Chinese-made, Dodge-badged cars coming to Mexico next year
After years of talk, Chery is finally entering the North American market later this year, but the small car will be badged as a Dodge, and it'll be sold exclusively in Mexico. The decidedly un-Hornet-looking A1, which was designed by Bertone of Italy, will be rebadged as a Dodge and virtually unchanged from its Chery twin. While Chrysler execs are adamant that the A1 isn't coming to the US, the Pentastar is still working with Chery on a small car to be sold north of the border. Don't hold your breath waiting for an ultra-cheap Chery in the US, though. Chrysler co-pilot Tom LaSorda says Chery has "three or more years" before the Chinese automaker can meet US safety and emissions standards.
[Source: Automotive News (subs req'd)]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
MemphisNET 9:19AM (5/14/2008)
I'm glad they're taking their time.
Reply
I_Hate_China 10:27AM (5/14/2008)
US crash test and emissions problem aside, importing A1 is illegal in the US and Europe because it violates GM's intellectual property; A1 is a reskinned version of Matiz that GM lawyers will feast upon.
Reply
Brian Miller 11:25AM (5/14/2008)
BZZZT! Wrong.
The Chery qQ was allegedly a copy of the Matiz. The A1 has nothing in common with the qQ at all.
Richard S. 2:28PM (5/14/2008)
I thought that the Chery QQ was a copy of the Chevy Spark, not Matiz.
John 3:08PM (5/14/2008)
Congrats Richard. At least 1 out of 3 people here actually know what they are talking about.
I_Hate_China 3:54PM (5/14/2008)
"Brian Miller"
> The Chery qQ was allegedly a copy of the Matiz. The A1 has nothing in common with the qQ at all.
A1 still uses QQ chassis and parts. Hence an illegal vehicle in the US and Europe.
"Richard S"
> I thought that the Chery QQ was a copy of the Chevy Spark, not Matiz.
Spark is China-market Matiz.
"John"
> Congrats Richard. At least 1 out of 3 people here actually know what they are talking about.
Yes, I know. You don't.
mk3 10:52AM (5/14/2008)
Are you saying Bertone ripped off GM?
Reply
I_Hate_China 3:55PM (5/14/2008)
Berton only puts a body over supplied chassis.
Since the chassis is stolen from Matiz, A1 is an illegal vehicle in the US and Europe.
Cire 11:18AM (5/14/2008)
Good! Keep it south of the border!
I'm still hoping that the Hornet ends up on the Nissan B platform that underpins the Versa. It seems like this platform would be a perfect match for the Hornet.
Reply
jamie 11:19AM (5/14/2008)
I wish Chryslerbus would get its act together today. Outsourcing product lines never worked very well for anyone. Take the Pontiac Vibe vs Toyota Matrix for example. Real winner for GM there.
Dodge should be building on its own inventory, platforms designs and ingenuity. Yeah, I know they're kind of short of bucks (but not stingy tight wad Cerberus though).
What's wrong with re-introducing an updated Dodge Neon? That should eliminate the Renault-Nissan marriage altogether. Then you just downsize that model to bring on a subcompact version. No need therefore for Chery clones either.
Remember all the problems and hassles Chrysler had with Mitsubishi? I guess they still haven't learned their lesson yet. What are the child labor laws like in China? Are you ready for that one?
Reply
DT 11:34AM (5/14/2008)
What's wrong with the Vibe? Seems to me that it has been fairly well received in the market and most reviewers prefer the Pontiac version or the Toyota.
I don't think there would be any practical way to update the old Neon platform to meet competitive or class leading crash impact protection. Easier to start from scratch.
Why use somebody else's platform? Simple, they need smaller, fuel-efficient cars NOW. Much faster to get a Chrysler designed version of an existing platform to market than to start fresh. In the future maybe they do develop a smaller car architecture on their own, but I doubt it. It is a better investment to share development costs with other companies, especially on the lower profit margins on small cars. They don't have the economy of scale compared to GM, Toyota, etc.
Brent 11:42AM (5/14/2008)
Do you have any idea how long it takes to build a new car? Obviously not.
jamie 12:02PM (5/14/2008)
- Don't hold your breath waiting for an ultra-cheap Chery in the US, though. Chrysler co-pilot Tom LaSorda says Chery has "three or more years" before the Chinese automaker can meet US safety and emissions standards.
Uh-huh.
Brent, It seems like it will 3 or more years before Chery can even meet US safety and emissions standards. I believe a new Dodge Neon could be on the road long before that. Toyota has the capability (and the cash) to get a new vehicle to market in 18 months, while GM takes forever to recreate the old Camaro. Meanwhile the market is saturated with Mustangs and soon to be a few exclusive Challengers. GM is late to the party again. Realistically it takes about two years to complete the process. If it takes longer than that then you end up like GM with a dead horse coming out of the gate. The market changes too quickly nowadays.
DT, There ain't nothing wrong with the Vibe, because it is a Toyota! (in disguise). Everybody knows that. I agree with you that sharing development costs makes a lot of sense in today's economy. However, no way should a Dodge look or perform like a Nissan product. They have to draw a line somewhere in the sand that separates the two brands.
Frank 12:02PM (5/14/2008)
Well, at one time (pre Dumbler), Chrysler was one of the quickest to market automakers. They studied what Honda did to develope new models, combined that with lessons learned from their aquisition of AMC/Jeep and created platform teams that handled everything in developing a new vehicle. And mgt was not allowed to interfere and gum up the works. The result was cars developed faster for less cost. At one point I think they developed a car from scratch in 42 months. That's the real reason they made so much money in the 90's. The sales were very good, but the cost savings from their development process saved them big time $$.
Of course Dumbler, instead of adapting it for Mercedes use, replaced it with their process and forced Chrysler to use Mercedes parts and consultants - for a fee of course. Could you imagine developing a new Mercedes for 10, 20, or even 30% cheaper than before but selling it for the same or more $? They would be swimming in Euros right now.
Frank 12:08PM (5/14/2008)
Just so you know the industry average to develope an entirely new car from the ground up (not a refresh, or a reskin of an existing platform) is 5 years. Some can do it in 4 years, but it burns up a lot of cash. Ford's Focus is a much updated car but it's not all new because it uses the same platform. Same for the Taurus update in '92, but the Taurus in 96 was all new. For some reason Ford has always taken longer to develope all new platforms. Hopefully Mullaly is changing that.
jamie 12:27PM (5/14/2008)
Frank
What I find interesting is that the Chery A1 already exists, and yet Tommy says it will be 3 or more years before it can meet US standards! That seems ludicrous. Chrysler has the know-how to get the job done much faster than that.
Ergo, would it not make sense to re-up the old Neon platform, revise and build up on it first? It's sort of like what Ford is doing with the Focus. Instead of changing over completely to the new platform they are upgrading the old one UNTIL THEY HAVE THE NEW ONE READY.
That makes far more sense to me. Besides it keeps it all in the family, so that no squabbling occurs between Renault, Nissan, Dodge or Chrysler (not to mention their suppliers). That way also all the capital remains in the company and is not split amongst a number of concerned parties. Less legal and tax hurdles that way.
MemphisNET 1:02PM (5/14/2008)
Chrysler IS the quickest to market with products that people will actually buy (300, RAM). Problem is that a small-Chrysler car is still an unknown. Most people will agree the Neon, despite its initial problems, was a good little car - but not a great car. The name was also tarnished so bad that it will most likely never return. Hell, it could be a re-badged Civic or Corolla - but if named Neon people would say ''ew headgaskets, automatics''
They have to not only build a new car, but make it damn near perfect out of the gate. Right now, co-engineering/badge-engineering someone else's at least gets their foot in the door.
Frank 1:20PM (5/14/2008)
Jamie,
You are correct about the A1 being in existence now. I think the issue is that when you get into getting it ready for the US market you end up making so many changes it is cost effective to just develope a whole new car. For example you can't make it pass modern safety tests by adding more airbags and some well placed structural steel bracing. So what I think that Lasorda means by three years is that they are coming out with a an all new car (they've been at it for a year), and it will be engineered from the ground up to meet US/Canada and even European regulations.
jamie 11:31AM (5/15/2008)
MemphisNET
Dodge Sentra anyone? That ought to go over really well. Maybe they'll sell a couple HUNDRED of them altogether.
Chrysler has to make its own products and forget the rest. You can't do it all yet; so just be the best at what you can do.
That's why I believe Dodge should be building its own compact car and not someone else's. Outsourcing just dilutes the brand until no one even looks at it anymore. This is the wrong way and a dead end road for Chrysler if it continues down this marriage path with R-N.
It makes perfect sense to Cerberus though, if you just plan to flip and sell the 'dog' (pun intended). Get the message now?
Kimura 1:20PM (5/14/2008)
This info about Dodge releasing a Chery-based small car for the US market is incorrect, as Allpar reports that development work is being done with Nissan on a small car to be sold here. Also they report Chrysler is working on it's own new "Project D" midsize platform to replace the current midsizers and underpin several other vehicles in the future.
Reply