Sorry, your memory is not a valid qualifier. Visit
No they're not, unless you're prepared to have your argument collapse. According to your argument to date, the Ford is a highway cruiser and the Jeep is a trucklike rock bounder. Each has as much in common with the other as each has with a station wagon according to that 'logic'.
It's "like" 10%? Wait a minute, you mean you don't have a statistic here, Mr. Consumer Reports?
Are you saying that a 5% difference would be insignificant?
Wait a minute, I will: this is a horribly concocted statistic. First of all, there's a huge difference between buying something because it has a capability, and actually using that capability, as I've ably demonstrated with the post about the Corvette. So what if only 10% of them ever go off road? Who cares? 100% of them were *purchased* with the understanding that it was at least theoretically possible, and a large proportion of those purchase decisions were based on that capability. People buy things they don't need all the time, they rarely buy things they don't WANT. Clearly, the JGC has been a profitable vehicle for DCX because enough people have WANTED one to make producing them a good business venture. They wouldn't sell a single goddamn one otherwise. Ford could easily ramp up production and sell more Explorers instead.
You propose to take some of the intrinsic capability -- the value -- of the Jeep brand out of the equation in order to homogenize it. You're going to reduce the desirability of the brand in the process for that segment of the market which happens to value offroad capability. Whether they actually need it or not is completely immaterial. Since Jeep is one of the *very few* brands that have successfully marketed that off-road capability, you're going to throw a lot of brand equity out the window in the process. Can't you see how misguided that is? It's dumb, and it's shortsighted. Not to mention a damn shame, like the death of Plymouth or Oldsmobile.
Again I say: SO WHAT? Is your loyalty to any brand dependent on its ownership? If it had to be, I wouldn't give a rat's ass about what happens to Jeep, Chrysler, Dodge or Plymouth, because YOU are part owner via stock ownership, not to mention Daimler.
Another thing: Are you immortal? Will you own every possession you have until the end of time? We are only caretakers of the things we have. I submit to DCX that they should be better caretakers of the Jeep brand than they are proposing to be. They plan to ruin it. Jeep is a niche manufacturer with tremendous brand equity. The word 'Jeep' has an intrinsic meaning for anybody in western civilization with a pulse. You say that the brand should come to be more closely associated with vehicles such as the Explorer or the Navigator. I say we already have a Ford brand for that, and that if what DCX is doing is just badge-engineering MB products to be 'Jeeps' then the distinction of the brand will quickly become one without a difference. Good god, man, even GM is smart enough to leave the suspension design of Hummer alone and let AM General do it.
Horseshit. They've shown Jeep-branded carlike concepts within the past 5 years at NAIAS. Remember the Jeepster?
Here's a paragraph or two of the DCX hype about the Jeepster. See if they mention the word 'SUV' anywhere:
``A V8-powered sports car that can cover the Rubicon Trail, the ultimate test of off-road prowess. It could only be called the Jeepster. "The original 1948 Jeep Jeepster was an interesting adaptation of a military vehicle for civilian life," said Micheal Moore, DaimlerChrysler's chief designer for the interior and exterior of Jeep products. "It looked like it was tough, but it was really only a car. It left out some of the characteristics that make Jeep products unique today - features such as four-wheel drive and true off-road capability. So when we revisited the idea, we made sure this vehicle could cover the Rubicon Trail and still thrive on-road with unique, adjustable suspension."
Hmm, looks like they're talking about making Jeep-branded 'sports cars'. Sorry, Lloyd, you're just totally wrong about this point.
I suggest you learn how to read. I was dogging Daimler management for what they've done to *both* Chrysler *and* Mercedes. The fact that I couldn't possibly care less if they stopped making those teutonic tanks tomorrow could not be inferred from what I actually wrote.
Screaming that you need to maximize the profit potential of a venerable brand like Jeep by gutting its brand equity for short-term gain because you happen to own stock in it is what's childish. Frankly, I wish Kerkorian had prevailed back in 1995. At least a private interest wouldn't have to be concerned with the bleating of poorly informed stockholders such as yourself. All you care about is your dividend check. That's what's childish. "Gimme mine! mine! mine! all mine!"
--Geoff