Re: Chrysler Needs to CREATE a Market as did Honda

This is scary. I agree with about 75% of ole Nomen's ideas. Bring back the base Neon with no power anythings and gets 40 mpg. What more do you need for
a kids/work car??
Denny

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chrysler is more creative than most. They've built a number of niche market cars that made their own way. It didn't save Plymouth, though. The could really benefit from an economy division now.....
I don't think any of these ideas are new. In business, fads just swing back and forth. At one extreme, they get criticized for not listening to customers, and then at the other, they get criticized for not thinking out of the box. One minute you're not diversified enough, and in another you're in trouble for not being "focused" on your core business. The truth is, if business leaders would just do nothing at all, it would save companies a ton of money. They really just wiggle back and forth to create an illusion of progress.
Technically, it's another matter. Servicability, wasted space, packaging, ergonomics, crashworthiness. They have a lot of constraints to deal with. You could build a car for $3500 that would get 100 mpg. We have laws in the U.S. that would keep it off the roads, though.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe wrote:

Bravo!! Excellent post.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chrysler could very easily offer affordable cars. I don't believe the profit margin would be big enough to satisfy the powers that be or the Chrysler shareholders. Look at GEO for example. A line of American badged econo cars at an affordable price. To affordable & to slim a profit for GM not to kill off GEO. Bells & whistles are what makes the money flow like water. Plymouth had the potential to be the Geo of the Chrysler world catering to the basic transportation market. I want an automobile with automatic, a/c, tilt & cruise. Not me being forced to buy bundled & over inflated option packages that include things I'll never use to get the things I do. Trucks come that way. Why not cars? My '03 Ram had automatic, a/c, tilt & cruise & plastic coated chrome wheels. Chrysler are you listening? I hope so... JL
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J L wrote:

Chrysler is listening all right.
They're listening to their bosses in Germany.
They're being told to design cars that use more and more Mercedes parts and systems.
They're being told that there is a luxury/performance level that they must not cross lest they be in competition with Mercedes.
Chrysler could have had a much classier-looking sedan with more universal appeal had they built the 300N concept car shown in 2000. They could have had captured some of the youth market that went to Honda and Nissan had they built the '99 Charger concept.
The LX platform has severe styling limitations and North American consumers will get tired of it. Sometimes the answer to everything is not "put a hemi in it". Not just because gas is heading towards $3 a gallon.
Where is Daimler's push to market Chrysler cars in Europe? Where is the synergy in this "partnership" ? So far it's only in one direction - to put more Merc content into Chrysler.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, J L wrote:

Because that's not how the game's being played right now. With the Koreans selling toastermobiles loaded up with power everything, a zero-options car just doesn't have the power to sell any longer, as it seems.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Daniel J. Stern wrote:

Amen. The buying public is just stoopid enough to prefer a complete POS Kia with a bazillion options including power nose-pickers, rather than buy a very solidly engineered but stripped-down Neon or Focus for the same price. People gotta have their power nose-pickers. Its the same reason people go buy cheaply-made-in-China, noisy, 3-year lifespan window A/C units from Home Repo because they have remote control, rather than spend a little more on a much quiter and 4x longer-lasting Freidrich from an independent retailer. The market is just absolutely brimming with examples of how optioned-up/engineered-down is (unfortunately) whipping well-engineered/optioned-down in sales these days. Don't blame manufacturers for what BUYERS are driving them to!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Steve wrote:

For that matter, where's it written that only small/cheap cars can be strippers? I have to wonder what might happen if DC were to market a cloth-upholstered, manual-locks, manual-windows, toy-free, steel-wheel variant of the 300/Magnum.
But what would they *name* such a car, though? Gosh, that'd be a toughie. Plymouth Savoy...?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It would still be ugly.
On the other hand, if you buy the Charger or 300 with a 6, the bottom line is incredibly low for what you get.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Art wrote:

Agreed on the 300, but I think the Magnum is a real beauty. The Charger is better than I expected, but not as pretty as the '99 Charger Concept was.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I was disappointed to learn you have to get leather seats to get a Hemi in the Charger. My experience has been that there are very few climates where leather upholstery is actually superior to cloth -- as a matter of fact, I'm really just taking it on faith that there must be one *someplace* since leather is regarded as up-market.
Cloth is definitely better anyplace that gets either hot or cold. That was one thing that convinced us to get an Intrepid R/T rather than a 300M: cloth seats.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I bought the Charger R/T nearly fully loaded... My steering wheel goe
in and out AND up and down.....
I'd say they're creating a market with that car. The slight body styl
change and the revival of the charger brand creates a 4dr sports ca market. yeah the 300 is the same car and the magnum is just the wago version but in the end the charger is the 4dr sports car luxur sedan... Wheel squealin family car....
Screw gas mileage and screw the price......
-- blan ----------------------------------------------------------------------- blank's Profile: http://www.usenetcars.com/member.php?useridView this thread: http://www.usenetcars.com/showthread.php?t9157
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't see this market your talking about - unless what your talking about are the 50 year old empty nester baby boomers who finally have some money to spend since the kids aren't sucking it out of their wallets, and are out to have one last car fling with a new car. That's probably why they put 4 doors on it and a plush suspension that can't keep the tires from wheel hopping when you gun the engine. My 4 year old can squeal the tires on his battery powered plastic ride-in car, big whoop de do.
But for the younger crowd who's 15 years behind your crowd, there isn't any such thing as a 4 door sports car. If Chrysler really wanted to have Chargers viewed as sports cars, they would bring out a 2 door and bring out a ragtop 2 door. Otherwise all it is is just another boring 4 door sedan that someone slapped a legendary car name on the fender to try to get away with tacking on an extra $7K to the sticker price.
Unfortunately right now the demographics in the US means theres a lot more of your age bracket buying cars than the younger crowd. So there's nothing out there for the younger crowd except for Chrysler sports cars like the Viper that none of them can afford . That is going to create a real crunch for Chrysler 15 years from now when that group is in their mid life crises with money to burn and wanting to buy a feel-young-again sports car. They won't be there for Chrysler then because they will have been so used to buying Japanese cars that Chrysler will be just another automaker that they've been trained to believe only makes "old people' cars, receeding into the dustbin of history.
GM did the exact same thing with Oldsmobile then belatedly tried to save the name with the Alero, too little to late, though.
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

What you're saying, then, is "It's not your father's Chrysler". 8^)
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

I think that's what the Crossfire is for. Every time I see a Crossfire there's always someone older than 50 driving it.
Ford probably created the Thunderbird for the same reason.
What they forgot is that old people don't want to drive small cars, no matter how expensive or chic they (the cars) are.
Back in the late 60's and early 70's, when you look at the advertising material for cars like the Monaco line, there were 4 doors and 2 door versions of that car. The Lincoln Mark series (with 500 cubic inch engines and 10 foot long hood and its ->2 doors<- were also geared towards someone with $$$ that didn't have kids (or that had kids who moved out). I don't see any equivalent to the Dodge Monaco 2-dr or the Lincoln Mark IV any more.
At some point I'm going to give my '2000 300m to a family member and when I look for a new car it's going to be tough. I think Lexus is high on my list. It's too bad that Chrysler no longer makes anything that appeals to me. It's not Chrysler's fault - it's Daimlers. It's plain as day that Chrysler is simply not able to design and build a car without interference (or complete oversight) from Daimler management. Back when Chrysler was independent, they may not have been the best car builder on the planet, but they had spirit. Who else put a bumble bee logo or a road runner horn in a car? On damn good looking cars too.
If you're over 40, and a male, and want to buy a vehicle for you (kids/family be damned), and are not on a budget, it seems what you end up buying is an SUV-ish vehicle, or maybe a jeep, or a truck. There is no car under $80k that stands out from the crowd. Maybe you can blame it on the wife, who (they say) plays a more than 50% role in a purchase decision. And we all know that women practically never pay attention to vehicle makes or models. One car looks like any other car to them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm 41, so I'm *nearly* 15 years behind that crowd. The Charger is just fine for me- and in fact the Magnum is a little better from a practicality standpoint. I do wish there was a 2-door option, because (if I were considering a new car for ME right now, not a new family car) the Mustang would be the ticket. But that's not the worst hole in the lineup IMO.
The gaping hole is in a lower price class: What's missing from many car companies' lineups is more like what the thread started on earlier- a CHEAP "muscle car" that is inexpensive enough to be a first car for the 20-something crowd, and appealing enough when optioned up to be a non-family daily driven car for young parents or singles in the 30-something range. Something the size of a Sebring, but with a Hemi under the hood and rear-drive. No power anything, cloth seats, sporty styling but for the most part all "go" and no "show."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

about
money to

have
it
you
Practicality isn't in the same realm as a real sports car.

I agree wholeheartedly on that one, but the auto companies have all decided that people that have enough money to spend on a sports car that isn't practical must have a ton of money.
The other thing missing is a pure, clutch-driven manual transmission coupled to a powerful V6 or V8. Somehow the car companies got it into their stupid heads that clutches only belong on 1500 cc 4 bangers. I don't want some power-ass-sissyed manual transmission wannabe, I want the real thing.
And, speaking of clutches, since when did it become accepted for 4x4's to have automatic transmissions? Where did that come from?
Getting back to the ideal vehicle though, I am not convinced that power accessories add a whole lot to the cost to manufacture, but I guess you need something to option. I would draw the line at power windows, though, I would be pretty leery of a new vehicle that had manual cranks - that's a safety issue really, you don't want drivers screwing with a crank while driving down the road. And A/C is a must-have as well. But I'd be happy to drop the rest of it.
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

Who says they were going for a "real sports car?" A Plymouth Roadrunner was *not* a sports car. Neither was the original Charger. They were muscle cars, which (IMO) are infinitely preferable to "real sports cars" (Alfa-Romeo, MG, Miata, etc.) anyway, because they combine performance and a reasonable amount of practicality. The pracitcality may be a little compromised (ever seen the trunk on a Barracuda?) but its not completely gone.

Preach on, brother! Pure heaven was the first time I shifted a Chrysler A-833 4-speed behind a big block. After driving 2-liter FWD 5 speeds and hating every minute, it was an eye-opening experience to have a buttery-smooth yet PRECISE shifter, and an engine with GOBS of torque.

I drive crank-window cars all the time. What's the big deal with turning a crank, you don't have to take your eyes off the road or even move much! And lots of modern cars have crank-open sunroofs. I do like the basics- power steering, A/C. I hate power brakes, but try to find a car without them today. Non-powered disk brakes have by far the best pedal feel of any braking system I've ever driven. Power windows are nice in some instances too- I find them most useful in my '69 Convertible since I can lower or raise the windows and the top while parked at a red light, rather than having to lean over and reach for cranks. But who needs electric seat warmers, circulating-liquid seat coolers, seat position memory, and all that other crud? Its nice to OFFER it, but why package it so that those of us who don't want it arent' stuck with it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

REAL upholstry-grade vat-dyed, non-laminated leather is as comfortable as cloth. But you can't even get it on most furniture anymore, let alone in a car. Even the "good" leathers that high-end cars use are not really all that good anymore.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

You can still find that leather on furniture but it would not hold up in a car. Too much sun.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.