Chrysler to discontinue Dart, 200 to make more room for SUV and truck production

[ifcar]

Mitsubishi is perhaps the only company in North America that makes poorer selling, less competitive small and midsize offerings than FCA.

In terms of sales volume but not necessarily competitiveness, the Dart and 200 outsell both their counterparts at Subaru and at Kia. The 200 sales have grown to the point that it's within spitting distance of the Malibu, and is well above Passat and well, well above Mazda6. Sales just aren't *that* terrible.

http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/sales-charts-of-america-s-top-10-best-selling-cars-of-2015-by-class#slide=3

Mitsubishi is an entirely different league; the Dart alone nearly outsells every Mitsubishi combined (88k vs 95k last year). Whether Chrysler is losing money to retain that volume is harder to know, of course.

Neither car is terrible either, I don't think; Chrysler just strangely ignored commonly desired attributes for each class. The Dart has poor gas mileage and the 200 has poor interior space. They tried to build mainstream cars and got niche ones, mainly from not trying hard enough.

[ifcar]

Regarding CAFE, FCA might make it.

http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=36530&id=36373&id=36200&id=36581

The CUVs don't get much worse fuel economy, and they have much smaller footprints. Though people at TTAC wisely ask, "wat happens when gas goes back up"

IDK, but I can't imagine the 2-3 combined MPG difference between a Dart/200 and a Cherokee making a huge difference. People will be running back to hybrids

I wouldn't know about that. I think there will be a downward shift in the market, with many people buying something more fuel-efficient than they already have, based on their starting point. Someone who bought a midsize car might go down to a compact (or perhaps a midsize hybrid) but someone who bought a big SUV would likely buy a smaller SUV.

I'd expect that the cars that will get a boost are the ones that are fuel-efficient relative to their own classes, not just the ones that are fuel-efficient in general. The Dart gets better mileage than a Charger, but if you're downsizing from a Charger to a small car, you're probably not going to pick the least fuel-efficient small car. (Normal solution: Make the Dart more fuel-efficient. Chrysler solution: Don't sell any cars smaller than a Charger.)

Rising gas prices could well benefit models like the Cherokee and Renegade, but they're not going to make up for the pain felt from the hit to Ram and Grand Cherokee.

[12,000 RPM]

Ooooo yea, you are right. They are betting the house on 3 ton trucks..... I hope Bernie doesn't bail them out again.

[2o6]

I see why MrH says that FCA engineers and overall general employees are leaving in droves

[CaminoRacer]

Chrysler has the same problem Cadillac has - inconsistency in their model plans. Can't expect to have a huge hit when you constantly change names and models in your small car segments. Stick with a name, make it a good car, build your reputation.

Sometimes I wonder how such stupid people can climb to the top of companies.

[12,000 RPM]

Getting to the top is often more about selling yourself than doing good things.....

And FCA/Cadillac's problems are very different. I am not seeing the consistency problem. Jeep, Ram, Chrysler all have name plates at least ~10 yrs old. Dodge has always been a name changing shit show, but that is just a symptom of the underlying problem- shitty, uncompetitive cars. Aries, Spirit, Avenger... these are marques that stink because the cars stank.

[CaminoRacer]

Getting to the top is often more about selling yourself than doing good things.....

And FCA/Cadillac's problems are very different. I am not seeing the consistency problem. Jeep, Ram, Chrysler all have name plates at least ~10 yrs old. Dodge has always been a name changing shit show, but that is just a symptom of the underlying problem- shitty, uncompetitive cars. Aries, Spirit, Avenger... these are marques that stink because the cars stank.

Chrysler's smaller cars have no consistency.

[2o6]

They still moved units, thats the thing. This is less of an issue here about names than with luxury brands.

[CaminoRacer]

They still moved units, thats the thing. This is less of an issue here about names than with luxury brands.

But look at Honda and Toyota. Every knows Civic and Corolla, Accord and Camry. Domestics change names every model cycle.

[2o6]

But look at Honda and Toyota. Every knows Civic and Corolla, Accord and Camry. Domestics change names every model cycle.

They still move units, so what does it matter? 


Dart sells like 80k+ a year. The issue isn't the name (well, maybe part of the issue) but how profitable the car is. Why is Dodge's product so unprofitable? A name is secondary at this point.

[SVT666]

They still move units, so what does it matter? 


Dart sells like 80k+ a year. The issue isn't the name (well, maybe part of the issue) but how profitable the car is. Why is Dodge's product so unprofitable? A name is secondary at this point.

Vehicles that develop brand equity are the models that kept their names for several generations and never sullied them.  New names never give the public a chance to even get to know the name.  GM had to keep changing the names of it's small and mid size cars because every name they gave those pieces of shit was sullied by how shitty the car was.  They finally started building good cars with the Cruze and Malibu, so they will stick with those names now.  Camry, Accord, Corolla, and Civic have never changed their names because the cars have always been good, or at least perceived to be good in the case of the Corolla.

[Raza]

Mitsubishi is perhaps the only company in North America that makes poorer selling, less competitive small and midsize offerings than FCA.

[AutobahnSHO]

So how many dart/200 sales are rentals?

Why don't the big makers build a "slightly different" car with a different name for the rental markets, and sell the same car to consumers, maybe rebadged or spruced up just a bit???

[SJ_GTI]

So how many dart/200 sales are rentals?

Why don't the big makers build a "slightly different" car with a different name for the rental markets, and sell the same car to consumers, maybe rebadged or spruced up just a bit???

GM does this all the time. The sell old models as a "classic" to fleets while selling the newer model through retail.

[ifcar]

The disadvantage to that route, though, is that if someone rents your crappy rental-only car, they'll think "damn, this company makes crap."

[Laconian]

That was my impression after I rented a 200. Junk

[ifcar]

That was my impression after I rented a 200. Junk

Harsh -- current or previous model?

I wouldn't call the current 200 the best car in its class, but I didn't dislike it. Obviously it's not sporty, and it's not especially roomy, but there was clear effort put into that car and it does show IMO.

[Laconian]

Current generation model. The rotary shifter is an ergonomic nightmare. I used it interchangeably with the HVAC knob. Turn down the heat, shift into neutral. Shift into D, turn up the heat instead. The suspension was crashy over expansion joints, the steering was ho-hum, and the A/T transmission is prone to huge slamming
upshifts while cruising around town during low speed/light throttle conditions.

I've driven lots of cheap rental cars over the years, and I vastly prefer the cheaper cars (Sonic LT, Mazda2) to the midsize mediocrity of the 200.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Current generation model. The rotary shifter is an ergonomic nightmare. I used it interchangeably with the HVAC knob. Turn down the heat, shift into neutral. Shift into D, turn up the heat instead. The suspension was crashy over expansion joints, the steering was ho-hum, and the A/T transmission is prone to huge slamming upshifts while cruising around town at light throttle.

The adaptive transmission and throttle by wire programming on every new Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth/Jeep/Eagle/AMC product is a disaster of epic proportions. The only reason they get away with it is because most drivers are so oblivious and ignorant.

[12,000 RPM]

That 9 speed had a lot of promise. They should have went with a conventional 8 speed.

I dont know what it is about Chrysler that puts them in these hail mary predicaments. That shit worked when things weren't so competitive but now the bare minimum is basically excellence.

It's a real shame because if nothing else the 200 is really, really attractive. I think it might be the best looking car in its class. That alone gives it value to me. Oh well.

[ifcar]

That 9 speed had a lot of promise. They should have went with a conventional 8 speed.

I dont know what it is about Chrysler that puts them in these hail mary predicaments. That shit worked when things weren't so competitive but now the bare minimum is basically excellence.

It's a real shame because if nothing else the 200 is really, really attractive. I think it might be the best looking car in its class. That alone gives it value to me. Oh well.

For what it's worth, more of the complaints about the transmission come from the four-cylinder -- the V6 is widely available and quite nice. Though handling is still a little queasy for a car this size.

[2o6]

Chrysler is dead.

[Laconian]

...except for Dodge and Jeep.

[MrH]

Chrysler's smaller cars have no consistency.

No, they're actually really consistent. Consistently shitty

[2o6]

They're not going to move enough Rams for Marchonne's needs, and whatever the Wrangler pickup will be, it's only really going to sell to a handful of people. It's not going to be able to dethrone the Tacoma or the GM twins in that segment either.



The "Compass" will be awkwardly sized and priced - the Renegade and Cherokee are already fairly close in pricing (although the Cherokee can get way more expensive)



An automatic, 2.4L Renegade starts at $22,300 for an automatic FWD.


A base Cherokee (2.4L, auto) starts at $23,300.


You have $1000 wiggle room for a new SUV that will likely use the same 2.4, 9AT combo.

[ifcar]

...except for Dodge and Jeep.

Ram and Jeep. The Dodge brand is being emptied out pretty quickly -- no compact sedan, no midsize sedan, no minivan, no pickup, no small SUV/crossover. That leaves an old big sedan, an old big coupe, an old midsize crossover, and an old large crossover.

At least the Chrysler brand is getting a new minivan.

[shp4man]

Chrysler is dead.

Not quite. Their trucks are reasonably well engineered, and they have the best diesel engine. I've driven both new Rams and new Fords, some good and bad in both. The cars that sell, seems to me are the Challengers. Those damn things are everywhere.

[2o6]

No, they're actually really consistent. Consistently shitty

The Dart and 200 are pretty midpack - and I don't think the cars themselves are the issue here.


Marchonne sets way too damn high targets for cars that are not totally complete - remember the fail that was the Fiat 500 launch?


The Dart's launch was fucked up from the start - for like a solid six months it was manual only. He puts the 1.4T with no changes in character for these applications, and it's stuck with a lumpy power delivery that isn't so charming in a 3300lbs car. Not to mention the fuckng confusing trim levels and equipment that plagues most Dodge vehicles - especially the Dart.

[MrH]

They're capacity constrained on their money makers. They've got to do something.

[Madman]

Chrysler should have just made Dodge the all-truck division, instead of splitting off Ram from Dodge.  This would have left Chrysler free to concentrate on cars.  Maybe the next 200 could be a de-contented Alfa Romeo Gulia and this, combined with the 300, could make rear-wheel-drive Chrysler's unique sales angle?  I don't know, I'm just spitballing here.....

Chrysler needs something to stand out from the crowd.  It's just a question of what that something should be.  Rear wheel drive, perhaps?  Or maybe something else?  Maybe some jacked-up AWD cars as a homage to what AMC used to be (or what Subaru is today)?  Because it's pretty clear that being a "me-too" car maker isn't working for Chrysler.  They need something different if they are to get noticed.