Chrysler Wants You To Tell Them Whats Wrong

[Philly]

Even if someone said, "its what the price point allows us" or "the core market won't care that much if the price is right", I would say that as long as you have that attitude, your products will continue to personify "settling". And if you make products that say "I'm settling", you will never be the best.

They will have two ways to go if they are going to say either of those things. They can continue building sub-par products and even be successful, but they would have to price their cars far below their current "competition." But that's just building for the price, which in the end might not work.

Of course, they could build for their current price, but that would involve bumping quality up several notches. It would probably be an easier goal to reach though. Really, they only have to look at the Camry and match or slightly outclass it.

 

[YSSMAN]

They're already selling them on the cheap. Hell, I'm sure you've seen the commercials and read the advertisements for their cars/trucks here in Michigan...

One recalls last summer as they were trying to clear out the Town and Country stock at a local Chrysler dealer that they had chopped more than $10K off the sticker price. Its that bad, even here in Chrysler-friendly Michigan.

I was joking around for a while that in my hunt for a new car that I could probably walk into a Jeep dealer and get a Patriot for $3.25. I haven't tried it yet, but I'm sure I could come close!

 

[buickgnx88]

Perhaps you could try and barter with them, you know bring in some sheep or oxen and see if they'll trade with you!

 

[///M-Spec]

They will have two ways to go if they are going to say either of those things. They can continue building sub-par products and even be successful, but they would have to price their cars far below their current "competition." But that's just building for the price, which in the end might not work.

Of course, they could build for their current price, but that would involve bumping quality up several notches. It would probably be an easier goal to reach though. Really, they only have to look at the Camry and match or slightly outclass it.

^ I'm not so sure either of those strategies will work.

If I were in charge, I would try to make products that will be class leaders AND under-cut the price. Now, of course it is very easy for me to say because I don't have to figure out how to do it. But if Chrysler wants to be successful again, they will need to figure it out.

I say this because if you look at the brands are stronger today, it's because they don't shoot for second or third place. They want to be the top dog.

Hyundai. They're not happy playing the cheap alternative to Japanese. They want to be better than the Japanese competition and still be cheaper. It's brash. It's ambitious. It may not even succeed, but you have to admire their chutzpah. The Genesis is the automotive equivalant of a big brass pair.

Audi. They spent years as the third place German premium brand. Now they want to beat BMW and Mercedes. And it shows in their recent products. They wouldn't garner the respect they have today, if they simply settled for third. They'd still be rolling out so-so copies of the 3-series engineered from spare VW parts and people would still see them as 'the German brand for people too poor to afford a Mercedes or BMW' instead of a peer to Munich and Stuttgart.

And of course Cadillac. For years, they talked the talked. Now they're finally walking the walk. The CTS is fully competitive on EVERY level. The SRX is a class leader and the STS is no slouch either. If they were happy to keep building Cateras and DeVilles, people would still be staying away from them in droves.

See all these brands were ho-hum 10-15 years ago. But they've made HUGE strides (from a product stand-point) because they really want to be the best.

So no, I don't see Chrysler viable long term if they continue on their present course. They need to play to win or pack it up and go home. I say this as a consumer who is entering his most economically productive years and am excited by many brands, foreign and domestic, but Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep (Viper, 300 and Challenger being exceptions) are not among them.

EDIT: Another thing I would probably get rid of is the overlap between brands. Dodge should sell trucks and sports cars. Chrysler should sell sedans, coupes and minivans. Jeep should sell SUVs and crossovers. They should share platforms and drivetrains, but should NOT be competing against each other in the market place. And before you reply with "I don't think a Sebring is really competing with an Avenger", let me just say "Right. Because that philosophy is really working well for them, isn't it?"


M

 

[Philly]

One recalls last summer as they were trying to clear out the Town and Country stock at a local Chrysler dealer that they had chopped more than $10K off the sticker price. Its that bad, even here in Chrysler-friendly Michigan.

That bad? I had always thought the T&C was a halfway decent minivan anyway, which is another strike against them.

^ I'm not so sure either of those strategies will work.

They might not work long-term, but if they really need cash, I'm sure there are plenty of people in the market for a really cheap car that want something more than a hatchback. A Sebring-quality car for the price of many used cars and including a warranty could probably sell enough to give the company some money to spend improving other things.

They will eventually want to return to shooting for number one while costing less, but can they afford that? Would it be better to get something out ASAP that will be competitive and turn sales around now to buy some time or spend the extra time losing money to build something that they want to be at the top but might not be?

 

[///M-Spec]

They might not work long-term, but if they really need cash, I'm sure there are plenty of people in the market for a really cheap car that want something more than a hatchback. A Sebring-quality car for the price of many used cars and including a warranty could probably sell enough to give the company some money to spend improving other things.

They will eventually want to return to shooting for number one while costing less, but can they afford that? Would it be better to get something out ASAP that will be competitive and turn sales around now to buy some time or spend the extra time losing money to build something that they want to be at the top but might not be?

Really, I don't know. I don't have an MBA from Harvard or Wharton. I see things from a consumer and enthusiast's point of view, not a business analyst. So I know what I would like to see from a company; but I sure as hell won't pretend to know how to actually do it.

Something is keeping Chrysler Corp. from making class leading products. Probably a range of issues we don't even see. If they need time to fix these things, then maybe it's better to stay on the Fail Train until they can make a connection at Turnaround Station rather than take the first stop at Bankrupt Junction. Whatever it is, someone smarter, better informed and more qualified than I needs to make that decision.

Maybe what they need is to invest in a 'killer platform' like the FM was for Nissan. Saddle it up with a world class engine and stick that beotch in everything they make (like the VQ). Throw out the horrendous grille --and everything else that's attached to it -- and start with a new fresh look. Then put all the accountants who cheapified the interiors on a boat scheduled to be made into a coral reef. And loose the Pentastar. Every time I see it, I think "K Car" and that should be the very last image on earth they want me to see.

Again, I don't know. If I did, I'd be working for them. About the only thing I know for sure is they need to stop doing what they've been doing.


M

 

[Tornado]

Something has been bothering me recently. In 1998, Chrysler was a little bit behind the Asians in overall but far, far ahead of any other domestic company. They had good cars with good interiors and good dynamics, and they weren't in the "Make only SUVs and screw the cars" mentality that Ford and Chevy allowed themselves to ruin in. Then Mercedes wrecked everything, etc. However, why doesn't Chrysler merely fall back on the formula that helped them on top 10 years ago? Why do they think that SUVs are the future when the prior SUV pushers realize that cars will be more important down the line? Is it a leadership position? Ownership (my guess, personally)? Remnants of Mercedes-style thinking?

 

[YSSMAN]

I really don't think anyone knows for sure. Dr. Z obviously wanted to proliferate small cars with the Caliber/Patriot/Compass kids, but that really hasn't worked out well at all. My guess is that the transition from Chrysler --> Mercedes --> Cerberus has really f'ed with a lot of management and consequently, no one knows how to run a car company anymore.

My theory is that if they spent the time to thoroughly revamp several select models, condensing lineups and maybe attempting to mimic GM's "BPG Group" (read Buick, Pontiac, GMC dealers), they could turn the boat around quickly.

They've gotta eliminate overlap, or at the very least, justify it under most circumstances.

 

[Joey D]

Running a car company? How hard can it be? You just listen to what your consumers want and cater to them. People in the US are starting to shift more towards fuel efficient cars, so run with that. Does it really take a marketing genius to figure all this out?

 

[Tornado]

Running a car company? How hard can it be?
...Does it really take a marketing genius to figure all this out?

Mercedes spent billions of dollars (of Chrysler's money) trying everything they could to get Chrysler to the level they were pre-purchase, and they managed a single new car that sold in numbers. And this was all after they killed a brand (and sold another) to eliminate overlap; and after they began flooding the market with vehicles in niches that people were snapping cars out of at a constant rate.

 

[Joey D]

It seems like they always try to hard and they always seem to overlook the most important thing in all their research...the consumer.

 

[Tornado]

I'd agree with that. Dodge's portfolio is full of them. So is the one at Scion, for that matter. A depressing amount of GM products also fit under the same bate, too.

 

[///M-Spec]

Running a car company? How hard can it be?

Very simple in theory. Probably much harder than you or I can imagine in practice. Do you have any experience in managing a company?


M

 

[Joey D]

Very simple in theory. Probably much harder than you or I can imagine in practice. Do you have any experience in managing a company?


M

No, why would I? I'm 20. I still can't imagine running an automotive company is all that hard, it's a consumer market and a vehicle something that everyone (at least here in America) needs. The industry, I feel, makes it much harder on themselves by trying to come up with all these cleaver things people do not really need or really even want.

The industry has forgotten about what people want and the ones who forgot the most will start failing, this is why Chrysler is in such a mess, they forgot their basics. The K-car, Neon and Caravan were all vehicles that made sense to people and they bought them, they were well priced and practical. Now they are getting into vehicles like the Nitro, Journey, and Caliber which are entering a crowed market, but offer rather "meh" vehicles.

Companies, all companies, over think things. The average consumer is, well a bit average, give them an average product that doesn't cost a ton of money and they will be happy...but have smaller niche things to satisfy others. The SRT-4 was the perfect example of this. Dodge's everyday commuter car of the Neon was great at what it did and people loved it, but there were the few who wanted something fast so they slapped a turbo on it and catered to that market.

 

[///M-Spec]

No, why would I? I'm 20. I still can't imagine running an automotive company is all that hard, it's a consumer market and a vehicle something that everyone (at least here in America) needs. The industry, I feel, makes it much harder on themselves by trying to come up with all these cleaver things people do not really need or really even want.

The industry has forgotten about what people want and the ones who forgot the most will start failing, this is why Chrysler is in such a mess, they forgot their basics. The K-car, Neon and Caravan were all vehicles that made sense to people and they bought them, they were well priced and practical. Now they are getting into vehicles like the Nitro, Journey, and Caliber which are entering a crowed market, but offer rather "meh" vehicles.

Companies, all companies, over think things. The average consumer is, well a bit average, give them an average product that doesn't cost a ton of money and they will be happy...but have smaller niche things to satisfy others. The SRT-4 was the perfect example of this. Dodge's everyday commuter car of the Neon was great at what it did and people loved it, but there were the few who wanted something fast so they slapped a turbo on it and catered to that market.

It's hard to say this without sounding patronizing, but I'll try: when I was 20, I thought many things were much simpler than they were too. But as I gained more life experience, I realized these things were actually far more complicated than I could have ever dreamed.

That's because when you have no personal experience with something complicated, it is very easy to assume it is not. To a child's or a layman's eyes, shooting a rocket into space looks like a very simple thing. There's a big explosion and whoosh there it goes. In reality, it is incredibly complicated and requires an extraordinary amount of work and precision to achieve.

Running Chrysler is most likely not rocket science. But it is a company with over 100,000 employees and worth about 9 billion USD. Its operating losses are something around 2.8 billion for 2007 and it sells around 2.7 million cars and trucks a year. There can not be anything simple about running a company like that. I used to run a small IT dept with 4 people in it and it was a full time job filled with tough decisions and problems I could not solve.

I would suggest you spend a few more years in the workforce before you make any assumptions about how easy and simple big companies are to run. I'm not trying to be rude or condescending. I'm trying to be earnest and sincere when I say big things are complicated. And even though Chysler is the third place player in the Big Three, it's still plenty big.


M

 

[Joey D]

I never said it was cake, I just don't think it's as hard as they make it out to be and I think they lost touch with the consumer.

 

[YSSMAN]

You guys are both right...

Running Chrysler is obviously much harder than we'd expect given that not even the "experts" at DaimlerBenz could fix it. But that being said, given the relatively "simple" decisions that were made at GM and Ford to turn their ships around, why can't Chrysler do the same?

We've put a lot of money behind Jim Press and Bob Nardeli, and so far, I don't think either of them have delivered. Sad, really... Because both of them were pretty good in the previous posts (maybe not Nardeli?).

A lot of Chrysler's vehicles have a lot of neat features in them that would make a sale to me possible. The Caliber comes to mind with the speakers in the tailgate, the dome lights that turn into flashlights, the heated/cooled cupholders, the ice chest in the glovebox, etc...

But the so-so mechanical bits and the piss-poor interior quality turns me away every time.

If they can't get sales in Domestic friendly Michigan, how are they going to get them anywhere?

 

[Gil]

In an attempt to be serious:
I have owned one Chrysler/Plymouth vehicle (A Voyager minivan).
It proved to be two vehicles too many.
It had transmission problems>
The engine had to be rebuilt 3 times in 120,000 miles.
Everyone I know that has had the same vehicle has had similar experiences.

If Chrysler/Plymouth is to succeed, they need to concentrate on giving buyers, especially "new converts" a satisfactory experience. You alienated me with the first vehicle. I will NEVER buy another.
I'm at the point that I would never consider a Mopar (even though I like the looks of the 300C, Charger, and Challenger (Which is debuting at a price comparable to a BMW 3 Series).
I won't consider one, because I don't trust them not to leave me stranded on the side of the road.
The one Caravan left me and mine on the side of the road more times than any of my other cars. Almost more often than all my other cars combined, And I've driven a lot of cars both before and after the Caravan.

The new Limited Lifetime warranty is a good start.
But with the vehicles I've seen and heard about, it's either proof positive that the company has turned around, or it's gonna bankrupt them, again.

Another thing to remember, is that Americans have a certain expectation for a Dodge. A Dodge sport coupe should not have an MSRP of $40,000. I don't care how cool the Charger is/is gonna be. That is not the history of the original car.
Ford made the same mistake with the last generation T-Bird. You don't put a Lincoln price on a Ford and expect it to sell. People who buy Lincolns, don't "step down" into Fords.

The same holds true for Dodges. Dodge has traditionally been a car for the masses. The price is gonna put guys who normally would buy a Dodge out of the running. And the guys who can afford it, are by and large gonna be looking at something a bit more "up-market"

If you're gonna market a car to aging hot-rodders, perhaps it should be priced within their reach.

 

[///M-Spec]

I never said it was cake, I just don't think it's as hard as they make it out to be and I think they lost touch with the consumer.

Yeah okay, you never said 'simple and easy'. Those were my words, true. But your point was you couldn't see why it would be hard. All I'm saying is that it's probably much harder than you think.

Let me put it another way. If it's not all that hard to fix Chrysler, then why hasn't it already been done? Daimler-Benz isn't exactly an outfit full of chumps. But they turned Chrysler from a profitable business to a loss leader in a few scant years.

And yes, they have lost touch with the consumer. If they hadn't, they would still be successful.

I'll reiterate my original point; it's easy say what's wrong and what needs to be fixed. It's much harder to figure out how and even harder to execute the plan.


M

 

[Joey D]

It's not as hard as they make it out to be. Chrysler seems to think it's going to take an act of god to make them profitable and as I've said they've lost touch. Making vehicles like the Nitro and Journey aren't going to win new customers. Yes the Challenger is cool but how many people are going to buy it? Chrysler needs another winner like the K car was or the Caravan.

Daimler never really seemed to care all that much about Chrysler, I mean they took them over, got rid of all the Chrysler management and took some ideas from them. To be honest I never really saw what Daimler in Chrysler.

 

[Omnis]

That said, I wonder what their SWOT analysis looks like.

I think Dodge needs to lean out pull an '80s Toyota car line-up.

 

[Sniffs]

JCE: "cut the fat" generally means remove all performance vehicles whatsoever.

everybody, don't prod them too hard, or we'll end up Aspens/Volares, Aries/reliant, or Spirit/Acclaim AGAIN!.

all the other Jeeps were created to broaden Jeep's appeal and bring it out of the SUV doldrums. taking all the variety away and keeping only the wrangler will lead to everybody swarming Toyota! (and this from a guy that drives a 4Runner )

to Chrysler LLC itself:
DUMP THE PENTESTAR!
you uglified it, anyway, and it smacks of Mercedes...and I don't think they want the association that the pentastar implies!
put the bloody viper back!
if you DARE kill the challenger or charger, you WILL be removed bodily from the US!
if you have to, go see Lee Iacocca
do NOT pull the K car trick again!

 

[Philly]

JCE: "cut the fat" generally means remove all performance vehicles whatsoever.

I would think cutting the fat would involve losing weight which would mean cutting the SUV line and adding more light sports cars....

all the other Jeeps were created to broaden Jeep's appeal and bring it out of the SUV doldrums. taking all the variety away and keeping only the wrangler will lead to everybody swarming Toyota! (and this from a guy that drives a 4Runner )

There's nothing wrong with trying to add a little variety. It's when you execute that diversity terribly that you have problems. The Compass would have a good place in their lineup if it was a good car. The new Liberty would too if it was a good car. The Patriot would be money well spent if it was a good car. What we're saying is that the vehicles in Jeep's range (wrangler aside) suck, and you can't sell cars that suck, so they should remove everything that sucks only leaving the Wrangler and maybe the Grand Cherokee. Replacing what would be removed by worthwhile vehicles would be a second step.

put the bloody viper back!

Taking it out was a good decision for them. We will still have the current car for a while, but at present, Chrysler doesn't have the money to waste on a track car. I'm sure they will make a new one when they get around to putting up profits again and can afford to develop it.

if you DARE kill the challenger or charger, you WILL be removed bodily from the US!

I'm sure these will be around for a while. The Challenger just came out and Chrysler is generating a lot of hype with their Charger cop cars. The platform is due for a new development though. You can't sell old E classes forever.

do NOT pull the K car trick again!

Hey. I've heard the LeBaron is good enough to outrun radar planes.

 

[Tornado]

if you have to, go see Lee Iacocca
do NOT pull the K car trick again!

 

[Jim Prower]

if you have to, go see Lee Iacocca
do NOT pull the K car trick again!

Seconded.

You know who's trick the K-Car was? :3

Actually I should think they should pull it again. It was the EXACT car they needed at the EXACT time they needed it. In retrospect, they ran for awhile, but became unreliable later in life, and that's not a mistake Chrysler needs to make again, but they DO need a competitive car in that segment. and, the K platform (and this was it's big success) was incredibly flexible. They have something like that with the current Lancer platform, they just need to DO something with it.

 

[Sniffs]

Philly Cheese: the Liberty is the replacement for the 84 Cherokee, of course. I believe people STILL complain about Wrangler's "crudeness" (stupids).

I've had to borrow a 97 Cherokee Sport 2 door for running, and I'm impressed enough to consider a Jeep for replacing this 4Runner when it gets senile

all I know is I do NOT wanna see the "variety" disappear out of Jeep. it makes me wana go buy one.

remember, the guys that own Chrysler are a holding company notorious for chopping a company to pieces...a little too much.

 

[Philly]

It's the Wrangler's crudeness that makes it so cool. It's sold as a crude vehicle over the years. I don't see why they should have to soften it up so much so the suburbanites who will never drive on a dirt road can have a quality off road vehicle that can take them to the grocery store and pick up Sally at soccer practice. They could have easily made one of their new vehicles compete with the CR-V ect. without messing with the Wrangler.

There is nothing wrong with variety. More vehicles usually means you can reach out to a broader slice of the market, unless you are Mercedes and you market 3 different cars to the same person as totally different models under the same brand while also marketing 5 models to nobody. If they have to lose their variety to improve quality by cutting the cheap cars, then I'd be all for it.

Chrysler is already in pieces. The last thing they can do to hurt the company more is to just leave it to rot.

 

[harrytuttle]

Let me put it another way. If it's not all that hard to fix Chrysler, then why hasn't it already been done?

Because they don't understand the car industry. Certainly not from a buyer's perspective. It's one thing to know how to run a company from a bookeeper's point of view; after all, profit is profit. Unfortunately the car-buying public is far more emotionally involved in their purchases than a stock-trading one. Then there's the fact that there are those who can actually weigh the idea of buying a Viper against that of a Town&Country (needs vs. wants). It's a very different animal than Cerberus is used to.

This is not to say they can't pull it together, but they certainly aren't going to accomplish it by rebadging foreign cars. They need a "car guy", and they need to listen to him. There's lots of them out there. Find one. Now.

 

[Sniffs]

I think that most of the car guys are currently swiped by the OTHER car companies.

also, the only LOOSE car guys simply design, and Carrol Shelby doesn't need any more burdens
Companies are looking for the OLDER car guys, and ignoring everyone under a certain age limit. there's a common myth in America that only guys over such and such an age are worthy of consideration (physical maturity required, but not necessarily brains, I think)

 

[harrytuttle]

there's a common myth in America that only guys over such and such an age are worthy of consideration (physical maturity required, but not necessarily brains, I think)

Then find one successful under-50 "car guy". There's a myth out there that guys under 30 actually know what it's like to be an adult...