What ARE we going to do, Chrysler?

They *could* have high per-vehicle profits if they accepted the fact
that they're a niche player and acted as such. But that's irrelevant
to the original discussion.

Noisy - false, and who cares anyway?
Harsh - false, not only have I driven vehicles so equipped and found
them to be much better than acceptable, as you would know if you
weren't a complete idiot, an inline six is INHERENTLY, BY DESIGN
smoother than either a V-6 or V-8.
Underpowered - false. We've been through this before, look up "mesa"
in your encyclopedia for a graph of the 4.0's torque curve.

sorry, Lloyd, you lose.

<snip a bunch of stuff Lloyd apparently feel was worth responding to
but didn't bother to trim>

nate

 

There are 6 versions of the JGC, there are 66 versions of the Ford
Explorer

Sorry, your memory is not a valid qualifier. Visit
http://www.carsdirect.com, and choose an Explorer, and see what the number
of "styles" you have to choose from. You have to enter a zip code to get to
this point. In the Detroit area, where presumably everything is available
except the CA-certified vehicles, there will be 66. Do the same thing for
Jeep. It will be 6. Eleven to one.

No they're not, unless you're prepared to have your argument collapse.
According to your argument to date, the Ford is a highway cruiser and the
Jeep is a trucklike rock bounder. Each has as much in common with the other
as each has with a station wagon according to that 'logic'.

It's "like" 10%? Wait a minute, you mean you don't have a statistic here,
Mr. Consumer Reports?

Are you saying that a 5% difference would be insignificant?

Wait a minute, I will: this is a horribly concocted statistic. First of
all, there's a huge difference between buying something because it has a
capability, and actually using that capability, as I've ably demonstrated
with the post about the Corvette. So what if only 10% of them ever go off
road? Who cares? 100% of them were *purchased* with the understanding that
it was at least theoretically possible, and a large proportion of those
purchase decisions were based on that capability. People buy things they
don't need all the time, they rarely buy things they don't WANT. Clearly,
the JGC has been a profitable vehicle for DCX because enough people have
WANTED one to make producing them a good business venture. They wouldn't
sell a single goddamn one otherwise. Ford could easily ramp up production
and sell more Explorers instead.

You propose to take some of the intrinsic capability -- the value -- of the
Jeep brand out of the equation in order to homogenize it. You're going to
reduce the desirability of the brand in the process for that segment of the
market which happens to value offroad capability. Whether they actually
need it or not is completely immaterial. Since Jeep is one of the *very
few* brands that have successfully marketed that off-road capability, you're
going to throw a lot of brand equity out the window in the process. Can't
you see how misguided that is? It's dumb, and it's shortsighted. Not to
mention a damn shame, like the death of Plymouth or Oldsmobile.

Again I say: SO WHAT? Is your loyalty to any brand dependent on its
ownership? If it had to be, I wouldn't give a rat's ass about what happens
to Jeep, Chrysler, Dodge or Plymouth, because YOU are part owner via stock
ownership, not to mention Daimler.

Another thing: Are you immortal? Will you own every possession you have
until the end of time? We are only caretakers of the things we have. I
submit to DCX that they should be better caretakers of the Jeep brand than
they are proposing to be. They plan to ruin it. Jeep is a niche
manufacturer with tremendous brand equity. The word 'Jeep' has an intrinsic
meaning for anybody in western civilization with a pulse. You say that the
brand should come to be more closely associated with vehicles such as the
Explorer or the Navigator. I say we already have a Ford brand for that, and
that if what DCX is doing is just badge-engineering MB products to be
'Jeeps' then the distinction of the brand will quickly become one without a
difference. Good god, man, even GM is smart enough to leave the suspension
design of Hummer alone and let AM General do it.

Horseshit. They've shown Jeep-branded carlike concepts within the past 5
years at NAIAS. Remember the Jeepster?

Here's a paragraph or two of the DCX hype about the Jeepster. See if they
mention the word 'SUV' anywhere:

``A V8-powered sports car that can cover the Rubicon Trail, the ultimate
test of off-road prowess. It could only be called the Jeepster.
"The original 1948 Jeep Jeepster was an interesting adaptation of a military
vehicle for civilian life," said Micheal Moore, DaimlerChrysler's chief
designer for the interior and exterior of Jeep products. "It looked like it
was tough, but it was really only a car. It left out some of the
characteristics that make Jeep products unique today - features such as
four-wheel drive and true off-road capability. So when we revisited the
idea, we made sure this vehicle could cover the Rubicon Trail and still
thrive on-road with unique, adjustable suspension."

Hmm, looks like they're talking about making Jeep-branded 'sports cars'.
Sorry, Lloyd, you're just totally wrong about this point.

I suggest you learn how to read. I was dogging Daimler management for what
they've done to *both* Chrysler *and* Mercedes. The fact that I couldn't
possibly care less if they stopped making those teutonic tanks tomorrow
could not be inferred from what I actually wrote.

Screaming that you need to maximize the profit potential of a venerable
brand like Jeep by gutting its brand equity for short-term gain because you
happen to own stock in it is what's childish. Frankly, I wish Kerkorian
had prevailed back in 1995. At least a private interest wouldn't have to be
concerned with the bleating of poorly informed stockholders such as
yourself. All you care about is your dividend check. That's what's
childish. "Gimme mine! mine! mine! all mine!"

--Geoff

 

Hey, you were the one who trotted out the ability to 'match the reliability
and durability'. Show me yours first. Give me facts, figures, numbers, and
a verifiable source.

--Geoff

 

Yep, it's the larger sized one.

 

How? They can't cut costs much more, and a lot of the costs are retirees and
their pensions and health plans (something the German government picks up for
most of BMW's employees). And they sure can't add $10,000 to the price of
Jeeps. People will pay a premium for a BMW over a Ford; they won't for a
Jeep.

Doesn't mean every IL-6 is smoother than every V6.

Look up Grand Cherokee's 0-60 time.

 

Why don't you tell us the "66" Explorer styles.


That site lists each engine separately, and rwd separately from 4wd, as I did
for GC. They also list the 2-door Explorer Sport, a different model. They
also list 2003 models, or didn't you bother to note that?

 

They're both mid-size SUVs.

Obviously that stat can't be found with accuracy, but from all reports, it's
around 10%.

Are you saying Jeep should design their vehicle for 10% of their buyers and
not the other 90%?

So you don't bother with what the 90% actually use their vehicles for, just
what's theoretically possible? I hope your thinking isn't prevalent at Jeep,
or their sales will really shrink.

So people ONLY buy Jeeps because they theoretically can go off road? First,
that's silly. Second, Ford and every other SUV maker makes that same claim.

Never seen Ford, Toyota, Nissan, etc. ads?

Kind of like Chrysler in 1990 deciding, "Hey, our brand equity is in K cars;
why risk alienating people who like those with cab forward LHs"?

Oh BS. Grow up.

The watchword is sales. Not "brand equity." That and $1.50 gets you a gallon
of gas.

And Chrysler and DC stockholders love it when Ford steals sales.

But they came out with H2, a much more civilized Hummer. Why couldn't Jeep do
the same?

So now you do not know the difference between concept vehicles and production
vehicles? With fans like you, Jeep doesn't need enemies.

Yeah, made them profitable (or at least tried). Such a big no-no in the
business world.

 

Consumer Reports.

 

Check your facts. The typical JGC is priced somewhat higher than the
"equivalent" Ford Explorer. Not $10K, but in some cases the difference is
quite significant.

Why, then, did GM go to an I-6 for their current midsize SUVs? They had a
perfectly well-sorted-out 4.3L that could've been massaged to produce the
same horsepower as the new I-6.

--Geoff

 

According to your argument to date, the Ford is a highway cruiser and the

They both have 4 wheels and an engine, too. I guess that makes them the
same class of vehicle as a Hyundai Elantra.

Oh! I see. Finally copping to the fact that your statistics are completely
contrived, are you? Well congratulations, finally a little honesty.

You've admitted your "90%" this and "10%" that and "5%" something else are
complete BS, so give it up already.

I'm saying that 100% of them bought the vehicle for what it is today, and
that you're risking losing most of those buyers as repeat customers by
changing the fundamental value proposition in its design.

I'm saying what matters is what the vehicles were purchased for, not what
they got used for. What they get used for doesn't put any money in DCX's
pocket. Some of 'em ended up squished flat in flaming wrecks the first week
they were owned; they were still a sale the day they were delivered.

claim.

Learn to read. I said the offroad capability, which has been proven
superior and is prominently marketed and sold by Jeep over almost all
others except Hummer and Land Rover, contributes more to the Jeep buyer's
purchase decision than it does to an Explorer buyer's decision.

Evidently you've seen them and failed to understand the difference between
them and the Jeep ads.

Nobody would've said that. The only time the K cars had any 'brand equity'
was in 1981. Jeep's present situation is far different.

You really don't understand how vehicles are marketed and sold, do you?

Chrysler and DC stockholders of record in 1998 are largely responsible for
the mess Chrysler/Jeep/Dodge is in.

If you think the H2 is more "civilized" than the JGC then you need your head
examined. Compared to the Hummvee, a riding lawnmower is more civilized.
GM could hardly miss on that one.

If you'd ever been to a real car show -- you know, an important one, unlike
that circus sideshow down there in Atlanta -- you'd know that the Jeepster
concept is very significant and shows one possible direction DCX is thinking
of taking with Jeep.

Yeah, and completely, utterly failed. They may well have completely
destroyed any chance of Chrysler surviving into the next decade, the jury's
still out.

--Geoff

 

Hey, you were the one who trotted out the ability to 'match the
reliability

Um, that's the name of a magazine which is being sued by at least one auto
manufacturer for inaccurate "report"-ing. It's not "facts, figures,
numbers" OR a "verifiable source." Care to try again?

--Geoff

 

What issue, and where was it independently verified? In another post you talked
about the importance of "peer-reviewed scientific journals." Details here,
please.

 

So tell us more about that 200 Ghz computer, Lloyd. I'm sure CR would LOVE to
test that fiction!

 

So they could make an IL-4 and IL-5 from it for their Colorado/Canyon pickups,
for one. But note how dedicated they are to V6s -- 2 new ones this year and
last year, a 3.5 ohv (derived from the 3.4, itself derived from the old 2.8)
for the Malibu and a 3.6 dohc with variable valve timing for the
SRX/Rendezvous/CTS.

 

Well, those of us who can read know Chrysler almost certainly wouldn't have
survived on its own. That's why they were pursuing mergers with anybody they
could -- BMW and Honda, for example.

 

So a lawsuit = guilty to you?

No. Millions of Americans trust CR. How many trust you?

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

Yep, because they're JEEP. Those other 90% can go buy a Durango.

Why are you saying that Jeep should abandon that 10% of the market that
has always relied on Jeep to provide suitable vehicles? Hell, that is
the whole reason for the existence of the Jeep division, isn't it? So
why do we lose a capable vehicle (like the Cherokee) for a cream-puff
barbie car like the Liberty?

 

I'll hazard a guess that whatever the number, it's more than the number of
people who trust YOU.

--Geoff

 

Yes, and you'll notice that the V motors are going into smaller vehicles
where packaging plays a more important role. When they have the luxury of
the room -- like in a midsize SUV or a pickup -- they go to an inline motor.
Why? Because it's inherently smoother than a V motor design and smoother =
better customer satisfaction.

It's the same reason why the BMW 3-series has used inline 6 engines for so
long, too.

--Geoff

 

Well, those of us who can read know Chrysler almost certainly wouldn't
have

The trouble with your reading skills, Lloyd, is you believe everything you
read as long as the people writing it sound official enough to you. It's
the cause of your delusions about the goodness and accuracy of Consumer
Reports, and your misconceptions about SUVs and your misconceptions about
the long-term viability of Chrysler as a stand-alone company. As soon as
the wheels came off Tom Gale's product design machine, Chrysler group was in
trouble. Whether they manage to get beyond it is very much in question,
which is why Dieter Zetche had to take a tour of the country to try to
convince dealers to keep the faith. Meanwhile, they're still coasting on
sales of the last vehicles to be designed by that venerable group, hoping
that the 'new direction' isn't the one that augers them into the ground.

I hope they succeed as DCX, I really do, but I have my doubts. I suspect
they'd do better if they were a standalone company again, which is probably
never going to happen. I have witnessed firsthand the sort of problems the
cultural clash has created and they seem insurmountable.

--Geoff