July18
Chrysler’s mid-size sedan offerings – the Chrysler Sebring and Dodge Avenger — have been largely overlooked by the marketplace, but Chrysler is working on a plan that could make the sedan twins more competitive.
The new plan would see Chrysler dropping the range-topping models of both sedans – the Sebring Limited and Avenger R/T – and adding more content to mid-level cars. Under the changes, the 2009 Sebring Touring and Avenger SXT would come standard with dual exhaust, 18 inch wheels, heated seats and leather. More importantly, both models would come equipped with a fuel-efficient four-cylinder, rather than Chrysler’s thirsty 3.5L V6.
“Given where fuel prices are at, I’m not sure that people are following the old progression that the higher the trim-level, the bigger the engine,” Mike Wall, automotive analyst with CSM Worldwide, told The Detroit News. “(Chrysler) needs to hit what the customer wants, and that may be a 4-cylinder engine with leather seats and a navigation system.”
Automakers such as Toyota have been offering top-level mid-size models with four-cylinder engines for years.
The changes would see the Avenger SXT’s base price jump 9.9 percent to $21,750, while the Sebring Touring’s price would rise 3.4 percent to $21,670 – an interesting pricing strategy since Chrysler is supposed to be up-scale from Dodge.
So far on the year, Sebring sales are down 30 percent while the Avenger has seen a modest increase of 2 percent. Sales of vehicles such as the Chevrolet Malibu, Honda Accord and Ford Fusion are all up at least 10 percent.
The plan – which is reportedly dubbed ‘Fight Back’ – also outlines a plan to improve the interior of the recently launched Dodge Journey crossover.
Why not get a head start and just axe the Avenger altogether? I think I’ve seen maybe 3 of them on the road since they’ve been out.
The Dodge Journey interior was the worst thing I have seen since the 81 Ford Granada I couldnt believe the plastic inside and the leather on the seats looked like vinyl
Its ashame bc the exterior is easy on the eyes
Its like going out with a great looking girl only to find out she is insane
^^^ Aren’t they all insane?
I agree with RaineMan, just axe them both completely. Better yet, just shut down the company completely.
Chrysler has a lot of products that are long in the tooth and on life support. The PT cruiser is what, eight or nine years old? The only changes to that car have been cosmetic, and even those have been minor.
Great theory, reminds me when they came out with fancy Valiants in the mid 70’s. You know, the ones with the crushed velour interiors? Over 3 decades later and they’re up to the same tricks. How about some engineering Chrysler? You used to be pretty good at it, however that was before most people on this forum were even conceived in the back of said Valiant.
Do you all suppose the automotive world can survive without a Sebring or Avenger? It’s impossible to imagine this!
well, here goes Chrysler, it seemed they could hold on, but I guess I was just kidding myself. I guess I will just have to buy a used viper when the time comes…
What’s an Avenger? I don’t think I’ve ever seen one of those.
And they should just axe the Sebring altogether, too.
swon’t do any good
That didn’t take long. But wow! Dual exhaust! Sign me UP!!!!
Pathetic
Chrysler Sebring look sucks!!
Yep, Chrysler would do better by selling re-badged Altima from Nissan. Just put in Chrysler shnooze in and go. Let Russians enjoy those genuine Chrysler products under license in Russia.
And yet they axed the Magnum.
Axe Nardelli before it’s too late.
If the exterior of Chrysler cars are “easy on the eyes” you must be missing a couple eyeballs.
Honest question here, when has Chrysler been more upscale than any of it’s other brands? For a short time while Plymouth was existent and they had a competent line up, Chrysler moved slightly more upmarket and had a limited number of luxury products. Currently Chrysler has no luxury line-up, just a bunch of confused model lines. Ideal lineup:
Jeep (off-road SUV/CUV)- Two compact (Wrangler, Patriot) SUV’s, one mid-size (Jeep Grand Cherokee) SUV and a compact pick-up.
Dodge (Mainstream, work oriented trucks and van)- One mid-size and one full-size pick-up, one large mid-size sedan/wagon (related to Sebring, but slightly larger, Intrepid name?), one compact CUV (related to Patriot), one mid-size CUV (Durango), one van (Sprinter), one mini-van (Grand Caravan, only made slightly smaller and down-scale to Chrysler version), Dodge Viper?
Chrysler (Acura, Buick competitor)- One compact, mid-size and full-size sedan (new compact and mid-size names, 300C), one compact and mid-size CUV, one mid-size to full-size conventional SUV, one halo sports car and one mini-van.
jayjc08:
I agree with you that the Chrysler Division has lost its upscale image and is just another sales channel for people who prefer winged badges to ram heads. I would like to see Chrysler LLC utilize its partnership with Nissan/Renault to gain access to some of their platforms. Chrysler LLC could use these platforms as well as some updated/improved versions of their own existing platforms to create some exciting lineups that could properly differentiate their three divisions.
I would love to see them implement the following lineups:
DODGE: Sporty, affordable, mainstream, volume division. Car products/crossovers/minivans would ditch current retro or blocky design trends and utilize the sleek/sporty styling cues that emerged on the Dodge ZEO and Challenger R/T concept cars. Truck styling would be an evolution of iconic Dodge truck styling themes.
* Hornet: Subcompact 3-door/5-door on Nissan B platform.
* Stealth: Compact sedan/coupe on updated/improved Chrysler PM platform.
* Intrepid: Midsize sedan/coupe on Nissan D platform.
* Charger: Full size sedan on updated/improved Chrysler LY platform.
* Daytona: Roadster on Nissan FM platform.
* Challenger: Sports coupe on updated/improved Chrysler LC platform.
* Rebel: Subcompact crossover on Nissan B platform.
* Caliber: Compact crossover on updated/improved Chrysler PM platform.
* Magnum: Midsize crossover on Nissan D platform.
* Caravan: Minivan on updated/improved Chrysler RT platform.
* Dakota: Next generation truck shrinks to compact size.
* Ram: Fullsize truck.
CHRYSLER: Premium division. Recent retro and blocky design trends would be jettisoned in favor of sleek, upscale Euro inspired styling.
* Chronos: Subcompact 3-door/5-door on Nissan FM platform.
* LeBaron: Compact sedan/wagon/coupe-cabrio on Nissan FM platform.
* Concorde: Midsize sedan/wagon/coupe-cabrio on updated/improved Chrysler LC platform.
* Atlantic: Large sedan/wagon on updated/improved Chrysler LY platform.
* Nassau: 2-seat coupe/retractable hardtop roadster on Nissan FM platform.
* Citadel: Compact crossover on Nissan FM platform.
* Pacifica: Midsize crossover on updated/improved Chrysler LC platform.
JEEP: Returns to original role of traditional SUV niche brand.
* Varsity: Subcompact 3-door SUV based on modified Wrangler platform.
* Wrangler: Compact 3-door/5-door SUV.
* Cherokee: Midsize 5-door SUV.
* Commander: Fullsize 5-door SUV.
It would be great to see Chrysler LLC overhaul their lineups with some exciting new products and fight their way back to health and prosperity.
Mazdaman, I like your lineup, although I did like the retro styles of several of Chrysler’s lineup. I actually think their Euro-type stuff is what people started to turn away from. To me, a lot of Chryslers look like they are trying to be a Mercedes, but they can’t get rid of their combover. And I’m sorry, but the Atlantic was an abomination to car design in my opinion. One thing Chrysler needs to do is be more bold. If you look at their successful cars, they were successful because they were completely different than the norm. Chrysler had the first minivan. They started the latest retro kick with Prowler and PT Cruiser which got many makers out of “bland”. They were actually the first to offer air bags as standard equipment. That’s the kind of thinking that made them successful, but they lack that “out of the box” mentality at this moment. The Hornet will surely help out, as will the EcoVoyager and the Zeo - that is, if they make it that far.
mazdaman- Good line up ideas. Looks like you’ve thought out that pretty thoroughly. However, I don’t know if you meant a mean and true SUV, but a compact vehicle like the “Varsity” you mentioned doesn’t need to be an SUV. You don’t have to be body on frame to be trail rated. The problem I still see with Dodge is in the 60’s and 70’s they were going for a… I guess bad boy image, and then came the Dakota, Ram50, Dodge Ram and Durango/RamCharger, and Dodge became Chrysler’s SUV/Pickup division for quite some time until the demise of Plymouth, and a few confusing vehicles in between.
I think Chrysler needs to have that sort of blocky look to them. I don’t believe their current designs are good looking, however “blockish”, but more importantly bold and American. And a real luxury competitor too, not a brand that’s trying to enter the luxury market with a few vehicles (300C, Crossfire), and trying to go mainstream with others (Sebring, Town and Country).
jayjc08:
* I appreciate your insight on my proposed “Varsity” product for Jeep. I am not very familiar with truck/SUV products. I was under the assumption that true “trail rated” Jeeps had to have traditional SUV architecture to function in that capacity.
* I thought maybe losing the blocky styling might make the products appear more fuel efficient (many people have been brainwashed to think that “sleek = aerodynamic = increased fuel efficiency”). I also thought that a more international look might increase their chances of gaining market share in other markets and offset their dependence on the stuggling U.S. market. I definitely don’t want the Dodge or Chrysler brands to totally lose their identities; I just would like to see them evolve their styling to better adapt to changing market conditions.
* I also agree that the Chrysler Division has completely lost any kind of meaningful brand identity by straddling the line between “mainstream” and “luxury”. Every product in the division’s lineup needs to be a true premium product to restore the brand’s upscale status.
beatusmongous:
* I intended for Chrysler to only use the “Atlantic” name for their flagship sedan/wagon. I didn’t intend for them to fashion a production product around the concept car’s styling (although I did find the concept car to be interesting).
* I don’t think the company has to rely on retro or blocky styling to be bold. I think some of their mid-late 90’s cab forward designs were as equally bold as the PT Cruiser, Prowler, 300, Charger, or Challenger. I do agree that they have had brilliant moments of ingenuity in the past that allowed them to set trends in the industry. I believe they can do it again, no matter what design direction they choose to follow.
I did enjoy reading both of your counterpoints to my proposed lineups. Both of you presented some interesting, intelligent, and insightful ideas and constructive criticism.
mazdaman, go apply to chrysler and knock some sense into ‘em.
Chrysler needs to move upmarket. They need to kill the Sebring and replace it with a short version of the next-gen LX platform.
The Avenger is a half-decent looking car. Not great, but not bad. A range-topping model is fine, but they definitely need to spread the availability of the 4-cylinder engine, even though it’s weak sauce.
Chrysler’s been advertizing the fuel efficiency of its midsize cars with “30 miles per gallon” talk. They only get that with the 4cylinder, which is only available in the low trim line. So people have got to be leaving dealers at the fact that the only cars that do get that mileage are the stripped out models.
Guys we can sit here all day restructuring Chrysler’s lineup.
If they want to be profitable, can everything but the Wrangler and buid the Razor. Done. And redesign the 300C with that Benz diesel in it. Done.
I liked reading all the suggestions for Chrysler LLC’s dream lineup.. most of the ideas you guys have are logical and would be perfect for a company with unlimited resources and an enthusiastic fan base of satisfied current customers.. both of which the ACTUAL Chrysler is sorely lacking!
While I think diversifying the powertrain lineup is a great idea that many more manufacturers should be looking at right now, I doubt it will do much to help the dealers, who are saddled with these unattractive vehicles and very little marketing support for them. How will Chrysler spin the message that you can now get a 4-cylinder midsize sedan for over $21,000? I’m guessing most people that actually were that concerned about fuel economy would have gladly settled for a less luxurious trim level.
Not only that, Zoomer, the dealers seem to have the same aura of impending doom that swallowed K-Mart a few years back. The salespeople at the dealers here in my town don’t even greet customers as they approach. Instead, they point the customers toward the service department or the concierge. Also, we did a regional promotion with a local show involving a free tote bag with every test drive, and the dealers didn’t even bother to open the boxes of the tote bags to see what was in them. Word traveled fast, claiming the promotion was a farce, and both Chrysler and the show gained a bad reputation. It was very sad, and all because the people at the dealers seemed to just be hanging on as long as they can.
chrysler blows so do most of their cars thats all im saying
You can almost judge the US carmakers’ success these days based on how many silly “Grand” models they still have in their lineups without a corresponding non-Grand regular model! The more Grands, the worse off they seem to be! Here’s the scorecard:
Chrysler: 2 (Grand Cherokee, Grand Caravan)
Ford: 1 (Grand Marquis)
GM: 0
Though I hear the Grand Cruze and Grand Equinox are just around the corner!
So thats why GM killed the Grand Prix name plate?
You know though you guys, thinking back we’ve all tried to place one vehicle in every segment. Right now, I think what Chrysler could do best with is a fresh, small lineup.
Jeep- Small SUV (Wrangler) and mid-size SUV or CUV (get rid of GC nameplate).
Dodge- Full size truck (Ram), compact (Avenger, Spirit) and full size sedan (Charger), compact hatch (Hornet).
Chrysler- Large CUV (Pacifica), mid size sedan/convertible (Sebring), minivan (T&C).
No mid-size truck, no redundant minivans or sedans. I don’t see Chrysler committed to being a luxury brand, so just fill in the line up where Dodge. ends. Overall, less than 10 nameplates should do. After that, they can build up on a sports car, compact CUV and compact/mid-size truck. Just get the fuel economy of their SUV’s up to average 22 mpg, all sedans up to average about 28 mpg, and a small hatch around 35 mpg, and they’ll garner some time to develope better vehicles. Realize they don’t need a full line-up, it’s unfortunate all manufacturers feel they need to venture into EVERY segment. Partially the reason for Honda’s success is NOT venturing into unstable markets.
mazdaman- It’s best to have a body on frame structure than a unibody structure, like most cars. Same goes for towing. That doesn’t mean however that it has to be body on frame, and I think by now torsional forces won’t distort unbody structures as much, which are now much stronger, than was thought 30 years ago. Another big thing, unibodies are harder to fix, but most of these vehicles won’t be taken off road.
With Plymouth gone, Chrysler’s tried to fill that void that they don’t want Dodge to fill. It’s obvious Chrysler wants to keep Dodge as this more aggressive, powerful brand, however I just don’t see that happening. They refuse to do it with smaller engines which is very possible, and when forced to they come out with ****.
Top versions of Avenger and Sebring?
Isn’t that and oxymoron? I recently saw a loaded Sebring on a lot… with sunroof… leather AND drum brakes!!! and then I saw a plainer one with disk brakes!!! Yeah… those option packages make lot’s of sense.
The other day I sat in an Avenger… the two-tone interior is not bad looking, dash is stylish.
I sit in the back and press my head against the head rest/support. I feel the STEEL frame against the back of my skull. I recall the same the thing with the Neon a few years ago… steel right under the foam in the back seat… NICE!!! That’s gotta be real nice in a rear-end collision.
Looked at the Journey recently and noticed the hole on the top of the doors for the lock pin or whatever you call it. It looked like it was missing a trim ring because the material looked torn at the edges. Thought it must have been a mistake at the factory.
NOPE. saw another one… looks like the holes were punched out with a hole punch.
With all these little or not so little non-attention to details… how can I even consider a Chrysler Product not knowing what else they didn’t pay attention to?
What about Grand Am?