manual tuning knob on the AM radio.
The reason interiors are more important than they used to be in general is because we spend more time in them than we used to. A daily commute within most of our largest cities is an hour long. So, drivers are not simply driving, they are sitting for two hours. Naturally, when you experience this, the interior of your car becomes a factor in your auto purchase.
Chrysler has had a poor reputation regarding interior design and quality. This reputation is based on it’s lack of focusing on how their cars interact with drivers and passengers inside their cars. Instead of being a nice place to spend your morning and evening commute – Chrysler cars had interiors that reeked of cheap plastic. I was always shocked at how badly their car interiors fell short of the competition within each vehicle’s market. I never considered buying any of their vehicles partly due to how bad their interiors are assembled.
Their interiors have improved to the point where their salespeople shouldn’t be concerned or embarrassed when a potential customer takes a look inside one of their vehicles. The interiors are a vast improvement over what they were selling just a few years ago.
So yes, Chrysler has turned a corner on what was once a very big problem for them – they used to make some of the world’s cheapest crappiest looking interiors, and now it seems they do not.
Good for them.
I grew up in Chrysler products. My first cars were Plymouths. As a child I was often pretty impressed with how nice the interiors were in my friends parent’s cars which were Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles and Fords. Dad drove a New Yorker and it’s interior, even with leather seats and top of the line options, was not luxurious. As a kid, I never thought of it much. Today, we live in our cars. Interiors are important. Chrysler’s poor reputation in interior design and execution was well deserved in my opinion, even as a fan of their cars and trucks.
Maybe I’m different but I coulsn’t care less about interiors except for the seats and simple, universal controls. I’ve had trucks and cars with spartan interiors and never paid the least attention to them. I never notice hard or soft plastic, I prefer plain colors and I don’t want power seats or anything like that. I like simple HVAC and radio controls, no screen menus for me and I want an aftermarket nav system. Even on long trips, including a 1200 mile one in a 2000 Cobra R, supportive seats mean more than anything else.
I love a plain jane as much as the next guy, probably even more so. But even when comparing plain jane interiors, Chrysler’s were no good. Ford always had a nicer interior, even in plain janes. Better quality and better assembly. GM kept up with expectations too, while Chrysler did not.
And that is the whole point of the matter. Nicer interiors aren’t about needing luxury over all else – it is about meeting expectations and exceeding them. Chrysler never did this well.
Even now, with the improvements – Chrysler only gets into the game. They are not leap-frogging here. All they are doing is catching up with the competition. They fell so far behind, it was an embarrassment.
The new Grand Cherokee/Dodge Durango are great inside and out. I live in a highly affluent area bereft with X5’s, Range Rovers, GL’s, ML’s, RX 350’s, and Audi Q’s. I am surprised at just how many Grand Cherokees and Durangos have been popping up, if the well-heeled like them the interiors must be good. I parked next to a brand new Charger RT yesterday and peered in the window. The interior was BMWish, austere and simple, but functional and high quality. I’ve only seen pictures of the 200/avenger so I can’t comment there, but as many have said in that class realiability is more important. In the SUV and luxo-cruiser class the interior is very important and now a strength for Chrysler. I expect them to improve under Italian ownership, having been to Europe and experienced the Alfa 159 I am expecting big things. I’d like to see the 159 rebadged as a Chrylser 200, leaving the Avenger alone in the common class. Final note: Deprecitation is their big issue, reliability has lot to do with that problem, but I think Chryco’s financial situation drove fear of owning an orphan brand and crushed residuals over the past few years, with full FIAT ownership that fear will eventually subside.
Having just purchased a 2011 T&C Limited, I can honestly say that the Chrysler’s interior surpassed that of all the other competitors save the Quest but the Quest’s fuzzy headliner was a real head scratcher. The T&C drove the best, rode the best, and had the nicest interior of the big 3 minivans (Odyssey, Sienna and T&C/GC). Plus, value for feature, the other two couldn’t hold a candle to the price I paid for the T&C. I would have had to of spent $40K+ to have near the features that the T&C has which after discounts and markdown, was right around the $34K mark.
If the reliability can hold firm (True Delta reports avg reliability for the current gen sans the new Pentastar engine), then Chrysler definitely has turned the corner.
Much thanks is due to Baruth and Karesh because if it had not been for their reviews, I probably wouldn’t have even peaked inside the new Dodge/Chrysler van and made the same assumption that everyone else makes when it comes to minivans in that Honda and Toyota are miles ahead of Chrysler which just isn’t true anymore. I thought I would miss my Flex but I honestly don’t. The T&C handles our crappy roads here in OKC like no other car I’ve driven. It’s really unbelievable how well it handles and I would go so far as to say it even handles better than my Fusion. It’s that impressive. For the first time, a Chrysler product just felt substantial (if that makes any sense) as I was driving it.
My recent experience driving a fairly loaded rental T&C left me impressed for all the same reasons – it drove, rode and handled like a car, not a 4600lb van. And the interior (especially the dash) was easy on the eyes, too.
I think they’re going in the right direction. Had a rental AWD Dodge Journey for a week in February and was very pleasantly surprised. The interior was a decent place to spend time, and a huge improvement over previous Dodges in every way. It was also extremely quiet at speed, with low wind and tire noise. They even filled the front fender liners with Styrofoam to prevent road noise from coming through
It looks like they’re pulling a few pages out of the VW AG playbook, by giving the perception of quality through low noise and a good looking interior, as well as using what appear to be modular electronics packages so features can be added and subtracted easily across all models.