Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
NewsFeeder

AutoBlog: Future Chrysler, Alfa Romeo and Fiat product plans revealed?

47 posts in this topic

Filed under: Economy, Sedans/Saloons, SUVs, Plants/Manufacturing, Crossovers/CUVs, Hatchbacks, Chrysler, LLC., Dodge, Jeep, Alfa Romeo, FIAT, Rumormill

alfa_kamal.jpg
Alfa Romeo Kamal concept - Click above for high-res image gallery

According to automotive consulting firm IHS Global Insight, the Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep lineups are going to look drastically different over the next few years under Fiat control. No surprises there, but the report goes on the forecast which current Chrysler vehicles will be dropped and which ones will be transferred to new platforms. We've already heard that the next Alfa Romeo 169 sedan will be built atop Chrysler's LX platform in Ontario, Canada and that the Fiat 500 will be built ASAP in Toluca, Mexico, but that's only the beginning.

If IHS is right, joining the 500 in Toluca will be the Jeep Panda, which, as you may have guessed, will be a version of the Fiat Panda wearing Jeep's trademark seven-slot grille. Furthermore, Alfa Romeo may get two new SUVs that would be built in Jeep factories in Jefferson, Michigan and Toledo, Ohio - one midsize 'ute called the GTX that's based on the WL platform that underpins the Jeep Grand Cherokee and a smaller one built on Fiat's C-EVO platform, which will also underpin the next Jeep Liberty. That leaves the unloved Jeep Compass and its somewhat more likable brother, the Patriot, to die slow and inglorious death.

Fiat's C-EVO platform will also spawn the next-gen Dodge Journey, Chrysler Sebring (and presumably the Dodge Avenger if it survives past its current form), and Dodge Caliber. Moving downward in size a notch will (finally) be the Dodge Hornet, which will forgo Bad Chrysler's old deal with Nissan in order to share its Fiat 199 platform with the Alfa Romeo MiTo, both of which will be assembled in Belvidere, Illinois sometime in 2011. Thanks for the tip, Dad!



[source: Global Insight]

Future Chrysler, Alfa Romeo and Fiat product plans revealed? originally appeared on Autoblog on Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:01:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

di
di

autoblog?i=ND1YhEYU1f8:hgr1PlP5VBo:wF9xT autoblog?i=ND1YhEYU1f8:hgr1PlP5VBo:V_sGL
ND1YhEYU1f8

View the full article
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is what scares me a little about Tony getting involved. Jeep. To me, the iconic SUV brand has remained true to itself through the years, through all the trials. Now we might get a rebadged Fiat product as the smallest Jeep? Fugetaboutit. That's backwards from the natural order.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Jeep owner and enthusiast, I am also scared for that type of vehicle, but I do like the idea all of the companies will be more "independent"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is what scares me a little about Tony getting involved. Jeep. To me, the iconic SUV brand has remained true to itself through the years, through all the trials. Now we might get a rebadged Fiat product as the smallest Jeep? Fugetaboutit. That's backwards from the natural order.

2007-Jeep-Compass-Part-2-TOP.jpg

2009-jeep-patriot-i01.jpg

jeep03.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at those 3 a Jeep Panda is something that doesn't seem that offensive :lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2007-Jeep-Compass-Part-2-TOP.jpg

2009-jeep-patriot-i01.jpg

jeep03.jpg

Well the Commander was at least a real Jeep. It just wasn't pretty. Something always just looked off about the proportions to me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looking at those 3 a Jeep Panda is something that doesn't seem that offensive :lol:

+1

Chris

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is what scares me a little about Tony getting involved. Jeep. To me, the iconic SUV brand has remained true to itself through the years, through all the trials. Now we might get a rebadged Fiat product as the smallest Jeep? Fugetaboutit. That's backwards from the natural order.

precisely why jeep should have been allowed to be sold, and dodge and chrysler left to rot, and resources directed to keeping, oh say, pontiac

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
precisely why jeep should have been allowed to be sold, and dodge and chrysler left to rot, and resources directed to keeping, oh say, pontiac

Kill Chrysler and Dodge in order to, somehow, save Pontiac? Thats the most asinine thing you've ever suggested, which is pretty impressive because you've said some ridiculous things.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i.e why loan chrysler money. when they could have given it gm and take dodge out of the market to free up the share. pontiac had better product than dodge most of the time

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're talking about killing 2 brands that combines for nearly a million units sold last year, through a mostly independent dealer network in favor of one brand that sold 1/3 as many cars through a dealer network supported by 2 other brands. Thats just freaking dumb.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but in a cold-hearted way, there is a bit of logic in there.

Both Ford and GM would have been stronger had Chrysler not been saved.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're talking about killing 2 brands that combines for nearly a million units sold last year, through a mostly independent dealer network in favor of one brand that sold 1/3 as many cars through a dealer network supported by 2 other brands. Thats just freaking dumb.

This.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, but in a cold-hearted way, there is a bit of logic in there.

Both Ford and GM would have been stronger had Chrysler not been saved.

Yes and we could argue that Ford and Chrysler would be stronger if GM hadn't been saved. Or if Ford haven't been smart about its money and went under.

However, unlike some here, I don't wish death upon any of what's left of our last American industry. I'd rather see a foreign automaker pull out.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, there isn't logic. There is absolutely no good that would have come from eliminating an entire corporation in order to save one niche (at best) brand. It is completely asinine. And this is coming from someone who really doesn't like Dodges or Chryslers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those abominations need to die!!!! (Compass/Patriot/Commander-the latter not so horrible cause its a truck underneath and not a FWD compact car-a lousy one at that).....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, there isn't logic. There is absolutely no good that would have come from eliminating an entire corporation in order to save one niche (at best) brand. It is completely asinine. And this is coming from someone who really doesn't like Dodges or Chryslers.

The direct cause and effect of the way Reg posted the idea, yes. I agree that that is a faulty train of thought.

But my point remains - and yes, DF, it would apply to any maker in this market. Except for the disaster a total GM failure would mean to the industry as a whole. Smaller, marginal, foreign makes should have been the first to fall if all was right with the world - but it isn't.

I still expect to see some of those go away before this storm ends.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The direct cause and effect of the way Reg posted the idea, yes. I agree that that is a faulty train of thought.

But my point remains - and yes, DF, it would apply to any maker in this market. Except for the disaster a total GM failure would mean to the industry as a whole. Smaller, marginal, foreign makes should have been the first to fall if all was right with the world - but it isn't.

I still expect to see some of those go away before this storm ends.

Thing is, though, those 'smaller, marginal foreign makes' were in much better shape fiscally than GM and Chrysler. Such it is.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about that, the marginal ones are just that: marginal.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looking at those 3 a Jeep Panda is something that doesn't seem that offensive :lol:

The current Liberty is no looker either. I liked the looks of the first gen Liberty.

I'm hoping the 2011 Grand Cherokee is an indication of better things to come for the Jeep brand.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what I'm about to suggest will shock a lot of people and result in a lot of "THEY CAN'T DO THAT" replies, but it seems like a logical progression of events to me. There needs to be a vast reorganization of brands now that Fiat and Alfa Romeo are in the mix.

I think the following reorganization of brands would be appropriate for the U.S. market:

* FIAT: Small mainstream vehicle specialist. Fiat's coverage would start with the mainstream mini-car class and go up through the compact class. Hatchbacks, sedans, MPVs, and CUVs would all be in the product mix. Chrysler's brands have not been truly competitive in these classes for quite a while, so maybe a new player will have more success in the U.S. market.

* CHRYSLER: Larger mainstream vehicle specialist. Chrysler's coverage would start with the mainstream midsize class and go up through the fullsize class. Sedans, wagons, MPVs, and CUVs would all be in the product mix. I know I'm going to offend many of you by saying this, but Chrysler really hasn't been any sort of true premium brand for quite a while now. Maybe it's time to make the brand a strong competitor in the larger portions of the mainstream segment instead of an irrelevant brand that fails at trying to straddle the affordable and premium segments.

* DODGE: Truck and affordable sports car niche brand. These 2 segments have been strong points for Dodge in the past, so they should be the niches that Dodge represents in the new brand hierarchy.

* JEEP: Affordable SUV niche brand, pure and simple. This brand needs to be taken back to its roots and left alone.

* ALFA ROMEO: Luxury brand. This brand would be the only one of the 5 that would have anything near a full scale lineup. Alfa Romeo would give the entire company a Euro halo effect that would trickle down to the other 4 brands.

Under this reorganization, each brand would have a focus and purpose without any overlap or internal competition. Utilizing the best platforms and technologies that the 2 entities have to offer should result in some wonderful new products which the new organization can use to build a strong presence in the U.S. market. Alfa would have the largest lineup since it will cover the entire luxury segment on its own. Fiat and Chrysler would have the next largest lineups since they will cover large chunks of the mainstream segment. Dodge and Jeep will be remade into niche brands that competently compete in their respective niches of the market and play to the established strengths of the 2 brands.

Basically, Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep would be bracketed by Fiat on the small mainstream vehicle end of the market and Alfa Romeo on the luxury end of the market.

Edited by cire
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, but in a cold-hearted way, there is a bit of logic in there.

Both Ford and GM would have been stronger had Chrysler not been saved.

the government investment would have been more sound. GM already builds great trucks. So they could elimate the redundancy of dodge trucks. GM already produces just about everything else better than Chrylser. Pontiacs cars were better than Dodge's already. GM could have absorbed the LX cars (not that they would have wanted all the ghetto cruisers). The only real ace card dodge chrysler had to offer was the minivans and even then, VW can't badge one and sell it themselves. Yet, Lambda sales boom in the worst recession in 30 years+.

All saving dodge and chrysler does is save redundant inferior product. using the money that has essentially allowed fiat (cars no American really wants) entry to an already flooded market) could have been used to shore up GM's market position and offerings and would have actually saved the taxpayers money and given them better products. Saturn should have even survived over Dodge because their customer service model is better.

When the Caliber and Avenger are supposed to be your staple products, its hard to make a case for existing when GM had a lot more excellence and things in the pipeline to guarantee long term payback on fewer dollars spent.

Instead of cutting off Pontiac as an arm to save the US auto industry, it would have been better to rebuild it to the 4 models in the top 20 thing instead of propping up avenger city.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The direct cause and effect of the way Reg posted the idea, yes. I agree that that is a faulty train of thought.

But my point remains - and yes, DF, it would apply to any maker in this market. Except for the disaster a total GM failure would mean to the industry as a whole. Smaller, marginal, foreign makes should have been the first to fall if all was right with the world - but it isn't.

I still expect to see some of those go away before this storm ends.

its not faulty. the govt investment in chrylser really just weakens GM and introduces another foreign make to market to dilute it even more.

if chrylser had any product in the pipeline that would have suggested otherwise it would be a different story.

GM had product plans, and the tech. Just couldnt get over the benefits and union hurdle anymore. GM also operates global and making the investment here would allow GM to get even more aggressive globally.

Ford had its act together.

Giving chrysler the cash to essentially prop Fiat to expand, while letting GM get sliced up when Pontiac > Fiat...............

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying, Reg.

But it's the one-to-one comparison between Chrysler and Pontiac as a trade-off that I call flawed.

The continued existence of Pontiac would have been a possible side effect of the scenario you lay out, not a causal relationship.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm extremely excited by the news. The idea of Chrysler and Fiat sharing their best practices on durability and build quality tickles my funny bone; the worst-of-both-worlds potential comes second only to the AMC/Renault partnership a few decades ago ...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0