Slummin' it: Chrysler execs testing used vehicles
Thinking that top executives had perhaps gotten out of touch with what the real world buyer of their cars is experiencing, Chrysler CEO Tom LaSorda is sending 250 top executives out to test drive some used cars. He has them driving three-year-old DaimlerChrysler products because he wants them to learn about reliability issues and the experience consumers face a few years down the road of ownership.Executives will turn in their own vehicles for two 10-day periods. In exchange, they will be given something from a fleet of used Jeep Grand Cherokees, Chrysler Town & Country minivans, Dodge Caravans, Chrysler Pacificas and Dodge Ram pickups. Apparently LaSorda practices what he preaches. He has been seen driving an old Grand Cherokee lately.
"Our CEO, Tom LaSorda, has always been pushing us to become more customer focused: to eat, sleep, walk and talk like an average customer," said Steve Walukas, vice president of corporate quality. "In our positions we're pretty fortunate that we typically get to drive new cars. I know in my own situation, my friends, neighbors and relatives say, 'You wouldn't know what it's like to drive a car with a lot of miles on it.' This is a true way to understand."
The executives will be asked to evaluate each vehicle regarding first impressions and then follow up with impressions at the end of each 10-day trial. The program, which began in August, will run for another two months.
[Source: Detroit Free Press]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Jim 4:35PM (10/16/2006)
They should drive 6 year old cars, not 3 year old cars.
Most of their models don't get all-new revisions every 4 years anyway, so it shouldn't make a difference for them to drive a 6 year old version vs. a 3 year old version.
Reply
Fabulo 4:35PM (10/16/2006)
It sounds like a good step in the right direction (getting a clue). I wish they would all have to drive the competition's used cars as well, so they can compare.
Like I said, it's just one step.
Another comment: 250 top executives? It'd be fascinating to see an org chart with 250 people AT THE TOP! Yummy corporate bureaucracy....
Reply
Jay 4:36PM (10/16/2006)
When they have to drive a Neon or a Sebring, then I'll be impressed.
Reply
Mark 4:50PM (10/16/2006)
They have to drive 3 year old cars because otherwise the finance company will have to eat the below market value off lease vehicles and run them through the P&L. This way they get to bury them on the B/S.
250*$15,000 (avg value) = $3.8 million.
Reply
Ron 5:22PM (10/16/2006)
Unfortunately this is mostly a marketing gimmick. In an ideal company there would be good communication (and influence allocated to) the engineering people with the ability to make quality-related changes. In that utopian world the people at Chrysler who know how to make a difference would communicate this to the people who can make a difference. It's like me going to a restaurant and asking to see where the dishes are washed...
Reply
Nick 12:28AM (10/17/2006)
"When they have to drive a Neon or a Sebring..."
I drive a Neon, but I could see why they wouldn't make the execs. What if they have kids? Or entertain clients? You can make them drive an old car, but it's pretty unreasonable to make them drive a car that doesn't fit their needs. More so, it could just have to do with the 'fleets of used vehicles' that came off lease. Probably tons more Jeeps, vans, and trucks on lease than Neons.
Reply
Ryan 6:18PM (10/16/2006)
Does Tom LaSorda ever drive? He can clearly see the crappy Neon that we all see everyday. Or the sheet metal on a dodge product is about as thin as paper so within a few years it gets that wavy "kia sephia" look.
Basically, go outside and you will easily be able to see that Dodge cars turn to crap, BUT all cars end up turning to crap (most anyways) it's just that Dodge cars are horrible.
OH, don't forget the resale of these cars either, 90% are $4,999 within the first five years.
Reply
toodaloo 6:22PM (10/16/2006)
Even my craptastic 1986 Buick Century ran fine at 3 years. But by 1991, holy mother of all turds, one needed special skills to throw the car in neutral, restart the engine, and complete a left-turn in rush hour traffic.
Reply
Robert O 6:24PM (10/16/2006)
Its better than nothing, and GM and Ford would benefit from the exercise, too.
Reply
Michael Karesh 6:44PM (10/16/2006)
I dare him to call Chrysler Customer Care pretending to be the owner of a four-year-old Chrysler. I guarantee it'll be an eye-opener. Unless, of course, he's well aware of the "save a dollar today, lose a customer forever" mentality that operates there.
I get more complaints about Chryslers than an other vehicles, and unfortunately have been in the above situation myself.
Reply
Buckus 6:48PM (10/16/2006)
To really get an idea, they need to do this for more than 10 days. Hell, I could drive a 20 year old Honda for 10 days and not get any more of an idea of their reliablity than I do now. But let me drive it for 30 days, or a year, and I'd really get an idea.
Reply
Howard Kerr 6:51PM (10/16/2006)
I agree, this is a decent FIRST step, but 10 days with each car does not seem like enough time. A MONTH is too short a period of time, in my opinion. They should also have to test 4 and 5 year old cars (the length of an average car loan) so they can see just how wonderful their products are when the last loan payment is in sight. If ANY vehicle breaks down, the exec driving it at the time should be required to get it fixed at the "average" dealership, without revealing his identity.
Reply
Tool 8:47PM (10/16/2006)
I think that the Chrysler goup executives would be better served focusing on creating the next generation of sure-fire hits instead of rolling around in used vehicles.
They are once again stuck with a glut of vehicles even their dealers don't want to order.
Reply
John 9:24PM (10/16/2006)
What i think Tom needs to go is to drive up to a random Dodge dealer inside a Stratus ... and try to get a Grand Cherkoee without getting the run around and absolutely hosed at one point of the transaction. (Of course, he'll probably have to take off his suit and maybe ruffle up his hair).
I bet he will get the arrogant a-hole dealer treatment like most everyone else that may have an inclination of actually considering a Chrysler-Group vehicle... and then he'll realize why they keep losing market share and their sales are in the crapper.
When Dodge decided to re-invent its car-brand portfolio with some spiffy large cars, they failed to realize that dealers like to be jerks when they have hot products. Now, their big Hemi-Powered LX cars are languishing and yet all the original interest is gone. I think I know more people who were turned off at a dealer trying to get a Charger than people who got a Charger. Then there's the horror stories of people who wanted a Dodge Caliber when it first came out. Either they were getting boned by the whole process after putting some deposit down for their car or they were getting boned by dealers who wanted MSRP or more.
What probably sucks the most for those Execs in Detroit is how prevalant leases are in that area. I bet they all fail to realize to the more common practice in the USA where people buy cars and keep them longer than 3 years. Nobody buys cars in Detroit because almost everyone up there is related to the auto industry, and they'd much rather keep fliping a bargain-basement lease than bother trying to suffer through a car for more than 3 years. Ever get into a Pacifica lease for $99 a month with only $1,000 due at signing? Probably not, but it happens all the time in Detroit.
Reply
pauln 9:37PM (10/16/2006)
I would be glad to have them use my '92 Grand Caravan, which I bought new (I tend to keep cars a long time), in exchange for one of their new executive cars. Except for being on its fourth tranny (all warranty) and third ABS pump (lifetime warranty), it actually has been pretty reliable, more so in the last few years than in its first five. Ironic.
Reply
Smoove D 9:54PM (10/16/2006)
I hope the transmission in Mr. LaSorda's three year old Grand Cherokee dies in the middle of the interstate like the one attached to my (former) Grand Cherokee did. That was just the start of the problems. I felt dirty when I traded that car in. I'm now a Honda driver for life, no matter what stupid marketing tricks like this Detroit pulls. Too little too late. If they're serious about this, they should buy a fleet of three year old Acuras and let the executives compare and contrast with the craptastic Chrysler rolling scrap metal.
Reply
dakota 11:05PM (10/16/2006)
"Does Tom LaSorda ever drive? He can clearly see the crappy Neon that we all see everyday. Or the sheet metal on a dodge product is about as thin as paper so within a few years it gets that wavy "kia sephia" look.
Basically, go outside and you will easily be able to see that Dodge cars turn to crap, BUT all cars end up turning to crap (most anyways) it's just that Dodge cars are horrible.
"
You do damn full of shit it's not even funny. After owning a few Dodge Products, along with others, your claim is totally false and shows your childish mentality. I'd put up my old 93 Intrepid to a 93 Honda anyday and see which one is rusting out first. Yea it would be the Honda. If you think it's so paper thin, then go measure it against other products and post some facts? Whats the tolerances on those pannels?
Reply
Oohlonguh 12:12AM (10/17/2006)
OK. facts:
My inlaws had TWO 99 Jeep Grand Cherokees (one , and a Laredo).
The first had recalls for ABS could not work, due to slaty roads, rust, etc...in Midwest, etc.. areas where salt is used on the roads, and other recalls. It laste dabout 173,000, then he traded it in for a Laredo version, a 99, with 50,000 on it.
Her owned it alittle over 2 years, before a "roll over"(he hit the side of the road, and went into a ditch, side first last month. Totalled it)...
Anyhow, at 107,000, New Tranny(last March, 05, after 15 months of ownership).
Over 3 K, at a local mechanics, not Chrysler dealership.
What does he have today, he just purchased Saturday> A new Suzuki SX4!
Nearly 10 MPG better than the Jeep, 7/100 warranty,
More fun(and built better!). They had a tracker(also a Suzuki product, for GM.... until 2004?....built in Canada, at the joint venture GM/Suzuki plant, all parts, i belive were Suzuki, of Japan). They had a 90, got it in 95, and traded it in in 2001 for the Jeep(first one), with 213,000 miles on it. Only needed a new muffler! It was rough.,loud, and nto a nice vehcile, but it was dependable as anything out there.
The sx4 is a modern(better all around) version, for 14,999!
Only 1,500 more than he paid fo a USED Jeep(a larger vehicle, of course, but worse MPG, and not as well built).
I have read, the PT Cruiser is Better Than Avg, th epast 3 yers, except automatic MPG is 26 hwy, and the "cheap seats"(cloth) aren't very comfortable after a 30 minute drive!
Maybe they'll fix this( they should drive a cloth seated, base model, PT Cruiser, then figure out how ot better the upcoming, Newer model in 09).
Reply
Anthony94114 12:00PM (10/17/2006)
I had a MINI Crapper for about 13 months, and if someone at BMW/MINI had tried driving that piece of junk after three years (or, heck, 3 months) they would have learned a lot about supplier quality standards, rattles, substandard steel strength, rattles, junky steering columns, doors that don't shut correctly even after being re-set multiple times, squeeky seats, windows that smear from greasy innards with every lift... etc.
There's no doubt that if they're looking, Chrysler product will exhibit similar quality issues as the MINI did in such a brief time. If they find some stuff like that and they have the attitude that 'every problem is an opportunity', they'll learn much.
Reply
Glenn 8:49AM (10/17/2006)
No, no, no. They NEED these guys to drive a clapped-out 1995-1999 Neon and then have the head gasket go when they really truly need to be somewhere important - like, take their own kids to a doctor appointment.
Only THEN might the "lights come on upstairs in Auburn Hills"
Reply