What ARE we going to do, Chrysler?

I am, are you looking at rorsarch blots again?

I never used the word "statistical," I used the phrase "real world." I've owned both, I've opened up both, overhauled both, compared the construction of both. I'd never trust my life to a Japanese dispose-an-engine. Until you've been up to your OWN elbows inside an engine, what's your basis for argument?

CR only goes out about 7 years or 94k miles. Where do you get data for 150k miles?

post.

listed as the

bought AMC.

Bzzt. Mitsubishi 2.6L I-4. Mitsubishi 3.0L V6. Demonstrably less durable, more expensive to maintain than the 'competing' Chrysler domestic engine...in the same body! (Just to name two.)

--Geoff

Space and weight. Also, they could shop two cylinders off a V-8 and not have to do a atotal re-design.

You'd match the Mitsubishi 2.6 "Ariston" against any Chrysler engine? You'd match the Mitsubishi 3.0 V6 against any Chrysler engine? You'd match the Toyota "all these oil related failures are the owners' fault" V6s against any Chrysler engine? Follow your own advice and check CR.

Learn some science.

Wrong.

Sequential. Check CR.

Wrong again. Learn some physics.

Liar. It does not.

Wrong. It does.

Learn some science.

Wrong again.

The 4.0 IL6 never came with a 4-bbl carb. It had sequential port fuel injection for at least the last decade. Check CR.

Learn to drive.

Weren't you just bitching a few posts up the thread about how the V8 option costs a grand more? Broaden your definition of 'economy' beyond MPG, perfesser.

A blindfolded Lloyd Parker COULDN'T tell the difference.

Hmm. Just like a Freightliner, eh? You've obviously never been in a JGC. You have *no* idea what you're talking about.

I don't see JGCs flipping over on freeway curves or dropping groceries out of their tailgates on the way home from Kroger. Do I see flipped-over Explorers? Yep. Happens all the time.

The fact of the matter is that a JGC performs onroad as well as most SUVs without sacrificing offroad capability.

Conversely, Porche ain't Jeep. The Cayenne is overpriced, overweight, and ugly.

BMW sells over a million cars a year not including the Mini and other associated brands. That's a niche manufacturer? Check your facts, perfesser.

--Geoff

Fine, you got me. But there's still a V-8 engine option for those who want more power.

*You* were talking about Jeep being successful and not losing money. Apparently by selling the crap out of their products by whatever means necessary. It's possible to be a relatively low-volume manufacturer and still make money, especially when you're a division of a much larger company. The rest of us were talking about your unfounded criticism of an engine that is excellent for its intended purpose. You haven't managed to come up with a valid criticism of the 4.0/4.2, by the way - all of your arguments have been either irrelevant or flat out incorrect.

Apparently you've never heard of brand identity. The Jeep brand stands for vehicles that are squarely targeted at the person to whom "off roading" doesn't mean the parking lot at the cider mill. Dilute that image and you lose your brand identity - and then you've got nothing to distinguish you from all the other players in the same field, like GM, Ford, Toyota, etc. etc. etc. Sure, you give up sales to maintain that image - but the people who *are* your target market will pay a premium for your product because they just can't get it anywhere else (except for other niche players like Land Rover.) You talk just like every other misguided business major that's pretty much ruined the American automotive industry - dilute your product and sell out for a quick buck, at the expense of long term viability.

Maybe, maybe not. I see lots of vehicles on the road in the 50-60K price range every day.

Why not? Fill enough niches, and you have a product line. Or are you going to argue that the PT Cruiser, Viper, Prowler, etc. etc. etc. should never have been built?

All of it? Or just the customers that are already driving the vehicles available from GM, Ford, Toyota, and a host of others?

I believe the Edsel was actually an attempt to give the buying public what Ford thought it wanted at the time.

There's a shocker. Paging Captain Obvious, more power costs more money and burns more fuel.

Hello, people *are* buying Jeeps. Just not as many as you would like, is all.

Well, some of us consider that a very important factor. I know that I do.

Well, at least DC has made some headway on the rust issue.

Well, I'm a car guy, not a stockholder. Point taken, though. But in contrast to Studebaker, which was really too small to have anything resembling a R&D budget (which is really what killed them; if they'd had the budget to come out with a fresh design when the Lark got old, they might still be around) DC has lots of resources to come out with new designs every couple of years, which is exactly what they're doing. And as for the Studebaker stockholders, they are precisely the people who killed off the automotive operation. The problem wasn't that Studebaker built bad cars; the problem was that the automotive operation didn't make anywhere near the numbers of the other divisions of the whole Studebaker conglomerate at the time.

But isn't it also possible to make a good product and still stay in the black? Secondary question - if you do make a good product, are you not more likely to have repeat customers?

As usual, no response to the most important point in my post.

nate

Are you suggesting that there was a time in the business world where making a profit wasn't a requirement?

There are 6 versions of the JGC, there are 66 versions of the Ford Explorer available for sale today. Eleven to one. That's the difference between a 'major' automaker and a niche player.

God bless Ford, the Explorer really pays the bills. I even managed to profit from the Firestone debacle when they were flipping over. But the Explorer and the JGC are not in the same class of vehicle, never were intended to be. The Explorer is much larger, both overall and inside. It's tuned to spend its entire life on the highway, which is what the typical Ford customer wants. The typical Jeep customer *doesn't* want that - at least not in the same proportion that other SUV customers do. More Jeep customers go offroad than any other domestic brand. There's a reason for that.

Jeep was, is, and always *should be* a niche manufacturer. The idea that Jeep should be a full-line carmaker is misguided. It's not necessary unless you're Daimler and you're desperate for profit any way you can get it because you've a.) screwed up Chrysler and b.) screwed up Mercedes beyond repair.

--Geoff

True, true - I just can't resist a good joke.

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

You should have used the phrase "anecdotal."

Data, as I said.

Prove it. Where's the real data?

Except Alfa never had a V8 first.

Yep. Oh, and I do check CR. I see all those red circles by Toyota and Honda and all those black and white ones by Chrysler. Do you?

I have. I've driven one. It's truckish.

Check Jeep (or any SUV) roll-over record.

Doesn't handle or ride as well. What's left?

Now if Chrysler (1) had the same overhead as BMW and (2) made the same profit per vehicle as BMW, that would be a meaningful comparison.

Sure, if you have (1) low overhead and (2) high per-vehicle profits. Neither applies to Jeep.

Sorry if noisy, harsh, and underpowered don't meet your criteria.

Non sequitir.

Would an auto maker rather have few vehicles sold and small profit, or many vehicles and large profit? Would its stockholders?

Do you think any of them would satisfy a corporation the size of Chrysler when it comes to profits?

Well, I'd suggest AMC is a case in point. They don't tend to last long.

Huh? 66? That's counting what, every possible combination of options and powertrains? Sorry, you're comparing apples with oranges. Laredo rwd, Laredo

4wd, Laredo SE 6 rwd, Laredo SE 6 4wd, Laredo SE V8 rwd, Laredo SE V8 4wd, Limited 6 rwd, Limited 6 4wd, Limited V8 rwd, Limited V8 4wd, Limited HO V8 rwd, Limited HO V8 4wd, Overland rwd, Overland 4wd, Freedom 6 rwd, Freedom 6 4wd, Freedom V8 rwd, Freedom V8 4wd, Columbia 6 rwd, Columbia 6 4wd, Columbia V8 rwd, Columbia V8 4wd. 22

Sure they are.

But still the same "class." Mid-size SUV.

90% do.

Still, it's like 10% go off-road vs 5% for other brands.

Then it's liable to get sold and sold again, like it has many times.

Full-line? No, no convertibles or sedans.

That's what it comes down to with you all, isn't it? Chrysler = all good; Daimler = all bad. Sorry, that's simplistic and yes, childish.

They *could* have high per-vehicle profits if they accepted the fact that they're a niche player and acted as such. But that's irrelevant to the original discussion.

Noisy - false, and who cares anyway? Harsh - false, not only have I driven vehicles so equipped and found them to be much better than acceptable, as you would know if you weren't a complete idiot, an inline six is INHERENTLY, BY DESIGN smoother than either a V-6 or V-8. Underpowered - false. We've been through this before, look up "mesa" in your encyclopedia for a graph of the 4.0's torque curve.

sorry, Lloyd, you lose.