Jump to content

Dodge News: Next Dodge Challenger and Charger To Solider On With Current Platform


William Maley

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

For an extreme size vs weight example, I wonder how much the lightest 60s full size 4dr sedan weighed..like a 6cyl Biscayne. Under 4000lbs maybe? 

The shipping weight on my '64 Catalina 4-dr sedan, with a cast iron 389 V8 & a full perimeter frame, was 3770. That car was 80-in wide and 213" overall, with less than 15 lbs of plastics. The 'lightest' were likely the early '60s MoPars; a '63 Plymouth Savoy (Unibody, OL length: 205") with a Slant Six came in at 2980. A '62 Biscayne 6 2-dr came in at 3405. All the lower priced '60s cars came in WELL under 4000.

The commonly available numbers from then are 'shipping weights'. I can tell you my B-59 gains exactly 120 lbs going to curb weight (4274 / 4394), so I figure 100 for lighter/cheaper models.  So a early '60s Ply-Dodge is likely 3100 curb weight.

For a nearly all plastic/aluminum Camaro to be 4300 is rather amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

...my big old body-on-frame boat of an '81 Toronado with a 307 cubic inch iron block under the aircraft carrier sized steel hood.

Whoa. Back the Hyperbole Express up; you missed the platform.
E-bodies of that generation aren't even full-size cars. 😛

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weight Bloat, thanks to all the Gov Required Nanny devices and safety improvements such as the side door I beam requirements and the roll over crush minimization requirements. etc. etc. etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, smk4565 said:

I never said it was overweight, but Cubical said the 300 has to be at least 4,000 lbs as if weight was good, and if they put it on a lighter platform it would be bad.  That is like saying a CT6 must add weight to be more "American."   People want to praise the Cadillac chassis for cutting weight with aluminum and structural adhesive and mixed materials, then crap on the  Giorgio platform which is the same thing.

And the next-gen Jeep Grand Cherokee will be built on the Giorgio platform, and I bet it is lighter, faster, more fuel efficient, better braking and better handling than what they have now.  The GLE and Grand Cherokee are obese because they still have too much of that  2006-2010 era chassis in them.  And all the Mopar fans will say how great it is, not that the platform is from an Alfa Romeo Guilia.  

No, shrinking the Charger down to Guilia size car would be the mistake. If they expanded the Alfas to be the size of their American counterparts... They'll be the weight of them as well. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, smk4565 said:

The Australian police car market has to be in the 100s of cars per year, and the 300 was sold in Europe.  It isn't now.

Dodge/Chrysler failed in the 80s, failed under Daimler, failed under Cerberus, and so why would Sergio be expected to make them prosperous?  I don't think Sergio is a great CEO but his job as CEO is to satisfy the shareholders, not to save Chrysler.  As long as he makes the Agnelli family money he is doing his job, and the way to make them the most money is probably to split up FCA into pieces to sell off. 

Sergio sacrificed Chrysler and Dodge in order to necromance Alfa and Maserati and try to keep Fiat (brand) alive.

Fiat took over Chrysler Group in late 2009.  At that point, Alfa had only 4 mainstream models and only one of those survived beyond 2011 (the MiTo... an Alfa-Romeo branded Fiat 500 competitor). By 2014, when the first of Sergio's 5-year plans was out, Alfa had only the MiTo and Giulietta (a Mazda 3 look-alike with Alfa styling).  What was IT.  A micro-car and a compact, neither of which were any more premium than their Fiat counterparts.

Maserati had the Quattroporte and Grand Turismio ... and that was it for Maser... They sold 4,489 vehicles in 2009. 

These were two brands that were practically dead. 

Sergio starved Chrysler and Dodge of new and updated product in order to bring his dead Italian brands back and in the process killed the American brands.  He even tried to revive Lancia at the expense of Chrysler. 

This latest 5 year plan highlights how much of a failure Sergio is as a CEO. He is willing to sacrifice entire brands from the US just to prop up his failed Italian brands. 

21 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Is it really that much smaller of a car? I didn't realize how small the Guilia was. 

Yes, the Charger and 300 are both full size cars. It's like XTS (300) verse ATS (Guilia)

In SUVs, the Stelvio the size of the Compass.  They're not going to make a Grand Cherokee out of that.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Okay, yeah that's quite a big difference in size then. Thanks! 

It sucks the Guilia platform can't be stretched like Alpha can over at GM for ATS to CTS. CTS seems like a pretty large car that would be great size-wise for a Charger. 

I didn't say it couldn't be stretched, but CTS would likely be the upper limit.  Charger/300 are larger than that.  The 300 is 3 inches longer and 3 inches wider.  Moving to a CTS sized car would be a big move down for 300.  If Dodge or Chrysler did get a car on the Giorgio platform (and they should) it should be more of a mid-sizer below the Charger/300.

If I were Sergio.  I would use make take the Charger / Challenger / 300 / and Ghibli and put them on a new platform above Giorgio. Alfa could get in on that one as well.  That way everyone gets a piece of the action and there is very little overlap. You have family car (charger), Pony car (challenger), American soft luxury (300), European luxury (Ghibli), and European Sport (Alfa-whatever).

In spite of FCA's protests to the contrary, I still insist that the Ghibli is a heavily re-worked LX car. There are far too many hardpoints on the two cars that are identical, too much shared hardware, that they are not at least partially related. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

 

In SUVs, the Stelvio the size of the Compass.  They're not going to make a Grand Cherokee out of that.

Maybe the GC will get a variant of the Levante platform?   Which is also used for the Ghibli and Quattroporte...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

That would possibly make sense, but then that would mean Sergio wouldn't do it. 

Yes...when the Levante came out, I wondered if it would be a platform for a future Jeep..it's the right size, but more of a soft-roader. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

No, shrinking the Charger down to Guilia size car would be the mistake. If they expanded the Alfas to be the size of their American counterparts... They'll be the weight of them as well. 

What if they used the Ghibli/Quattroporte platform?  The Quattroporte is the biggest Sedan FCA makes and I don’t know if it is going to the Giorgio platform or not but if it does then Giorgio can underpin anything.  

I think no move to a new platform mean Charger and 300 are on death row.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, smk4565 said:

What if they used the Ghibli/Quattroporte platform?  The Quattroporte is the biggest Sedan FCA makes and I don’t know if it is going to the Giorgio platform or not but if it does then Giorgio can underpin anything.  

I think no move to a new platform mean Charger and 300 are on death row.

That's what I think they should do.  Big car platform and smaller car platform.  Just like most other manufacturers do.

I think Charger not going to Giorgio means that Giorgio can't be expanded to Charger/Challenger/300 sized cars.  But that ALSO means it can't be expanded to Ghibli, which is 2 inches shorter than 300 and 2 inches longer than Challenger, nor can it be expanded to Quattroporte. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

That's what I think they should do.  Big car platform and smaller car platform.  Just like most other manufacturers do.

I think Charger not going to Giorgio means that Giorgio can't be expanded to Charger/Challenger/300 sized cars.  But that ALSO means it can't be expanded to Ghibli, which is 2 inches shorter than 300 and 2 inches longer than Challenger, nor can it be expanded to Quattroporte. 

FCA probably has some BS cost excuse that the GLQ platform is too expensive for Dodge and Chrysler...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Maybe the GC will get a variant of the Levante platform?   Which is also used for the Ghibli and Quattroporte...

Sergio has already said that the 2 and 3 row Grand Cherokee will be built on the Alfa Romeo Stelvio platform.  That is a done deal.  If they can put a 3 row Grand Cherokee on it, I don’t see why they couldn’t put a Charger on it, unless they plan to kill the Charger and don’t want to spend the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, smk4565 said:

Sergio has already said that the 2 and 3 row Grand Cherokee will be built on the Alfa Romeo Stelvio platform.  That is a done deal.  If they can put a 3 row Grand Cherokee on it, I don’t see why they couldn’t put a Charger on it, unless they plan to kill the Charger and don’t want to spend the money.

Stelvio is Cherokee sized, too small for GC...can't really believe much of what Sergio says.

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

5 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

That's what I think they should do.  Big car platform and smaller car platform.  Just like most other manufacturers do.

I think Charger not going to Giorgio means that Giorgio can't be expanded to Charger/Challenger/300 sized cars.  But that ALSO means it can't be expanded to Ghibli, which is 2 inches shorter than 300 and 2 inches longer than Challenger, nor can it be expanded to Quattroporte. 

I wonder about that because Mercedes uses the same architecture for the 184 inch long C-class as they do for the 212 inch long Maybach S-class.  Yes it is scalable platform and they change things, But how did they do it, and FCA can’t figure it out? 

I think Sergio’s end goal he is build Alfa/Maserati into a semi full line luxury brand and sell it for $9 billion to the Chinese.  That puts money in the Agnelli coffers and it gives him a big bonus check for retirement.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

I wonder about that because Mercedes uses the same architecture for the 184 inch long C-class as they do for the 212 inch long Maybach S-class.  Yes it is scalable platform and they change things, But how did they do it, and FCA can’t figure it out? 

 

FCA doesn't have M-B's development budget...and though they are Italian, platforms aren't pasta..

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

2 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

I wonder about that because Mercedes uses the same architecture for the 184 inch long C-class as they do for the 212 inch long Maybach S-class.  Yes it is scalable platform and they change things, But how did they do it, and FCA can’t figure it out? 

I think Sergio’s end goal he is build Alfa/Maserati into a semi full line luxury brand and sell it for $9 billion to the Chinese.  That puts money in the Agnelli coffers and it gives him a big bonus check for retirement.  

You're getting your terms mixed up, (not entirely your fault, the automotive media is mostly to blame).  Architecture and platform are two different things.  Two very different vehicles can share architecture but be on different platforms.  Architecture is where the dirty bits are built in a way that they fit everything that shares the architecture.   Think power window motors, HVAC controls (which are all computerized now), dashboards, even power steering pumps, or suspension components.

Platform is the skeleton that underpins the car. You can switch out sections of the skeleton to make different parts of the car larger or smaller, but you can't do that too much without running into either poor crash test ratings on the large size cars or heavy weight on the lower sized cars. 

Some examples of shared architecture but different platforms would be the Equinox, Malibu, and Traverse.  

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

You're getting your terms mixed up, (not entirely your fault, the automotive media is mostly to blame).  Architecture and platform are two different things.  Two very different vehicles can share architecture but be on different platforms.  Architecture is where the dirty bits are built in a way that they fit everything that shares the architecture.   Think power window motors, HVAC controls (which are all computerized now), dashboards, even power steering pumps, or suspension components.

Platform is the skeleton that underpins the car. You can switch out sections of the skeleton to make different parts of the car larger or smaller, but you can't do that too much without running into either poor crash test ratings on the large size cars or heavy weight on the lower sized cars. 

Some examples of shared architecture but different platforms would be the Equinox, Malibu, and Traverse.  

Right...I think of platform as the firewall, floorpan and 'subframe'-like structures that is part of a unibody where the front and rear suspension mounts, where the engine and transmission or transaxle mount..the hard points.   The floorpan can be lengthened, some parts can be widened.   

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

6 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Right...I think of platform as the firewall, floorpan and 'subframe'-like structures that is part of a unibody where the front and rear suspension mounts, where the engine and transmission or transaxle mount..the hard points.   The floorpan can be lengthened, some parts can be widened.   

The most flexible platform I can think of is VW's MQB.  It can go as small as Audi TT all the way up to VW Atlas (or Passat if you're looking just at length).

Now, the current C-Class is on a new highly modular platform that Mercedes is calling MRA, but the S-Class isn't on that yet.    I would have thought the E-Class which was recently re-done would have been on MRA, but I cannot find any evidence of that.  One would think if it were on a new wunder-platform, they'd advertise it.  So far, the only car on MRA is the C-Class.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Stelvio is Cherokee sized, too small for GC...can't really believe much of what Sergio says.

Well that is the platform according to Motor Aurhority...

"At the Fiat Chrysler Automobiles investor conference in Italy last Friday, Motor Authority asked company CEO Sergio Marchionne for clarification on what will underpin the next Grand Cherokee, and he confirmed it will be the platform used for the Alfa Romeo Stelvio SUV, as well as the Giulia sedan.

"It started originally off the Alfa architecture, which has now been modified and extended to reach both a two-row and a three-row Grand Cherokee," Marchionne said, noting that the platform has been adapted to reflect the requirements of Jeep."

So not only will it replace the current GC, but a 3 row version which you figure has to be at least 6-8 inches longer than the current vehicle.

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
Reply to this topic...

×   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.




About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...