Chrysler decides to keep third shift at Windsor minivan plant, VW Routan to live on
2009 Volkswagen Routan - click above for a high res image gallery
Earlier this spring as Chrysler stumbled toward bankruptcy court, one of the announced cost-cutting decisions was the elimination of the third shift at the Windsor assembly plant. That's the factory that produces the Chrysler Town and Country, Dodge Caravan and Volkswagen Routan minivans. According to Ken Lewenza, president of the Canadian Auto Workers union, the company has reversed course and will keep the third shift operational. Preserving the final shift will prevent 1,200 layoffs at the factory.
The change was made possible by a revised labor deal agreed to this spring, which cut $207 million in annual costs. Earlier this year, the plant "temporarily" ceased building the Routan for Volkswagen due to slow sales. According to VW of America communications director Steve Keyes, the Routan will live on as well. Keyes tells Autoblog "We will be introducing the 2010 MY vehicle this Fall and continue work on future models. Our goal was to capture 5 percent of the segment and we're meeting that target."
Gallery: First Drive: 2009 Volkswagen Routan
[Source: Reuters, Volkswagen]
Photos Copyright ©2008 Damon Lavrinc / Weblogs, Inc.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Jacob Wagner 5:33PM (7/11/2009)
Take out the crappy Chrysler pushrod engine and transmission, and drop in the 2.0 TDI, 2.0 Turbo and/or the 3.6 VR6 and you'll get more than 5% of the market.
Reply
zamafir 6:00PM (7/11/2009)
Or, better yet, scrap the whole thing and build the microbus concept with the 2.0 TDI.
Dan 6:17PM (7/11/2009)
The Routan only uses the 4.0 SOHC engine.
Dan 6:19PM (7/11/2009)
...apparently only in Canada. USA gets the 3.8 pushrod too. Just don't get that one.
zamafir 6:19PM (7/11/2009)
@Dan - yup, we're aware, and still would prefer something with more torque than the base 6 and better economy.
AZZO45b 6:22PM (7/11/2009)
You seriously want a 2.0 L Turbo put into a vehicle that weighs aprox 4,500+ pounds???
That God you are not employed as a VW Product Planner!!!
Edsel 6:36PM (7/11/2009)
I have the 4.0L with 6 speed in my U.S. spec Routan. All SEL's come with the 4.0, the SE's with the 3.8 L, while the 3.3 is not available in the Routan lineup.
zamafir 7:02PM (7/11/2009)
@AZZO45b
No, if you read my first post what I'd want is the 2.0TDI in a microbus which would be based off whatever newer architecture they'd develop to the t5. Though, given your level of snark, i'll go ahead and say yes. I'd much rather have a "2.0 L Turbo" in the van. Since you're bringing it up, the 2.0T and not the 2.0TDI, I would prefer a blown four banger with more hp and torque (as seen in Scirocco R, S3, TT-S) configuration to a heavier V6 with less hp and torque. Unless, of course, in your shock, you meant the 2.0 Turbo Diesel, a different mill, in which case, yes, I'll also take a 2.0TDI in the 170hp 258 lb ft torque configuration.
Yes, either way, i'll take a "2.0 L Turbo" as you broadly put it, especially when that broad stroke allows for the mention of iterations producing more torque and more power and torque. Putting a lighter more powerful engine into a heavy car, sounds like a surefire way to move more product.
Silver 10:57PM (7/11/2009)
"Or, better yet, scrap the whole thing and build the microbus concept with the 2.0 TDI."
AMEN!!! This illegitimate love child between Chrysler and VW should never have happened. A Chrysler minivan with a VW badget - whoop-de-doo.
Yet another VW blunder (W-8 Passat, Phaeton, Golf...no, Rabbit...no, Golf) - the list goes on and on.
I used to love VWs. Now I can only wonder who is running things over there?
AZZO45b 10:55PM (7/11/2009)
Zam... Good luck with your EPA numbers!!! The cars you mention are 1200-1400 pounds LIGHTER than the 5-star crash worthy Routan ( & any Microbus replacement would also shoot for).
You sound like the Pacifica guys I worked with (few years back) who were SURE the 3.5L (found in many other Chrysler lines) would be GREAT in the much heavier cross-over! After the Pacifica was ripped apart by the media & consumers for being underpowered a 4.0L was rushed into service.
BTW, my old A4 had the 1.8L T, not the optional V6. Other VWs in the family have had the 2.0L again not the 6-banger.... not poo-poo'ing the smaller engines just considering real-world capabilities
d4rez 11:33PM (7/11/2009)
@AZZO45b
You still seem to have missed the point, goodness knows how. You're stuck on this idea that a smaller engine would inevitably end up being insufficient in a larger vehicle. As has been stated (twice if you including my reply), these engines produce GREATER outputs. So relative to the existing 4 litre V6 they would NOT be underpowered in any way. As for that drivel about EPA numbers, well the theory is that a smaller, lighter engine also tends to use less fuel. Of course in practice other factors come into play. However, here in the UK most MPV's have been using forced induction petrols and diesels in lieu of large capacities for some time now and we get good mileage and strong performance.
Judy Zik 1:37AM (7/12/2009)
With some refinements the Routan could work. If they are going anywhere near the VW parts bins a diesel engine would make this vehicle stand out as a legitimate option. The added hauling power and better mileage would be a perfect match for a Minivan. It also needs a value priced trim line and stow and go seats.
Someone on the Internet 1:43AM (7/12/2009)
Since we are talking about VW meets Chrysler, there is but one perfect engine for this set.
The Chrysler 2.8 Turbo diesel CRD. 290 ft-lbs at 1800 rpm, yes please. And 22/26 mpg, thats just icing. I will always remember it as the engine that could have changed Chrysler. Just imagine a rwd PT Cruiser with it, or a RWD Sebring, a Neon, a Calibert, a Patriot with it. Seriously, It would have made every mediocre Chrysler-dodge-jeep vehicle 1million X more appealing.
Aloysius Vampa 2:45AM (7/12/2009)
But 1,000,000 * 0 = 0.
zamafir 3:10AM (7/12/2009)
@d4rez - thanks man, i'm glad to see i'm not the only person paying attention
Edsel 6:01PM (7/11/2009)
HALLELUJAH!!!
It lives on.
I love my VW Crouton.
Reply
artandcolour 7:16PM (7/11/2009)
while i'd never need a minivan for anything, and i know this is 'just' a chrysler in drag, but there is something about the way that it presents itself that i like. the interior is much nicer with a dose of VW, and the exterior is the cleanest of any of the 'real' chyrsler minivans. too bad there isn't a Westfalia pop-top version in white with orange/brown plaid interior.
Reply
Nick 7:13PM (7/11/2009)
I like the Routan's looks 100x more than the Chrysler version....even though they're 90% identical.
And yes, too bad they don't offer a 2.4L TDi (which would outperform the prehistoric POS 4.0).
Reply
Farmboy 10:53PM (7/11/2009)
Agreed. I think Routan doesn't look as boxy or "stiff" as the Chrysler or Dodge. I've heard from my friend (who used to work for Chrysler) that it actually uses VW suspension which is a lot better than the Chrysler system.
Kitko 9:56PM (7/11/2009)
This is exactly the thinking VW relies on. Creating perceptions and selling them to people who don't care. Some call it clever marketing. I call it bull...it Lets face - Seat Leon, Golf, Bora, Audi A3, Skoda Octavia are essentially one and the same car. Same chassis, same transmission, same engine, same brakes, same what have you, bits and pieces of the interior too.
Somehow, people believe that A3 must be better, drive better, feel better, has more value etc. than Golf, which, in turn, should be better than Octavia* or Leon. But is it? I don't think so. Strip the badge and you end up with one and the same thing. Technically speaking, A3 can be only as average as Octavia in the same way Routan is plain and simple only as good or bad as a Chrysler's people mover. You can put yards of leather and tons of wood into A3, but you can also put a lipstick on a pig, it will still be an Octavia :-) With premium charges and fees at the dealers' garages....
*Golf, by definition, drives better than Octavia since Octavia has body that's a little bit too big for the chassis resulting in the nimbleness of a cathedral.