What ARE we going to do, Chrysler?

Sorry, your memory is not a valid qualifier. Visit

formatting link
and choose an Explorer, and see what the numberof "styles" you have to choose from. You have to enter a zip code to get tothis point. In the Detroit area, where presumably everything is availableexcept the CA-certified vehicles, there will be 66. Do the same thing forJeep. It will be 6. Eleven to one.

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

Reply to
Geoff
Loading thread data ...

Hey, you were the one who trotted out the ability to 'match the reliability and durability'. Show me yours first. Give me facts, figures, numbers, and a verifiable source.

--Geoff

Reply to
Geoff

Yep, it's the larger sized one.

Reply to
Dave

How? They can't cut costs much more, and a lot of the costs are retirees and their pensions and health plans (something the German government picks up for most of BMW's employees). And they sure can't add $10,000 to the price of Jeeps. People will pay a premium for a BMW over a Ford; they won't for a Jeep.

Consumers.

Doesn't mean every IL-6 is smoother than every V6.

Look up Grand Cherokee's 0-60 time.

Reply to
Lloyd Parker

Why don't you tell us the "66" Explorer styles.

That site lists each engine separately, and rwd separately from 4wd, as I did for GC. They also list the 2-door Explorer Sport, a different model. They also list 2003 models, or didn't you bother to note that?

Reply to
Lloyd Parker

They're both mid-size SUVs.

Obviously that stat can't be found with accuracy, but from all reports, it's around 10%.

Are you saying Jeep should design their vehicle for 10% of their buyers and not the other 90%?

So you don't bother with what the 90% actually use their vehicles for, just what's theoretically possible? I hope your thinking isn't prevalent at Jeep, or their sales will really shrink.

So people ONLY buy Jeeps because they theoretically can go off road? First, that's silly. Second, Ford and every other SUV maker makes that same claim.

Never seen Ford, Toyota, Nissan, etc. ads?

Kind of like Chrysler in 1990 deciding, "Hey, our brand equity is in K cars; why risk alienating people who like those with cab forward LHs"?

Oh BS. Grow up.

The watchword is sales. Not "brand equity." That and $1.50 gets you a gallon of gas.

And Chrysler and DC stockholders love it when Ford steals sales.

But they came out with H2, a much more civilized Hummer. Why couldn't Jeep do the same?

So now you do not know the difference between concept vehicles and production vehicles? With fans like you, Jeep doesn't need enemies.

Yeah, made them profitable (or at least tried). Such a big no-no in the business world.

Reply to
Lloyd Parker

Consumer Reports.

Reply to
Lloyd Parker

Check your facts. The typical JGC is priced somewhat higher than the "equivalent" Ford Explorer. Not $10K, but in some cases the difference is quite significant.

Why, then, did GM go to an I-6 for their current midsize SUVs? They had a perfectly well-sorted-out 4.3L that could've been massaged to produce the same horsepower as the new I-6.

--Geoff

Reply to
Geoff

They both have 4 wheels and an engine, too. I guess that makes them the same class of vehicle as a Hyundai Elantra.

Oh! I see. Finally copping to the fact that your statistics are completely contrived, are you? Well congratulations, finally a little honesty.

You've admitted your "90%" this and "10%" that and "5%" something else are complete BS, so give it up already.

I'm saying that 100% of them bought the vehicle for what it is today, and that you're risking losing most of those buyers as repeat customers by changing the fundamental value proposition in its design.

I'm saying what matters is what the vehicles were purchased for, not what they got used for. What they get used for doesn't put any money in DCX's pocket. Some of 'em ended up squished flat in flaming wrecks the first week they were owned; they were still a sale the day they were delivered.

Learn to read. I said the offroad capability, which has been proven superior and is prominently marketed and sold by Jeep over almost all others except Hummer and Land Rover, contributes more to the Jeep buyer's purchase decision than it does to an Explorer buyer's decision.

Evidently you've seen them and failed to understand the difference between them and the Jeep ads.

Nobody would've said that. The only time the K cars had any 'brand equity' was in 1981. Jeep's present situation is far different.

You really don't understand how vehicles are marketed and sold, do you?

Chrysler and DC stockholders of record in 1998 are largely responsible for the mess Chrysler/Jeep/Dodge is in.

If you think the H2 is more "civilized" than the JGC then you need your head examined. Compared to the Hummvee, a riding lawnmower is more civilized. GM could hardly miss on that one.

If you'd ever been to a real car show -- you know, an important one, unlike that circus sideshow down there in Atlanta -- you'd know that the Jeepster concept is very significant and shows one possible direction DCX is thinking of taking with Jeep.

Yeah, and completely, utterly failed. They may well have completely destroyed any chance of Chrysler surviving into the next decade, the jury's still out.

--Geoff

Reply to
Geoff

Um, that's the name of a magazine which is being sued by at least one auto manufacturer for inaccurate "report"-ing. It's not "facts, figures, numbers" OR a "verifiable source." Care to try again?

--Geoff

Reply to
Geoff

What issue, and where was it independently verified? In another post you talked about the importance of "peer-reviewed scientific journals." Details here, please.

Reply to
Greg

So tell us more about that 200 Ghz computer, Lloyd. I'm sure CR would LOVE to test that fiction!

Reply to
Greg

So they could make an IL-4 and IL-5 from it for their Colorado/Canyon pickups, for one. But note how dedicated they are to V6s -- 2 new ones this year and last year, a 3.5 ohv (derived from the 3.4, itself derived from the old 2.8) for the Malibu and a 3.6 dohc with variable valve timing for the SRX/Rendezvous/CTS.

Reply to
Lloyd Parker

Well, those of us who can read know Chrysler almost certainly wouldn't have survived on its own. That's why they were pursuing mergers with anybody they could -- BMW and Honda, for example.

Reply to
Lloyd Parker

So a lawsuit = guilty to you?

No. Millions of Americans trust CR. How many trust you?

Reply to
Lloyd Parker

Yep, because they're JEEP. Those other 90% can go buy a Durango.

Why are you saying that Jeep should abandon that 10% of the market that has always relied on Jeep to provide suitable vehicles? Hell, that is the whole reason for the existence of the Jeep division, isn't it? So why do we lose a capable vehicle (like the Cherokee) for a cream-puff barbie car like the Liberty?

Reply to
Steve

I'll hazard a guess that whatever the number, it's more than the number of people who trust YOU.

--Geoff

Reply to
Geoff

Yes, and you'll notice that the V motors are going into smaller vehicles where packaging plays a more important role. When they have the luxury of the room -- like in a midsize SUV or a pickup -- they go to an inline motor. Why? Because it's inherently smoother than a V motor design and smoother = better customer satisfaction.

It's the same reason why the BMW 3-series has used inline 6 engines for so long, too.

--Geoff

Reply to
Geoff

The trouble with your reading skills, Lloyd, is you believe everything you read as long as the people writing it sound official enough to you. It's the cause of your delusions about the goodness and accuracy of Consumer Reports, and your misconceptions about SUVs and your misconceptions about the long-term viability of Chrysler as a stand-alone company. As soon as the wheels came off Tom Gale's product design machine, Chrysler group was in trouble. Whether they manage to get beyond it is very much in question, which is why Dieter Zetche had to take a tour of the country to try to convince dealers to keep the faith. Meanwhile, they're still coasting on sales of the last vehicles to be designed by that venerable group, hoping that the 'new direction' isn't the one that augers them into the ground.

I hope they succeed as DCX, I really do, but I have my doubts. I suspect they'd do better if they were a standalone company again, which is probably never going to happen. I have witnessed firsthand the sort of problems the cultural clash has created and they seem insurmountable.

--Geoff

Reply to
Geoff

It's also the same reason Ford Australia's really impressive current full-size RWD cars are offered with a very advanced 4.0 litre inline Six.

DS

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.