Chrysler, cutting lineup, won't sell twins anymore
With Project Genesis in full swing, new revelations from Steven Landry, Chrysler executive vice president for North American Sales, have shed some more light on the corporate strategy to trim waste and turn the company around. As of now, dealers are under the belief that the automaker intends to cut its lineup by one-third to one-half. Supporting that assumption, Landry told a crowd at Northwood University that "twins" -- vehicles built on the same platform yet are sold under different brand names -- are out (think Jeep Liberty / Dodge Nitro). As Chrysler has more than a handful of twins, sold under several different brands, their dilemma will be in choosing which twin gets the axe, and which gets to survive.
[Source: Detroit Free Press]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
quagmire 4:18PM (4/20/2008)
If Chrysler thinks twins means sharing platforms, then their costs will go up as each brand will have to develop their own platform. Hopefully they just mean no more taking a Durango and putting a Chrysler badge on it.
Reply
Rick 7:15PM (4/21/2008)
Not if the unique cars actually sell. Costs are higher sure, but no one is buying the twin crap so what do you want them to do? They need to make cars for each brand that sell.
MajorGeek 4:21PM (4/20/2008)
Once again, as a long time Dodge fan and purchaser of a new SRT8 Challenger, the problem is in some of your designs. While some cars like the 300, Challenger and the Ram are some nice designs, the rest of your lot is fugly beyond belief. You have the same look to most of your vehicles like the new breadbox looking minivan now spread to the Dodge Ram. Lots of companies have 2-3 brands with similar vehicles. Its like one day someone got tired of nice looking vehicles and decided to redesign the entire line of vehicles with something not as attractive. Weird. Aside from the Challenger, I dont not even consider Dodge anymore when looking for a car.
Reply
remo 4:32PM (4/20/2008)
why do they even have twins to begin with? like whats the point of having the chrysler town and country and the dodge grand caravan? i never understood it.
Reply
Z00medU 4:44PM (4/20/2008)
@remo
Price, features...... T&C is more luxurious, while the Grand Caravan is more of the soccer-mom vehicle
Derek 5:55PM (4/20/2008)
$$$$ It costs lots of money to develop a basic chassis architecture, utilizing the same basic underpinnings for two vehicles in different market segments is good use of engineering resources. I can't think of a single full-line manufacturer (ie: not including Ferrari, etc) that DOESN'T use platform sharing on at least a few models.
If done properly, it will increase sales. The Durango/Aspen twins are a pair that can work with the Durango covering the lower price ranges and people who might get the vehicle dirty and the Aspen covering the ritzy soccer moms and gangsta/urban cowboy types. Stuff like the Liberty/Nitro is just silly since they are both stealing sales from each other.
Franz 5:57PM (4/20/2008)
@ Z00medU:
I agree with your assessment completely, but that dilemma could easily be fixed by axing one and offering additional trim levels on the other.
010111 9:33PM (4/20/2008)
"I can't think of a single full-line manufacturer (ie: not including Ferrari, etc) that DOESN'T use platform sharing on at least a few models."
pretty sure the 599GTB and the 612 share a chassis. at least the chassis is closely related.
Enzo and FXX too ... though i guess those we not ever sold at the same time.
PJ 11:38PM (4/20/2008)
Let's not forget the distinction between platform-sharing and badge engineering.
The Chrysler Aspen/Dodge Durango duo, and the Caravan/T&C, are old-school badge jobs. The Aspen, in particular, adds nothing to the brand; Navigator/Escalade shoppers aren't interested in driving something nobody's heard of.
Even with the more sincerely-differentiated Sebring/Avenger, Caliber/Compass/Patriot, and Nitro/Liberty, Chrysler missed the point of platform-sharing. Instead of coming up with a handful of great products and selling them as a dozen different vehicles, they came up with a few lousy products whose proliferation has put the smell of death on the entire company.
Considering how many Chrysler products people were genuinely *excited about buying* a few years back--the PT Cruiser/Convertible, 300C, Magnum, Charger, SRT4--this has truly been a spectacular decline.
By all means, Chrysler, kill the clones, ditch the extra tooling and marketing costs, and dump what money is left into the remaining also-rans.
Brad 9:21AM (4/21/2008)
You have to have a Chrysler version minivan and a Dodge version minivan because not all dealers sold both Dodge and Chrysler. Now when they are able to get all of their products under one roof with the Genesis Project, then I'm sure all of this twins business will go away.
But several other manufacturers also do twins. Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan, Chevy Trucks and GMC Trucks, are just a couple of examples
Neal 4:45PM (4/20/2008)
Dodge FTW
Reply
Papi L-Gee 4:49PM (4/20/2008)
Some deletions I'd have no problems with.
Others... well, of the LX cars, would they go from 3/4 to 1? Those cars are mechanical twins but look very little alike.
Of the JS cars, well, they can eliminate the Jeeps; none of the others (except maybe the Avenger/Sebring) overlap really.
It will be interesting to see how this one unfolds.
Reply
Aprime 5:50PM (4/20/2008)
What's wrong with the Patriot? It's filling the niche the Cherokee used to fill.
I'd agree about the Compass, however. It's the only non-trail rated Jeep and it's just a failed attempt at making a CUV.
BiaachMonkie 3:15AM (4/21/2008)
My wife got a Jeep Compass as a rental and didn't care for it at all. My problem with it (never drove it) was that it's name is "Compass" and it doesn't have a f-ing compass in it. WTF!
ocnblu 4:51PM (4/20/2008)
Platform mates like the Charger/300/Challenger and Avenger/Sebring are fine with me, as they all have their own distinct personalities, Sebring's ugliness nothwithstanding. I am starting to see quite a few Avenger/Sebrings on the road now. Redundancies occur with Patriot/Compass, neither of which should exist, imo. A smaller Jeep is a good idea, just not on a car platform. The Nitro is totally superfluous. Dodge needs a compact coupe and sedan, like the old Neon, only competitive. The Caliber is ok, but it misses the mark as a Cobalt/Focus/Corolla/Civic competitor. They should introduce an Avenger SRT-4 with the same powertrain as the Caliber. The Commander name should go away, replaced with a LWB, 3-row Grand Cherokee. The standard Grand Cherokee should remain a maneuverable, 2-row SUV with serious capabilities.
Reply
The Luigiian 9:56PM (4/20/2008)
Why does everybody keep throwing out at the Patriot?
I'm sick of people saying the Patriot sucks. Yes, it's a car-based Jeep. But it's also the most off-road capable CUV in its class, as well as among the most fuel-efficient, most attractive, and lowest-cost. In other words, it's pretty much everything the lowest-rung Jeep should be.
This is like those irritating Mustang fans who constantly say "GET RID OF THE V6 IT'S FOR POSERS". These people say that anybody who wants a fuel-efficient Mustang should just buy a Camry because they're "posers" who don't really care about performance and just want to look like they do. They complain that these people ask for "ridiculous" numbers like 22 or 25 mpg overall fuel economy out of a car that's lighter than a Camry or even a much-smaller Mitsubishi Eclipse (check Edmunds, people) and would like a decent engine rather than the ancient 4 liter the Mustang currently has. When they ask for the 3.5 liter they get told "YEAH WELL YOU'RE GETTING THE FOUR BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER AND WE GOTTA SELL FLEET."
I can't stand some of you Mustang guys, man. And Ford, if you seriously build the new Mustang without a really fuel efficient engine like Motor Trend has said you won't, (make it a 3.5, under $25,000 please), I'll buy a Toyota Camry out of spite.
Back on topic: Some people would like a fuel-efficient, reasonably off-road ready vehicle but can't afford it. The rest of Jeep's lineup sucks for anybody who needs fuel economy. The engines are ancient, the vehicles are heavy and ugly and generally speaking their only saving grace is off-roading. Jeep must fix this. Why? Three words: TOYOTA FJ CRUISER. Same vehicle as Liberty or even the Wrangler (essentially), same ability, better reliability. If it doesn't change to address the Toyota Cruiser, it'll be like the Detroit 3 when the Corolla debuted.
No brand can rest on its laurels. If Jeep builds off-roaders but another company comes out and builds them better at the same price, Jeep will die. Plain and simple. No domestic brand is going to get a pass just because it fulfills a niche. The Jeep Patriot is Jeep's fuel-efficient off-roader and it's the only one Jeep has. It is a legitimate off-roader and is BETTER AT THIS than the RAV-4, Escape, and CR-V it competes against. It accomplishes its mission in doing this. Thus, it must exist.
(Also: Wow, aprime, I just noticed your comment. We actually agree on something re: the Patriot. Holy crap, after our last discussions on Ford I thought that wouldn't be possible :D
Jared 10:11PM (4/20/2008)
People are hating on the Patriot simply because the Patriot, well, sucks. The exterior styling is awful. The interior is worse, and the only thing worse than the interior styling is the lack of quality of the interior components. The drivetrain is terrible. The handling is worse.
The Patriot sucks all around.
The Luigiian 10:21PM (4/20/2008)
"People are hating on the Patriot simply because the Patriot, well, sucks. The exterior styling is awful. The interior is worse, and the only thing worse than the interior styling is the lack of quality of the interior components. The drivetrain is terrible. The handling is worse."
Yes, but this is just like every Jeep currently made, if not every Chrysler product currently made. Singling out the Patriot because its interior sucks whenever every car Chrysler makes has the same crap is silly. Exterior looks like every other Jeep too, same as Liberty except for the headlights, same as Commander. The engine, however is fuel efficient, and it can propel a 3500-pound 4wd car with 21 mpg overall fuel economy. As for the handling, it's a friggin' SUV, dude. Of course the handling sucks, you're driving a 3500 pound box on wheels.
John 12:56AM (4/21/2008)
""The rest of Jeep's lineup sucks for anybody who needs fuel economy. The engines are ancient, the vehicles are heavy and ugly and generally speaking their only saving grace is off-roading. Jeep must fix this. Why? Three words: TOYOTA FJ CRUISER""
Jeep advertises it's vehicles to be off-road oriented....to be looking for something fuel efficient, and then bash Jeep for not being a refined bubble shaped soccermom-mobile is quite unrealistic. To people who want off-road vehicles, Jeep's lineup is rather nice :)
The new FJ cruiser is a complete joke....especially when you're talking about offroad capability when comparing against the Wrangler and older FJ40s, Jeep has nothing to worry about when talking about the new FJ cruiser.
The Luigiian 2:22AM (4/21/2008)
@John:
All right, I don't know all that much about off-roading. My point was that the Toyota is simply more reliable.
As for the "refined bubble-shaped soccer-mom mobile" argument, my point is that the Patriot is exactly what those aren't, but it gets equivalent fuel efficiency. I wouldn't buy a CR-V or RAV-4 because they're ugly. I'd buy a Patriot. And there are very few modern cars I like and would want to drive.
I dislike all midsize and large SUVs, midsize and large cars, large pickups, and small cars on the market. There are five cars I'd want right now: Ford Mustang (and only if it gets 21 mpg with an automatic), Chevy Camaro (same), Chevy Colorado (same), Ford Ranger (same), and Jeep Patriot. I hate the rest. They are exactly what I don't want and never wanted. The Japanese cars are boring and ugly (Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla, Toyota anything, Honda anything), most American and foreign makes are the same. Give me anything other than those five and I'd hate it. I know, I've been reading car magazines for the past year, every car I see, and I hate them all. They're all either gas guzzlers or boringly styled.
So I take offense whenever somebody says that these cars aren't meant to be fuel efficient or shouldn't exist. l know the Patriot isn't the best, but I was amazed that Jeep had actually built something I liked. Something that didn't look like a girl's car and didn't get 15 mpg. I can live with downmarket interior and crap everywhere if it's reliable, but it would depress me if they got rid of the Patriot. It's the only car that currently exists that I can look at and say "I'd like that car."
I think when I get my next car I'm gonna be depressed no matter what I get, because I'm going to either hate looking at it or hate filling it up with gas.