Jump to content
Create New...
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Rumorpile: Chrysler's Future Lineup Is 'Under Re-evaluation'

      Changes Could Be Affoot for Chrysler's Future Lineup

    FCA's second five-year plan had some interesting products for Chrysler, including a new compact called the 100 due in 2016. But there could be some changes in store for Chrysler's lineup due to current situation in the market.

     

    Allpar reports that investor presentation mentioned that Chrysler's future lineup was “under re-evaluation”. Causes for the re-evaluation include fuel prices going down and are predicted to stay there for the next few years, the increasing popularity of crossovers, and the decline in small car sales.

     

    The original plan for Chrysler in the second five-year plan included,

    • Compact 100 sedan to be launched in 2016
    • Next-generation minivan to be launched in 2016, with a PHEV to follow a year later
    • New full-size crossover to be launched, with a PHEV in 2017
    • 200 sedan is refreshed in 2017
    • Midsize crossover is launched in 2018
    • Next-generation 300 is launched in 2018


    Allpar believes that the 100 might morph into a crossover, complementing the Fiat 500X and Jeep Renegade. But there could be the possibility of 100 being sold elsewhere in the world and not the U.S. and Canada. The midsize crossover is speculated to be the replacement for the Dodge Journey and is expected in the near future.

     

    Source: Allpar


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Or is this FCA getting stuck between government regulations and market forces? Car company needs to sell cars to make money. Car company needs to sell the right cars to be compliant. Good luck.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    A Chrysler 100 as an Encore/Trax competitor leaning on the luxury side of things rather than the Off-Road side like the Renegade would probably be a better move than a Chrysler Dart. 

     

    So in other words your advice to FCA would be to build an Encore competitor as the Chrysler 100?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Yes.  They already have the "rugged" version in the Renegade.  There is the Italian connection in the 500x.   But I couldn't sell either of them to my partner as he likes the more luxury feel of the Encore.  It would be a good fit for Chrysler I think and it is the hottest growth segment right now. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Do they really need Chrysler and Dodge?  They could move the 200 to Dodge as an Avenger, give Dodge a new crossover, Dodge has the minivan already.  You could argue that they don't need Chrysler at all anymore.  I could argue they don't need Fiat or Alfa either, or Maserati for that matter.  Maybe they should just have Jeep, Ram and 1 car brand.

    • Agree 1
    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I don't think they need Fiat or Alfa.... but as long as Serg is at the helm, those two brands are untouchable.

     

    Chrysler (the brand) is a lot healthier than you give them credit for SMK. They might even outsell the entire VW brand in the US this year... and with only 3 vehicles in their lineup.

     

    Chrysler needs to be Buick but with a broader range of product. Premium cars without going all the way to Cadillac/Benz level. They are so close to being able to do this with the cars they have now.... better interiors and upgraded powertrains would be all it takes.

     

    Dodge can handle the family car business.

     

    Ram and Jeep have their respective niches.

     

    Let Maserati handle the luxury end as it has more brand recognition than Alfa. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    How about something a little larger more Escape/Nox/CR-V-like instead of another Renegade/500x? I know Jeep has the Cherokee but that's the only SUV of that size FCA really has. It'd put a second, more luxurious, vehicle in that class. I'd assume it would more compete with the Terrain Denali or Escape Titanium.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    How about something a little larger more Escape/Nox/CR-V-like instead of another Renegade/500x? I know Jeep has the Cherokee but that's the only SUV of that size FCA really has. It'd put a second, more luxurious, vehicle in that class. I'd assume it would more compete with the Terrain Denali or Escape Titanium.

     

    You're forgetting the Journey.  But yes, I think a lux version of the Cherokee would be a nice Chrysler.   It's just that the small CUVs are the hottest new segment right now, so get in while they can with an Encore/Trax car.  Easier to win customers when the segment is new.  In the CR-V segment, people just turn in their CR-V and lease another without thinking.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The minvan without sliding doors? lol Yeah, I always forget that because it doesn't seem to compete with anything, in my opinion at least. I passionately hate the Journey. It just seems so..awkward to me..

     

    But would they be stealing their own sales from a Renegade or 500x though?(doubtful they'd steal 500x sales as there aren't many dealers around to steal from). I guess the same could be said for the Cherokee though...

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The Avenger Journey still sells decent, and just a year or two ago was over 100k units a year... so it's competing with something.  It's CR-V/Nox priced but with a third row for tiny tots, and it actually comes with a V6 which the CR-V/Rogue/RAV-4 do not.  So it has its place. 

     

    I don't think Encore sales and Renegade sales are very interchangeable.  While both vehicles are in the same size class, they appeal to very different types of consumer.  I would expect a Chrysler CUV of that size to appeal to an Encore consumer rather than a Renegade consumer.

    Edited by Drew Dowdell
    Wrong car, right platform
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Is it normal to go under all those re-evaluations as FCA seems to do lately...

     

    I  mean...I get the part where a manufacturer is pro-active in dealing with the ever changing automotive scene and reacts to the fast changes that the industry seems to do, but in my opinion, FCA seems to be re-evaluating every 6 months...

     

    Just engineer a bloody product and send it out already for crikey's sake...

     

    Chrysler needs a LX  platform replacement as of yesterday.

    Ditto Dodge.

     

    Chrysler needs that 100 sedan as of yesrterday.

    Chrysler ALSO needs a 100 based CUV as of yesterday...not either or...

     

    Alpha Romeo needs that RWD sedan that Sergio is showing us...as of yesterday...

    Alpha Romeo needs luxury SUVs and  CUVs and 4 door coupes and 2 door coupes as of yesterday...

     

    Fiat...needs more cars than that 500 vehicle and the spin off of it as of.....yesterday...

     

     

    You people dont know how much I HATE this expression..."I need this yesterday"

    And I NEVER thought Id EVER use it...however...in this case...I deem it to be very very appropriate.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Chrysler is a US/Canada brand not a global brand.  Volkswagen could sell zero cars in the USA and still sell 8 million elsewhere.    FCA just has too many niche brands that are too localized to certain regions.  Sergio wants industry consolidation, but he can't even consolidate his own house.  And they can't keep product fresh across 7 or 8 brands, they are like GM of 10 years ago without the sales volume.  

     

    Alfa should be killed and all those cars to Maserati, then they'd have 3 sedans, a coming crossover and the 4C sports car.  I still think Dodge and Chrysler could merge to one brand, unless Ram is killed and Dodge becomes a truck, van and muscle car brand.  Jeep is fine, Chrysler would be car and crossovers, no crossovers to Dodge.

     

    There was a time when people thought, how can GM kill Pontiac or Saturn or Hummer, etc.  Where will that volume go.  Well those brands are gone and not really missed, and they still have volume, and they are more profitable.    If FCA cut half their brands in time they would not be missed.

    Edited by smk4565
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think making Chrysler more a Buick/Lincoln/Acura competitor is a fantastic idea.  Same too making the 100 an Encore sized crossover based on the renegade.   I like the idea of Dodge as an all performance division, but sure that is feasible in he long run. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    They need to focus on PHEV/EV  NOW.

     

    FCA was at the bottom of the most recent Union of Concerned Scientists emissions rankings for carmakers.  When it comes to fuel efficiency, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) is among the lowest of all U.S. automakers and had to buy 8.2 million megagrams of emissions credits.

    • Agree 1
    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    They need to focus on PHEV/EV  NOW.

     

    FCA was at the bottom of the most recent Union of Concerned Scientists emissions rankings for carmakers.  When it comes to fuel efficiency, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) is among the lowest of all U.S. automakers and had to buy 8.2 million megagrams of emissions credits.

     

    Get the low hanging fruit first. They need a new family of fuel efficient 4-cylinder engines.  The Tigershark just isn't cutting it. 

     

    Mazda is the most fuel efficient of all manufacturers aside from Tesla.  They have zero hybrids.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    They need to focus on PHEV/EV  NOW.

     

    FCA was at the bottom of the most recent Union of Concerned Scientists emissions rankings for carmakers.  When it comes to fuel efficiency, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) is among the lowest of all U.S. automakers and had to buy 8.2 million megagrams of emissions credits.

     

    Get the low hanging fruit first. They need a new family of fuel efficient 4-cylinder engines.  The Tigershark just isn't cutting it. 

     

    Mazda is the most fuel efficient of all manufacturers aside from Tesla.  They have zero hybrids.

     

    Bingo, the new family of 4s can't come soon enough. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    They obviously need to pilfer more from Mazda. ActiveTiger or...er SkyShark. I like SkyShark. Yes, that one!!!

     

    Mazda will rake in the monies, and again it proves... being the biggest, isn't always best.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    They obviously need to pilfer more from Mazda. ActiveTiger or...er SkyShark. I like SkyShark. Yes, that one!!!

     

    Mazda will rake in the monies, and again it proves... being the biggest, isn't always best.

     

    The Tigershark is actually a collaboration between FCA, Hyundai, and Mitsubishi.  Each manufacturer tunes it differently to their own needs.   But you're right, it would have been better if those three had paid Mazda to do the engine.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

    Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

     

    Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

    Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

     

    Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

     

     

    The CX-9 is getting a boosted 2.5 liter 4-cylinder with 250 horsepower and 310 lb-ft of torque.   No need for a Pentastar.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

    Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

     

    Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

     

    Why waste R&D dollars on a V6 wen you can go Hybrid for the CX-9 and use a turbo 4 plus a decent electric motor.

     

    Better yet, use their I4 N/A as a generator and go with a pure electric AWD power train. Make the CX-9 like the Volt. 

     

    Pure EV for the first 80 miles and then generator driven.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

    Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

     

    Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

     

    Well, we will have o agree to disagree.  The V6 has it's merits in a larger car, as an option in the CX9 and 6.  With Mazdas expertise and lighter vehicles I would guess they could rather easily get a highway feature in the mid 30s (it already 31 in the heavy LX cars and 32 in the fwd 200).  As for the rest of their lineup, nope.  it is a moot point and thought anyways as we should be seeing the new Chrysler 4s in less than a year that includes at least a couple turbo 4s.  I wouldn't mind seeing them collaborate on a small truck either, i have a soft spot for the older Mazda trucks (pre 93 Ranger spinoff).

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

     

    I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

    Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

     

    Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

     

    Why waste R&D dollars on a V6 wen you can go Hybrid for the CX-9 and use a turbo 4 plus a decent electric motor.

     

    Better yet, use their I4 N/A as a generator and go with a pure electric AWD power train. Make the CX-9 like the Volt. 

     

    Pure EV for the first 80 miles and then generator driven.

     

    Interesting you mention this as we should see such a setup on the new Town and Country available in a few months.  The thought on the 880 that Chrysler is touting about the T&C's intro is 8 passenger and either 80 MPGE or 80 miles on straight electric power.  Also, the T&C is going to offer an AWD system with electric motors powering the rear wheels so it doesn't effect the stow and go seating.  Oh, I think someone said something about them needing hybrids earlier too.  Actually the more I think about it, with a turbo 4 family, a new high tech plug in hybrid system, and the available new rwd platform appearing in the Alfa, why do they need a partner again?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

     

     

    I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

    Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

     

    Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

     

    Why waste R&D dollars on a V6 wen you can go Hybrid for the CX-9 and use a turbo 4 plus a decent electric motor.

     

    Better yet, use their I4 N/A as a generator and go with a pure electric AWD power train. Make the CX-9 like the Volt. 

     

    Pure EV for the first 80 miles and then generator driven.

     

    Interesting you mention this as we should see such a setup on the new Town and Country available in a few months.  The thought on the 880 that Chrysler is touting about the T&C's intro is 8 passenger and either 80 MPGE or 80 miles on straight electric power.  Also, the T&C is going to offer an AWD system with electric motors powering the rear wheels so it doesn't effect the stow and go seating.  Oh, I think someone said something about them needing hybrids earlier too.  Actually the more I think about it, with a turbo 4 family, a new high tech plug in hybrid system, and the available new rwd platform appearing in the Alfa, why do they need a partner again?

     

     

    They don't need a partner, they need to dump the vampire brands that are sucking blood out of the money makers.... but Sergio likes to keep the Vampires as pets.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

     

     

     

    I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

    Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

     

    Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

     

    Why waste R&D dollars on a V6 wen you can go Hybrid for the CX-9 and use a turbo 4 plus a decent electric motor.

     

    Better yet, use their I4 N/A as a generator and go with a pure electric AWD power train. Make the CX-9 like the Volt. 

     

    Pure EV for the first 80 miles and then generator driven.

     

    Interesting you mention this as we should see such a setup on the new Town and Country available in a few months.  The thought on the 880 that Chrysler is touting about the T&C's intro is 8 passenger and either 80 MPGE or 80 miles on straight electric power.  Also, the T&C is going to offer an AWD system with electric motors powering the rear wheels so it doesn't effect the stow and go seating.  Oh, I think someone said something about them needing hybrids earlier too.  Actually the more I think about it, with a turbo 4 family, a new high tech plug in hybrid system, and the available new rwd platform appearing in the Alfa, why do they need a partner again?

     

     

    They don't need a partner, they need to dump the vampire brands that are sucking blood out of the money makers.... but Sergio likes to keep the Vampires as pets.

     

    I agree here and am hoping he does retire in 18 (would be nice if sooner).  I am probably the rare one that can live with Alfa if done right, but Fiat is just one big ole sucker.  It was a nice try, but needs to be taken back to Europe and maybe killed there too. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

     

    I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

    Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

     

    Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

     

     

    The CX-9 is getting a boosted 2.5 liter 4-cylinder with 250 horsepower and 310 lb-ft of torque.   No need for a Pentastar.

     

    Well, there ya go then! lol

     

    Also, How large is the CX-9? Is it Explorer side? or more like an Edge? It's a 3-row SUV, right? So I assume it's larger, more Explorer-like.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

     

    I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

    Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

     

    Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

     

    Why waste R&D dollars on a V6 wen you can go Hybrid for the CX-9 and use a turbo 4 plus a decent electric motor.

     

    Better yet, use their I4 N/A as a generator and go with a pure electric AWD power train. Make the CX-9 like the Volt. 

     

    Pure EV for the first 80 miles and then generator driven.

     

    I like it. Sounds pricey, but I like it. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

     

     

    I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

    Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

     

    Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

     

     

    The CX-9 is getting a boosted 2.5 liter 4-cylinder with 250 horsepower and 310 lb-ft of torque.   No need for a Pentastar.

     

    Well, there ya go then! lol

     

    Also, How large is the CX-9? Is it Explorer side? or more like an Edge? It's a 3-row SUV, right? So I assume it's larger, more Explorer-like.

     

     

    Between Edge and Explorer in length, but narrower.  Yes it's a 3-row, but I think the 3rd row is rather tight.  The advantage of building the platform to only use 4-cylinder engines is that the engine cradle can be smaller and lighter. Making the decision early on to say "no V6 ever" allows them to save weight.  They say that the platform itself dropped 287 lbs, but I don't know if that includes the switch from a 3.7 liter V6 to a Turbo-4 or not.  If that weight loss is just in the structure, then total weight loss should be over 300lbs, putting it under 4,000 lbs in FWD form.   That's a good bit of torque, and at a low RPM, for a CUV under 4k lbs. It should move along smartly.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

     

     

    I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

    Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

     

    Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

     

     

    The CX-9 is getting a boosted 2.5 liter 4-cylinder with 250 horsepower and 310 lb-ft of torque.   No need for a Pentastar.

     

    Well, there ya go then! lol

     

    Also, How large is the CX-9? Is it Explorer side? or more like an Edge? It's a 3-row SUV, right? So I assume it's larger, more Explorer-like.

     

    Per their web site,

     

    CX-9 has a wheel base of 113.2" with an over all length of 200.6" then a width of 76.2" and height of 68" and ground clearance of 

    6"

    Ford Explorer has a wheel base of 112.8" and an over all length of 198.3" then a width of 78.9" and height of 71.0" and ground clearance of 7.8"

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

     

     

     

    I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

    Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

     

    Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

     

     

    The CX-9 is getting a boosted 2.5 liter 4-cylinder with 250 horsepower and 310 lb-ft of torque.   No need for a Pentastar.

     

    Well, there ya go then! lol

     

    Also, How large is the CX-9? Is it Explorer side? or more like an Edge? It's a 3-row SUV, right? So I assume it's larger, more Explorer-like.

     

    Per their web site,

     

    CX-9 has a wheel base of 113.2" with an over all length of 200.6" then a width of 76.2" and height of 68" and ground clearance of 

    6"

    Ford Explorer has a wheel base of 112.8" and an over all length of 198.3" then a width of 78.9" and height of 71.0" and ground clearance of 7.8"

     

     

    That's the current one. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

     

     

     

    I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

    Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

     

    Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

     

     

    The CX-9 is getting a boosted 2.5 liter 4-cylinder with 250 horsepower and 310 lb-ft of torque.   No need for a Pentastar.

     

    Well, there ya go then! lol

     

    Also, How large is the CX-9? Is it Explorer side? or more like an Edge? It's a 3-row SUV, right? So I assume it's larger, more Explorer-like.

     

     

    Between Edge and Explorer in length, but narrower.  Yes it's a 3-row, but I think the 3rd row is rather tight.  The advantage of building the platform to only use 4-cylinder engines is that the engine cradle can be smaller and lighter. Making the decision early on to say "no V6 ever" allows them to save weight.  They say that the platform itself dropped 287 lbs, but I don't know if that includes the switch from a 3.7 liter V6 to a Turbo-4 or not.  If that weight loss is just in the structure, then total weight loss should be over 300lbs, putting it under 4,000 lbs in FWD form.   That's a good bit of torque, and at a low RPM, for a CUV under 4k lbs. It should move along smartly.

     

    First, Thanks both you and dfelt!

     

    Second, a sub 4000lb suv of that size even in "just" FWD form is fantastic! My Escape, I believe, tips the scales just a tad over 3800 with AWD and the damn panorama sunroof. So for something to grow in size that much and gain less than 200lbs is a job very well done, yet again, my the Mazda crew.  I like everything Mazda has done in the past 3ish years. They're the "drivers cars" of the common folk and put up fantastic economy numbers while doing so. Oh, and they are all the best looking in their respective classes, IMO. I don't know about the interior comparisons as I haven't been in one, let alone all of the competition for a comparison. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    First, Thanks both you and dfelt!

     

    Second, a sub 4000lb suv of that size even in "just" FWD form is fantastic! My Escape, I believe, tips the scales just a tad over 3800 with AWD and the damn panorama sunroof. So for something to grow in size that much and gain less than 200lbs is a job very well done, yet again, my the Mazda crew.  I like everything Mazda has done in the past 3ish years. They're the "drivers cars" of the common folk and put up fantastic economy numbers while doing so. Oh, and they are all the best looking in their respective classes, IMO. I don't know about the interior comparisons as I haven't been in one, let alone all of the competition for a comparison.

     

    The very latest generation of Mazdas have fantastic FANTASTIC interiors.  The CX-3 far far exceeds it's class and would put an Audi Q3 to shame.  Easily best in class.

     

    I sat in the new CX-9 in LA and it is every bit as good as these press photos suggest.

     

    2017 Mazda CX 9 13

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    First, Thanks both you and dfelt!

     

    Second, a sub 4000lb suv of that size even in "just" FWD form is fantastic! My Escape, I believe, tips the scales just a tad over 3800 with AWD and the damn panorama sunroof. So for something to grow in size that much and gain less than 200lbs is a job very well done, yet again, my the Mazda crew.  I like everything Mazda has done in the past 3ish years. They're the "drivers cars" of the common folk and put up fantastic economy numbers while doing so. Oh, and they are all the best looking in their respective classes, IMO. I don't know about the interior comparisons as I haven't been in one, let alone all of the competition for a comparison.

     

    The very latest generation of Mazdas have fantastic FANTASTIC interiors.  The CX-3 far far exceeds it's class and would put an Audi Q3 to shame.  Easily best in class.

     

    I sat in the new CX-9 in LA and it is every bit as good as these press photos suggest.

     

     

    Their styling is very reminiscent of recent Audis, IMHO a VERY good thing.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    First, Thanks both you and dfelt!

     

    Second, a sub 4000lb suv of that size even in "just" FWD form is fantastic! My Escape, I believe, tips the scales just a tad over 3800 with AWD and the damn panorama sunroof. So for something to grow in size that much and gain less than 200lbs is a job very well done, yet again, my the Mazda crew.  I like everything Mazda has done in the past 3ish years. They're the "drivers cars" of the common folk and put up fantastic economy numbers while doing so. Oh, and they are all the best looking in their respective classes, IMO. I don't know about the interior comparisons as I haven't been in one, let alone all of the competition for a comparison.

     

    The very latest generation of Mazdas have fantastic FANTASTIC interiors.  The CX-3 far far exceeds it's class and would put an Audi Q3 to shame.  Easily best in class.

     

    I sat in the new CX-9 in LA and it is every bit as good as these press photos suggest.

     

     

    Damn, gorgeous interior! 

     

    I wish when I was car shopping the CX-5's that I could afford weren't only the first model year which had the 155hp engine, no thanks. The '14s were a little out of my comfort zone when it came to dollar signs and I wasn't going to stretch myself for a vehicle. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    First, Thanks both you and dfelt!

     

    Second, a sub 4000lb suv of that size even in "just" FWD form is fantastic! My Escape, I believe, tips the scales just a tad over 3800 with AWD and the damn panorama sunroof. So for something to grow in size that much and gain less than 200lbs is a job very well done, yet again, my the Mazda crew.  I like everything Mazda has done in the past 3ish years. They're the "drivers cars" of the common folk and put up fantastic economy numbers while doing so. Oh, and they are all the best looking in their respective classes, IMO. I don't know about the interior comparisons as I haven't been in one, let alone all of the competition for a comparison.

     

    The very latest generation of Mazdas have fantastic FANTASTIC interiors.  The CX-3 far far exceeds it's class and would put an Audi Q3 to shame.  Easily best in class.

     

    I sat in the new CX-9 in LA and it is every bit as good as these press photos suggest.

     

     

     

    Drew, is that nav screen move up and down into the dash? Looks like it could.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

     

    First, Thanks both you and dfelt!

     

    Second, a sub 4000lb suv of that size even in "just" FWD form is fantastic! My Escape, I believe, tips the scales just a tad over 3800 with AWD and the damn panorama sunroof. So for something to grow in size that much and gain less than 200lbs is a job very well done, yet again, my the Mazda crew.  I like everything Mazda has done in the past 3ish years. They're the "drivers cars" of the common folk and put up fantastic economy numbers while doing so. Oh, and they are all the best looking in their respective classes, IMO. I don't know about the interior comparisons as I haven't been in one, let alone all of the competition for a comparison.

     

    The very latest generation of Mazdas have fantastic FANTASTIC interiors.  The CX-3 far far exceeds it's class and would put an Audi Q3 to shame.  Easily best in class.

     

    I sat in the new CX-9 in LA and it is every bit as good as these press photos suggest.

     

     

     

    Drew, is that nav screen move up and down into the dash? Looks like it could.

     

     

    Don't know.  I tweeted the Mazda PR guy to ask.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Mazda is also working on HCCI...

     

    So is GM. I believe they were expecting to have it in some vehicle application prior to 2020. I wouldn't be surprised if their newest engine families were designed so they can be retrofitted with the technology.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Yup, yup, yup.

     

    It is about as difficult, if not more than trying to build a diesel engine without exhaust after-treatment to comply with U.S. emissions regulations.

     

    But it's the key to unlocking an new wave of efficiency for gas engines.

     

    It might permanently make diesels irrelevant for passenger vehicles. 

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Yup, yup, yup.

     

    It is about as difficult, if not more than trying to build a diesel engine without exhaust after-treatment to comply with U.S. emissions regulations.

     

    But it's the key to unlocking an new wave of efficiency for gas engines.

     

    It might permanently make diesels irrelevant for passenger vehicles. 

     

     

    Indeed.... the key is that an HCCI engine cannot run in that mode all the time.  It only runs in HCCI mode under light loads... put too much fuel/air mixture into the cylinder and then things don't work right. The big issue GM was having when it was working on it back in the Saturn days was the transition from HCCI to normal spark ignition.  The engine worked fine in either mode, but it was the switching of modes that was less than graceful.   Even then, I think that Aura would only run in HCCI at stead speed from 35 - 55 mph, but don't quote me on that.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Yup, yup, yup.

     

    It is about as difficult, if not more than trying to build a diesel engine without exhaust after-treatment to comply with U.S. emissions regulations.

     

    But it's the key to unlocking an new wave of efficiency for gas engines.

     

    It might permanently make diesels irrelevant for passenger vehicles. 

    I think Hyundai has been working on this for a few years at this point. No clue where/how the progress is at this point though. I just remember reading something on it quite awhile ago and I thought the idea was awesome. 

     

    Definitely make diesels irrelevant in passenger vehicles. I don't know what kind of energy difference there is between a given amount of diesel vs gasoline but if you can get diesel efficiency with gasoline prices, we're talking monster jump in the industry. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Yup, yup, yup.

     

    It is about as difficult, if not more than trying to build a diesel engine without exhaust after-treatment to comply with U.S. emissions regulations.

     

    But it's the key to unlocking an new wave of efficiency for gas engines.

     

    It might permanently make diesels irrelevant for passenger vehicles. 

    I think Hyundai has been working on this for a few years at this point. No clue where/how the progress is at this point though. I just remember reading something on it quite awhile ago and I thought the idea was awesome. 

     

    Definitely make diesels irrelevant in passenger vehicles. I don't know what kind of energy difference there is between a given amount of diesel vs gasoline but if you can get diesel efficiency with gasoline prices, we're talking monster jump in the industry. 

     

     

    Well, it's not not going to go into HD trucks, it doesn't have the torque.  Overall, the power characteristics of the engine don't change, because anything above light throttle and it switches back to being a conventional engine.   The only advantage is in fuel savings during light load times.... You'd get fantastic highway fuel economy, but city would be the same as any other conventional gasoline engine of the same size and features since that's when you're into the throttle most often. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

     

    Yup, yup, yup.

     

    It is about as difficult, if not more than trying to build a diesel engine without exhaust after-treatment to comply with U.S. emissions regulations.

     

    But it's the key to unlocking an new wave of efficiency for gas engines.

     

    It might permanently make diesels irrelevant for passenger vehicles. 

    I think Hyundai has been working on this for a few years at this point. No clue where/how the progress is at this point though. I just remember reading something on it quite awhile ago and I thought the idea was awesome. 

     

    Definitely make diesels irrelevant in passenger vehicles. I don't know what kind of energy difference there is between a given amount of diesel vs gasoline but if you can get diesel efficiency with gasoline prices, we're talking monster jump in the industry. 

     

     

    Well, it's not not going to go into HD trucks, it doesn't have the torque.  Overall, the power characteristics of the engine don't change, because anything above light throttle and it switches back to being a conventional engine.   The only advantage is in fuel savings during light load times.... You'd get fantastic highway fuel economy, but city would be the same as any other conventional gasoline engine of the same size and features since that's when you're into the throttle most often. 

     

    Interesting, I didn't know that. Thanks! 

     

    I was actually going to ask if they would be gaining the diesel-like power band but you already answered that. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • google-news-icon.png



  • Community Hive Community Hive

    Community Hive allows you to follow your favorite communities all in one place.

    Follow on Community Hive
  • google-news-icon.png

  • Subscribe to Cheers & Gears

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001 we've brought you real content and honest opinions, not AI-generated stuff with no feeling or opinions influenced by the manufacturers.

    Please consider subscribing. Subscriptions can be as little as $1.75 a month, and a paid subscription drops most ads.*
     

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Yeah, it doesn't seem super space efficient.
    • So three major problems with this car, one, terrible Jellybean external shape, not impressed at all with the style. Second is the buttonless dash having everything via a touch screen and rotary knob, terrible safety issue as your eyes will be off the road more than on trying to find the right option in the right menu. Third is the center pack clearly cuts into valuable leg space based on their own picture. This is a hard pass.
    • Great Masculine shape, really digging the style they did here.
    • First seen at the Shanghai Auto Show (see article: Polestar 4 - The New Breed of Electric SUV Coupe), Polestar brought the Polestar 4 to the New York International Auto Show for North Americans to see in person. Polestar calls the Polestar 4 an "electric SUV 4-door coupe". Outside of that marketing speak, the Polestar 4 is a slightly lifted four-door hatchback about 190 inches in length, or roughly 2 inches shorter than a Toyota Camry.  Built without rear glass, the Polestar 4 makes use of a rear camera for visibility astern. Polestar 4 features a plethora of standard content, including 20-inch 5 V-spoke black diamond cut alloy wheels, panoramic glass roof, adaptive cruise control, 360 parking camera with 3D view, energy saving heat pump, front-illuminated Polestar logo, e-latch doors, power-operated tailgate with soft close, Polestar digital key, wireless phone charging, and 8-way electrical driver seat and 6-way electrical passenger seat. The fastest production car the brand has ever developed to date, Polestar 4 can accomplish a 0-60 mph sprint in 3.7 seconds and in top spec can produce 544 horsepower. Long-range single-motor variants have 272 horsepower and a targeted EPA range of over 300 miles. All long range variants have a 102 kWh battery capable of 200 kW charging on a DC Fast Charger and 11 kW on home level-2 charging. Google built-in is ... built in and includes Google Assistant, Google Maps and Google Play. Polestar continues to offer a leading connected in-car experience. As with all other Polestar cars, regular over-the-air updates allow for new features and improvements to be sent remotely to all vehicles. Pricing starts at $54,900, with orders opening in April for deliveries in the latter half of this year.   View full article
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search

Change privacy settings