Jump to content
Create New...
  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • William Maley
    William Maley

    What To Expect From Chrysler's Upcoming CUV

      Some Information On Chrysler's Upcoming CUV

    Motor Trend had the chance to speak with Chrysler president and CEO Al Gardner about the upcoming crossover for the brand. Announced in Fiat Chrysler Automobile's five-year plan, the new crossover will be coming out in 2016. Gardner explained that the new crossover would be going head to head with such models as the Chevrolet Traverse and Toyota Highlander.

    As for the new crossover itself, Gardner said it would use a front-wheel drive platform, with the option of all-wheel drive and a V6 engine. Gardner also talked about the need to build more models off of existing platform to help maximize their investment. This leads Motor Trend to speculate that the new crossover will utilize the platform from the new minivans.

    Source: Motor Trend

    William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at [email protected] or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Mazda made money on their Micro-Minivans, So a version that is also part CUV AWD tends to make sense and I could see those wanting a small or mid size CUV with minivan space buying into this.

     

    CUV/Minivan crossovers are the 21st century version of Station wagons.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    A redux of the Pacifica would be amazing. The vehicle was ahead of its time. I saw one a week ago and it's incredible how contemporary its appearance is. 

     

    It was hobbled by a bad launch and bad engines/4-speed transmissions. It didn't help that it came out at a time when people were demanding more powerful engines.

     

    With ChryCo's new powertrains and a couple design nip-tuck's, I wouldn't be surprised if a new Pacific were to sell better than its pre-recessionary model. 

    • Agree 3
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I drove a Pacifica a couple times, when they got the 4.0 V6 and 6-speed it was better than the earlier models, but with the Pentastar V6 and a 9 speed automatic then it would be even better.  The outside look was good, the formula of 2 rows of bucket seats and a 3rd row bench for 2 made it comfortable to seat 6, I always liked that adults could sit in the second row and it wasn't like a cramped bench seat. 

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I drove a Pacifica a couple times, when they got the 4.0 V6 and 6-speed it was better than the earlier models, but with the Pentastar V6 and a 9 speed automatic then it would be even better.  The outside look was good, the formula of 2 rows of bucket seats and a 3rd row bench for 2 made it comfortable to seat 6, I always liked that adults could sit in the second row and it wasn't like a cramped bench seat. 

     

     

    I am perhaps the harshest critic of Chrysler on this forum, and I will gladly admit the Pacifica had some merit.

    ...and you all know how much it pains me to agree with SMK.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well yeah, I also think the new Explorer is kind of an heir to the fat ass, slightly jacked minivan masquerading as a quasi-SUV look that the Pacifica pioneered.  Look at one from the back next time you're in traffic, a wide load, fat ass lumberer.  The Lambdas escape this connotation, imo, because they seem to not squat so low.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The build quality may not have been great, but most Chryslers have lousy reliability and build quality also.  The idea of the Pacifica, a sort of mid-size SUV that drove like a car with 2 rows of captains chairs and a folding 3rd row was good, the execution could have been better.

    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The build quality may not have been great, but most Chryslers have lousy reliability and build quality also.  The idea of the Pacifica, a sort of mid-size SUV that drove like a car with 2 rows of captains chairs and a folding 3rd row was good, the execution could have been better.

    I agree with you here, and the earlier statement that the Pacifica was ahead of it's time and hurt by a poor marketing/sales execution and poor powertrain line up.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The build quality may not have been great, but most Chryslers have lousy reliability and build quality also.  The idea of the Pacifica, a sort of mid-size SUV that drove like a car with 2 rows of captains chairs and a folding 3rd row was good, the execution could have been better.

     

     

    Quoted for truth!

     

    The build quality may not have been great, but most Chryslers have lousy reliability and build quality also.  The idea of the Pacifica, a sort of mid-size SUV that drove like a car with 2 rows of captains chairs and a folding 3rd row was good, the execution could have been better.

    I agree with you hear, and the earlier statement that the Pacifica was ahead of it's time and hurt by a poor marketing/sales execution and poor powertrain line up.

     

     

     

    Also quoted for truth.  thank you both for making nice, clear, rational and reality based quotes.  it is what I love about C and G.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The Pacifica was a great concept hobbled by DCX-Typical execution.

     

    Given what FCA is doing with the Grand Cherokee and Durango right now (I'm driving a GC-Limited this week) I think they could finally get the execution part right.

     

     

    And think... they could really rock the crossover world with a Stow-n-go option in a crossover instead of a mini-van.

    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The Pacifica was a great concept hobbled by DCX-Typical execution.

     

    Given what FCA is doing with the Grand Cherokee and Durango right now (I'm driving a GC-Limited this week) I think they could finally get the execution part right.

     

     

    And think... they could really rock the crossover world with a Stow-n-go option in a crossover instead of a mini-van.

    Love that concept Drew of the Stow-n-Go option in a crossover. GM should do that in their crossover line.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Chrysler has done plenty of great things that have been let down by execution. I am trying to take 2 QuickZ's encouragement to give chryco a fair shot to heart.

    Let's raise a symbolic mug of your favorite micro brew in a toast in the hope that Chrysler keeps improving.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Chrysler has done plenty of great things that have been let down by execution. I am trying to take 2 QuickZ's encouragement to give chryco a fair shot to heart.

    Let's raise a symbolic mug of your favorite micro brew in a toast in the hope that Chrysler keeps improving.

     

    How did I get drug into this? lol

     

    I love my '12 Charger R/T.  My GM retiree Dad and my Mom both love his '12 T&C and her '14 Durango.  I think Chrysler has come a loooong way since Fiat entered the picture. Do they still have a ways to go?  Absolutely.  You can't change everything overnight but I get more and more encouraged with each new vehicle they put out.

     

    I used to get frustrated because of how quickly Hyundai and Kia were able to turn around their quality reputation while for the Big 3, it is taking much, much longer to for perception to catch up with reality.  It finally dawned on me that the reason was probably quite simple:  When Hyundai and Kia were making abysmal quality vehicles, they only had what, 0.5% market share?  When the Big 3 were doing it in the '70's and '80's, they probably had up to 80% of the market.  It takes much longer to forget when you have personally been burned (sometimes multiple times) than when you simply read about other people having quality issues with a brand you've never owned.

     

    Either way I am going to continue to cheer for all of the Big 3.  Even the one that has been foreign owned for quite a while now.

    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.




  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    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

    • Happy Birthday!!! Cheers!!!  
    • Yes. Ferrari was always a company selling towards the top tier rich.  I am not sure about Porsche's marketing after 1945, but I do know that Porsche wanted to go up market, really up market,  to sell to the rich in the late 1990s.    Rolex watches were always expensive.  But not always being a  chic jewellery accessory.  Rolex watches were expensive time pieces because they were highly precise time pieces meant for professions that required time pieces that were precise in time telling. Also, Rolexes were also engineered to be tough and not break in those job environments. Therefore the high price tags of them were because the high standard of engineering that went into them.  The value of the brand went up because of the people that bought them praised them. It was after the quartz movement of the 1960s and 1970s that Rolex needed to re-invent themselves as battery powered watches were MORE precise ate their lunch. So...like many other "swiss" automatic watch makers launched their new image as luxury time pieces. It was easy for Rolex to do as Rolex was coveted as a great engineered watch to begin with.   Like I said...its a boys club that they want to be known as and bought by (rich) people that have bought into that boys club mentality.  It aint for you or for @ccap41.   Even if you or @ccap41 had the money, its obvious that you guys have not fallen for this marketing gimmick.  Its barely for me either.  1. I cant afford Ferraris, Porsches or Rolexes. 2. I do not want to be in a Porsche Boys club.  I like Porsches and all, but Im not in their camp.  Not because of the boys club marketing schemes. Its just that I am not a rabid Porsche guy fanatic.  3. If I had 1% money, I am not sure Id be a Ferrari guy either.  After deep thought, I am more of a Ferrari guy than I am a Porsche guy.  But maybe not enough for me to fall for this kind of sales scheme either. 4.  Rolex...   I do like a Rolex.  But I am not one to boast about what kind of time piece Im wearing. So...nix me on that club as well. 5. It looks like I am aligned with you and @ccap41's take on this, but with me, I shrug it off.  I see why the companies want to go down this road. And I see why there are some people...rich people...that do not mind giving their monies away to these companies. And at the end of the day, its what makes them happy and superior to the rest of us as we do not have the time or money or will to buy into any of this. And kudos for them for buying into that lifestyle.    At the end of the day, whether we are talking about Ferrari or Porsche or Rolex, some of their product, past and present, have been REALLY REALLY EXCELLENT product. Whether we are talking about looks and style or engineering and technology, all 3 have styled and engineered awesomeness.  We could talk about their products that were failures, but wouldnt that signal some sort of sour grapes analogy on our part? Its a company's right to mold their brand image as they wish.   Whether we agree to it as individuals is irrelevant. What is relevant though is how collectively we ALL feel about it.  In Ferraris case its a huge success. Porsche and Rolex have to work on it just a tad more. But I feels its successful.  If there is a downfall for Porsche, I think it has more to do with their decisions to being a sports car maker ALONGSIDE being a (rich) family grocery getter/soccer mom SUV maker.  The failure of having two opposing identities is killing Porsche.  And it is a double edged sword.  On the one hand, if not for the SUVs, Porsche would have been gone by the early 2000s.  The inevitable was prolonged?  Rolex... Too many boutique time piece makers have propped up in the last 15 years that took their place in some areas of the really expensive realm.  Quartz time pieces keep on being a nuisance to them. This time around its the fashion watch trend. The name brand watch sellers like Michael Korrs and Hugo Boss and even Porsche that have taken some of Rolexes market share.  The advent of smart watches also hurts them.  So they decided to change it up in the sales realm.  Are there enough Rolex worshippers out there that will buy cheaper Rolexes or older models just to get that one highly anticipated limited edition time piece? Well...although watches are strictly fashion devices today, there are more than enough fashionable time pieces around for people to by-pass Rolex fandom.  Some have their own unique look to them and are sought after and some just emulate Rolex but watch brand snobs are too few today so Rolex has a steep hill to climb because most people that wear watches dont give a shyte what kind of watch you wear.  Unlike cars, car snobbery actually still exits...  Hence why Ferrari is still king of the douchiness and going on strong. Stronger than ever Id say.    
    • Happy (belated) Birthday @G. David Felt!
    • Oh yeah, I forgot to even mention the wireless charging! That is also a game changer. It eliminates yet another thing people are afraid to change, plugging in. Yes, i realize it is EXTREMELY easy to do, but the anti-EV people love to point out "I don't want to have to plug in every night". It's just another thing to check off the list. 
    • Yes, moderation is a challenge for this foodie. I love to cook, have learned to moderate how much I eat as I gotten older.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

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