Does the future of Fiat-Chrysler include Dodge?
06-17-13, 10:31 PM
#16
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
i really didn't know how many models each of dodge and chrysler had until i looked after seeing this thread.
chrysler has just 3 models (and variants) - 200, 300, town & country (minivan)
dodge has 7 (and variants) - avenger, challenger, charger, dart, durango, journey, grand caravan
given the focus of each, with chrysler more conservative and dodge more sporty/youthful, i think they should keep both brands.
i enjoy seeing the dart on the road too - it's a looker...
chrysler has just 3 models (and variants) - 200, 300, town & country (minivan)
dodge has 7 (and variants) - avenger, challenger, charger, dart, durango, journey, grand caravan
given the focus of each, with chrysler more conservative and dodge more sporty/youthful, i think they should keep both brands.
i enjoy seeing the dart on the road too - it's a looker...
06-18-13, 07:02 AM
#18
It's like the difference between a scientific theory, and a working theory. One is the best possible explanation for all observations of a specific phenomena, and the other is not much more than conjecture based on limited data.
06-18-13, 08:55 AM
#19
Lexus Fanatic
i really didn't know how many models each of dodge and chrysler had until i looked after seeing this thread.
chrysler has just 3 models (and variants) - 200, 300, town & country (minivan)
dodge has 7 (and variants) - avenger, challenger, charger, dart, durango, journey, grand caravan
chrysler has just 3 models (and variants) - 200, 300, town & country (minivan)
dodge has 7 (and variants) - avenger, challenger, charger, dart, durango, journey, grand caravan
given the focus of each, with chrysler more conservative and dodge more sporty/youthful, I think they should keep both brands.
I enjoy seeing the dart on the road too - it's a looker...
06-18-13, 01:59 PM
#20
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
06-18-13, 02:25 PM
#22
Lexus Champion
07-13-13, 01:08 AM
#24
Ralph Gilles responds to Dodge rumors, says brand is 'here to stay'
Ralph Gilles responds to Dodge rumors, says brand is 'here to stay'
This is why we love Ralph Gilles. While in Italy hanging out with a group of Viper Club members in Europe, the SRT boss took the time to respond to a question directed at him on Instagram in regards to the future of Dodge.
Recent reports have painted a bleak picture for Dodge, but Gilles defended Chrysler's full-line brand by stating that the rumors are, "all rumors, Dodge is here to stay! It may get more focused going forward but not killed!" The idea of a "more focused" Dodge brand could lend some credibility to reports that the Grand Caravan and Durango are on their way out, which would leave Dodge solely as a car, or car-based, automaker.
Recent reports have painted a bleak picture for Dodge, but Gilles defended Chrysler's full-line brand by stating that the rumors are, "all rumors, Dodge is here to stay! It may get more focused going forward but not killed!" The idea of a "more focused" Dodge brand could lend some credibility to reports that the Grand Caravan and Durango are on their way out, which would leave Dodge solely as a car, or car-based, automaker.
09-16-13, 05:11 PM
#25
Dodge not being dropped by Chrysler, CEO reaffirms
Dodge not being dropped by Chrysler, CEO reaffirms
Dodge isn't going anywhere. Despite some rumor and speculation over the future of the crosshair grille and the cars that wear it, Dodge brand boss, Tim Kuniskis, sat down with TheDetroitBureau.com, explaining that the marque isn't going anywhere. His sentiments echo those of SRT boss Ralph Gilles, who told a group of enthusiasts in July that "Dodge is here to stay!"
Dodge's death won't be "a part of a master plan to consolidate brands," Kuniskis told TheDetroitBureau.com. Instead, the brand, which is ultimately under the command of Fiat/Chrysler CEO, Sergio Marchionne, will likely ditch some of its badge-engineered models, like the Dodge Grand Caravan. A more focused Dodge, which was something Gilles has already hinted at, will likely see it exploring areas of the market that haven't been exploited by other Chrysler brands.
Kuniskis, not surprisingly, wasn't willing to delve into any detailed product plans, telling TDB that the size of the brand's lineup "remains to be seen." Regardless of how big the brand actually ends up being (it is presently Chrysler's volume brand – and not by a little), hopefully the statements from Kuniskiss can put the rumors of a Dodge closure to bed.
http://www.autoblog.com/2013/09/16/d...ceo-reaffirms/
09-17-13, 07:55 AM
#26
I think the future of Chrysler shouldn't include Chrysler!
3 models, 1 of them is awful, another is undistinguished from competitors, and the third is OK. This brand has been so terrible for so long that any customer who remembers it with any attribution of prestige is nearly dead. No one in Gen X or younger will ever buy a Chrysler, save for the odd (wo)man out who likes a mafia-looking 300.
If it didn't have the 300, this brand wouldn't be around. Perhaps Chrysler should make 300 its own brand like they did Ram. At least then they'd have justification to stop the other 2 invisible cars they manufacture.
3 models, 1 of them is awful, another is undistinguished from competitors, and the third is OK. This brand has been so terrible for so long that any customer who remembers it with any attribution of prestige is nearly dead. No one in Gen X or younger will ever buy a Chrysler, save for the odd (wo)man out who likes a mafia-looking 300.
If it didn't have the 300, this brand wouldn't be around. Perhaps Chrysler should make 300 its own brand like they did Ram. At least then they'd have justification to stop the other 2 invisible cars they manufacture.
09-17-13, 10:05 AM
#27
Lead Lap
I think the future of Chrysler shouldn't include Chrysler!
3 models, 1 of them is awful, another is undistinguished from competitors, and the third is OK. This brand has been so terrible for so long that any customer who remembers it with any attribution of prestige is nearly dead. No one in Gen X or younger will ever buy a Chrysler, save for the odd (wo)man out who likes a mafia-looking 300.
If it didn't have the 300, this brand wouldn't be around. Perhaps Chrysler should make 300 its own brand like they did Ram. At least then they'd have justification to stop the other 2 invisible cars they manufacture.
3 models, 1 of them is awful, another is undistinguished from competitors, and the third is OK. This brand has been so terrible for so long that any customer who remembers it with any attribution of prestige is nearly dead. No one in Gen X or younger will ever buy a Chrysler, save for the odd (wo)man out who likes a mafia-looking 300.
If it didn't have the 300, this brand wouldn't be around. Perhaps Chrysler should make 300 its own brand like they did Ram. At least then they'd have justification to stop the other 2 invisible cars they manufacture.
1) The Town & Country will carry on into the next generation as a minivan that can command a $40k MSRP like the top level Odyssey and Sienna
2) The new Chrysler 200 is less than a year away and will actually be competitive.
3) The 300 will continue to evolve and be a strong player in the full-size segment
4) Look for either a crossover or sub 200 model in the future.
I see nothing wrong with Chrysler setting itself up as a "group portfolio" instead of having everything laid out under one name.
09-17-13, 02:58 PM
#29
Out of Warranty
Off and on a MoPar fan, I agree it's time for Dodge to trim some of its product lines. There is no point in offering some of their products that compete directly with others in the stable, the best illustration being the Grand Caravan and the Town & Country that are virtually identical behind that nose shell. A little tinkering with the options packages and the two could live comfortably under the Chrysler umbrella. Dodge is still the performance division while Chrysler produces the near-luxury offerings. Avenger and Journey are definitely on the bubble here, especially when you add in the Jeep lines that pretty well cover the SUV frontage. Ram and SRT are good as separate lines - just as GMC and to stretch a point, AMG are within their respective corporate structures.
The point is to focus on distinctive products, not so much what can be assembled by raiding another division's parts bin. That creates not only a loss of focus, and a blurring of image, but a nightmare for the inventory clerks. Once upon a time the theory ran that a man could purchase new cars from one manufacturer throughout his life. His first new car might be a Chevy as he started life with a young family, then move up to a Pontiac as he began to climb the corporate ladder. When he arrived a junior exec, then he'd buy an Oldsmobile when he got that corner office. By the time he's earned that VP title, he was expected to buy a Buick, and later a Cadillac as he was ushered into the boardroom. Chrysler did the same thing with Plymouth, Dodge, DeSoto, and Chrysler, while over at Ford, you had the progression from Ford, to Mercury, to (briefly) Edsel, then Lincoln. The idea was to create brand captivity - a customer literally for life. I suppose you might say many got their Cadillac in the stretch version, all black with a door in the back . . . the final farewell to a lifelong GM customer.
It all ended when models began to proliferate within lines. Rather than selecting from two options on the list (radio and heater), by the late '50's and into the '60's you could option up your Chevy DelRay from a plain-jane beater with not even armrests on the doors, to a full-boat Impala SS that was not just a glamorous car, but a killer at the strip. Chevy began pirating customers from Pontiac, with the result that Pontiac by '63 had begun the shift to the corporate performance image, sidestepping some of that competition from Chevrolet and taking them totally out of the line that led to Oldsmobile and Buick.
Today, brand loyalty is pretty well gone. You don't see the dyed-in-the-wool Ford or Chevy man. Most of us bounce from brand to brand, to foreign and domestic with the ease of a broken-field runner. We tend to buy what appeals to us in terms of styling, performance, reliability, utility, and perceived value - rather than obsequious slavery to that nameplate mounted fore and aft. Although some will select a car based on what the neighbors will think of us, most buyers grew up - and discovered there's more to an automobile than its name.
The point is to focus on distinctive products, not so much what can be assembled by raiding another division's parts bin. That creates not only a loss of focus, and a blurring of image, but a nightmare for the inventory clerks. Once upon a time the theory ran that a man could purchase new cars from one manufacturer throughout his life. His first new car might be a Chevy as he started life with a young family, then move up to a Pontiac as he began to climb the corporate ladder. When he arrived a junior exec, then he'd buy an Oldsmobile when he got that corner office. By the time he's earned that VP title, he was expected to buy a Buick, and later a Cadillac as he was ushered into the boardroom. Chrysler did the same thing with Plymouth, Dodge, DeSoto, and Chrysler, while over at Ford, you had the progression from Ford, to Mercury, to (briefly) Edsel, then Lincoln. The idea was to create brand captivity - a customer literally for life. I suppose you might say many got their Cadillac in the stretch version, all black with a door in the back . . . the final farewell to a lifelong GM customer.
It all ended when models began to proliferate within lines. Rather than selecting from two options on the list (radio and heater), by the late '50's and into the '60's you could option up your Chevy DelRay from a plain-jane beater with not even armrests on the doors, to a full-boat Impala SS that was not just a glamorous car, but a killer at the strip. Chevy began pirating customers from Pontiac, with the result that Pontiac by '63 had begun the shift to the corporate performance image, sidestepping some of that competition from Chevrolet and taking them totally out of the line that led to Oldsmobile and Buick.
Today, brand loyalty is pretty well gone. You don't see the dyed-in-the-wool Ford or Chevy man. Most of us bounce from brand to brand, to foreign and domestic with the ease of a broken-field runner. We tend to buy what appeals to us in terms of styling, performance, reliability, utility, and perceived value - rather than obsequious slavery to that nameplate mounted fore and aft. Although some will select a car based on what the neighbors will think of us, most buyers grew up - and discovered there's more to an automobile than its name.
09-17-13, 03:37 PM
#30
Off and on a MoPar fan, I agree it's time for Dodge to trim some of its product lines. There is no point in offering some of their products that compete directly with others in the stable, the best illustration being the Grand Caravan and the Town & Country that are virtually identical behind that nose shell. A little tinkering with the options packages and the two could live comfortably under the Chrysler umbrella. Dodge is still the performance division while Chrysler produces the near-luxury offerings. Avenger and Journey are definitely on the bubble here, especially when you add in the Jeep lines that pretty well cover the SUV frontage. Ram and SRT are good as separate lines - just as GMC and to stretch a point, AMG are within their respective corporate structures.
The point is to focus on distinctive products, not so much what can be assembled by raiding another division's parts bin. That creates not only a loss of focus, and a blurring of image, but a nightmare for the inventory clerks. Once upon a time the theory ran that a man could purchase new cars from one manufacturer throughout his life. His first new car might be a Chevy as he started life with a young family, then move up to a Pontiac as he began to climb the corporate ladder. When he arrived a junior exec, then he'd buy an Oldsmobile when he got that corner office. By the time he's earned that VP title, he was expected to buy a Buick, and later a Cadillac as he was ushered into the boardroom. Chrysler did the same thing with Plymouth, Dodge, DeSoto, and Chrysler, while over at Ford, you had the progression from Ford, to Mercury, to (briefly) Edsel, then Lincoln. The idea was to create brand captivity - a customer literally for life. I suppose you might say many got their Cadillac in the stretch version, all black with a door in the back . . . the final farewell to a lifelong GM customer.
It all ended when models began to proliferate within lines. Rather than selecting from two options on the list (radio and heater), by the late '50's and into the '60's you could option up your Chevy DelRay from a plain-jane beater with not even armrests on the doors, to a full-boat Impala SS that was not just a glamorous car, but a killer at the strip. Chevy began pirating customers from Pontiac, with the result that Pontiac by '63 had begun the shift to the corporate performance image, sidestepping some of that competition from Chevrolet and taking them totally out of the line that led to Oldsmobile and Buick.
Today, brand loyalty is pretty well gone. You don't see the dyed-in-the-wool Ford or Chevy man. Most of us bounce from brand to brand, to foreign and domestic with the ease of a broken-field runner. We tend to buy what appeals to us in terms of styling, performance, reliability, utility, and perceived value - rather than obsequious slavery to that nameplate mounted fore and aft. Although some will select a car based on what the neighbors will think of us, most buyers grew up - and discovered there's more to an automobile than its [I]name[/I].
The point is to focus on distinctive products, not so much what can be assembled by raiding another division's parts bin. That creates not only a loss of focus, and a blurring of image, but a nightmare for the inventory clerks. Once upon a time the theory ran that a man could purchase new cars from one manufacturer throughout his life. His first new car might be a Chevy as he started life with a young family, then move up to a Pontiac as he began to climb the corporate ladder. When he arrived a junior exec, then he'd buy an Oldsmobile when he got that corner office. By the time he's earned that VP title, he was expected to buy a Buick, and later a Cadillac as he was ushered into the boardroom. Chrysler did the same thing with Plymouth, Dodge, DeSoto, and Chrysler, while over at Ford, you had the progression from Ford, to Mercury, to (briefly) Edsel, then Lincoln. The idea was to create brand captivity - a customer literally for life. I suppose you might say many got their Cadillac in the stretch version, all black with a door in the back . . . the final farewell to a lifelong GM customer.
It all ended when models began to proliferate within lines. Rather than selecting from two options on the list (radio and heater), by the late '50's and into the '60's you could option up your Chevy DelRay from a plain-jane beater with not even armrests on the doors, to a full-boat Impala SS that was not just a glamorous car, but a killer at the strip. Chevy began pirating customers from Pontiac, with the result that Pontiac by '63 had begun the shift to the corporate performance image, sidestepping some of that competition from Chevrolet and taking them totally out of the line that led to Oldsmobile and Buick.
Today, brand loyalty is pretty well gone. You don't see the dyed-in-the-wool Ford or Chevy man. Most of us bounce from brand to brand, to foreign and domestic with the ease of a broken-field runner. We tend to buy what appeals to us in terms of styling, performance, reliability, utility, and perceived value - rather than obsequious slavery to that nameplate mounted fore and aft. Although some will select a car based on what the neighbors will think of us, most buyers grew up - and discovered there's more to an automobile than its [I]name[/I].
"Hey look Hun, we can buy a BMW now!"