The problem with chrysler - amoung other things i.e. unions etc. is that they designed and then built some colossally bad cars recently - cheap interiors that made huge sacrifices in functionality - a pivotal thing in small cars - such as visibility and storage space and really really cheap interior pieces and poor fit and finish tolerance (that save money by making assembly easier).
After the home run of the 300 series (full disclosure - I own a '06 300C AWD) they completely dropped the ball by building the sebring on a FWD layout and a look that mirrored the lame duck Pacifica rather than the 300. Same goes for the charger and its smaller brethren BTW.
Sad. But if they file chap 11 they could annihilate the unions and salvage a much smaller but far more vibrant company.
Actually Gord, Chrysler has been the leader in interior functionlity.
Stow-and-go, dvd systems, built in child seats, in car beverage cooling. Take a look at the Caliber's features. Interior light that pops out for use in an emergency. Chrysler is the first to use the new seat covering, which resists stains and soiling. It actually costs more than regular fabric.
The Sebring was actually praised for it's styling by experts in the industry. The biggest problem the Big 3 have now is convincing buyers their quality has greatly improved which it has.
And Toyota has managed to keep increasing defects out of the media glare. 3.5 million vehicles with engine sludge problems and premature failure. The new Tundra with tailgates breaking and camshafts breaking. The Camry with a defect in the steering column where the driver can lose control. Just google Toyota recalls.
Where Toyota was smart was rather then sending customers recall notices, they instead called them quality enhancement service, leading customers to believe they were doing things to improve quality when in fact they were covering up known defects.
I rented a Caliber recently while my own car was in the body shop. That thing is a hazard to drive. Huge blindspots, windows like tank gunslits, awkwardly placed mirrors. I'd be inclined to put that down to a design defect inherent in the style of just one model, but last year I rented a Charger and it had the same problems on a larger scale. If I was stopped at a traffic light with no other vehicles in front of me, I actually had to lean over the dashboard and crane my neck to see the lights, because the top of the windshield was right at eye level.
Quoth paulsstuff: 'Stow-and-go, dvd systems, built in child seats, in car beverage cooling. Take a look at the Caliber's features. Interior light that pops out for use in an emergency. Chrysler is the first to use the new seat covering, which resists stains and soiling. It actually costs more than regular fabric.'
The heck with all that. I just want a car that I can see out of while I'm driving! Until Chrysler get the basics right, they get zero credit for the frills.
I recently leased a new Cross-over. I test drove every vehicle in the segment that I could in St. John's (unfortunately no Infinti dealership) prior to committing to the Nissan Rogue. The majority of the vehicles in the segment are all very close to one aother in terms of fit and finish and drivability, even the Torrent/Equinox and Escape were pretty much up there with the Rav4, CR-V and the Rogue.
The only exception was the Jeep offerings. The Liberty/Nitro and Patriot/Compass were horrible. You can't even get a height adjustable drivers seat for the Liberty! I'm amazed they sell them at all.
I know there are differences in opinion, but WTF. I rented a Caliber for a week on my last trip to Winnipeg, I thought it was a joy to drive, no visibility problems at all, and obviously I was in an unfamiliar city where that is more important than when at home. I really like the CVT transmission, and with a little research thereafter, the price point for a car that could be almost as practical as a minivan for a young family, at 30mpg or better. I have also rented a Liberty, the height adjustment for the seats was manual, but not non existent. My most disapointing rentals have been a Mazda 5, which had an interior like a Go Kart, and several Camry's which were just boring as hell.
Posted at 2008-07-06 14:40:16 [PermaLink]The one place where American automakers didn't drop the ball was in the "added feature" category. They make a full range of cars with every bolt on option under the sun.
The places where they did drop the ball:
Chassis stiffness to weight.
Engine efficiency (from I4 to V8).
Handling.
The first two have been fatal to their small car business. The combination of all three meant that they've never had a decent 'halo' compact despite their best interior efforts.
Gord: I don't fault the unions for Chrysler's (or GM/Ford) predicament. There has been colossally bad management of the companies that has almost always been able to slough off bad results and blame it on unions, exchange rates, foreign subsidies, you name it - anything but themselves. Here is a recent good article by Brock Yates titled Grosse Pointe Blank:
"Like many bosses in industries under assault from "barbarians," Detroit’s isolated auto execs work tirelessly to maintain the status quo. Safe in their gilded cages, they continue to ignore their customers' changing needs. And they continue to build the same products over and over: the same damn automobiles that their fathers and grandfathers built."
"Go back 40 years, when I scribbled a story that put me on the Motor City hit list: “The Grosse Pointe Myopians.” The sub-title pretty much outlined the premise: “Accustomed to silver-lined visions, the auto elite refused to see any gray clouds."
“Detroit can fire scattershot numbers to justify practically anything, including slumping sales. However two vivid facts remain after all the ledgers have been shuffled; the domestic automobile industry is not growing as rapidly as expected and imports are making shocking inroads into the American market.”
[External Link]
Dara: Re: "The first two have been fatal to their small car business."
I believe this is because they never really cared about their small car business in North America. Small cars equal small profits so why make a really good, well engineered small car (expensive to design and build) which might take sales away from more profitable large cars and SUV's. At least Ford and GM have access to good small cars through their Euro operations.
John,
Those two factors were fatal to the compacts, but hurt them across the board. American cars have always been heavy and creaky, and their engines have been a perennial source of amusement to Europeans who look at a 5L V8 pushing 200 hp and wonder what they're doing with the extra 4 cylinders.
I agree that the American carmakers weren't interested in a good compact but I think it goes further than that. They have shown a complete disinterest in refining the core design of their vehicles and devoted all of their recent attention to value add bolt ons that they could market to what I can only assume are cupholder fetishists.
Don't even get me started on how badly they have dealt with their electronics systems and the blindingly ugly aping of the "ricer" scene that has resulted in enough flared plastic body panels to fill the Skydome.
"I'm going to buy me a Mercury
and cruise up and down this road..."
-- Steve Miller
Those extra bolt ons all add to a lot of extra profit from suckers impressed by that sort of thing. Regarding the engines, while I've never been a fan of big cars (we've owned mostly VW's, Jettas, Scirocco and now a Mazda3), for the type of cars Detroit produced and North American driving conditions, some of their engines made sense. I'm thinking of GM's 3.8 litre V6 or various V8 engines. Lots of torque when needed and quiet highway cruising.
Corvette's 6.2 litre V8 even gets 37 mpg (imp.) or 7.7 litres/100 km. according to Natural Resources Canada. Not bad for 430 hp.
[External Link]
[External Link]
By comparison, BMW's M Coupe gets about 31 mpg highway (same source). Still, I would prefer the BMW :-)
A Corvette defined - performs like a car that cost twice as much with an interior of a car that costs half as much.