Trimming the Trims

[1X83Z]

This is vaguely old news, but I just realised it. The key word is "large Chrysler sedans over the last ten years." That may be more than one word.

1993:

1994:

1995:

1996:

1997:

1998:

1999:

2000:

2001:

2002:

2003:

2004:

2005:

Chrysler sold what really amounted to be the same vehicle under five different names from 1994 to 1996, and under four in 1997 and 1999-2001. Here's proof that the American automobile industry really is changing for the better: it's finally just one model for 2005, a full twelve years after cab-forward's debut.

 

[Duke]

I honestly never ever understood why there was the Chrysler Concorde and LHS, since the LHS was a slightly longer Concorde that was otherwise entirely identical, including the cabin.

And I think maybe you should put the Magnum as a trim of the 300.

I always wanted to get an Intrepid R/T in Brilliant Blue and add silver skunk stripes.

 

[1X83Z]

I honestly never ever understood why there was the Chrysler Concorde and LHS, since the LHS was a slightly longer Concorde that was otherwise entirely identical, including the cabin.

[/b]

This is only sort of true. It's false from 1994 to 1997, the LHS had a different roof and aimed much more upscale than the Concorde (which actually came out in 1993). In this instance, it was actually the same vehicle as the Chrysler New Yorker (because they shared the odd roof and upscale intentions), though the New Yorker only went from 1994 to 1996.

It's true from 1999 to 2001, when the LHS was in fact practically indistinguishable from the Concorde (like the Buick Regal and Buick Century - though I've come up with a way to tell those two apart: Regal has fog lights standard, Century doesn't offer them. Write it down, you'll thank me later). The thing was, the 2-gen Concorde came out in 1998 and went until 2004 compared to the 2-gen LHS, which only went 1999-2001 and retained about 75% of its sales in the booming (and profitless) fleet market. When the LHS (slightly more upscale, still, but stylistically indistinguishable) was cancelled for 2002, the Concorde got a new trim level, the Limited, supposed to fill the void. But for all the die-hard LHS owners out there, the void'll never be filled.

And I think maybe you should put the Magnum as a trim of the 300.

I think you forgot the key word.

I always wanted to get an Intrepid R/T in Brilliant Blue and add silver skunk stripes.

It's a tough choice. I give these cars a lot of crap, but most of them were pretty good - used, they've depreciated a lot, and the luxurious LHS and New Yorker are steals. And since 1997, all Eagle Vision TSi and Dodge Intrepid ES/RT models (plus several newer Chrysler models) have had AutoStick, the first non-Porsches to feature such a thing (they even beat Audi to it).

 

[Firebird]

When the LHS (slightly more upscale, still, but stylistically indistinguishable) was cancelled for 2002, the Concorde got a new trim level, the Limited, supposed to fill the void. But for all the die-hard LHS owners out there, the void'll never be filled.

The LHS name was cancelled, but the car itself was not. The 2001 LHS became the 2002-2004 Concorde. Literally. No restyling, no nothing. They slapped the Concorde name on the LHS.

2001 LHS:

2001 Concorde:

2002 Concorde:

And since 1997, all Eagle Vision TSi and Dodge Intrepid ES/RT models (plus several newer Chrysler models) have had AutoStick, the first non-Porsches to feature such a thing (they even beat Audi to it).

AutoStick was standard on the Vision TSi for the '96 model year. It became an option on the Intrepid ES six months later.

 

[The359]

That's definatly a 1998 - 2001 LHS. Only the LHS had those seperate reverse lights stuck down in the bumper, the Concorde had a different set up for those years. So you've got the LHS shown twice from 1998 - 2001.

And where's the Magnum? It's not exactly a sedan but it is the replacement for the Intrepid. If anything you could also include the 300 Touring Wagon which is sold in Europe.

 

[1X83Z]

That's definatly a 1998 - 2001 LHS. Only the LHS had those seperate reverse lights stuck down in the bumper, the Concorde had a different set up for those years. So you've got the LHS shown twice from 1998 - 2001.

I think it's a Concorde. There's no "LHS" badging in silver on the front of the front doors, the LHS had a Chrysler badge on the rear door, at the very back and very base of the window, next to the C-pillar, and I'm fairly sure the LHS never used those wheels (fortunately).

And where's the Magnum?

Remember the keyword!

The LHS name was cancelled, but the car itself was not.

Sure it was. If the name's gone, the car's gone. I understand your point, though.

AutoStick was standard on the Vision TSi for the '96 model year. It became an option on the Intrepid ES six months later.

Had to have been a typo - I made the very same point in a rant here yesterday.

 

[The359]

I think it's a Concorde. There's no "LHS" badging in silver on the front of the front doors, the LHS had a Chrysler badge on the rear door, at the very back and very base of the window, next to the C-pillar, and I'm fairly sure the LHS never used those wheels (fortunately).

Yes, it's a 2002 Concorde, which was nothing more then the continued LHS as Firebird pointed out, but you have it shown for the years 1998 - 2001. The point is you have that shot of a 2002 Concorde (ex-LHS) from the rear in 1999 alongisde the front shot of a 1999 LHS. So basically, the same car. You need a shot of this in there instead for 1998 - 2001

 

[Firebird]

Had to have been a typo - I made the very same point in a rant here yesterday.

'Tis forgiveable. After all, 7 and 6 are right next to each other on the keyboard.

(But you did get the part about AutoStick not being offered on a Chrysler-badged car itself until the '99 300M wrong. There is no such thing as a Dodge Intrepid up here in Canada. It has always been badged as a Chrysler:

)

 

[1X83Z]

Yes, it's a 2002 Concorde, which was nothing more then the continued LHS as Firebird pointed out, but you have it shown for the years 1998 - 2001. The point is you have that shot of a 2002 Concorde (ex-LHS) from the rear in 1999 alongisde the front shot of a 1999 LHS. So basically, the same car. You need a shot of this in there instead for 1998 - 2001

Heh. I would, but I'm not exactly going for perfection here.

(But you did get the part about AutoStick not being offered on a Chrysler-badged car itself until the '99 300M wrong. There is no such thing as a Dodge Intrepid up here in Canada. It has always been badged as a Chrysler:

Hey! I'm going for the American market here!

Thanks for showing me that picture, though. My auto-market references for the 1995 and 1996 model year are a Canadian book, "The New Car Report", and though I knew the Dodge Intrepid was sold as the Chrysler Intrepid in Canada, even their picture is of the Dodge version - in fact, I've never seen a Chrysler Intrepid.

Though it's interesting - this market is typically one product for all of North America, but I've managed some interesting non-US sightings. I've seen a few Canada-only Pontiacs, an MX-3 Precidia, a Mexican Volkswagen Pointer 5-door, and, my favourite seen just last week, a 1998-2001 Mexican Dodge Ramcharger, with the front three quarters from a short-bed Ram, the rear quarter from a Durango, and the tailgate from a Caravan. Built by Mexicans in Mexico for Mexicans. 👍

 

[The359]

Yes, I remember the Mexican Ram Charger. Mexicans also get the Stratus Turbo that isn't available in America.

I have also seen a Chrysler Intrepid here in America.

Canadians however get all kinds of good and unusual stuff. Pontiac Pursuit, Pontiac Wave, Chevrolet Epica, Chevrolet Optra, Dodge SX 2.0 (Dodge Neon), Ford Grand Marquis, Ford Marauder (There is no Mercury in Canada, but they do have Lincoln).


Not to mention all the imported goodies they get like the Jaguar X-Type Estate, Nissan X-Trail, Toyota Echo Hatch/Turbo, and Smarts.

 

[1X83Z]

Canadians however get all kinds of good and unusual stuff. Pontiac Pursuit, Pontiac Wave, Chevrolet Epica, Chevrolet Optra, Dodge SX 2.0 (Dodge Neon), Ford Grand Marquis, Ford Marauder (There is no Mercury in Canada, but they do have Lincoln).

Don't forget the Acura EL! I saw one of those in California - yum. And of course we get most of that - the Chevrolet Epica and Chevrolet Optra are sold here as the Suzuki Verona and Suzuki Forenza respectively, though they're actually built in South Korea by GM-Daewoo (it's interesting - for a company as ambitious as Suzuki, they don't develop many products themselves).

 

[The359]

Yes, and the Pontiac Pursuit is a rebadged Chevrolet Cobalt and the Pontiac Wave is a Chevrolet Aveo (yet another Daewoo...)

 

[1X83Z]

Yes, and the Pontiac Pursuit is a rebadged Chevrolet Cobalt and the Pontiac Wave is a Chevrolet Aveo (yet another Daewoo...)

Word on the street is that Suzuki turned down a chance to sell the Aveo in the US, citing the Aerio SX and the fact that the Aveo is total crap. The Aveo completely reminds me of the Ford Aspire - remember that? The difference is that 90% of the Aveo's sales seem to be fleet (ie Enterprise Rental Car) whereas 90% of the Aspire's sales were to illegal immigrants.

 

[Firebird]

Word on the street is that Suzuki turned down a chance to sell the Aveo in the US, citing the Aerio SX and the fact that the Aveo is total crap.

Funny you mention that...

http://www.canadiandriver.com/testdrives/04swift.htm



Another Canada-only special.

 

[1X83Z]

That steering wheel design is so popular now.

Suzuki's long-time dream was to capture one percent of the US market - I don't think they wanted that thing because it'd give them a slightly worse reputation. This is all my opinion, though, the tag line is that they didn't want to sell it here because they didn't want to compete with their own vehicle in the Aerio, which is actually my favourite car in the "compact car" segment.

 

[Firebird]

Strange. If that really is their strategy I'd like to have a chat with Suzuki's man in charge as to why they'd sell the Forenza but not the Swift+.

I mean, really, what the hell kind of strategy is one where you turn down what seems to be a fairly competent subcompact because it competes with your compact yet you introduce a couple new compacts and somehow the other two compacts don't compete with the original compact but the subcompact does?

 

[1X83Z]

I mean, really, what the hell kind of strategy is one where you turn down what seems to be a fairly competent subcompact because it competes with your compact yet you introduce a couple new compacts and somehow the other two compacts don't compete with the original compact but the subcompact does?

Nice sentence.

Remember here - you're talking about a company that honestly believes they make seven products (Forenza, Verona, Vitara, Grand Vitara, XL-7, Aerio, Aerio SX) rather than the four they actually make. I think Suzuki wants to change the "small cars" stereotype and begin to go midsize - their next midsize SUV, for instance, will probably have the GM 3.2 or 3.6 that they've just signed a huge deal to produce in Asia for General Motors. The Aveo seems like it'd go against that idea.

That said, I'm with you - why turn down the chance for sales? Particularly when it's a pretty damn low investment - GM designed it, GM makes it, GM ships it - even if it doesn't sell you're not out a lot of cash.

 

[Firebird]

Nice sentence.

I had to re-read it myself a few times. Just to make sure it made at least a semblance of sense.

 

[Victor Vance]

The Magnum should be up there with the 300N... along with the upcoming Charger.

 

[1X83Z]

The Magnum should be up there with the 300N

But what was the keyword!?

Firebird was the only one who didn't say this - the only CORRECT one.

 

[The359]

The Magnum should be up there with the 300N... along with the upcoming Charger.

There is no 300N...

 

[1X83Z]

There is no 300N...

I think he thinks that since the last one was 300M, and they did alphabetical order up until now, the current one should be 300N rather than 300C. Obviously

 

[The359]

I know that's what he meant, but he's still wrong.

 

[Firebird]

I know that's what he meant, but he's still wrong.

Nah, he's right. DaimlerChrysler's wrong.

 

[The359]

There's no rule saying they have to go in order. They didn't from the start either, it went C-300, 300B, 300C, 300D, etc...

Not only that, but for many years Chrysler sold a car called merely the "300", the letter was added only to the top of the line model. In fact, the 300L was built in 1965, but they were Chrysler 300s in 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1979 that had no letters at all, and technically should have been M, N, P, R, S, T, and U, making the 90s version a 300V. Since there obviously is no rule stating that Chrysler has to follow that letter pattern, there's nothing wrong with the new car being a 300, and the 300C being a trim level.

 

[Firebird]

But at least the '99 300M followed alphabetical order. Chrysler may have skipped a few letters, but DaimlerChrysler sees fit to go backwards.

Not that it really matters. They could call it the babaganoosh and I'd still want one.

 

[1X83Z]

Since there obviously is no rule stating that Chrysler has to follow that letter pattern, there's nothing wrong with the new car being a 300, and the 300C being a trim level.

So then why are you on him for calling it the 300N?

 

[The359]

Because there is no 300N...

The car is a Chrysler 300.

 

[Victor Vance]

I'll call the Hemi the 'N', thank you. No matter what the other guys say.

This is the 300 'C':

Hmm the new 300N, '300C', or just plain 300, seems to look alot like the '57.

 

[1X83Z]

Because there is no 300N...

The car is a Chrysler 300.

So after just stating that in fact there are no rules that must be followed, you revert back to getting on his case for calling it something that violates the rules. Which are nonexistent.

****ing hell.