cire

Other than Jeep=SUVs, I am not really too fond of the "lineup based on vehicle type" brand strategy. I do believe that Jeep should be the only Chrysler LLC division to sell traditional SUVs since that vehicle segment is shrinking and Jeep has an established reputation for this type of vehicle. I believe that Dodge should be leaned on to provide the most sales volume by being positioned as the mainstream, mass market division (the products should receive sporty designs to make them stand out in the market and reinforce the traditional, sporty Dodge image). This would allow Chrysler LLC to take the Chrysler brand upmarket with brand appropriate near luxury products selling in a lower volume at higher prices (and hopefully profits). I think the company could utilize their current LY platform, consolidate all truck based products onto modified versions of the same platform (like Nissan does with their truck based products), and work with Nissan or Mitsubishi or both to develop and share front wheel drive platforms. This is how I would configure the lineups: DODGE: Sporty, affordable, mass market division. * Hornet: Subcompact FWD 3-door and 5-door car built on a platform shared with Mitsubishi or Nissan to save costs. * Rebel: Subcompact FWD/AWD crossover built on Hornet platform. * Stealth: Compact FWD sedan and coupe built on platform shared with Mitsubishi or Nissan to save costs. * Caliber: Morph next generation into a proper FWD/AWD compact crossover based on Stealth platform. * Intrepid: Midsize FWD sedan and coupe built on a platform shared with Mitsubishi or Nissan to save costs. * Magnum: Midsize FWD/AWD crossover built on Intrepid platform with optional 7 passenger capacity (like current Dodge Journey). * Caravan: FWD/AWD minivan built on Intrepid platform. * Charger: Large RWD/AWD sedan based on LY platform. * Challenger: Sporty RWD coupe based on LY platform. * Dakota: Shrink next generation into a proper RWD/AWD compact pickup. Uses shortened Ram platform to save costs. * Ram: Continues in lineup as full-size RWD/AWD pickup. Shares modified versions of platform with Dakota and Jeep products to save costs. JEEP: Traditional SUV niche division. * Wrangler: Compact 3-door and 5-door RWD/AWD SUV available in softtop and hardtop configurations. * Liberty: Midsize 5-door RWD/AWD SUV. * Cherokee: Large 5-door, 7 passenger RWD/AWD SUV. * All Jeep products would be built off a modified platform shared with the Dodge Ram and Dakota to save costs. CHRYSLER: Near luxury niche division. * Concorde: Elegant RWD/AWD midsize sedan, wagon, and coupe-cabrio built on modified LY platform. * Chronos: Elegant RWD/AWD midsize crossover built on modified LY platform. * 300: Large RWD/AWD sedan and wagon built on LY platform. * Pacifica: Large RWD/AWD 7 passenger crossover built on LY platform. I think this is all that they would need to recover. After they are healthy again, they could expand the brands or develop/resurrect some specialty vehicles (sub-Wrangler products for Jeep, Viper and/or Demon for Dodge, sub-Concorde products for Chrysler).

I agree with Dodgefan: the upcoming 2009 model looks like a slightly more aggressive update of the current generation. I think it looks better than it did, but it still looks a bit dated and bland. Just imagine how much more dated it will look at the end of its five year model cycle. The new Acura grille does look a lot better in this application than it does on the "new and improved" 2009 RL. I don't think this car will solve what I believe to be Acura's biggest obstacle: Acura products (especially sedans) look too much like Honda products (I guess the TSX is the worst one since it is actually sold as an Accord outside of the U.S.). Acura needs to develop a style/design language that will define the brand and help them escape the shadow of their parent company. Until they do this, I don't think they will be taken as seriously in the luxury market as they desire to be. The taillights on the wagon version of the Euro Accord look odd and blob-like. I'm not sure it's a big loss that they are only bringing the sedan variant over to the U.S. as the TSX. The wagon might offer more utility, but it doesn't offer anything extra from a styling viewpoint.

Besides the utility these boxy vehicles provide (Cube and xB), I personally do not find anything else appealing about them. I think the Cube and first generation xB (I think it was called bB or something close to that in Japan) sold well in the Japanese market because it connected better with their culture. Somehow I think the appeal of these vehicles gets lost in translation in the U.S. Market. So far Toyota (Scion) and Honda have tried to reach out to a younger demographic with a boxy hatch/crossover product (Scion xB and Honda Element). Every time I see one on the road, someone far beyond the target demographic in age is piloting one of these vehicles. I don't think the "boxy equals youth appeal" philosophy of design works as well in the U.S. as it does in Japan.

The disturbing thing about this article is that GM seems to think that their sportiest division can do without a proper, brand appropriate product such as a flagship, Zeta based coupe (and convertible), but thinks the division needs an imported, brand damaging trucklet from Australia. Who in the world is making these decisions? Pontiac is "CAR": this means sedans, coupes, convertibles, and maybe hatchbacks and wagons. Not all versions of this flagship coupe need a V8 in the engine bay. There is plenty of technology available to properly power this kind of car without stuffing V8s into every engine bay. GM can offer a V8 for this kind of car as an option, but it can also offer other alternatives for those customers who like the look of such a car but don't need a V8 under the hood. I fail to understand why GM can't figure this out or why GM can't develop a clear, cohesive product strategy for Pontiac. Pontiac should be positioned as Cadillac's affordable little brother (sharing platforms but not styling). The Pontiac portfolio should consist of the following products: * Solstice. * Alpha based sedan (G6), coupe (G5), convertible (G5), and maybe 5-door hatchback (G6). * Zeta based sedan (G8), coupe (G7), convertible (G7), and maybe wagon (G8). (I personally hate the G-numeric monikers, but Pontiac (GM) seems adamant about using them). Give these cars different types of engines and technology to make them go. Just quit giving us excuses and make it happen.

It isn't a totally desirable design, but it does look much better than the Avalon (I'm not sure that statement is much of a compliment).

I think Scion totally missed their mark as a youth division. All the xB's and xD's that I see on the road (very few xD's, I might add), are all piloted by people that are way beyond Scion's target demographic (a.k.a. Toyota's traditional demographic) in age. This totally defeats the purpose of Scion and doesn't justify the extra dollars consumed by marketing an additional division. I think the xD should be absorbed into Toyota or discontinued in the U.S. (it has received some rough reviews and doesn't seem to be selling that well). The xB should definitely be absorbed into Toyota as it seems to sell well to Toyota's traditional demographic. The tC is the only Scion product that I have seen in large quantities on the road and piloted by drivers that are in Scion's target demographic. The car should receive a great redesign. I would like to see a sporty sedan spun off this platform to compete against the Mazda3 and Mitsubishi Lancer (the Corolla is hopelessly appliance-like and not in the same league). A sporty 5-door hatchback or crossover (with an attractive design; completely unlike the hideous Matrix) and a small, sporty SUT might be better products to reinforce Scion's youthful target demographic. More powerful engines might help, too. Toyota claims to be a technological leader in the market. It needs to apply a little of that tech to Scion to help it escape the dowdy image of its parent company.

I have to admit that the exterior design has grown on me. It's not exciting, but it is conservatively good looking. I think it would be interesting if Dodge would offer a turbo 4 cylinder with 6 speed auto and manual trans in this vehicle in the future (maybe with a few tasteful exterior tweaks). Just wishful thinking, but it would be nice (sort of a conservative Mazda CX-7 competitor). I have put my opinions about the interior on hold until I see one in person. I'm hoping it comes across as some sort of improvement over Chrysler's recent efforts.

I think it's great that Ford has decided to use a little innovation to evolve the Explorer into a product that's relevant to quickly changing market conditions. Their usual practice is to give up on a well established nameplate and start all over again in the market with a new model name. The current Explorer is no longer competitive or relevant in today's auto market. This concept and its specifications/technology serve as a great strategy to keep the Explorer name alive in the auto market. I'm not quite sure how Ford will fit yet another crossover into its lineup, but I am glad that they are not giving up on the Explorer nameplate.

I totally agree. It's not the name that's good or bad, it's the execution of the product. The first three names mentioned above (Odyssey, Altima, and Malibu) have all made successful transitions form underachievers to competitive players in their respectitive segments. Who would have thought that the Malibu name could have transcended its former image of dowdy, rental fleet queen that was created by the last two generations of car that carried this historic name? Now the car conjures up images of an attractive, well built, desirable car. GM accomplished this feat by designing/engineering a class competitive product and marketing the *@#! out of it. However, the jury is still out on the Tundra. Given its short, problem-plagued performance history, I wouldn't exactly label it a successful transition. One model name in Chevy's lineup that I wish would be replaced with a historic name when the next generation is produced is Cobalt. This model name is dull and lifeless. I hope the next generation receives a great design (like the Malibu) and an exciting name to match.

It may be goofy looking, but it is a much needed sales success for Chrysler LLC and Jeep. It is also a long overdue bright idea that has finally been transformed into reality. I still don't understand why it took the company such a long time to figure out that this configuration would be a successful and popular addition to the Wrangler line.

Although I think Chrysler seriously dropped the ball with the Avenger/Sebring twins, I don't believe slapping Dodge or Chrysler styling cues on a rebadged Mitsubishi Galant is a credible solution either. The current Galant is just as ugly and outdated as the current Chrysler LLC midsize sedan siblings. Why in the world would anyone want to continue the downward spiral by rebadging an inferior, subpar, ungainly Mitsubishi product? There are reasons (other than a lack of marketing) that the current Galant is a sales dud in the midsize sedan segment. I think the Avenger could be salvaged to continue in the market as a sporty alternative product to mainstream midsizers if Chrysler LLC is seriously dedicated to fixing the following shortcomings: 1) Redesign the plastic craptastic interior with quality materials and controls. 2) Clean up and tweak exterior design and build quality. 3) Offer a choice of 6 speed manual or 6 speed automatic transmissions with both the 2.4 4-cylinder and 3.5 V6 engines. I would maybe consider discontinuing the 2.7 V6 engine option and definitely discontinue the 4 speed automatic transmission. 4) Retune the suspension to offer a good balance between comfort and sportiness (biased toward sportiness). 5) Add more sound deadening materials to ensure a quiet ride. * I think these steps would be enough to improve the Avenger's performance in the market until a replacement/next generation product could be engineered/developed. It will take a lot more than just an interior makeover, but I believe it is a feasible proposition. I think the Sebring is much more problematic than the Avenger. The Sebring sedan would require an extensive restyling of the exterior as well as the interior (and other changes mentioned above for the Avenger; except the suspension would be tuned more for comfort than sportiness in the Sebring) to begin to attempt to improve its market performance. I fear that a complete interior makeover won't be enough to help its situation.

I certainly hope it lives up to the hype. It would be great for a domestic U.S. brand to offer a desirable, midsize, near luxury front wheel drive competitor to the Lexus ES and Acura TL. If the Enclave is any indication, then this car should be a looker. I know I said this quite a few times before, but I'm going to say it again. I would love to see Buick get a compact front wheel drive sedan on a shortened Epsilon platform to seriously compete with the Acura TSX. It could share its platform (but no styling) with a Saab product. I know it's just wishful thinking, but wouldn't it be sweet.

I think it will be attractive to people who are already considering a Subaru product, but I don't think it will bring many new customers into Subie showrooms. I don't really know how well executed Subaru's products are, but they seem to have adopted a very dowdy styling aesthetic lately. I know the bold styling utilized for the B9 Tribeca wasn't successful (or attractive), but it is a shame to see them retreat to total blandness. I wish they could develop an attention grabbing style direction that would create excitement and genuinely attract new customers to the brand.

I think the Avenger is salvage worthy if they were to genuinely overhaul the interior and modify some of the exterior elements. I do like its "mini-Charger" styling motif, it just needs to be cleaned up a little. I would also suggest changing the outdated 4 cylinder/4 speed auto trans combo to a competitive 4 cylinder/6 speed auto trans combo. They should also tune the suspension for a better blend of comfort and sportiness (biased a little more toward sportiness to compliment the "mini-Charger" styling). If they diligently address the Avenger's shortcomings, this car might become a nice, sporty, alternative sedan to the mainstream midsize segment giants (Accord & Camry). On the other hand, I don't think the Sebring sedan is salvageable at all. Even if they do seriously overhaul the interior, the exterior's awkward and garish lack of style still won't attract customers to this car. At the very least they need to completely restyle the front and rear end treatments as well as remove the horrendous black plastic slab on the C-pillar. Even if they do these things, I'm still not sure that those actions will be enough to make the exterior attractive enough not to repel potential customers. I would seriously like to see Chrysler develop an upscale near luxury rear wheel drive midsize sedan on a shortened version of the next generation 300 platform. I think this would give the Chrysler brand a product that's more in line with what should be their upscale status in Chrysler LLC's brand hierarchy. I still can't believe that Daimler would allow Chrysler to release such subpar products, especially in such a hotly contested category as the midsize sedan segment. Even though these products didn't have a three pointed Mercedes star attached to them, their lack of execution made Daimler look bad. I had high hopes for both the Sebring and Avenger after Chrysler had hit homeruns with the release of the rear drive 300 and Charger products. All of my great expectations were derailed when the Sebring and Avenger hit the market. Chrysler had a clean sheet opportunity to develop solid, class competitive products, but they severely dropped the ball. I hope these proposed overhauls can keep them afloat until future, hopefully superior next generation versions can be created and produced.

GM seems to be on a roll lately topping themselves in midsize sedan design. First came the Aura, then the 2008 Malibu. I hope this car continues the trend. I can't wait to see it without the camo!

Very impressive car, but I do agree with some of the other posts about the grille. I like the grille on the regular CTS much better. The grille on the regular CTS clearly informs everyone that the sedan is a "Cadillac". The CTS-V grille doesn't look like a distinctive Cadillac grille. The upper portion has a five sided construction that can be found on any number of other products on the market today. Other than the grille, the rest of the car is exciting and highly desirable.

I think it is far better looking than the Yaris, Rio, Accent, and Aveo sedans, but that's not much of an accomplishment. I think it looks sort of odd, but I think the same thing about most subcompact sedans. I think the 5-door version of the Mazda2 is an attractive alternative in the subcompact segment. I think a 5-door configuration works much better in this vehicle segment overall. The proportions of a 5-door configuration fit better with the size of a subcompact product as well as offering a better utilization of available space. I would love to see the Mazda2 5-door come to the U.S. I think it would give the Honda Fit some serious competition. I know I would definitely choose the Mazda2 over the Fit (which I think is bland and hideous) based on looks alone. I hope Mazda reconsiders its position about offering this attractive vehicle in the U.S.

I never noticed this before, but the silhouette is also sort of similar to the 2008 Honda Accord sedan. I guess that really isn't a surprise since the 2008 Accord also has a knock-off BMW profile. The Genesis could have been a major hit for Hyundai as an affordable luxury alternative product. I think they dropped the ball by giving it a shamefully derivative exterior design and by offering it as a Hyundai instead of creating a proper luxury division.

The Vibe has always been much better looking than its Toyota Matrix sibling. The 2009 models carry this scenario over to the next generation. I think the Vibe's redesign is a success. They kept the same silhouette but sharpened all the details. I think the 2009 model has sportier, more aggressive looks than the current generation. The Matrix redesign is a disaster. It has a bland appearance with very awkward details. It's great to see that the GT trim level on the Vibe will have the 2.4 liter 4 cylinder, 5 speed automatic transmission, independent rear suspension, 4 wheel antilock disc brakes, and tilt/telescoping steering wheel (I believe the brakes and steering wheel is standard equipment on all trim levels, though). These changes make the GT trim level more competitive with the Mazda3 hatchback model. I do think the Vibe should rightfully be included in Chevy's lineup instead of Pontiac's portfolio. However, until Pontiac receives its Alpha platform product, I am glad that the Vibe is around to keep Pontiac going. I think this vehicle is a more brand appropriate vehicle for Pontiac's lineup than the pitiful, badge engineered Chevy G5 clone coupe. At least the Vibe doesn't look like a Matrix with Pontiac brand cues; it has its own unique, attractive exterior appearance (although the Vibe and Matrix do share their interior designs). Hopefully, Pontiac will eventually receive a family of Alpha platform products. I would love to see Pontiac offer sedan, coupe, convertible, and 5-door hatchback variants. If they do this, then the Vibe can be discontinued at the end of this redesign's life span (approximately 5 model years?). If contract agreements bind GM to continue to produce a GM/Toyota joint effort vehicle, then the following generation needs to be reassigned to another GM division.

I think the exterior design is a nice evolution of the iconic Ram styling that began with the 1994 model year. The Dodge Ram is by far the best looking and most recognizable truck in the full size pickup market today. I don't think the 2009 redesign needed to be a revolutionary change. Dodge just needed to update the details in the redesign, which I think they successfully accomplished here. I just hope they didn't stuff a cheap "Rubbermaid" quality interior into the redesigned truck; Chrysler LLC really needs to step up its efforts to improve interior design and material quality. As far as the truck looking "Tundra-ish", could this be more because Toyota copied American domestic truck design in an attempt to make an impact on the full size truck segment? I think the reason that the similarities exist is because Toyota perfected the art of copying the domestics' designs more so than Dodge trying to emulate Toyota design. I think the full size truck segment is one area that Dodge definitely has no reason to try to imitate the appearance of its competitors.

I hope Motor Trend is mistaken about this scenario. As some others have posted, this makes sense for the Middle East since they are receiving a clone G8/Commodore sedan badged as a Lumina. This product would complement the Lumina sedan in the Middle East as well as it would the G8 sedan in the U.S. and the Commodore in Australia. Maybe Motor Trend didn't get all the facts before they jumped the gun about releasing this information. If Motor Trend is correct, then this is one of GM's silliest accountant dominated decisions in recent memory (besides the Ute trucklet being offered by Pontiac instead of Chevy or GM)

I totally agree!

WOW! Lexus products! This definitely does not look good for Toyota!

It looks like Toyota dropped the ball again and the Fit will remain the champion in this segment. To tell you the truth, I wouldn't buy either one of these products. The xD is unattractive and (according to this article) a horribly executed product. The Fit has collected many great reviews, but I don't find its styling attractive either. I hope the Fiesta/Verve has the goods to challenge the Fit's dominance in this segment. The Verve compact (3 door hatchback version) is way more attractive than the Fit. If Ford stays true to the concept, it should attract attention on looks alone.

The Caliber isn't a completely horrible idea or vehicle. It suffers from some bad execution and market planning. I think Chrysler thought that if they put a hatch/crossover combo product on the market, they could attempt to have one vehicle cover the entire compact segment. It's admirable that they were daring enough to try something different, but the concept was a little misguided. They simply missed an opportunity to take advantage of rising gas prices by not having more configurations available in the compact segment. The money wasted creating unnecessary variants for Jeep (Compass and Patriot) should have been spent creating variants for Dodge as well as ensuring that these products were designed/engineered to be totally class competitive. Unfortunately, hindsight is 20/20 and Chrysler was misguided/starved by Daimler at the time. Let's just hope that Cerberus has the resources and wisdom to get Chrysler back on track. Some of their recent moves have appeared to be a little shaky (or shady, if they really plan on disassembling the company), but I still hope that they will turn Chrysler's fortunes around.