Re: Can Chrysler hit jackpot again?

In article <13022md6ug1dp3f (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>,
"Jim Higgins" <gordian238 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Last year, Chrysler introduced a record 10 vehicles. Other than the
four-door Wrangler Unlimited, which serves a relatively small niche, there
were no unqualified hits. Eight more new models are coming this year.
The Caliber has a good drive train but it's too ugly looking for most.

I notice the PT Cruiser is still being sold? If I were a PT Cruiser
owner the Caliper wouldn't turn me on.

"They're going to do OK. Chrysler has a lot of solid doubles and all of them
four-cylinder engines, which is going to be important when gas prices start
to climb again."
I agree, pray for rising gasoline prices. With growth in Asia gasoline

has no where to go but up.

Sales for the Sebring sedan, which hit showrooms in December, remain
sluggish, something Bartoli attributes to an end-of-year launch.
Partly, but it doesn't impress me. Not a car I'd replace my wife's 2001

Sebring with. The channels on the hood are enough to turn me off.

The Avenger is rolling into dealerships now and offers a muscular
alternative to a segment filled with hot-selling bland vehicles. It
resembles a small Charger and its strong styling, unique features and good
gas mileage should attract new customers. Dodge, a brand that appeals to men
more than women, now has a car on its hands that could pull more drivers
looking for something sporty but still need the utility of a sedan.
It could be a big seller if there was a better 2.7L V6 and auto

transmission. A 3.5L V6 in this car is silly.
IMO Chrysler needs to upgrade the 2.7L V6 to VVT and a better
transmission of 5/6 speeds or a CVT.

Have any of you rode in a vehicle with the new 4 bangers? My PT's old 2.4L 4
is smoother and quieter than the 2.0 and 2.4 world engines. I've driven a
Caliber, Compass and Sebring with the new "world" 2.0 and 2.4 engines. They
were loud and very unrefined. The CVT made them worse. The Sebring was
laugable- I swear I was in a John Deer. I have a 2006 PT with the old 2.4
4cy and it is smooth and quiet compared to the Sebring's 2.4 world engine.
Even the salesman admitted it was extremely loud. How can Chrysler come up
with this kind of crap and expect to compete? Don't they even pay attention
to the Civics and Corrolas? It is going to be the downfall of Chrysler-
people want smaller cars with better gas mileage. They're small and midsize
cars are no where near what they should be to even have a chance.



"Some O" <SO (AT) nospam (DOT) net> wrote

In article <13022md6ug1dp3f (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>,
"Jim Higgins" <gordian238 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Last year, Chrysler introduced a record 10 vehicles. Other than the
four-door Wrangler Unlimited, which serves a relatively small niche,
there
were no unqualified hits. Eight more new models are coming this year.
The Caliber has a good drive train but it's too ugly looking for most.
I notice the PT Cruiser is still being sold? If I were a PT Cruiser
owner the Caliper wouldn't turn me on.

"They're going to do OK. Chrysler has a lot of solid doubles and all of
them
four-cylinder engines, which is going to be important when gas prices
start
to climb again."
I agree, pray for rising gasoline prices. With growth in Asia gasoline
has no where to go but up.

Sales for the Sebring sedan, which hit showrooms in December, remain
sluggish, something Bartoli attributes to an end-of-year launch.
Partly, but it doesn't impress me. Not a car I'd replace my wife's 2001
Sebring with. The channels on the hood are enough to turn me off.

The Avenger is rolling into dealerships now and offers a muscular
alternative to a segment filled with hot-selling bland vehicles. It
resembles a small Charger and its strong styling, unique features and
good
gas mileage should attract new customers. Dodge, a brand that appeals to
men
more than women, now has a car on its hands that could pull more drivers
looking for something sporty but still need the utility of a sedan.
It could be a big seller if there was a better 2.7L V6 and auto
transmission. A 3.5L V6 in this car is silly.
IMO Chrysler needs to upgrade the 2.7L V6 to VVT and a better
transmission of 5/6 speeds or a CVT.

Some O <SO (AT) nospam (DOT) net> writes:

In article <13022md6ug1dp3f (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>,
"Jim Higgins" <gordian238 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Last year, Chrysler introduced a record 10 vehicles. Other than the
four-door Wrangler Unlimited, which serves a relatively small niche, there
were no unqualified hits. Eight more new models are coming this year.
The Caliber has a good drive train but it's too ugly looking for most.
I notice the PT Cruiser is still being sold? If I were a PT Cruiser
owner the Caliper wouldn't turn me on.

Oddly, I took one look at the PT and concluded there was no way I'd
ever own one. If I were in the market for a new car, I'd be looking
very seriously at the Caliber.

"Scott Koprowski" <skoprowski (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote

Have any of you rode in a vehicle with the new 4 bangers? My PT's old 2.4L
4 is smoother and quieter than the 2.0 and 2.4 world engines. I've driven
a Caliber, Compass and Sebring with the new "world" 2.0 and 2.4 engines.
They were loud and very unrefined. The CVT made them worse.

Yes I've been testing all these cars over the past 6 months, and I have a
very different impression. The Caliber and Compass I drove were, I thought,
not whisper quiet but certainly acceptable. The PT I drove sounded different
but not quieter, and I found the ride much tippier.

As to the CVT I don't see how it could have possibly "made them worse". It
allows the engines to run considerably slower at highway speed (2100 rpm vs.
maybe 2600) and reduces cycling between gears. Maybe you got that impression
because upon hard prolonged acceleration it raises the revs and holds them
there rather than revs up and down. Personally I feel the CVT is the most
valuable selling point for those cars.

In article <fymMh.12360$PL.404 (AT) newsread4 (DOT) news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Scott Koprowski" <skoprowski (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote:

Have any of you rode in a vehicle with the new 4 bangers? My PT's old 2.4L 4
is smoother and quieter than the 2.0 and 2.4 world engines. I've driven a
Caliber, Compass and Sebring with the new "world" 2.0 and 2.4 engines. They
were loud and very unrefined. The CVT made them worse. The Sebring was
laugable- I swear I was in a John Deer. I have a 2006 PT with the old 2.4
4cy and it is smooth and quiet compared to the Sebring's 2.4 world engine.
Even the salesman admitted it was extremely loud. How can Chrysler come up
with this kind of crap and expect to compete? Don't they even pay attention
to the Civics and Corrolas? It is going to be the downfall of Chrysler-
people want smaller cars with better gas mileage. They're small and midsize
cars are no where near what they should be to even have a chance.

Is it the engine or mounts or soundproofing causing this problem?

I'll be renting one of them for a few days to compare to my LH car, but
I won't be comparing to the PT Cruiser as I'm not interested in it.

Had an '86 LeBaron 2.5L, it was acceptably quiet and smooth, but not as
good as the LH's 3.3L V6.

"Scott Koprowski" <skoprowski (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote

Have any of you rode in a vehicle with the new 4 bangers? My PT's old 2.4L
4 is smoother and quieter than the 2.0 and 2.4 world engines. I've driven
a Caliber, Compass and Sebring with the new "world" 2.0 and 2.4 engines.
They were loud and very unrefined. The CVT made them worse. The Sebring
was laugable- I swear I was in a John Deer. I have a 2006 PT with the old
2.4 4cy and it is smooth and quiet compared to the Sebring's 2.4 world
engine. Even the salesman admitted it was extremely loud. How can
Chrysler come up with this kind of crap and expect to compete?

Well, on the CVT, it's an "everybody is doing it" thing. It gets results on
paper. I think the CVT is going to bow out as the most hated auto
technology ever.

"Joe" <Joe (AT) dontspam (DOT) net> wrote

Maybe Chrysler should consider launching a low-priced brand. They could
just add a new brand at the Chrysler dealers. That would leave Dodge to
concentrate on performance, and then Chrysler wouldn't be diluted as the
luxury brand. Hmmmm....

They have one, it's called Plymouth. Time to bring it back.

"Joe" <Joe (AT) dontspam (DOT) net> wrote

Well, on the CVT, it's an "everybody is doing it" thing. It gets results
on paper. I think the CVT is going to bow out as the most hated auto
technology ever.

Huh? Some people think it's sluggish (which is an illusion) but "most
hated"? For what? Being smooth?

It's different unless one is familiar with snowmobiles, scooters or ATVs. I
live in an area filled with snowmobilers, and have never heard anyone say
they hate the CVT. Quite the contrary, I've heard a number of comments over
the years "why don't they put those in cars?".

The reason it's becoming popular for cars now is not fashion, it's that only
recently have technological developments given a transmission that could be
durable at sufficient torque output.

I suspect it may take over most of the small-medium vehicle market within a
decade, both for automatics and with autostick, manuals as well. (The
exception will probably be heavy-duty and performance applications). The
reasons are simplicity, speedy and smooth shifting and above all ratio
range.

Like Plymouth?


Joe wrote:

Maybe Chrysler should consider launching a low-priced brand. They could
just add a new brand at the Chrysler dealers. That would leave Dodge to
concentrate on performance, and then Chrysler wouldn't be diluted as the
luxury brand. Hmmmm....

"Dave Gower" <davegow-spamblock (AT) magma (DOT) ca> wrote

"Joe" <Joe (AT) dontspam (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:riIMh.83$sN2.35 (AT) newsfe04 (DOT) lga...

Maybe Chrysler should consider launching a low-priced brand. They could
just add a new brand at the Chrysler dealers. That would leave Dodge to
concentrate on performance, and then Chrysler wouldn't be diluted as the
luxury brand. Hmmmm....

They have one, it's called Plymouth. Time to bring it back.

It ruins jokes when you try to explain them, hoss. You should have just
kept quiet there.