"Dodge has high hopes for Caliber"

...and low estimation of North American customers, who get a seriously decontented, de-specced, de-tuned version of the car compared to the Europe/rest-of-world version.

This to be one of the ugliest vehicles yet from Chrysler and one of the ugliest small cars this side of the Aztek.

Matt

Is it just me or does it look like a Chevy HHR ?

Bad enuf that they sacrificed a ton of cargo room in the Magnum with its roofline but to do the same in such a small car is nonsense.

It looks like an HHR hit with an ugly stick.

Matt

Not yet. I doubt it. Last I knew, the Toyota Matrix wasn't selling well at all compared to the standard Toyota. I suspect that the sales of the Caliber will make the sales of the Neon look good. Sure, there will be an initial sales bubble being a new vehicle, but check back in a year and I'll bet it rivals the Aztek as a flop.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote in news:2uGJf.6301$lb.560892 @news1.epix.net:

From the rear it's a Mazda. It's even got that roof spoiler.

I don't think it looks bad except for wasting rear cargo room with the roofline. Also, the AT shifter on the dash can be real convenient and a space saver but not the way they did it here. I have it on the Honda Odyssey and it is well positioned.

Funny, i kinda think and HHR looks like a PT Cruiser, and the Caliber looks nothing like a PT. Saw the Caliber at the Chicago Auto show, I want one....

I find that interesting too. The idea of an entry level car is not useful to Dodge now. The reason is, I think, that little cars don't command enough money in the marketplace to make them profitable. At NAIAS, the caliber looked great for what it costs. I think you could say the same thing about the PT cruiser and the HHR. These SUV versions don't cost more to build, but they can sell them for more. They're still cheap, though.

Honda and Toyota seem to sell small cars at pretty high prices and make money on them. Certainly crappy small cars don't command a high price, but Corolla's seem to do pretty well.

Matt

"Joe" wrote

It's generally accepted that car lines need an entry-level car to try to get young buyers to establish brand loyalty as they move up the price scale. Of course, if your entry-level car isn't very good, it doesn't work very well. That may have something to do with the market now. Remember the Chevette?

Although I'm happy with my Focus (and plan to buy another when my present one starts getting creaky) I plan to check out the Caliber too.

I recently drove a friend's Focus. He was raving about it. He bought it used, several years old. One drive and I could understand why he raved about it. Hard to believe it was a Ford.

Right - Dodge cannot do what Honda and Toyota do. Ford and GM have the same problem. They can sell cars, they just can't sell them at a profit. Whether they're crappy or not, the important thing is the perceived value. Entry-level American cars aren't status symbols for anybody.

Good article in Time dated January 30th, I think, that said Ford overall is losing money on cars.

That's why I thought it was so interesting that they phased them out. It has kind of a death-spirally look to it, doesn't it?

huh? srt-4version is 300hp, and the r/t can be had with AWD...

Speaking of health care costs, I never hear just how it works in Japan. Do they have private, or public health care?

(and I think that more cars are made now in Ontario vs Michigan...)

Perceived value tends to come from real value. The Japanese small cars are simply better than most American small cars and have been for some time. I disagree that Dodge can't do what Honda and Toyota do. They could if they really wanted to.

Entry-level cars aren't status symbols for anybody. I don't know of anybody who buys a Civic or Corolla for status, they buy them because they want solid, dependable and economical transportation.

Why is that a good article?

Matt