The whole company now referred to as Stellantis was once called Chrysler, and yet Chrysler is the most ignored and, frankly, saddest of all the carmaker’s many brands. Technically, there’s even a new model this year, though the combination of the new model and the existing old one have somehow resulted in declining sales. It’s grim.
This will not be the first Morning Dump where I opine about the state of Chrysler, but there’s a new CEO, and he may have missed all of my previous musings on the subject. I’m here to help, because that’s just the kind of good guy I am. I’ll start with Chrysler’s failure and then, just to make it fair, I’ll talk about a few more failures. Like Tesla in recent days! The company had another mediocre quarter from a sales perspective, and I’m curious to see just how bad Cybertruck sales are going to end up this year. It could be worse, Tesla could be… Rivian.
As a whole, the industry has failed to deliver enough affordable vehicles in that sweet spot from about $25-$35k. There’s some data about how to build cars for that market that’s worth diving into, so dive I shall.
What Would You Say You Do Here, Chrysler?
The Chrysler/Cerberus/Daimler/Renault/AMC/Fiat/Chips Ahoy!/Stellantis company has gone through, oh, 47 different “resurgences” and 22 different names in the last 100 years. During most of those resurrections, there was at least one Chrysler vehicle around to help keep the brand alive. Lee Iacocca saved the company with the minivan, for which we got the Chrysler Town & Country. He did so again with the K-Car, for which we got the Chrysler LeBaron and New Yorker. You can play this game all day long. Even the PT Cruiser became the Chrysler PT Cruiser. The Chrysler vehicles might not have been the first, or most popular versions of any savior platform, but there was always something to justify the brand’s existence.
In the company’s big Obama-era turnaround, the world was treated to the Ralph Gilles-designed Chrysler 300. That’s still a car that looks excellent and feels like a brand with swagger. What does Chrysler have now? The Chrysler Pacifica minivan. And I’m not here to diss the Pacifica. I truly adore the Pacifica. It’s a great minivan, if not a slightly old one at this point. But a Swagger-mobile worthy of Walter P. Chrysler? I’m not so sure.
Last year, Chrysler added the “budget” Voyager, which is just a Pacifica in a different trim. That’s it!
Chrysler stands for luxury, abundance, and a country that won two hot wars and a cold one. It says you’re successful. It says you’ve made it. Or, at the very least, it says your credit is good enough to get a Dodge with a little more chrome on it. The American Dream, my friends.
If you want to know how bad Chrysler is doing, you can just look at this quarter’s sales results, which are dismal. Here are the brands:
- Jeep +1%
- Ram +5%
- Chrysler – 42%
- Dodge – 48%
- Fiat +25%
- Alfa Romeo -51%
It’s not like any of these brands are exactly thriving, and both Dodge and Alfa Romeo are doing worse, I suppose. Fiat has one product that’s selling miserably, but it’s an improvement over when the brand was barely able to sell double digits each month, and at least it has a new product. Here’s a quote from an analyst in the Free Press that sums it up quite well:
Ivan Drury, the director of insights at Edmunds, told the Free Press he was surprised by Stellantis’ report.
He thought it would be worse.
“While not over the top surprising, I’d say it’s slightly better than I expected. It’s not like they really blew it out of the water, right?” Drury said. “I expected them to be down 12%, and they say they’re down 10%.”
Yikes. Somehow, Voyager + Pacifica doesn’t = more sales.
This is the fault of the previous administration under Carlos Tavares, which pissed away most of the goodwill the brand had. Now there’s a new guy, CEO Antonio Filosa, and I genuinely wish him well. I think he’s already starting to make some wise moves, and the return of SRT today is already a great sign.
I think Chrysler got shortchanged under Tavares because there was a sense that the brand would get some sort of electric crossover, and we’d all be crowing about the Airflow. That didn’t happen, and doesn’t make sense now. I like the Bishop’s idea about bringing back The Imperial, but literally anything that’s not a rebadged Alfa is great at this point.
- Make a Chrysler version of the Wagoneer to compete with the Escalade?
- Make a Chrysler version of the Charger with a V8 and call it a 300?
- Make a Chrysler version of the new Jeep Cherokee and call it the… Conquest, IDK?
Without any new products, there’s no reason for Chrysler to exist. Here’s hoping the brand can figure it out, as losing Chrysler would suck.
The Tesla Cybertruck Is Going Off The Deep End
Tesla’s Q2 deliveries were out, and the expectation was that sales would be around 387,000 for the quarter. The actual number is 384,122. Not great, not terrible, and about 13% off of Q2 2024.
Here’s what stuck out to me, though:
You’re telling me that the Model S, X, and Cybertruck only added up to 10,394 total deliveries? That’s down half from Q2 last year. It’ll take until we get registration data in a few weeks to know just how poorly the Cybertruck is doing, but this number is down from last quarter as well. That’s bad.
Not To Jump To Any Conclusions… But Rivian’s Going To Have A Tough Year
The Rivian R1S and R1T are both good products, built by a smart company. It’s also an expensive vehicle in a surprisingly crowded market for electric trucks and SUVs, with only so many buyers.
Here’s how the company describes its second quarter:
Rivian Automotive, Inc. (NASDAQ: RIVN) today announced production and delivery totals for the quarter ending June 30, 2025. The company produced 5,979 vehicles at its manufacturing facility in Normal, Illinois and delivered 10,661 vehicles during the same period. Production was limited during the second quarter in preparation for model year 2026 vehicles expected to launch later this month.
Production and delivery results for the quarter are in line with Rivian’s outlook. Rivian is also reaffirming its 2025 delivery guidance range of 40,000 to 46,000 vehicles.
This adds up to barely over 20,000 cars so far this year in a market that’s likely going to get slower in the second half. Not great.
People Who Don’t Have A Million Dollars Still Want Nice Cars
Research and data firm AutoPacific put together a big report on vehicle affordability, and the big focus is on demand among buyers in that sweet spot of $25-$35k, where vehicles like the Nissan Sentra and Chevy Trax play. This is the part of the market that automakers don’t seem to be serving as well as they used to, but where there’s likely to be a lot of growth.
Per AutoPacific data, many shoppers in the $25k-$35k price bracket are more open to sedans due to their greater affordability (though they’re still more likely to want an SUV), and they’re more likely to want a tried-and-true gasoline engine. Note that while 88% of these new vehicle intenders currently own an internal combustion engined vehicle, 20% want their new $25k-$35k vehicle to be hybridized, and only about 5% want it to be fully electric. For more than a third of these buyers (35%), this will be the first time they have ever purchased or leased a new vehicle, upgrading from their current vehicle that’s, on average, more than 11 years old. On the outside, their ideal $25k-$35k vehicle doesn’t have flashy exterior enhancements like LED welcome lighting, illuminated brand logos, or an expansive glass roof.
On the inside, the cabin is likely upholstered in cloth, with manual adjustment for the seats, a cabin layout that prioritizes practicality over design with more buttons and rotary dial controls, and an analog gauge cluster next to a modestly-sized center touchscreen that doesn’t have embedded factory navigation. Despite a more restricted budget, buyers of this $25k-$35k vehicle still want several of the popular features and technology found on higher-priced vehicles including wireless charging pads for smartphones, heated and ventilated front seats, a common 110v outlet, driver profile settings, and active safety features like rear cross-traffic alert with automatic emergency braking, rearward automatic emergency braking, lane change assist, and rain-sensing windshield wipers. Features like a head-up display or upgraded branded stereos (Bose, Harman Kardon, etc.) aren’t necessary, nor are immersive connected services that require an additional paid data plan to use.
They just want nice things and not to have to pay a subscription to use their own car. Is that so hard?
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
It’s Houston’s very own Geto Boys with “Damn It Feels Good To Be A Gangsta.” Maybe do not play this song loudly anywhere outside of your car, but please enjoy Bushwick Bill robbing a drug deal that involves… is that a guy in a Mazda MX-3? Perfect. [Ed Note: I’m a G Code guy. -DT].
The Big Question
How would you save Chrysler?
Lead photo: Office Space/Stellantis
Chrysler is the new Pontiac?
Hell, give me back my Fiat 500 Abarth but with select-able AWD and 300hp like my GR Corolla, but with the Abarth exhaust factory.
And an included extended bumper-to-bumper warranty to 100k miles because Fiat.
Great theme, Still is my ringtone and it freaks people out.
I’m someone who grew up in a Chrysler family- at one point, my dad, my uncle, and my grandfather all had Cordobas. Dad always said, “Chyslers are just better-engineered than GM or Ford”. His last car was a 1988 Fifth Avenue, a rolling museum piece that made a Crown Vic look like the space shuttle.
As an adult, I owned my wife’s ’97 Intrepid and it was a great car. But when it came time to replace it, she wanted a Toyota.
I lost a lot of respect for Chrysler during the Dubya years. The sloppy marriage to Mercedes, then the disastrous Cerberus period, followed by a bankruptcy and acquisition by an old lady at a garage sale in Milan. And now, under the thumb of the very French government that Chrysler bought AMC from all those years ago. All through that time, the model lineups kept getting smaller, the choices narrower, and the product worse.
Whatever special sauce Chrysler had from ‘ol Walter and the Dodge Brothers, that gave us those awesome Imperials and DeSotos in the 50’s, followed by some of the most storied muscle cars of the 60’s, is lone gone. That engineering prowess that made my dad buy Chyslers was sacrificed to the altar of venture capital. The shine came off during that Cerberus ownership, when they let the organization starve of new product- which is exactly what Stellantis continues to do today.
The easy answer is the same as it was ten years ago. Bring DS products here and badge them as Chyslers.
I was born in 1993 and never saw Chrysler as a premium brand, to me they always seemed like slightly nicer versions of existing Dodges, like Lincoln is to Ford. The most common Chrysler product I encountered growing up was T&C minivans. Tracks with what you’re saying, it’s been a long time since a Chrysler was something special. The 300 is probably as close as they got to that, but it received few updates and they didn’t even bother trying to replace it.
The two biggest issues with DS in the USA would be Drivetrain options and price. None of us think French vehicles are higher quality than say Hyundai really. Certainly not better than Chrysler, and that is saying something. And as we saw with the Hornet, price is actually detrimental when the rebadged vehicle has to deal with Euro to US dollar exchange rates and probably Tariffs.
Certainly a Knockdown chassis with maybe a perceived more reliable standard drivetrain out of a more current Chrysler product would go far in selling these to the Chrysler buying public. The tough spot they are really in is getting the Clark B’s of the world to look at the company differently. they may not have the funds to let some of the nicer DS stuff to gain a reputation or foothold as the first couple years of sale will be tough.
I say this is the karma the Dodge brothers reap for enshrining shareholder supremacy as a cornerstone of modern day industrial capitalism.
I wouldn’t save Chrysler – I would take it off the life-support is has been on for decades and let it finally rest in peace.
In the USA Stellantis needs nothing except Jeep and Dodge (RAM can fold back into the Dodge brand)
This is the answer. The only people who currently think of Chrysler as a luxury brand are either 6 feet underground (my grandparents,) or their children. They killed the brand, and now need to let it go.
I’m in my late 40’s and grew up in southern Michigan where in my youth only the Detroit 3 were considered viable car options. Even in the 80’s nobody took Chrysler seriously or thought it was on par with Cadillac or Lincoln.
It simply has no value today as a luxury or even near luxury brand.
The 300C created a lot of buzz when it came out and seemed to be legitimately sought after for a while. The first gen didn’t stick around for 100 years, and the redesign was good enough to boost it back into relevance.
I’d guess it got some cross-shopping with a CTS in the day, but it was more a “working man luxury” car than Cadillac, and it could be had with a V8 without being the expensive CTS-V.
But they never tried to expand Chrysler using the 300’s momentum, and then Stellantis came along and just let Chrysler (and Dodge) rot.
Exactly. It was mid-tier similar to a Mercury or Oldsmobile.
Chrysler did attempt to expand into new segments – they just didn’t sell. Crossfire, Pacifica (the crossover), Aspen and then they threw a bunch of money into the Chrysler 200 – which also failed.
IF Stellantis keeps Chrysler around something like a new 300 makes more sense than selling a minivan.
Same. This article is the first time I have heard Chrysler referred to as premium.
I did think they were kind of cool for a hot second when the 300 and Crossfire came out. But then my dad got a PT Cruiser and my future FIL got a Sebring, and Chrysler was officially Old People Cars again.
Perhaps Chrysler should consider selling magazine subscriptions.
Have we considered the Cybertruck just needs a change of scenery, a la Mavericks-era Steve Nash. And who better to take on a high-risk reclamation project then a team desperate to sniff the playoffs after a unsuccessful rebuild. So, I purpose a trade:
Chrysler receives:
The Cybertruck- to be renamed The Chrysler Cybertruck
Tesla Receives:
Cash Considerations
2031 Second Round Pick (MIN)
Brad from Accounting (He played D2 in college and he’s nasty from the ARC)
Tesla looks to get out of luxury tax as their window is started to close, and they look towards the future. And Chrysler finally has a piece to build around.
Oh dang, did car company free agency start this week? I guess I haven’t been paying attention. Tough to throw Brad into that deal, but if that’s what it takes to get it done…
May have to get a 3rd team involved to move Brad, I hear he doesn’t like the creative accounting system that the Tesla coach runs and could veto the trade.
IDK, maybe Vinfast? They could use the stability of a veteran role player coming off the bench. They can only move the VF9, and I’m not sure what that will do for Win-now Chrysler.
Thank you for the Office Space pieces of flair today! Chrysler actually got fired a few years ago, but payroll never got informed.
An SRT Pacifica would be pretty sweet, yeah? Special edition to take on Pikes Peak?
“I could burn the building down”.
eh, that is currently called a Dodge Durango SRT
I don’t want a Durango SRT because it (1) lacks the practicality of a minivan, and (2) would apparently require me to drive like complete asshole at all times.
Man, it’s weird, like a brand without product to sell, new or old, is going to have challenges. They should just make another Pacifica/Voyager trim called The Struggle Bus.
If I tried to save Chrysler, I’d probably do the ol’ Hornet special on the Charger Daytona sedan and the WL Grand Cherokee.
Get yourself a marque stunner like a Chrysler New Yorker (the 300 is still very well attached to the Hemi, so it may be best to use a different name) and get yourself a newer Aspen-like vehicle.
Boom: you can get an EV and 6-cylinder New Yorker, or a hybrid and 6-cylinder Aspen for how much investment? On virtually brand-new chassis, they’d be brand new products with a brand-new feel. Not another variation of the Giulietta Hornet/Tonale rebadge, not a fancy 15-year-old Durango, products designed either at the ass-end of the 2010’s or the beginning of the 2020’s.
I simply would not. You’re going to be spending millions to rehab the brand, and for what? To have another mid-priced competitor in the luxury space? The market is already saturated as it is. This desire to keep Chrysler around is based on nothing more than nostalgia. Jeep has effectively become what they would need to turn Chrysler into, and I’m sorry, but a sedan or sports car is not goin to save that brand. It’s time to just throw in the towel.
Pick something that Stellantis does well, and stick with it.
So far, I’ve yet to see anything but pandering to voices that believe value comes from counting the number of cylinders.
I don’t know if it would be enough to save it, but I think Chrysler needed a new version of the 300. It was a unique product in the marketplace. A large sedan that was about comfort and near luxury at a reasonable price. That doesn’t exist anymore, especially from a domestic manufacturer. They need to play in the markets where there aren’t 40 other SUV’s.
And flair, Chrysler needs more flair.
I think only Japanese and S. Korean companies make those now.
Yep, my parents just went through this. They wanted to replace their CT6, but they only wanted a car. There was very little for them to consider. Genesis, Toyota Crown, a few others, and they ended up buying a Lexus ES350.
Chrysler should do at least 3 things, and do them well
1) a moderately priced 5 passenger boulevard cruiser convertible
2) a big, somewhat luxurious, RWD sedan
3) a really good minivan
There really arent any stand alone Chrysler dealer franchises anymore, theyre all co-located with Jeep, RAM, and Dodge, so Chrysler shouldn’t really need a full lineup of crossovers and SUVs, just like RAM doesnt need a version of the Hornet, each brand can be allowed to specialize a little. It doesnt matter if those are smaller or declining market segments, if Chrysler offers really compelling products and outlasts everyone else, they can have those segments all to themselves or nearly to themselves and take nearly 100% of those markets. Also, those are three areas where the brand has a real tradition of success and has real appeal to buyers looking for those sorts of products
To save Chrysler have them build a small crossover in the $25-35k range with feature pretty much lining up with that AutoPacific report and a gas and hybrid engine option. Job done.
From WWII to 1975, The Chrysler brand pretty much sold only one car. As an example, in 1965, Chrysler claimed to have 13 “models”, but they were just trim and body style variants of a single car. So I’m not sure why folks are worried when Chrysler sells only one car now.
People can get automotive news anywhere, okay? They come to The Autopian for the atmosphere and the attitude. Okay? That’s what the flair’s about. It’s about fun. 🙂
but you only have 15 pieces of flair.
Jason Torchinsky, for example, has 37 pieces of flair… and a terrific smile
Does this mean you won’t be putting in an application for News Editor?
Yeah. You know what? yeah, I do. I do want to enjoy my automotive news, okay, and I don’t need 37 pieces of flair to do it!!!
Yeah. Ummm. I’m going to need you to go ahead and fill in the comments section.
That would be great.
And another thing: Adrian has ~8 bosses, Bob.
“How would you save Chrysler?”
A better question is WHY would you save Chrysler.
I am no longer a youth, but I can only recall a few Chrysler products that weren’t badge engineered versions of other
Chrysler CorpDaimlerChryslerFiat-ChryslerStellantis products. Chrysler might have been a major brand in the past (i.e. the mid 20th century), but in my lifetime they have been an afterthought. At this point, I can’t think of any compelling reason to keep Chrysler around. Stellantis clearly agrees, or else they would sell more Chrysler products than just two versions of the same minivan. It is well past time to retire Chrysler as a brand. It has been on life support for decades – let it die with dignity.B-b-b-but buying out the dealerships would destroy them!
I couldn’t care less if Chrysler exists or not. They’ve been bailed out multiple times and then swallowed by a corporate conglomerate, have next to nothing to sell, and only exist due to boomer sentiment from the “glory days”.
Chrysler only exists today because it would take billions to buy back the franchises.
Cheaper to spread the lineup over a bunch of brands than to buy out the dead brands.
Even the most loyal of loyalists to anything will eventually run out of enthusiasm and care. Chrysler is past that point. Stellantis is almost at that point.
Just got an email from Rivian advertising the R1 quad which I assume is a 4 motor version. Clearly continuing to focus on the top end of the market will save them.
I’ve long said Chrysler should be the mature, grown up, tech forward version of Dodge.
The electric Charger and Challenger should have been styled more conservatively and sold as Chryslers. Chrysler should have an electric CUV and Pacifica too.
I don’t agree that the Wagoneer should have been a Chrysler or should be now. The Jeep name is stronger and makes sense for that vehicle.
But it’s not a Jeep Wagoneer, is it? Didn’t they try to make it a sub brand?
Yes they did, but not very convincingly I think
I tend to agree – even the 300 which everyone in the comments seems to agree is the only recent bright spot for Chrysler was basically a Charger with a bigger grill, more chrome, and the two most modest (least juvenile) engine options.
It feels like there should be a niche for them because Chrysler hasn’t been a parallel to Lincoln or Cadillac in decades but they should be able to own the space left by Mercury, Oldsmobile, and possibly even Saab. The issue is that up until about the 90s you could be slightly upscale by swapping some leather for the fabric and vinyl and putting a landeau roof on but that doesn’t work anymore when even first-time entry-level new car buyers expect heated and ventilated seats, lane change assist, and wireless phone charging and connectivity.
Is it though? What exactly is SRT actually going to do? So far he’s managed to cram an antiquated, thirsty V8 into a truck not designed for it to sate the “haha big engin good” crowd. They’re pretty light on cars that actually deserve an SRT treatment.
If his plan is to literally just take two steps back, cramming HEMI’s into everything that will accommodate one, completely ignorant of the future then it’s gonna be the same old story over and over again. That’s really not anything to get excited about.
100%, I see it as the very definition of “Short Term Phoning In” strategy. So easy a caveman could do it.
Its marketing. Its not about selling v8s. Its about telling the customer base they have lost that they are listening and they care. The V8s, the SRTs, its all about rebuilding customer image. Stellantis doesn’t need a long term play to their customers right now. They need tor remind customers why they wanted a Stellantis product in the first place. If they can’t get their old customer base back today, they won’t be around to need long term plans.
They keep the V8s available, let pricing and government actions dictate volume and availability. Its worked incredibly well for Ford. I see no reason it can’t work for Ram and Co.
Stellantis is not just Dodge, though. You may be able to convince some Dodge people to trade in their clapped out Chargers/Challengers on new ones, but how is that growing the brand? I’d wager the majority of the public doesn’t care about V8s or cosplaying as Vin Diesel, so what are you offering those people? The Hornet? Poorly built and overpriced Jeep crossovers? An extremely old minivan? They have nothing. Their models across all of their brands are outdated and too expensive, they’re not exactly leading the charge in terms of technology, and they have a universally well-known reputation for poor build quality. The old Hellcat everything strategy may win you some headlines and a few new buyers, but is doing nothing to help Stellantis in the long term.
I think we have differing opinions on the base value of those headlines they garner, and what those headlines say to potential customers. But on the list of actions that can make an impact today, very little can be done from your list. And if they don’t do something today, there is no value in worrying about tomorrow. I agree, there is a long road and plenty to fix. But I think as a marketing play, this all makes good sense for today. But then again, they same Mopar guys are weird, and I’m a Mopar guy.
This marketing is putting the cart before the horse, though. Dodge has no real product to sell. The Hornet is a dud, the ICE Charger is not yet ready and there’s a non-zero chance it will have a lot of teething issues, so really the only thing they have is the Durango and I’m not sure how much longer they can keep milking that platform.
it was always really just the wrong order of operations on this new charger. Starting cold turkey on electric only thing with a BEV pricetag to match was just poor planning and lack of understanding of the Dodge brand base of customers. they could have very well started with all the options had they properly understood the market. Concurrent engineering groups could have very much made the variations happen faster, which they certainly needed to be and the result would have been the ability to attract more of the buying public up front. now they have nothing anyone really want in the car side of things, so their is far less cross shopping happening and as a result a lot less visibility. Once all that goes away, it is hard to get the eyes back on you without doing something drastic.
I have more than once thought that if the new Wagoneer had any chance of success, it should have been badged as a Chrysler. I don’t know how much that would have actually helped, but it would have given the Chrysler brand a distinction without watering down the Jeep brand.
But honestly, Chrysler is in a bad place and the Pacifica was an also-ran minivan when it was first launched, and is really behind the curve now compared to rivals. The PHEV version was the only really compelling feature to pick a Pacifica over something else, but of course that model has had all kinds of issues. It will be interesting to see if they can pull Chrysler out of the mud, but I don’t have high hopes.
I’d argue that the Pacifica was the best minivan at launch, and I only regret that we had to buy our Odyssey several months before it was first launched.
However, that was initial quality. Looking back, I’m happy with my trouble-free choice, while Chrysler seems to still be struggling to make an NA V6 that’s bulletproof. That’s painful when it goes into almost all of your vehicles.
I think the Pacifica had the best features when it launched, but I thought it handled poorly and the build quality and fit and finish of the new one I test drove was bad. But to your point of initial quality, in the ten years of trouble-free ownership I had with my Odyssey (which I sold six months ago), literally everyone we knew who bought a Pacifica sold theirs and bought either an Odyssey or Sienna. One of them had their PHEV Pacifica for two months when it decided to self-immolate and nearly took their house with it. The biggest complaints about those that bought new vans were the subpar infotainment in the Hondas (my chief complain with our Odyssey) and the loss of the stow-n-go middle row.
The Wagoneer is fine as a Jeep. The failure came with the Grand Wagoneer, which should have been a Chrysler. I joke every time I see a Grand that the owner is probably kicking himself because there isn’t a good way to show off how much more he paid for his Grand Wagoneer over the plebian “regular” Wagoneer.
If you’re going to have two mostly similar vehicles and are going through the effort to make “two” models, why not spend that bit extra to give one a different face and badge?
That’s a fair point. I was thinking more inline with it would make more sense to try and continue taking Chrysler more upmarket with the Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer rather than trying to saddle them with bringing Jeep into that luxury cache. In my head, cheap Jeep models can lack offroad capability because they sit below the aspirational models like the Wrangler and Grand Cherokee. But the Wagoneer models are too expensive to sit in that same bucket, so they either need to fit the Jeep capability mold (which they don’t) or move to Chrysler where they can really pursue their design of being a rival to the Tahoe/Yukon and Escalade/Navigator.
I remember reading when the Grand Wagoneer launched that the brand used to be an under the radar car for the wealthy set that didn’t want to show off. I guess Stellantis wanted to recapture that? Even though the last Grand Wagoneer was ~35 years old at that point. Maybe the wealthy people of 1991 had kids who wanted one?
What the Wagoneer (and Grand Wagoneer) should have done to be successful is actually launch two decades ago which is about how long they’ve been teasing it. Just like VW’s ID.Bust. Too expensive, questionable brand equity, a more difficult market environment, and not really delivering what was promised (or perhaps more accurately, what was expected).
Chrysler needs to just suck it up and follow what Lincoln is already doing (let’s suspend disbelief about R&D and manufacturing and timelines, and just talk about lineup).
If they could ride those coattails and do it at about 75% of the price, with their famously aggressive financing, I think they’d have a winner.
I don’t really support the idea of going all-in on SRT right now. That’s an uphill battle that might do ok with the US market for a little while, but the Big Orange Man is talking about other countries buying our cars, so maybe a “world car” focus would go a long way, at least for a couple of models. Plus Kuniskis seems to be putting a lot of faith in the current quasi-anti-environmental attitudes continuing for many years to come (or he’s just riding it for a couple years until he can get out).
I wonder if an EV 300 would have met a better fate than the EV Charger has so far?
It would maybe be slightly easier to justify the price, at least?
Probably. A lot of people bought the reborn 300 that weren’t really Chrysler buyers except maybe for the Chrysler T&C up until then. The Charger on the other hand was marketed to and sold to Dodge buyers, who traditionally have been less than interested in anything EV.
Or instead of wasting money and time on that they should have continued with the Airflow concept that they showed to pretty much universal acclaim.
Chrysler needs to follow the Lincoln playbook somehow.
More luxury coded durango should’ve been somewhere to start years ago.
Let alfa be sporty luxury, just target the American luxury crowd.
Make another 300 off the new charger. I bet there’d be more appetite for an electric version without a Dodge badge.
Chrysler had a Durango-based SUV in 2007 named the Aspen, so the company doesn’t even have to copy from someone else’s homework.
Amen. Another cheap-to-implement solution, which was a sales success in the recent past, is right in front of them. Chrysler isn’t even phoning it in.
Badge engineering is definitely where they need to start. It shouldn’t be hard to do a better job luxing up the Durango than was done the last time with the Aspen. That was an underwhelming vehicle with an even more underwhelming “upgrade”.
I agree that an EV 300 is likely to have more appeal as a Chrysler. Only offer the 4 door, avoid the luxury coupe arena I think.
The Wagoneer is recognized as the nicest interior among the large SUVs. So steal that and make a Chrysler version, perhaps even with an eye to retiring the Wagoneer and leaving that market to Chrysler, where I think it should have been in the first place? Or offer the V8 for Chrysler but not for Jeep?
I wonder if there would be value in importing (or building under license) a Jimny for Jeep (the Wranglette, baby Wrangler), but also pushing a Chrysler version built up as a compact G Wagen, small Luxo SUV? That might be a stupid idea, I’m not really sure.
To save Chrysler?
Okay, start with the Hornet/Tonale and add a bed and a hybrid option. Keep the price down, and BOOM!!!
You’ve got the only competition for the hot selling Maverick!
BOOM, Chicken Tax on the version with a bed since those are built in Italy.
Knock-down kit vehicles avoid the chicken tax, if IIRC. As I mentioned in another comment, Chrysler isn’t even trying anymore.
A certain tariff-obsessed voice might mean that it doesn’t matter that much.
It might make most sense for them to kill of all the brands excepting Dodge & Jeep in North America – and consolidate the few models they have under those nameplates.
Winner – Winner !!!!
Well… $*@#.
So, the Rampage minus the hybrid option?
If they used the overseas-only Compass/Renegade hybrid set-up, it could work…