Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Chrysler Aspen

rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,652
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0506/06/A01-205249.htm

Dumb. Dumb. DUMB!

Well, so much for the premium Jeep Commander which will be sold in the same showroom.

Bob
«13456

Comments

  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    I guess it's not much of a loss because either way DaimerChrysler makes money.
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    I'm just curious to know what name they'll revive from the past for this new truck. Hopefully it won't look anything like that Commander thing.

    M
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    Makes perfect sense to me. Large SUV sales, including lux models, start their downhill slide, so why not gussy up a Durango and float it on an otherwise clean marina?

    Every indicator is that car-based crossovers are where the market will continue to head. Why not focus on making the Pacifica what it was supposed to be in the first place: a Sport Tourer?
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,652
    Makes perfect sense to me. Large SUV sales, including lux models, start their downhill slide, so why not gussy up a Durango and float it on an otherwise clean marina?

    I'm sure the Jeep arm of DC are real happy about this turn of events, since it will compete head-to-head with their new 3-row seating Commander, which will be sold on the same showroom floor.

    Bob
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    Yeah Bob, it gets a shoulder-shrug from this end too, that's for sure.

    I was beginning to think they really had all their poop together at this end of the DCX world, but this is shades of debacles past.
  • dustykdustyk Posts: 2,931
    I'm sure the marketing people at Chrysler have a basis for speculation. Of course, marketing people don't always seem to have their act together, either.

    The Durango is a very good product. Although I think the previous generation was much nicer looking, I have to say the latest generation Durango is much more refined and nicer to drive. The Hemi power most certainly makes a good package even more appealing.

    Since unlike most other manufacturers, Chrysler is not mile deep with SUV models, the Durango being the only one in the stable. GM and Toyota are both experiencing model confusion, in my opinion, because they make so many different SUVs. I think Chrysler can afford this model variation better than anyone else in the market at the moment, although I, too, believe that the current market contraction doesn't bode well for a new model. It would be better, I think, if Jeep didn't have the Commander at the same time.

    Then again every once in a while the marketing types will surprise us. The profit margin, even if the Chrysler version saps some Durango sales, will be higher.

    Best regards,
    Dusty
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,652
    Jeep and Chrysler are sold in the same dealerships, so why have two vehicles (Commander & Chryango) competing with one another? Jeep is the brand with the SUV image, not Chrysler. Selling a Chrysler SUV only weakens the Jeep image.

    I feel the same way about Jeep getting ready to market a soft-roader. If that vehicle needs to be sold, sell it as a Dodge or Chrysler, but not Jeep. The brands will start to blend together, and their respective marketing images just get muddy and confused. It just doesn't make sense.

    Bob
  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    The brands will start to blend together, and their respective marketing images just get muddy and confused

    That's what happened to GM. GM has too many redundant divisions with no clear image with too many cars.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    I'm traveling that road too. Considering that the Jeep brand equity has been a major factor in keeping the Chrysler name afloat more than once, why risk sullying it further in any way? Moreover, what does Chrysler stand for, and shouldn't that be remarkably different from Dodge - synonomous with "truck" and "performance", IMO, and Jeep - synonomous with "SUV" and "off-road".

    Indeed, with so potent an example as GM, you'd think this lesson would have been learend before now. Even if the Durango is a great package, who needs yet another lux SUV in a pot filled with entries now losing luster?
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    Somebody remind me to use the speel chucker button next time I exceed three syllables...
  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    I say scrap the Chrysler luxury SUV, and give them another cross-over instead. The Pacifica isn't bringing in many buyers...
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    I don't want to be mean or anything, but I hope it flops like a halibut in a dinghy.

    Aspen. Sheesh.

    On the bright side, it's not like they're dragging a once-great name through the mud of "repurposing" (see also "Charger").
    ;-}
  • navigator89navigator89 Posts: 1,080
    What's so bad about Aspen? IMO, it's a lot better than some alpha numerical name, such as "LX470".

    I was thinking Chrysler would use a name such as Conquest, Cordoba or Imperial but Aspen sounds great.

    I'm glad the vehicle has a real name, not something alpha numerical like FX45, QX56, X5, ML500, G500, H2, etc.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    You never drove an Aspen, did you? ;-]

    I think full-size, body on frame SUVs are damn stupid to begin with, and Chrysler getting into a rapidly fading picture even moreso, which is why my disdain. The future is (according to every industry analyst) that car-based crossovers are the next wave before we touch down aagin and actually admit we wanted wagons in the first place, but didn't want anyone to know we had spouses and kids!

    I think it's a bad business decision.

    As far as the name goes, my points are A) the Aspen name was nothing to be proud of whatsoever, and B) it's OK to stick it on some pudknocker SUV because it can't be sullied any further that it already is!
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Yeah I too wondered why they'd opt for another SUV with the tide turning against them. If they 300's success gave them a good feeling and some extra cash, why not spend a little of that on the 300's interior in the way of better plastics? Or more importantly spend that money on the upcoming Sebring/Stratus sedan replacements, like in making them non-rental cars. I applaud the 300 and all, but they really need their next generation mid-size family sedans and minvans to be similar hits to keep things going because eventually the 300's time in the spotlight will be over.

    M
  • navigator89navigator89 Posts: 1,080
    Can we rename this forum to Chysler Aspen since we know what this future vehicle will be called??
  • Kirstie@EdmundsKirstie@Edmunds Posts: 10,676
    Done!

    Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • I like the name, despite the awful connotations it may have sharing it with a car that had one of its car of the year awards yanked away pretty quicky- IIRC. (I know that it was a late 70's Chrysler product won a COTY award from Consumer Guide or a similar publication and had it pulled because of all the problems they had!) The name itself is not what I'm so unsure of...

    The idea of bringing a mid-sized, truck based SUV to Chrysler, however, is not one I endorse. SUVs, as symbols of the virtues of excess which many people in America believe in so lovingly, are on the decline because of gas prices. Let's face it, they aren't economical to drive- especially for those people who buy them where they hardly ever get an inch or two of snow (love the logic behind that, even areas with harsher winters I think could do without them) and they're just wasting gas and polluting. GM and Ford have seen steep sales declines because they invested too much money and attention in their trucks, without paying attention to cars- especially the mid-sized and full-sized segments. So not only do I think it's a stupid idea on a personal level, I also think it won't be a good move for business.

    Chrysler has a good full-sized car in the 300, and is working on a replacement for the Sebring. The PT Cruiser is as close enough to a compact as they need. The way I see it, they have a decent lineup already when you consider the minivan offerings, but if they want to add anything I'd say something to slot below or above the Sebring depending on its size. Cars are bound to become popular, even if we see some relief in gas prices it's not really economical or sensible to be being trucks, and the more distinct choices in terms of bread and butter cars, the better.
«13456
Sign In or Register to comment.