• Jul 31, 2008
Motor Trend is reporting that Chrysler is considering a few different options now for its 2012 midsize offerings. The first option is to stick with Project D, which is gobbling up engineering and design resources. Option two is to use either Fiat's premium midsize platform or the Nissan Altima platform, and design and engineer the rest of the vehicle from scratch. Chrysler can also decide to badge-engineer one of the vehicles, which would be a far cry from the original plan to have many vehicles spawned off one platform.

Since Fiat currently doesn't have any infrastructure in the U.S. and Nissan already has ties with Chrysler (Dodge will be building the next Nissan Titan and Nissan will be building the Hornet out of Versa parts), the Japanese automaker makes more sense.

[Source: Motor Trend]



I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 41 Comments
      • 6 Years Ago
      Maybe Chrysler could sell the Samsung SM7 over here and build it at one of the Nissan plant in the US. Maybe this is the way Nissan/Renault could take over Chrysler by using Renault, Samsung and Dacia cars and rebadge them under the Dodge and Chrysler brand.
      • 6 Years Ago
      It will be a Nissan... the contents of Chrysler's Pacifica Design studio was sent to a building in Warren MI.

      Chrysler & Nissan teams are working on a small car project
        • 6 Years Ago
        "It will be a Nissan... the contents of Chrysler's Pacifica Design studio was sent to a building in Warren MI.

        Chrysler & Nissan teams are working on a small car project"

        What does this have to do with anything? Pacifica was a *Design* (i.e. styling) studio. Nothing to do with engineering.
      • 6 Years Ago
      My question is, why wait until 2012? They need it like. . . yesterday. Can they really survive on the sebring and avenger for another 4 YEARS?
        • 6 Years Ago
        Purifoy, sorry that's not directed at you you're post was a thought out response to what I said. The other 2 seemed to just jump on me like I was trolling or hating on chrysler when all I was doing was citing that 4 years to live on the sebring (even with an inside out redesign) could be very bad for chrysler especially when a lot of people are making the move from big suvs to midsized cars. The trend seems to be that automakers are churning out subcompacts but that is not a good solution for a lot of people. Going from a tahoe to a malibu is one thing, but those people will not be going from tahoe to chevy beat. Chrysler is missing out on quality products in that segment and in 4 years it could be too late (or hell we'll all have adjusted to $5 gas and be back to our SUVs)
        • 6 Years Ago
        Jrejre: Developing a new vehicle, even on an existing platform, is not like having a tailor make you a new suit.

        There's more involved here than just new sheet metal and swaping out a few components. The project will require a year or two of R&D alone before the first vehicle rolls down the assembly line.

        As for Chrysler having to make due with the Avenger and Sebring, these cars have been greenlighted for a slight makeover. From what I understand improvements are scheduled for both the exterior and interior. You know, round out a corner here, smooth out the styling there and upgrade the cabin. And that's assuming Chrysler keeps both models.

        Word also has it that the company is considering dropping at least one of the models.

        So the bottom line is, the Avenger and/or Sebring will have to carry the load until the Chrysler-Nissan design(s) become available.
        • 6 Years Ago
        What is the point of this post? To show that you don't have any idea how long it takes to make a car from scratch, or is it just so you can say Chrysler isn't going to last long?
        • 6 Years Ago
        "Jeez, I'm just saying 4 years is a long time to make 2 cars that have gotten really bad reviews last."

        yes, and if they pushed them out too soon, you'd be posting on here cackling how Chrysler sucks 'cos of their recalls.

        Much better to take the time to get it right.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Although I'd prefer something home-brewed, a Dodge/Chrysler Altima would be pretty sweet so long as they can nail down the styling and not simply put a badge and different headlamps on it.

      It goes without saying, Chrysler LLC cannot half-ass its next midsizer
        • 6 Years Ago
        "Although I'd prefer something home-brewed, a Dodge/Chrysler Altima would be pretty sweet so long as they can nail down the styling and not simply put a badge and different headlamps on it."

        Of course, if they nailed down the styling on the current JS platform, it'd be just as good.

        "It goes without saying, Chrysler LLC cannot half-ass its next midsizer"

        true; but discarding JS is precisely the wrong way to go about that. The Avenger and Sebring are so miserable in large part because DCX threw away a competent platform (JA/JR) for no good reason.

        Throwing away more money by moving to *yet another* platform seems totally wrong-headed.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Not a bad idea. I'd actually consider a Chrysler product if it were a Nissan, and maybe - with Nissan's influence - Chrysler might even stay afloat for a few more years.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Would you buy a tatra if it were a Jaguar?
        • 6 Years Ago
        another_one, Would you?
        • 6 Years Ago
        I'd buy a Hyundai car if it was a Porsche product.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Using another companies platform. There's something strangely familiar about this. OHH. I remember. Chrysler was going to work with Mitsubishi to develop two cars, maybe more, on a platform from Mitsubishi. I believe it was the Lancer platform and the cars that were supposed to come from it were.......oh....sorry. I guess they were the ones that they're trying to replace with.....another company's platform. This all makes so much sense! NOT!
        • 6 Years Ago
        Keep in mind that Nissan is more of a 'serious' player than Mitsubishi. How good would a Chryslered-up (or Dodged-down) Galant be, anyway?

        ... And didn't Chrysler and Mitsubishi collaborate on their C-class platform (ie. Caliber/Compass/Patriot/Lancer)?
        • 6 Years Ago
        "... And didn't Chrysler and Mitsubishi collaborate on their C-class platform (ie. Caliber/Compass/Patriot/Lancer)?"

        That was the plan, as DCX was angling to buy into Mitsubishi Motors at the time. Long story short, that effort failed and Chrysler had to almost start over on the Sebring and Avenger. Big waste of time and money.
      • 6 Years Ago
      My vote would be for a Dodge Intrepid FWD midsize sedan and coupe on the Nissan Altima's D platform (with completely distinct Dodge exterior/interior styling) and a Chrysler Concorde RWD midsize sedan and coupe-cabrio on the Challenger's RWD LC platform or Nissan's FM platform. This would provide a more mainstream midsize entry for Dodge and a more premium midsize entry for Chrysler.
        • 6 Years Ago
        The Intrepid was a full size, the Stratus was mid size:

        Neon --> Caliber (er, sort of)
        Stratus/Sebring --> Avenger/Sebring
        300M --> (none)
        Intrepid/Concorde --> Charger/300C
        • 6 Years Ago
        I realize that the Intrepid/Concorde platform mates were fullsize cars and that they were replaced by the 300/Charger. I thought that the Intrepid/Concorde names would be good names to resurrect for the replacements to the defective current midsize Avenger/Sebring twins since the Intrepid/Concorde names aren't damaged and may still hold some market recognition. The upcoming midsize car replacements are hopefully miles ahead of the current pitiful Avenger/Sebring products; I think Chrysler LLC will definitely need to change the model names to even get customers to look at the cars.

      • 6 Years Ago
      You have to spend money to make money. they really should stick to Project D so they have their own platform to spawn models off of, not someone else's. Still, the ATima is a sweet handling car, Chrysler certainly could do worse (ad has with their current D-segment cars)
      • 6 Years Ago
      Option N: BRING BACK THE FREAKIN NEON. Make it a bit safer, and put an interior in it that isn't complete garbage. 130hp basemodel, 150hp midmodel, SRT4 engine top of the line model. Offer 4 doors first, then make coupes. Keep the weight and options down.

      WIN!
        • 6 Years Ago
        The fact you call a neon ill handling just shows how ignorant you are, as the neon was one of the best FWD cars ever built. It could hold its own against a miata in the autocross. Quit being stupid.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Yes that's what we need. A 15 year old platform that wasn't in any way competitive when it was pulled. It didn't handle as well as the other cars in it's class. It was noisy and had quality issues and was a safety nightmare. That will really stand up in 2009 or 2010 against the new Euro Focus and GM's new small car. NOT.

        Chrysler needs new vehicles that are actually competitive in their class. Not more cheaply made poor quality cars that they have to offer steep discounts to move.
        • 6 Years Ago
        The avenger has always been underpowered, undersprung, and lame. It had a nice looking exterior back in the day, but it sucked overall.
      • 6 Years Ago
      As long as Chrysler doesn't use the VQ motor in their version of the Altima I don't care what they do. I love my VQ.
        • 6 Years Ago
        'cos if they did, yours would stop working, right? What elitist BS.
      • 6 Years Ago
      At least then Chrysler may have a competitive vehicle...so long as they source the Nissan engine too.
      • 6 Years Ago
      There is something odd about that MT article anyway. If they haven't decided which way to approach it yet, how can it be taking up massive engineering and design resources? Planning maybe, but those other phases would kick in after the that decision was made. It just doesn't add up.

      Anyway, most people don't realize "platform" does not necessarily equal "parts" or "architecture". All it really means that it can functionally be built on the same assembly line (to put it simply). Platform common vehicles often use the same parts because of supply and assembly issues, but they don't determine whether a car shares the same platform or not.
    • Load More Comments