Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
Please note that gratuitous links to your site are viewed as spam and may result in removed comments.













Reader Comments for
Subscribe to this thread(Page 1 of 1)
remo @ Apr 20th 2008 4:32PM
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.
Z00medU @ Apr 20th 2008 4:44PM
@remo
Price, features...... T&C is more luxurious, while the Grand Caravan is more of the soccer-mom vehicle
Derek @ Apr 20th 2008 5:55PM
$$$$ 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 @ Apr 20th 2008 5:57PM
@ 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 @ Apr 20th 2008 9:33PM
"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 @ Apr 20th 2008 11:38PM
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 @ Apr 21st 2008 9:21AM
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