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

    2018 Dodge Durango SRT To Begin At $64,090

      Become some just want to haul three-rows of people as fast as possible


    For the 2018 model year, Dodge will be introducing the 475 horsepower Durango SRT. Before it hits dealers later this year, Dodge has announced pricing for this high-performance crossover.

    For $64,090 (includes a $1,095 destination charge), you get a 6.4L HEMI V8 hooked up to an eight-speed automatic and all-wheel drive. 0-60 will only take 4.4 seconds and will reach the quarter mile in 12.9 seconds. Other performance tweaks include adaptive dampers, new springs, larger Brembo brakes, and a new body kit. Buyers will also get a day session at the Bob Bondurant School of High Performance Driving in Chandler, Arizona to hone their driving skills.

    “The new 2018 Dodge Durango SRT is America’s fastest, most powerful and most capable three-row SUV. This is what you get, when you take everything great about the Durango and combine it with the performance of the Charger SRT: a 12-second quarter mile, 8,700-pound-toy hauling, three-row muscle car,” said Tim Kuniskis, Head of Passenger Cars Brands, Dodge, SRT, Chrysler and FIAT – FCA North America in a statement.

    Source: Dodge
    Press Release is on Page 2


    Dodge Announces Pricing for 2018 Dodge Durango SRT: America’s Fastest, Most Powerful and Most Capable Three-Row SUV

    • New Dodge Durango SRT starts at a U.S. Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) of $62,995 (excluding $1,095 destination)
    • New 2018 Dodge Durango SRT is the most powerful three-row SUV with its 475-horsepower legendary 392-cubic-inch HEMI® V-8 engine
    • Fastest and most capable three-row SUV with a National Hot Rod Association (NHRA)–certified quarter-mile time of 12.9 seconds and capable of 0-60 miles per hour (mph) acceleration in 4.4 seconds
    • Durango SRT out-hauls every three-row SUV on the road with best-in-class towing capability of 8,700 pounds
    • New exterior performance features include widebody exterior design and functional SRT hood with center air inlet duct flanked by heat extractors, as well as a new front fascia and lower valence to house new cold-air duct and LED fog lamps
    • Standard leather and suede, available high-performance Demonic Red Laguna leather seating and new carbon-fiber trim distinguish Durango SRT’s performance interior
    • All customers who buy a new Durango SRT will receive one full-day session at the Bob Bondurant School of High Performance Driving
    • The new 2018 Dodge Durango SRT will start arriving in Dodge dealerships during fourth quarter 2017

    July 6, 2017 , Auburn Hills, Mich. - The Dodge and SRT brands are rocking the high-performance automotive world once again, bringing a huge burst of American power, acceleration and best-in-class tow capability to the three-row SUV segment with the new 2018 Dodge Durango SRT – the fastest SUV in its class.
     
    With the proven 392-cubic-inch HEMI® V-8 under its new functional SRT hood, the new 2018 Dodge Durango SRT delivers 475 horsepower and 470 lb.-ft. of torque, and a wicked fast time on the drag strip – from 0-60 miles per hour (mph) in 4.4 seconds, covering the quarter mile in 12.9 seconds as certified by the National Hot Rod Association (NHRA).
     
    “The new 2018 Dodge Durango SRT is America’s fastest, most powerful and most capable three-row SUV,” said Tim Kuniskis, Head of Passenger Cars Brands, Dodge, SRT, Chrysler and FIAT – FCA North America. “This is what you get, when you take everything great about the Durango and combine it with the performance of the Charger SRT: a 12-second quarter mile, 8,700-pound-toy hauling, three-row muscle car.”
     
    Vehicles will start arriving in Dodge dealerships in the fourth quarter of 2017 with a U.S. Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) of $62,995 (excluding $1,095 destination).

    The new 2018 Dodge Durango SRT is loaded with standard performance features, including:

    • Proven 392-cubic-inch HEMI V-8 delivers 475 horsepower and 470 lb.-ft. of torque and 4.4-second 0-60 mph times
    • New performance-tuned AWD system helps the Durango SRT set world-class performance marks
    • Standard TorqueFlite eight-speed automatic transmission specifically calibrated for the Dodge Durango SRT to optimize shift points and deliver maximum torque to all four wheels
    • Massive new Brembo high-performance six-piston (front) and four-piston (rear) calipers and vented rotors at all four corners, measuring 15 inches (front-slotted) and 13.8 inches (rear)
    • Bilstein active-damping high-performance suspension
    • 20 in. x 10 in. Goliath wheel with Low Gloss Black Noise finish
    • New Pirelli 295/45ZR20 Scorpion Verde all-season tires or available Pirelli P Zero three-season tires
    • New widebody exterior brings the Durango SRT together as a true performance SUV
    • Newly designed SRT hood with a functional cold-air duct and heat extractors to cool the engine and improve overall performance
    • New front fascia and lower valence to house new cold-air duct and LED fog lamps
    • New performance AWD badging on liftgate
    • New interior appointments including SRT flat-bottom performance steering wheel with SRT paddle shifters, heated and ventilated front and heated second-row captain’s chairs with embroidered SRT logos
    • New driver-oriented electronic T-shifter, standard on all 2018 Durango models, provides the driver with intuitive gear selection and offers an Auto Stick selector gate for added control
    • Premium velour-bound floor mats with embroidered SRT logo
    • New SRT rear body-color lower fascia with Gloss Black accent surrounds the 4-inch dual round exhaust tips finished in Nickel Chrome
    • New 180-mph speedometer
    • New SRT seven-mode drive system gives the driver the ability to precisely adjust drive settings to maximize performance or comfort
    • New Sport Mode reduces shift times by up to 50 percent versus Auto Mode and delivers up to 65 percent of the 392 HEMI engine’s torque to the rear wheels
    • New Track Mode delivers maximum performance track driving with 160-millisecond shifts and up to 70 percent of engine torque to the rear wheels for the most pronounced rear-wheel-drive experience
    • Sophisticated Active Damping System opens and closes the Durango SRT’s suspension’s damper valves, according to which of the seven modes is chosen, giving the driver options for any driving style
    • Stiffer front springs (3 percent), stiffer rear springs (16 percent) and stiffer rear sway bar (18 percent) give Durango SRT drivers outstanding high-speed cornering capability
    • New exhaust system tuned to offer an unmistakably deep, high-performance Dodge SRT exhaust note modeled after the Dodge Charger SRT

    Available options include 20 in. x 10 in. split-five spoke wheels with Low Gloss Black Noise finish, three-season tires, trailer tow, power sunroof, Demonic Red Laguna leather seating, rear DVD entertainment and technology group. Durango SRT also has an available premium interior, which includes suede-wrapped headliner and A-pillars, true carbon-fiber instrument panel and door bezels (late availability), and a hand-wrapped instrument panel with live black and silver accent stitch.

    The 2018 Dodge Durango SRT is available in seven exterior colors, including B5 Blue (late availability), Billet Clear Coat, Bruiser Grey Clear Coat, DB Black Clear Coat, Granite Clear Coat, Octane Red Pearl Coat and White Knuckle Clear Coat.  

    Edited by William Maley

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    1 hour ago, balthazar said:

    I'm still in disagreement on this.

    A steady fuel air mix that gives 2000 RPMs is set according to engine specs/tune. It's only less power because you are @ 2000 RPMs on a 5000 RPM range, not because to the throttle position. TRQ is a mechanical output of crank revolution driven by combustion in the bores & piston movement. Within a singular engine- that fuel/air mixture is the same if the throttle is at 25% for an hour or 100% for .5 seconds.

    In that an engine under WOT is only going to be at 2000 RPM for a split second, in this theoretical argument you'd have to measure that TRQ at the EXACT MOMENT the WOT test hits 2000- and ignore 1999 RPMS and 2001 RPMs. I don't believe 1. it's possible to accurately measure this, and 2. that the TRQ number is going to be any different.

    You stuff more air/fuel in under WOT and the engine is lagging in the combustion cycle to push the pistons faster & faster- this is a graph plot, whereas 2000 RPMs is a single point.

    I welcome any data that has taken a measured look at this...

    Again. That would be incorrect.

    Let's change the thought experiment a different way.  You've just bought a new car, it has hyper accurate cruise control that can keep a perfect steady speed no matter the conditions outside the car (A Mercedes First!!) . Be it flat land, a steep hill, quicksand, or a crowd of ISIS fighters... that car is going to continue on at whatever speed you set it at and not a 100th of a mph different. 

    For the sake of this experiment, we'll be going 60 mph... that means the torque converter is locked and there is no slip in the transmission at all. Crank to wheels is a solid connection. You've also pressed the Eco button, so the computer keeps the car in the highest gear possible with no downshifting until you hit full throttle

    You start your trip in the Pine Barrens... pretty flat land. You've set your cruise control at 60 mph and it will remain there until the end of the trip. Due to gearing and torque converter lock up, 60 mph will always mean the engine is turning 2000 rpm in its top gear.

    Your trip is taking you to Delaware Water Gap. As you approach the mountains, the cruise control does its thing and opens the throttle more to keep you at 60.  The engine is still turning 2000 rpm, but now more fuel is entering the cylinder because the throttle is open wider. More fuel = more power.  As the hills get steeper, the throttle opens wider... now ever more power, but still at 2000 rpm and 60 mph.  Eventually you get to the steepest part of the hill, the throttle is almost all the way open. This is just about as much power as you're going to get at 2000 rpm. Now, you've hit full throttle at 2000 rpm, the only way to get more power is to spin the engine faster (i.e. pump more air and fuel through the engine), the computer kicks down a gear and you reach the very top.   From the flat Pine Barrens till the point just before the transmission kicked down a gear, the engine remained at 2000 rpm, yet the throttle gradually opened from about 1/4 to full.   Are you trying to say that the engine produced the same amount of power throughout that entire trip?

    After you crest the hill, the cruise cuts the throttle back to nearly closed. Now you're producing less power, but still turning 2000 rpm. If this were a direct injection engine, the injectors would be practically off. Are you still producing the same amount of torque at 2000 rpm with nearly zero fuel?  Fuel injectors work by varying the amount of fuel squirted during each combustion cycle.  If you know of a way to produce max torque with the fuel injectors off, you better patent that idea fast. 

    Given the same car, same transmission gearing, etc, a 2.5 liter I4 and a 3.6 liter V6 (Think Cadillac ATS) will be making about the same horsepower at the same vehicle speed.  It only takes a certain amount of power to move a passenger car along at a steady 60mph. Give and take a little for weight, gearing and aero, that number is around 10 - 20 hp. If you know your RPM at that speed, you can work backwards to see the torque (15hp, 2000rpm = 39 lb-ft of torque)... that's all your 400hp twin-electric-turbo Mercedes is producing.  That's why cylinder deactivation can work and keep a Suburban at a steady speed with half the engine shut down. 

    The Horsepower and Torque graphs that get passed around are only measurements at WOT. Less than WOT on that same engine will produce a lower amount of torque because less fuel is being used. Lower torque at a given RPM means lower horsepower.  

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well it is all history now.  And I don't see Chrysler-Dodge as viable brands past 2022.  Large sedan market overall is collapsing, they don't have a small or mid size sedan, no small crossovers, no EV.   Case in point this "new" 2018 product has a V8 from 10 years ago.

    Imagine if GM cancelled the Malibu and Cruze and dropped a Z06 engine into a Tahoe because it was "badass" and could do burn outs and have a midnight edition with red brake calipers.  That is basically the FCA play book. 

    Edited by smk4565
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

    Well it is all history now.  And I don't see Chrysler-Dodge as viable brands past 2022.  Large sedan market overall is collapsing, they don't have a small or mid size sedan, no small crossovers, no EV.   Case in point this "new" 2018 product has a V8 from 10 years ago.

    Who cares? It is in the top echelon of performance for any SUV at that price and size.

    But all of the above that I typed out is for you to understand also. Peak torque and peak horsepower don't matter in everyday driving. 

    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    12 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

    Well it is all history now.  And I don't see Chrysler-Dodge as viable brands past 2022.  Large sedan market overall is collapsing, they don't have a small or mid size sedan, no small crossovers, no EV.   Case in point this "new" 2018 product has a V8 from 10 years ago.

    Imagine if GM cancelled the Malibu and Cruze and dropped a Z06 engine into a Tahoe because it was "badass" and could do burn outs and have a midnight edition with red brake calipers.  That is basically the FCA play book. 

    I don't disagree that FCA's other product lineup is pretty screwed... but that doesn't mean that the Durango is a bad or the Grand Cherokee is bad.  Sergio is a terrible CEO... I've said that for a while. 

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    54 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    Again. That would be incorrect.

    Let's change the thought experiment a different way....

    Your new analogy incorporates the plethora of variables I stated I was omitting- especially transmission, gearing & road variations.

    I came into this thread on the statement that a given engine makes more TRQ at a specific RPM under WOT than it does under steady throttle. I still counter that a given engine can only make X TRQ @ Y RPM because Y RPM is dictated by throttle (fuel/air).

    In other words : say Engine X (capable of 6000 RPM) turning 2000 RPM takes 33% throttle. If you start from a stand-still, mash the gas and don't let up until redline, you are still drawing 33% throttle at the 2000 RPM point because the engine cannot and is not drawing full airflow- the pistons aren't moving fast enough yet. Throttle may be @ 100% but AIRFLOW is only @ 33% and thusly, actual fuel flow is in the neighborhood of 33% also. Otherwise that WOT pedal mash would dump a pint of gas into an engine turning 750 RPM idle and bog it to stall/ wash the bores with raw fuel. There is of course an acceleration lag where increased fuel/air "leads" an engine to increase RPM... but the 2 plot curves are very close.

    We never defined how much different you believe these 2 scenarios would be. I have stated there is some margin of error & acceleration lag... but these are minor factors, numbers-wise. Engine X making 300 TRQ @ 2000 at 33% throttle is not going to make 325 TRQ @ WOT @ 2000.

    Real world in-car impression is quite different because no driver can analyze a single RPM point in a WOT full-range RPM pass. A WOT pass of course feels stronger than an off-steady throttle mash because of momentum.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    14 hours ago, smk4565 said:

    First off, Daimler should have never bought Chrysler to begin with.  It was a bad idea and the people who thought it was a good idea got fired and the people in charge now are the ones that got them out of it.

    I never said the Durango should have a 4-cylinder, it needs a big engine because it is a big, heavy vehicle.  But Dodge-Chrysler brands as a whole don't have small and medium vehicles or a good 4 cylinder which is the majority of the market.  Even Jeep sales are down this year while crossovers are fire.

    You realize the new turbo 4 in the Giulia/Stelvio that has great power and exceptional fuel economy IS the new Chrysler turbo 4, right?  Jeep has lost a model that had huge sales in the Patriot and they are still working up production of the Compass, of course the are down, but still selling excellent. 

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    RPM is not dictated by throttle alone.

    An engine at 10% throttle and 2000 with no load is producing less power than an identical engine at 90% throttle with a heavy load. 

    The engine at 10% throttle is getting less air and fuel. The engine at 90% is getting more air and fuel. More air and fuel means more power output. It is the throttle's job to regulate air and fuel input.

    As for your statement about flooding the engine... That's also incorrect. In a carb, the air only picks up fuel as it passes through the carb and the carb mixes it accordingly. In a fuel injection car, there is a mass airflow sensor and TPS so the computer gets inputs from those two and adjusts the injection rates to match.

    The fact remains that it only takes about 10 - 20 hp to keep a car at a steady 60mph.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    DD- you are invoking a number of truths (and variables) that still do not support your theory.

    RPM is not dictated by throttle alone.
    In a single engine on a test stand, it pretty much is. In that scenario, it's the only variable (going hand-in-hand with air flow).

    The engine at 10% throttle is getting less air and fuel. The engine at 90% is getting more air and fuel. More air and fuel means more power output. It is the throttle's job to regulate air and fuel input.
    Yes, but a (steady state) 10% throttle and 90% throttle cannot be achieved at the same RPM (except for one half-second of time). A modern engine is not going to hold (per our example) 2000 RPM at 90% throttle. (Well, maybe my flathead...)

    The fact remains that it only takes about 10 - 20 hp to keep a car at a steady 60mph.
    Immaterial to the discussion. "60 MPH" involves the entire vehicle and a host of conditions, including transmission gearing, rolling resistance, .cd, etc. We were talking about engine output alone, not road speed.

    As for your statement about flooding the engine... That's also incorrect. In a carb, the air only picks up fuel as it passes through the carb and the carb mixes it accordingly. In a fuel injection car, there is a mass airflow sensor and TPS so the computer gets inputs from those two and adjusts the injection rates to match.
    In a ICE, there are optimal ratios for these together, and within 2 otherwise identical engines, they are going to be in a very tight range when tuned for the same outputs.

    But my example stands- if the throttle position on an idling engine was suddenly open to 100%, why doesn't the engine suddenly develop peak HP at -say= 1000 RPM? The answer is it cannot develop peak HP/TRQ at idel speed because throttle position does not determine output WITHOUT RPM.

    Edited by balthazar
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    10 hours ago, smk4565 said:

    Well it is all history now.  And I don't see Chrysler-Dodge as viable brands past 2022.  Large sedan market overall is collapsing, they don't have a small or mid size sedan, no small crossovers, no EV.   Case in point this "new" 2018 product has a V8 from 10 years ago.

    Imagine if GM cancelled the Malibu and Cruze and dropped a Z06 engine into a Tahoe because it was "badass" and could do burn outs and have a midnight edition with red brake calipers.  That is basically the FCA play book. 

    So f@#king what? Jesus. How many times do the simple things have to be explained to you? You act like Benz has never done such things but that would be an obvious lie. Don't worry, at least Benz is bringing yet another FWD four cylinder help in the form of the useless CLA lite, I mean A Class. That should help bring up the class (note obvious use of sarcasm here). 

    Edited by surreal1272
    • Haha 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    48 minutes ago, balthazar said:

    DD- you are invoking a number of truths (and variables) that still do not support your theory.

    RPM is not dictated by throttle alone.
    In a single engine on a test stand, it pretty much is. In that scenario, it's the only variable (going hand-in-hand with air flow).

    The engine at 10% throttle is getting less air and fuel. The engine at 90% is getting more air and fuel. More air and fuel means more power output. It is the throttle's job to regulate air and fuel input.
    Yes, but a (steady state) 10% throttle and 90% throttle cannot be achieved at the same RPM (except for one half-second of time). No engine is going to hold (per our example) 2000 RPM at 90% throttle.

    The fact remains that it only takes about 10 - 20 hp to keep a car at a steady 60mph.
    Immaterial to the discussion. "60 MPH" involves the entire vehicle and a host of conditions, including transmission gearing, rolling resistance, .cd, etc. We were talking about engine output alone, not road speed.

    As for your statement about flooding the engine... That's also incorrect. In a carb, the air only picks up fuel as it passes through the carb and the carb mixes it accordingly. In a fuel injection car, there is a mass airflow sensor and TPS so the computer gets inputs from those two and adjusts the injection rates to match.
    In a ICE, there are optimal ratios for these together, and within 2 otherwise identical engines, they are going to be in a very tight range when tuned for the same outputs.

    But my example stands- if the throttle position on an idling engine was suddenly open to 100%, why doesn't the engine suddenly develop peak HP at -say= 1000 RPM? The answer is it cannot develop peak HP/TRQ at idel speed because throttle position does not determine output WITHOUT RPM.

    I'm not talking on a test stand. I've said multiple times "in real world driving".

    But no, you are still incorrect. Steady 2000 rpm at partial throttle and 2000 rpm for a split second during WOT will not be producing the same power. The steady rpm one will be ingesting just enough fuel to maintain that rpm. That engine will be operating at a vacuum. At WOT it is ingesting a lot more fuel even though the only load on the engine is friction and intertia.  It is operating close to atmospheric pressure as much as the intake flow will allow.

    More throttle = more fuel. More fuel = more power. If you know otherwise please email Mary Barra ASAP.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    11 hours ago, smk4565 said:

    Well it is all history now.  And I don't see Chrysler-Dodge as viable brands past 2022.  Large sedan market overall is collapsing, they don't have a small or mid size sedan, no small crossovers, no EV.   Case in point this "new" 2018 product has a V8 from 10 years ago.

    Imagine if GM cancelled the Malibu and Cruze and dropped a Z06 engine into a Tahoe because it was "badass" and could do burn outs and have a midnight edition with red brake calipers.  That is basically the FCA play book. 

    There is a fallacy here...that you need a ton of models to be successful.  Subaru sells more cars than Benz in the USA and they have three basic platforms...

    • Thanks 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

    There is a fallacy here...that you need a ton of models to be successful.  Subaru sells more cars than Benz in the USA and they have three basic platforms...

    I and many others like what Dodge is doing.  And nothing electric?  They have electrics in their Fiat brand and a freaking hybrid minivan.  He tech will trickle out, it just isn't needed right now, especially with gas prices relatively cheap.  And the fact is car sales, especially in the compact and midsize arena, are starting to wain terribly. 

    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    I'm not talking on a test stand. I've said multiple times "in real world driving".

    But no, you are still incorrect. Steady 2000 rpm at partial throttle and 2000 rpm for a split second during WOT will not be producing the same power. The steady rpm one will be ingesting just enough fuel to maintain that rpm. That engine will be operating at a vacuum. At WOT it is ingesting a lot more fuel even though the only load on the engine is friction and intertia.  It is operating close to atmospheric pressure as much as the intake flow will allow.

    More throttle = more fuel. More fuel = more power. If you know otherwise please email Mary Barra ASAP.

    OK- then we were talking at the question from 2 different POVs.

    You had stated : The engine can be spinning at 2,000 rpm at both 1/4 throttle and full throttle. In which throttle position do you think the engine is making more torque?
    whereas I answered :
    When talking about 'The OEM should take out Engine A and use Engine B because Torque C is more'... we are talking about an engine independent of all other factors that contribute to vehicle performance: transmission, gearing, weight, etc., IE; an engine on a test stand, because we are only comparing power figures.

    The quote I responded to did not state "in real world driving", it only addressed 'throttle position vs. RPM equating to TRQ'. I specified my parameter for response; an engine on a test stand to eliminate all the other factors (tho I also stated many times it's entirely different in a car, driving on a road). Once you answer my quoted post, I feel we have entered into a debate based on my post and thusly, my terms. :P 

    - - - - -

    I did skim thru Chevelle, Miata, VW and BMW forums that touched upon this question, but there was no definitive answer because steady-state dyno testing not only is more difficult to achieve repeatable results with, dynos capable of testing with those programs are few & far between and it is of highly questionable tuning value so it just isn't done.

    Just watched a LS3 dyno test on Utube: went from the starting 2500 RPM to 7000 RPM in basically 6 seconds: 4500 RPM / 6 seconds is 750 RPMs/second! At WOT, that engine is at exactly 2000 RPM for 0.0013 seconds. Someone measure fuel consumption for 0.0013 seconds at a given RPM point in a WOT run, please, and get back to us here at C&G.

    The steady rpm one will be ingesting just enough fuel to maintain that rpm. That engine will be operating at a vacuum. At WOT it is ingesting a lot more fuel even though the only load on the engine is friction and inertia.

    A "lot more"? Perhaps the question needs to be : how much fuel does Engine X ingest at a steady throttle @ 2000 RPMs vs. the 0.0013 seconds Engine X is at 2000 RPM on a WOT run? That's not much time to see a 'lot more' fuel go thru the carb/TB...

    Appreciate the back-n-forth, DD, hope you're enjoying your weekend! :D

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    6 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

    There is a fallacy here...that you need a ton of models to be successful.  Subaru sells more cars than Benz in the USA and they have three basic platforms...

    You don't need a ton of models, but you need models in 2 of the top 3 largest segments. Daimler got Chrysler rear drive full size sedans, a halo sports car, a revamped Grand Cherokee.  Dodge/Chrysler had to come up with small and mid-size sedan and they let the Sebring stick around 5 years too may and brought out the Dodge Caliber.  What a mess.  The one hit they had was the PT Cruiser and that was a Diamler era car.

    I am all for 3 basic platforms, but how can a main line car company not have a small sedan or a mid-size family sedan?  FCA still has all their investment in the large sedan category, the one that is shrinking the fastest.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    33 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

     

    I am all for 3 basic platforms, but how can a main line car company not have a small sedan or a mid-size family sedan?

    Those are declining segments... FCA needs to play on their strengths in growing segments--trucks, CUVs and SUVs and leave the rental/generic appliance market to Hyundai, Kia, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Chevy, and Ford.  

    It is amazing how much FCA failed in their last efforts to build  compact and midsize sedans...was it a case of poor marketing, poor product, or product that was good but not as good as the competition?   (Dart & 200). 

    Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar
    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    49 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

    You don't need a ton of models, but you need models in 2 of the top 3 largest segments. Daimler got Chrysler rear drive full size sedans, a halo sports car, a revamped Grand Cherokee.  Dodge/Chrysler had to come up with small and mid-size sedan and they let the Sebring stick around 5 years too may and brought out the Dodge Caliber.  What a mess.  The one hit they had was the PT Cruiser and that was a Diamler era car.

    I am all for 3 basic platforms, but how can a main line car company not have a small sedan or a mid-size family sedan?  FCA still has all their investment in the large sedan category, the one that is shrinking the fastest.

    The Caliber was Daimler era as well and was $h!, just like the PT ended up being. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

    Those are declining segments... FCA needs to play on their strengths in growing segments--trucks, CUVs and SUVs and leave the rental/generic appliance market to Hyundai, Kia, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Chevy, and Ford.  

    It is amazing how much FCA failed in their last efforts to build  compact and midsize sedans...was it a case of poor marketing, poor product, or product that was good but not as good as the competition?   (Dart & 200). 

    This is exactly why I don't play the Violin for a living...I know my strengths and weaknesses.

    Small cars are not an FCA strength.

    I actually want them to keep investing in Jeep, which is what they are doing.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    15 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

    This is exactly why I don't play the Violin for a living...I know my strengths and weaknesses.

    Small cars are not an FCA strength.

    I actually want them to keep investing in Jeep, which is what they are doing.

    Well, small cars has been Fiat's strength for many decades worldwide, outside the US..though I don't know how good they have been quality wise or if cheap was the key factor in their success..

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    55 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

    Well, small cars has been Fiat's strength for many decades worldwide, outside the US..though I don't know how good they have been quality wise or if cheap was the key factor in their success..

    And if gas goes to six bucks a gallon they can import them and sell them like hot cakes.

    But even at $4.50 a gallon they will still have reasonable SUV demand.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    6 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

    Well, small cars has been Fiat's strength for many decades worldwide, outside the US..though I don't know how good they have been quality wise or if cheap was the key factor in their success..

    Fiat's quality has sucked always, Cheapness is what has kept them going. Cheap to buy and run for the most part. Many of my European coworkers talk about how sucky Fiats are but if it was not for the cheapness to own and easy to repair, they would buy something else. There is also the other side of this coin where some europeans are happy to have alternatives to Fiat and have like many in the US wondered why they are still alive.

    5 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

    And if gas goes to six bucks a gallon they can import them and sell them like hot cakes.

    But even at $4.50 a gallon they will still have reasonable SUV demand.

    So many other options that even at $10 a gallon, I would pick something else over Fiat crap.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    13 hours ago, dfelt said:

    Fiat's quality has sucked always, Cheapness is what has kept them going. Cheap to buy and run for the most part. Many of my European coworkers talk about how sucky Fiats are but if it was not for the cheapness to own and easy to repair, they would buy something else. There is also the other side of this coin where some europeans are happy to have alternatives to Fiat and have like many in the US wondered why they are still alive.

    So many other options that even at $10 a gallon, I would pick something else over Fiat crap.

    Agree completely.

    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