The global auto market and the cars competing in it have changed markedly over the past few decades. While years ago, a Citroen would share almost nothing with an Alfa Romeo, let alone a Chevrolet, globalisation has seen automakers from across the world shift to very similar templates for cars. Modular platforms, front-wheel-drive, turbocharged four-cylinder engines: mainstream cars that differ from this tend to be quirky outliers, like the rear-engined Renault Twingo. So, if a Chevrolet today is little different conceptually from a Honda, then why buy American? Chrysler hypothesized a combination of clever features and aggressively American styling could make its Dodge brand a success globally. While this sounded good in theory, the execution left a lot to be desired.
The American auto industry went through a few tumultuous decades of declining market share and seismic changes in consumer desires, but today the Big 3 are offering (with very few exceptions) an extremely talented and competitive range of cars. The domestic offerings that the online enthusiast community blast tend to be on their way out (W-Body Impala) or just in need of some minor tweaks (Malibu, Dart). Alas, even as recently as 2006, a European considering an American car purchase was not guaranteed the same overall level of quality and competitiveness.
For a long time, American offerings were few and far between globally. In the years prior to One Ford and GM Korea, Ford and GM employed an entirely different range of cars in Europe and other global markets. American Fords and GMs offered globally were generally niche models or terminally unsuccessful. Witness the failure of the Chevrolet Venture in Europe as the Opel/Vauxhall Sintra and the short lifespan of the Holden Suburban.
Photo credit: M93
Having not enjoyed a European manufacturing presence since selling off their French and British acquisitions in the late 1970s, Chrysler took steps in the 1990s to re-enter the European market and also expand to other global markets. The global relaunch of Jeep in the mid-1990s proved to be a very wise investment, as from fairly humble beginnings, that off-road brand is now driving huge sales growth for Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA). It’s easy to see why: Jeep has a strong brand image, a rugged design language and most are very capable off-road. The availability of diesel engines has also helped the brand globally.
Photo credit: Rudolf Stricker
In the 1990s, Chrysler started producing select Jeep and Chrysler models in Europe. From 1992, the Chrysler Voyager and Grand Voyager minivans were manufactured in Austria’s Eurostar Automobilwerk. The third-generation minivans in particular were quite popular on the continent, and were also manufactured in right-hand-drive for export to markets such as the UK and Australia. Prominent figures like former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair counted themselves as fans of the American minivan, which was larger than European options like the Seat Alhambra/Ford Galaxy/Volkswagen Sharan and enjoyed somewhat of a premium reputation.
Credit: Silosarg
Chrysler’s involvement with what became Magna-Steyr also saw the European production and export of the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Commander and Chrysler 300C and PT Cruiser. Between 1992 and 2005, Chrysler manufactured 850,000 Chrysler and Jeep brand products in Europe. Additionally, Chrysler and Jeep also sold numerous imported products in Europe such as the Neon, Sebring sedan and convertible, 300M and the rest of the Jeep range.
Photo credit: Matthias93
The PT Cruiser was only briefly produced in Europe, being much cheaper to manufacture in Mexico, but it was another success story for the Chrysler brand. The bold styling ensured its enduring popularity, even if underneath it was based on rapidly aging Neon bones. Speaking of Dodge’s former compact entry, the Neon was badged as a Chrysler for global markets such as Japan, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. It was well-equipped but hampered by a lack of refinement and an antiquated three-speed automatic (finally replaced by a four-speed in 2002!).
The 300C proved to be a more popular executive entry than its predecessor, the 300M. Manufactured by Magna Steyr and exported in both LHD and RHD formats, the 300C was sold fully-loaded in sedan and wagon variants with 3.5 V6, 5.7 V8 and Mercedes-sourced 3.0 V6 diesel engines. The 300C’s brash, unashamedly American styling captured global attention. Competitive pricing and diesel availability saw the 300C become particularly successful in Australia as a near-luxury offering, and it still runs neck-and-neck with the Holden Statesman/Caprice in sales.
Perhaps it was the success of these Chrysler and Jeep products that inspired the erstwhile DaimlerChrysler to further expand its pool of American offerings worldwide. Enter: Dodge.
Photo credit: Luftfahrrad
In its 100 year history, Dodge has remained primarily a North American brand. Despite this, car lovers around the world know about the Dodge Charger and Challenger thanks to American TV shows and movies, and the brand has enjoyed an image as a purveyor of performance automobiles. Under Daimler’s reign, an emphasis was put on clothing Dodge vehicles in unmistakeably American sheetmetal. Although cars like the Intrepid and Stratus were hardly shrinking violets stylistically, they weren’t bold enough for the new “anything but cute” design ethos. Out went the smooth, aerodynamic, cab-forward designs and in came the square-rigged, flared-fender, angular Caliber, Nitro, Avenger, Magnum, Charger and Challenger. Some offerings remained a little milquetoast; there’s only so much you can do with family fare like the Grand Caravan and Journey. The end result, though, was a lineup consisting almost entirely of designs that shouted “Dodge” and couldn’t be mistaken for anything else.
Photo credit: Rudolf Stricker
The global expansion of Dodge started in 2006, with the brand being introduced to China, Japan, Europe, New Zealand and Australia (Dodge already had a presence in the Middle East and South America, and remains there today; the Charger is one of the best-selling cars in Kuwait). The compact Caliber hatchback and mid-size Nitro SUV were introduced first, followed by the mid-size Avenger sedan and then finally the Journey mid-size crossover (the latter badged “JC” in Japan and “JCUV” in China). They were striking and didn’t look like anything else. They were red-blooded American in design. There was just one major problem, though: they really weren’t very good.
The Avenger and Journey eventually got substantial revisions which dramatically improved their competitiveness, although only the latter would see the light of day outside of North America. And, to Chrysler’s credit, they did offer diesel engines in the European, Australian and New Zealand markets. But all four Dodges featured a mix of one or more of the following: cheap and nasty interior plastics; a lack of performance from mediocre gasoline engines; noise, vibration and harshness; inferior handling; and prices that really didn’t compensate for all those issues.
Let’s start with what the Dodges did right, other than their striking styling. A VW-sourced 2.0 turbodiesel was available in the Caliber, Avenger and Journey, and a VM Motori 2.8 diesel four featured in the Nitro. The torquey VW common-rail diesel, used across a variety of VW Group vehicles such as the Golf, was good for 140hp and 236 ft-lb. In the Journey, the 2.0 CRD had an optional dual-clutch transmission that was praised for its seamless shifting; six-speed manual transmissions were also available on diesel Dodges. The blocky Nitro’s diesel put out 175hp and 302 ft-lb, which helped lug around the 4,162lb body while returning a fairly economical 19/30mpg. The additional torque the 2.8 offered over the 3.7 gas V6 was nice, but in Australia you paid an extra $4000 for the noisy diesel.
The Dodges scored well on the value-for-money front, offering plenty of features and competitive list prices. Gimmicky features were available on the Caliber, like heated/cooled cupholders, a chilled glove compartment and tailgate-mounted speakers. The newer Journey had family-friendly features like second-row under-floor compartments, multiple cupholders, and power outlets; the European market Journey also undercut people movers like the Ford S-Max and Renault Grand Scenic in price. The Nitro boasted a Load ‘n’ Go trunk floor that could slide out, and Dodges with cloth seats had stain-resistant YES! Essentials seat fabric.
This is where the pros start to end and the cons rear their ugly heads. For a brand with such a strong performance image, a German or an Aussie might expect this foursome to be fun to drive. Unfortunately, the reality was these sporty-looking Americans ranged from average dynamically (Avenger) to completely lacklustre (Nitro). Much of the blame can be laid on the drivetrain lineup. Although manual transmissions were available, many of the automatics were only four-speeds or droning CVTs. The diesel engines may have been willing albeit somewhat noisy workers, but the gasoline engines were like a Who’s Who of mediocre Chrysler engines.
There were no 3.5 V6 Avengers and Journeys, 4.0 V6 Nitros or Caliber SRT-4s. Instead, there was a choice of:
- The 1.8 “World” engine (Caliber) with 148hp and 125 lb-ft.
- The 2.0 “World” engine (Avenger, Caliber) with 158hp and 141 lb-ft.
- The 2.4 “World” engine (Avenger and “sporty” Caliber R/T; European and Asian market Journey) with 174hp and 166 lb-ft.
- The 2.7 “LH” V6 (Avenger, Journey) with a lacklustre 189hp and 191 lb-ft. Although smoother than the four, it drank more fuel and was vastly less powerful than rival V6s; in Australia you paid a whopping $4000 more for the V6 Avenger, although you received a six-speed auto.
- The 3.7 “PowerTech” V6 in the Nitro, with 210hp and 235 ft-lb and mated to a four-speed automatic. While not too gutless, its 16/22mpg ratings were nothing to write home about.
In terms of ride and handling, the Avenger, Caliber and Journey were absolutely unremarkable. Various criticisms were levelled at the gang, like fairly lifeless steering, an underdone ride, and unexciting handling. This was despite a different, European-market suspension tune being employed on export Dodges. The Nitro lurched more into “poor” territory, thanks to its truck origins. All Nitros suffered from body roll and bounce, and the live rear axle left the truck wallowing after bumps. Those big 20-inch wheels on up-spec Nitros sure looked nice but they led to a choppy ride and coupled with a part-time 4WD system, sabotaged the Nitro’s off-road ability.
Finally, we reach the deadliest sin of all for these Americans: their horrible interiors. A lot of critics make a big fuss about soft-touch plastics and assembly quality, but there’s logic behind that. You spend your time sitting in the cabin of the car, and you want that environment to be comfortable and welcoming. The newer Journey had an interesting dash layout and better material quality, but the other three were undeniably abysmal.
Without a doubt, the Avenger had the worst interior of its segment. The plastics were comparable to a first-generation Kia Rio – I say that without hyperbole – and the cheap-looking grey interior treatment left the car’s interior looking completely unworthy of its price tag. Up-spec SXT models added leather and some shiny highlights in the interior, but it was still depressing. The Nitro and Caliber felt reasonably spacious and had a simple, sensible dash layout, but looked absolutely lowest-bidder (the latter received minor improvements eventually). You sat atop the hard and unsupportive leather seats. Even visibility was poor, especially in the Avenger with its C-pillar kick-up which looked extremely cheap from inside the cabin.
In 2010, Chrysler effectively gave up on pushing Dodge as a global brand. Due to slow sales, it withdrew the brand from almost every market outside of the Americas, except Australia and New Zealand where the marque was reduced to selling only the 3.7 Nitro (until 2011), a single Caliber model (until 2012) and the surprisingly successful Journey. That crossover, being the most competent of the global Dodges, fortunately received the same revisions- a new, higher-quality interior, a huge uConnect interface and a Pentastar V6 – introduced in the domestic market (compare and contrast with the Chrysler Grand Voyager, which still lacks the new interior and Pentastar V6 in RHD markets). Despite the launch of the Fiat Freemont in Australia and New Zealand, the Journey still flies the Dodge banner and sells consistently.
These export Dodges just left a lot of unanswered questions. Why portray Dodge as a performance brand, and then launch the brand globally with an underwhelming slate of engines and no performance models? Why was there no image-building 3.5 Avenger or SRT-4 Caliber in the Australian and New Zealand markets? Why did Dodge not bother to engineer the Charger and Challenger for RHD markets, when they could have easily used the Chrysler 300 interior?
The reasons for Dodge’s failure may be different for each market. In China, import tariffs and a lack of brand recognition likely sealed its fate. In Japan, the larger size of the Dodge offerings may only have ever guaranteed success as a niche offering. In Europe, there were simply far too many superior choices, even from other “bargain” brands such as Skoda. Finally, Australia and New Zealand were always going to be tough markets to crack due to the extremely high number of brands competing in a very small pool. That the Journey has eked out a nice chunk of the Oceania family crossover market shows that perhaps there is an easy answer to the question, “Why buy American?” It’s simple, really: bold styling can only help so much. You need a complete package, one with a compelling combination of equipment, performance, styling and dynamics, as well as a good price. The Journey shows that Dodge could perhaps have been more globally successful if they’d just waited until they had a lineup that ticked all those boxes.
Related Reading:
Future Curbside Classics 6: Dodge Nitro
Interesting survey. As I discovered from Korean TV product-placements, US models are marketed there too, check out the local websites like http://www.ford-korea.com & http://www.chevrolet.co.kr.
Since the ’70s, I never saw a Chrysler product w/o a cheap-feeling, flimsy interior, like the baroque trim peeling off the doors of a Cordoba. Maybe that’s when it started; my mother’s ’69 Satellite was spartan but OK.
Korea still has their tariffs, I see. Or is there some other reason why a Focus is ridiculously pricier than a Cruze?
There are FTAs with Europe and NA now that sharply reduce the tariffs, problem is the local Korean distributors haven’t gotten the memo. Truth is, if pricing was a level playing field, Hyundai-Kia would be out of business tomorrow, save for sales to nationalistic blowhards, of which there are still quite a few.
On a related note, I always felt Kia should have gone to Ford in the late 90s when it was on the block. It was a much better fit within the Ford-Mazda scheme. They already had reciprocal product marketing arrangements, and some common DNA.
Awarding the company to Hyundai was a political decision.
Could it be that the Cruze is a Korean car? A Daewoo, I think. Correct me if I am in error.
It was until 2011. It was named the Daewoo Lacetti Premiere. They still make it there though, now as the Cruze.
Even some of the good points listed are not so good by European standards. Well, at least by french standards.
Selling a diesel Avenger should have been a strong selling point.
Unfortunately, the VW engine chosen by Chrysler was getting old and past its prime. IIRC that engine was no longer offered on VWs (but maybe on Skoda’s ?) when diesel Avengers and 200s were introduced in France.
Every car magazine pointed that out. Plus the fact that this unit has always been known to be a noisy one.
So if you wanted an unexpensive yet loaded with better felt quality diesel car and the formal look of a sedan, Skodas were a far better choice. Moreover, those are used by taxi companies, which is quite an impressive durability statement.
As a consequence, you don’t see many Avengers or 200s over here.
Spot on, a Skoda Superb is what the 200 has to beat.
One thing I was aware of but didn’t really process until I saw them this summer was Chrysler vehicles rebadged as Lancias. While the higher trim levels of the current 300 sort of worked as a larger reincarnation of the Flaminia and Thema of yore, seeing multiple current generation Town and Country minivans with Lancia badging is just…wrong.
Forgot the image…
Yes, the Chryslerati (Lancia Thema) works and in a year or two will be the kind of car you pick up for peanuts (my plan)…
Chryslerati at Fiat Schönbrunn, Vienna. They stopped making most Lancias now but it was offered until recently – I had a close look and build quality seemed at a quick glance on par with the Europeans. Interior was veeery plush and they’re available with a V6 diesel. Like I’ve said, I’ll be watching their prices in a year or two…
I don’t think they even swapped out the grille for that–just the middle of the badge!
Lancia Voyager is priced higher than the same Chrysler Voyager Mk.4 made before the Fiat takeover. Because of that it ain’t so popular in my neighbourhood like the Chrysler (Grand) Voyager Mk.3, Mk.2 and even Mk.1B! These are still daily sights. The very early Mk.1As are all passed away.
That list price could be haggled down severely if one was serious about buying and, as used cars, they do not hold their value as well as the usual suspects but – from what I’ve heard – reliability is not significantly worse than big Audis or similar…
One more
The Avenger (as well as most Chrysler products) seem like the modern iteration of the ‘ugly American’, only in automotive form. I wonder if Daimler had much to do with Chrysler products going Euro.
yes, it was a mandate from Stuttgart to try to globalize Dodge. It was also by mandate from Stuttgart that Chrysler Group cars were so lackluster and cheap in the first place.
I don’t know why some people are so eager to try to absolve Daimler of any responsibility for what happened at Chrysler.
Basically German-speaking asset-strippers, weren’t they? Aside from donating a discontinued platform for the 300.
they didn’t even do that. The LX *platform* had more in common with the LH than anything Mercedes had.
Same problem as with the Neon, neither fish nor fowl. These are neither American enough like the Chrysler 300 or the Jeeps nor offer any advantages when compared with the competitors (Skoda, Seat, Dacia) – and they are shoddily built. For what it is worth, Fiat’s/Chrysler’s current offerings here (Austria) simply do not make sense and explain the lack of success of the brands in Europe. I cannot understand how Fiat has made progress with Mopar in the US whilst at the same time botching it totally in Europe, its home market. The Chrysler division seemed to have lost the van market totally when the Voyager became “Grand”, i.e., so bloated that people started looking at it in the same way they look at a VW Transporter or a Mercedes Vito (=commercial vehicle, too big for the average European family/roads/garages), the PT Cruiser never had any replacement (they failed to capitalise on its early sucess like VW with the new Beetle and Mini did). Alfa-Romeo’s name has been competely wasted by failure to advertise the brand properly, dropping selling models (156) when an update would have kept sales going until a proper replacement could have been made and, and…
Yeah, Chrysler blew it when they eliminated the SWB minivan. I guess they figured they had to follow Honda and Toyota’s lead, neither of whom have a SWB version minivan and let the Journey fill the void. The problem is Chrysler’s minivan drags up the rear in virtually every category when compared with the Asian products.
Of course, there’s always the upcoming Ram Promaster City (aka Fiat Doblo).
Yrs ago, my friend & I would’ve thought it a joke if someone suggested merging Chrysler & Fiat: bad plus worse, in terms of quality reputation. And it’s hard to imagine more different customer bases, at least back then: half-awake Middle Americans vs. cam-thrashing Italians.
And now ALL Americans are asleep at the wheel. Except me, trying to dodge them all. (No pun intended.)
Those Dodges were simply Fugly.
In Europe we did like the Chryslers and the Jeeps.
Now with Fiat Group Auto (Fiat and Alfa Romeo) and of course the shiny handbags like Maserati and Ferrari and the Americans in the same boat I’d say start designing a new Alfa 159 successor that can share a platform with a Dodge and/or a Chrysler.
FWD or RWD, I do not care but simply make an Alfa look like an Alfa and a Chrsyler look like a Chrysler.
Do not,, I repeat NOT try to cross breed.
And do not, I repeat NOT try to launch a large FIAT like the Croma.
Nobody wants big Fiats anymore.
While we’re at it, try to launch a successor for the successfull Fiat Punto, a small hatch, which you can sell in the US as a Dodge or a Chrysler.
And finally, let Italians do the interior design, even for US cars and keep ém away from the electronics (just kiddin)
… and use Fiat diesels – say what you like but the 5 cyl. Fiat diesel is one of the best in the world, they go over 300,000 Km without needing to open them if you do the maintenance, I am aware of one in an Alfa 166 which actually made it to 647,000 Km without major work (Autobahn car, always allowed to warm up and driven at constant speed most of the time).
A GM Series II 3800 will do that too. Also pretty much any Honda engine. Your point? Mine is that Fiat is crap. Always has been; always will be.
+1 on the aesthetics
I just visited Crysler Austria’s site, the idiots cannot even bother to create a German language page for the 300, you get directed to Chrsyler US’ home page with nice USD proce lists etc. Dumb and dumber.
Aaaagggh! An excellent summary of a horrible job done by Chrysler. I mean Daimler-Chrysler. Egads – if you are going to try so sell an American car in Europe or Asia, make it a real American car, ferkryinoutloud. The Caliber and Avenger were the fruits of the Daimler takeover, where all small cars were essentially farmed out to Mitsubishi for engineering and development. Both of these platforms were roundly criticized here in the US from the moment they came out, and the Avenger remains about the cheapest used car you can buy in its class.
The decontented blow-molded interiors were horrible when they came out. There are those who gripe about Marchionne, but he at least saw immediately how embarassing these cars were and spent some pretty significant sums of money to do some immediate interior upgrades that were pretty decent.
Yes, for an American car to sell abroad, it makes sense that it has to do something better than the local product. Traditionally, that has been bold, brash style and good performance. The recent Chryslers that had these traits sold. The others did not. Didn’t sell here, either.
“Caliber and Avenger were the fruits of the Daimler takeover, where all small cars were essentially farmed out to Mitsubishi for engineering and development.”
That was the plan, but it never actually happened. It fell apart when Deutsche Bank had had enough of Schrempp’s empire building and the takeover of Mitsubishi Motors fell through. Development on the PM/MK/JS platform cars basically had to be “reset” midstream. Which meant development had to be rushed and costs had to be taken out. And we see what that got us.
There wasn’t much that Daimler did right after Chrysler sold out to them. The transaction occurred when Chrysler was flush with cash and Daimler, whose only financially successful product line at the time was their trucks…the Mercedes cars were losing money…wanted it. Daimler imposed blocky, uninspired styling once the Chrysler styling staff had been run off, and Daimler’s cheapness (when it came to Chrysler…nothing was too good for Mercedes, though) resulted in the dull grey hard plastic interiors. Daimler took the cash, installed Der Fuehrer type bosses at Chrysler (How do you pronounce “DaimlerChrysler?” The “Chrysler” is silent), retired off the departmental leadership that had brought Chrysler back from the K-Car doldrums by the mid-90s and was working on improving quality…and watched the ship sink, then sold off the wreck.
My understanding is that Daimler was also flush with cash at that time. They were worried that they would be the target of corporate raiders, who would borrow money to buy them in a hostile takeover, then use Daimler’s own cash reserves to pay down the debt. Daimler was looking to buy another car company to make themselves “too big to swallow”.
Meanwhile, Kirk Kerkorian was trying to buy Chrysler and take it private, a move that Chrysler management interpreted as hostile. They agreed to the merger with Daimler to counter Kerkorian. It was a tie-up made for all the wrong reasons.
Exactly right. There are some fascinating pieces at Allpar in which some insiders recall that the German takeover brought the attitude that nobody at Chrysler had any idea how to make a car. Never mind the fact that Chrysler was the most profitable automaker in the entire world at the time, and had to its credit a string of strong sellers.
This attitude was even worse in small cars because Daimler had zero experience in developing and building small cars (except for the odd niche product Smart).
Not to say that pre-Daimler was perfect, but before Eaton took over from Iacocca, sales and profits were excellent, and vehicle quality was improving as well. I have always wondered what Mopar products would have looked like with another five fat years with which to finance additional quality development. improvements.
Daimler had zero experience in developing and building small cars (except for the odd niche product Smart).
FWIW, the Mercedes A-Class, which was FWD and quite innovative in a number of significant ways (sandwich floor construction, unparalleled space efficiency,etc) was developed before the merger of equals, and went into production in 1997.
Yes, they did do a good job of packaging the A class. However, it was a total lemon. I have yet to meet anybody that actually owned one who had a good thing to say about it. These were all scrapped by their 8th birthday due to eye wateringly expensive repair costs of cheaply made components crammed in tightly- bad gearboxes, suspension issues, engine problems and above all unsolvable computer/electrical fryups. I haven’t seen a first generation A class in years, but they were extremely popular in London when I first came to England. The A class interior gives the Neon a run for its money when it comes to interior quality, although this was remedied for the second generation.
I still don’t think Mercedes has made a decent small car since the w201, and that is considered a ‘big car’ by Euro standards.
I also can’t believe that of all of the American cars sent over, the Avenger and Sebring were the ones that were sold here. Engine choices were odd to say the least, and Chrysler had no understanding of the British market. The automatic was only available with the 2.4 engine, which is in the £400 ($700) a year tax bracket. These are truly bargains today, as they aren’t terrible cars. The 2 litre petrol is the one to go for- it uses a manual gearbox and proper clutch, not the dual mass flywheel mess that the diesel has. You can get a low mileage one for pennies, and as they were often purchased by private owners, are in better condition than beat up company car and rental fodder Mondeos or Vectras which cost double the money used.
A Mercedes W201, like the current C-class, is a D-segment car. Wikipedia says that’s a “large car”. Nonsense of course, D-segment cars are midsizers (“middenklasse”), like the BMW 3-series, Audi A4 and VW Passat.
The system is just perfect:
A-segment: Volkswagen Up
B-segment: Volkswagen Polo
C-segment: Volkswagen Golf
D-segment: Volkswagen Passat
E-segment: Audi A6
F-segment: Audi A8
The Volkswagen Group and Toyota (Lexus included) are examples of brands that cover all the above segments.
“Popular in London”…I guess they became accustomed to all the great electrics in the Jaguar/Rover/Triumph cars. Will someone please remind me of the name that was on all their gauges (that didn’t work)?
It wasn’t Smiths; I’m trying to think of the other one (that didn’t work).
Lucas would be the Prince of Darkness you’re looking for.
A UK dealer was doing 2 for 1 on the run out Avenger!. Keep 1 on the road and break the other for spares…
G. Poon, I could not have said it better myself. The only thing I’ll add is that as a long time owner of Mopars the first time I ever hated a Mopar was behind the wheel of a 2008 Caliber with the CVT. If Captain Kirk had been driving the Caliber, he would be yelling at Scotty that he needed warp speed now because they were all about to die. It was that much of a slug at interstate speeds.
“Scotty, hit the Nitrous button!” Montgomery Scott cannae’ change the laws of physics…except when the final scene’s coming up and the script writer’s written himself into a corner.
I was watching a show on the local retro TV station and caught James Doohan in another role on a different show. It was disconcerting hearing him talk in his regular canadian accent.
Well if I’m not completely wrong, the 300 was developed at that time and this was one car they got right; here in Europe it helped to re-create some of the brash but (more or less) reliable and decently built US car image, just like they used to be until the 1970s. In comparison, Cadillac managed to blow it with the STS. I remember quite a few of those being sold in the late 1990s early 2000s – the STS was a US built vehicle which tried, and to a certain extent succeeded in aping European trends, I always though they fitted the Vienna street scene and blended well with the big Audis and BMWs sharing the roads with them. But then the STS had that awful Northstar engine, and hence is now extinct, whereas the 300s survive and are generally cherished by their owners (well, those who did not end up with small time pimps, gangsters and similar)…
Agreed, the larger cars and trucks came out of the mishmash much better than the smaller stuff did. I recall reading things about edicts to share certain things with M-B vehicles, which increased their cost (resulting in the cheaped-down interiors). At least D-B had experience in larger vehicles.
Dodge’s international strategies are certainly interesting. This they sell in Mexico.
These look vaguely Dodge-like from the rear, especially at night, and I always surmised that this was the reason, so they could sell it as a Dodge in this and other markets.
Rule 1 – if you’re going to re-badge a competitor’s product, take his badge off
Rule 2 – Get your own badges straight
Haven’t seen that centre Dodge logo before. Off a Hupmobile, maybe? 😉
Even if there was a Dodge-Hyundai tie-up in other markets, there’s no way they wouldn’t bother to take the “H” logo off…
Truth is stranger than fiction
http://www.just-auto.com/news/hyundai-accent-becomes-2012-dodge-attitude_id111498.aspx
A few points:
For most brands, breaking into a new market is tough. Nissan/Datsun and Toyota brought cars to the U.S. in the late 50s and early 60s that were unsuited to the market. These cars were slow, tiny, and tinny but these companies listened to the critics and improved their products. But most of all, they didn’t give up. And they tailored cars to their respective markets.
In the case of Dodge, and by extension Chrysler, the company felt “what works in the U.S. SHOULD work anywhere”. That philosophy killed British Leyland. Dodge expanding to European markets was definitely a case of running before you learn to walk…or even stand.
The problem with this analysis is that German executives were running the show, who should have had a pretty good idea of worldwide market conditions.
Well, I suspect to some extent there was probably also a desire to avoid stepping on the toes of any actual Mercedes-badged product. Aside from the A-Class, which Paul mentioned above, it’s important to recognize that Mercedes was already going pretty aggressively into the upper end of the D-segment with the cheaper four-cylinder C-Class cars — a C180 with no air and steel wheels would list for around the same as a higher-end Mondeo or Honda Accord. So, I would not be at all surprised if there was some edict to the effect of, “No Chrysler product should be so nice that it would lure someone away from buying a Mercedes product.”
I’m sure I’m the only one who will say this, but I liked the Avenger. I was given a 2013 as a rental upgrade, and expecting the worst after all that I’ve read, plus not liking American cars, I was pleasantly surprised. 22K miles, and there wasn’t a rattle or trim piece out of place, it worked flawlessly, and was immediately comfortable for me. My rental car had the 4 cylinder “World” engine, and had more than enough oomph for my trip even over the Tehachapi Mtns at 75mph. I neglected, however, to measure the gas mileage. The worst I can say is that you really can’t see very well out the back.
I’ll shop the market next time around, but I will keep this Avenger experience in mind.
the Avenger (along with the rest of the lineup) got “emergency interventions” for 2011 model year. The one you drove had a much better interior than the miserable 2008-2010 cars.
I was aware of the interior upgrade. Even so, there is plenty of hate for even the last Avengers. Perhaps it’s not as advanced as a Mazda 6 or Honda Accord, but some would have us believe it’s just a badge engineered Model T.
because it was one of those cars which was “safe” for everyone to use as a whipping boy. The automotive press rarely says anything really bad about a car unless it’s safe to do so, lest they lose access to test cars and media drives. Most of the automotive press is worthless at best.
I’ve seen more Edsels than Calibers in the UK..The Challenger is easily outsold by the Mustang here also,I quite like it especially the high impact coloured ones and the Barbie pink Challenger.The 300 C has sold well and has quite a following in the UK.I’ve yet to see a “Dart” here
It’s true that there were a few Chryslers in Europe — in the late 90s especially. Can’t say the place is overrun with Dodges. Those are pretty uninspiring. At least the 300C looked like something.
BTW, these aren’t the first Dodges in Europe: Barreiros produced the Dodge 3700 in Spain from 1965 to 1977. You could get the slant 6 or Barreiros’ Diesel.
I scratch my head about Chrysler. I certainly believed in them in the 1980s and most of the 1990s, but I was ready for a change.
First, in 1998, I bought the 1996 Ford Ranger – a superb little truck.
Second, in 2002, Wifey wanted a CUV. My first choice was the new Ford Escape, but something about it didn’t set well with me – the 4 cyl. was gutless with the A/C on, and the V6 was a gas-hog. We drove and she loved the 2002 CR-V we still own.
Third: The Ranger was killing my back, and when I got to ride in an Impala, well, it was love at first sight. I bought my new 2004 in 2004, my 2012 in 2012. My back has thanked me ever since!
Our Chrysler experience was over, probably forever. I doubt I would ever seriously consider another, and my next car may not be a Chevy…
I’ve never dealt with one of the Chrysler products with the cooled glovebox (which I dimly recall Pontiac tried at one point with the Sunfire — I could be mistaken), so I’ve always wondered: Was the glove compartment always air conditioned? What if you didn’t feel like chilling your owner’s manual to a crisp 38°F?
They had this on the 3rd series Renault Espace. It was “cooled”, not refrigerated. More like 10*C (50+ F). Was is colder in Mopar ones?
Not so long time ago I had brief conversation with gentleman, a commercial manager at a privately owned lubricant/oil manufacturing company who owned an Avenger (Made in Austria) at that time. After the biz meeting as he observed that I am also oriented to the North-American carmakes (GM), he started with his complacency about the american styled appearance of his Avenger BUT at the same time he pointed on the so called deficiencies in execution as the daily performance of the car by the customer’s point of view stood under of his expectations. Nice but cheap interior, noisiness, etc. Not too big problems BUT for his money he expected to not meet these issues. A good friend of mine has a short wheelbase 1996 Chrysler Voyager (also Austrian manufacture) with an InLine 4 engine and manual 5 speed transmission. Satisfied with the roominess as he’s also a family man BUT pointed on the underpowered engine with the lack of torque. Anyway either if some Chryslers had/have some deficiencies, They are rated as RELIABLE 🙂 About the GM’s Venture and its euro-sibling Opel/Vauxhall Sintra I have my own experiences. The previous models like the Lumina/Trans Sport had been more reliable. Another friend of mine owned a 1994 Trans Sport 3800 V6. His family had used it through many years and the only issue was the Check-Engine signal which had been caused by a minor crack on the exhaust system, near to the lambda-sond. When they’ve got rid of it, they’ve turned to a Dodge Grand Caravan 3.8 Lit. V6. What I have now is the Chevrolet Trans Sport (rebadged Pontiac Montana) 3.4 Lit. V6. I’ve contacted few people who owned this model too and we have agreed that this minivan has plenty of issues like with the electric features, power sliding doors, wirings, suspension parts, half-shafts, main-shaft bearings, difficulties with the ABS, the factory made grille’s scheduled braking and the head lights that are having catastrophically low brightness. On the other hand the engine seems undestructable, the interior is solid, the A/C is reliable and its towing capacity is impressive by my expectations. And I don’t know why BUT almost every Chevy Trans Sport (with Montana trim) owner that I’ve got talked had to replace the windscreen because the glass is cracking immediatly after the bumps with even small gravels. All in all to maintain continuously all these issues is quite boring. The major opportunity that I’ve heard of my brand fellas that I have to leave out the unnecessary issues being not fixed and to focus only on the essentials to be fixed as they did. From my aspect these are quite annoying opinions and it’s lowering the joy of this vehicle. Anyway all the issues shall be fixed and later the decision shalbe made about its further carreer…as I got better cars in the past than this one. As the Sintra as Opel’s/Vauxhall’s type represents a simplier class than the Chevy/Pontiac/Olds mutatis mutandis they have less issues. The InLine 4 engines in Sintra case are also underpowered and as some critics said the euro 3.0 Litre V6 isn’t the best thing that Opel did. Thanks for posting this article.
You are not kidding about the Sintra twins; around 2000 or so I had a copy of the J.D. Power UK Car Customer Satisfaction Index, and not only did they come in dead last, there was a sizable gap in the score between them and the next lowest contender. Literally everything seemed to go break or go wrong.
Dodge and Chrysler vehicles didn’t really disappear so much as Fiat Chrysler Automobiles took the old Dodge and Chrysler models around 2011 or so and rebranded them to better suit particular markets. In some situations, they have even done the reverse. The ones that I can think of off the top of my head are:
Dodge Journey to Fiat Freemont
Dodge Dart to Fiat Viaggio
Chrysler 200 to Lancia Flavia
Chrysler 300 to Lancia Thema
Chrysler Town & Country to Lancia Voyager
Lancia Delta to Chrysler Delta
Lancia Ypsilon to Chrysler Ypsilon
Except in the UK, where we get Chrysler Ypsilon, Delta, Favia, Thema and Voyager.
Or, at least we did last time any one checked.
When holidaying in the UK last year, I was surprised (and delighted!) to see the very pretty Ypsilon and the striking Delta!
I also remember the Crossfire. The 300C SRT8 with the 6.1 liter V8 was also available. Here’s one on the Zandvoort race track.
A Kliko-dash. The informal name for a dashboard just like in the Avenger above.
Named after these refuse bins:
“The torquey VW common-rail diesel, used across a variety of VW Group vehicles such as the Golf, was good for 140hp and 310 ft-lb”
This isn’t correct, the 140hp 2.0 TDI had 320 Nm (newtonmeter) of torque, which is about 236 ft-lb. 310 ft-lb equals 420 Nm which a two-liter turbodiesel could only dream of (for this much torque, you’d have to get one of the V6 TDIs which are not available in the Golf.
Regarding interiors: i think the aestetics (or ‘being ‘interesting’) is overrated. When you first get in the car, perhaps you look at the shapes in the cabin; with time, all that matters in the interior is ergonomics, comfort, good visibility and readability of instruments. Of course, part of the ergonomics is choosing decent materials where your hand and arms rest, but boring design is not really an issue. Point in case: 2007 VW Golf vs 2008 Toyota Auris – the former was a much more conservative (=boring) design but from the driver’s point, it worked. The Toyota was a considerably more dynamic and fresh design to look at, but ergonomically it was a nightmare, compared to VW*. And yes, the plastic felt cheap to the touch.
* I also had the opportunity to drive a Škoda Octavia which is based on VW Golf and so is its interior; I have to say that Škoda managed to improve over the VW.
I know what you mean about the Auris, with the “flying bridge” for the gear selector that eliminates the lower dash storage compartments and cupholder location of the previous model, in favour of a small shallow tray you have to reach under the giant lump of plastic to reach.
On the plus side it did provide an indication of how rough the road you were driving on was, based on how much movement between the plastic pieces there was.
Whups! Sorry about that. That would have been quite an impressive diesel mill if it had that much torque. I clearly just mixed up the nm and ft-lbs figures. Thanks for pointing that out, I’ve fixed it now.
Interesting comment about Skoda interior quality vs. VW. I had a ride in a friend’s Yeti, and was most impressed. Why pay more?
I’d still contend that there’s something to be said for aesthetics. Case in point would be my wife’s Kia Forte Koup. Ergonomically, there’s very little wrong with that interior. The seats are comfortable on short or long trips, the controls fall well to hand, it’s easy to find a comfortable driving position. Other than the control interface for the radio being a bit fussy, it’s all rather good. But it seems they neglected how it all looks–a sea of matte black, black black everywhere, with a couple of small chrome accents. They tried to add a little dash by making the radio/center panel surround a shiny piano black, but it really just blends in with the rest. The longer we have the car, the less I like that interior–it’s a bit depressing. If they had held up the looks end of the bargain along with the ergonimics, it would be a lot nicer place to spend time.;
Those Chrysler interiors (save for the updated Journey) look bad enough that I’m not even inclined to see how they feel.
One addendum to the article regarding Chryslers built in Europe: I seem to recall that the ZJ and WJ Grand Cherokees were also assembled within the EU, at, I believe, the plant in Graz, Austria.
I remember very clearly when Chrysler entered the UK and Irish markets, leading with the Neon and the XJ Cherokee. The Cherokee was an instant hit, being powerful, capable, and compact. Lack of a diesel in its first couple of years on sale limited its sales (particularly in Ireland, where road tax was based on engine displacement; annual registration on a 4.0 Cherokee would have been somewhere in the region of IR£1300, if memory serves), but in the UK (where road tax was flat-rated) they were popular from the get-go, offering more power, better economy, and comparable trim to a Land-Rover Discovery in a package that was very suited to real-world use at a comparable price. Sadly, poorly-specified radiators led to cooling issues with the 2.5TD, which in turn were responsible for cracked heads leading to a reputation for unreliability.
That said, the Chrysler Neon (which I still think of it as, despite having lived in the US since 1998) should be given full credit for one very important thing: forcing European manufacturers to significantly improve equipment levels in compact and smaller vehicles. When it was introduced, it was either almost entirely unheard-of for vehicles in those classes to offer things like power steering, windows, mirrors, or seats, automatic transmissions, and air-conditioning – or, if those options were available, they were extremely costly at that end of the market. The Neon proved that you could have a decent level of creature comforts in an affordable car, and within five or six years of its introduction the local manufacturers had caught up in terms of available options.
I very clearly remember renting a Ford Fiesta while visiting family back in 2001, and being impressed by the A/C button on the heating controls – five years prior, you simply would not have seen that there.
Ironically the grey-import Ram pickups have been the most popular and appealing Dodges in recent history. There are enough SRT10 owners for example to organize their own get-together. (Photo: Floris / usatrucks.nl)
Nothing ironic about that at all, from where I sit. If you want the ‘American’ experience, then a powerful in-your-face pickup is a great way to taste that. A fwd v6 midsize sedan…NOPE.
The ironic part is that the Ram pickups have never been officially imported into Europe. Not a single one of them. Yet I see them almost daily, know a few guys who have them, while the car models mentioned in the article have always been rarities.
Same here, Johannes. Rams are more common than the vehicles Chrysler officially sells here.
I’ll never forget a small-town country wedding I attended a few years back. The bride arrived in a gleaming black V-10 powered 4WD four door Ram. With Tennessee plates, IIRC.
Made quite an impression.
I was in Amsterdam a couple years ago and I saw several rams but also a number of 300’s . The Rams caught me off guard near my hotel one day I saw a Ram 2500 Cummins loaded to the gills I wonder what that cost the guy.
A pickup is a commercial vehicle, just like a van. That means cheaper to buy (no tax on top of the factory price like cars plus you get the VAT repaid) and less road tax. And it was a diesel, diesel is cheaper than gasoline and the mileage is better. Plus the torque bonus when you’re towing serious business.
Nobody buys traditional US pickups here for their cargo beds. In that case you’d better buy a light Euro-truck (Ford Transit, Iveco Daily, Mercedes Sprinter and the like) with a flatbed and removable sideboards. Those beds are bigger and the trucks are easier to load and unload, from three sides. With a forklift for example.
US pickups are bought for their image and / or for towing heavy trailers.
The real cheap-ass, sharp edged, cereal bowl plastics (up to the 2011 MY) were a result of Daimler squeezing every dime it could out of the “lowly” Mopar products. With Fiat entering the picture, many of these deficiencies were corrected. I blame Daimler for the abysmal quality of materials (and hanging on of antiquated, mediocre drivetrains) . . . . Daimler bled and ass-raped Chrysler . . . .
yes, they did, but there are still some apologists who will make excuses for Daimler.
As a Mopar fan, I have mixed feelings about Daimler’s involvement. Yes it was a bad deal in many ways BUT without them, Im not too sure the LX cars would’ve ever seen the light of day. They proved what we knew all along: If American car companies will make a car that is truly AMERICAN, it will hit the mark every time.
Tiny correction: we don’t get the Freemont in NZ – possibly because the Journey is a very strong seller and introducing the Freemont as well would fragment that. A number of workmates at my previous employers chose the Avenger, Caliber and Journey as their company cars (I was a rung lower, so got a Mazda6 as default). The Sales Manager chose a Nitro – which looked fantastic but which he grew to hate in short order due to lack of refinement. I rode in various Avengers/Calibers/Journeys and all impressed me deeply with the worst quality interior plastics I had ever seen. So crude, so, so hard. I was gutted, as having formerly owned a Dodge (albeit a 1936 sedan) I was looking forward to the brand coming back to NZ (it was last sold here in the early 70s when the RHD Phoenix was phased out).
Having said that though, I drove one of the company Avengers for a couple of days and loved the huge touch-screen stereo and the engine. The engine had a deliciously melodious warble under acceleration, so I accelerated and slowed down often (Wow, watch that fuel guage move!). My cousin recently bought an Avenger, which she absolutely loves – she’s outgoing and is heavily into sporting activities, and her black Avenger with 20″ mags matches her perfectly.
Another workmate was a surfer, and he loved his Caliber as although the interior plastics were horrendous, the drop-down tailgate speakers were great for on the beach, and the plastic was so hard it seemed that nothing would damage it.
Workmates with kids chose the Journey, and even though the pre-facelift dashboard is strikingly similar to that of a 1971 Morris Marina, they love the built-in booster seats, the hidden storage and the all-round convenience. The facelift interior gave the car the better design and quality it deserved, hence the Journey is still such a strong seller here. Not sure if anyone else will get the Journey-Marina dashboard similarities, but here’s a comparison pic:
One more thing, this piece has to be nominated for CC Title of the Year. Taking a plastic fork to a knife fight -after that phrase, the rest of the piece was almost unnecessary. 🙂
+1,000
A good read, and you make some really good points here. As a Mopar fanatic, its a tough pill to swallow when you see your brand making some pretty dismal mistakes. At any given time, Chrysler seems to do just as many things wrong as right, and vice versa.
I agree wholeheartedly on the Avenger being a flop. While I agree that pre-Pentastar, the performance was pretty mediocre on this car with anything but the 3.5L I also think that theres a bigger problem with some of the Dodges sold in Europe. Jeeps and Chryslers were successful because most of them gave a driving experience that is uniquely AMERICAN. A hard as nails XJ or Wrangler or a powerful flashy 300C cant be imitated by any Renault or Vauxhall. There are direct competitors to these, but these do have a distinct flavor that’s unlike anything else. The Avenger, Journey, and the minivans…not so much. Just whats so American about a fwd sedan powered by a V6 and slushbox? Sounds like any other cammacord to me and that’s just not what we do here in America. Would a bucket of fried chicken coming from Carls Jr sound very good? Hell no, if Im going there I want a burger. Ill go to Popeyes for chicken.
What the LX cars have done here stateside is solid proof that when buyers shop for American cars, theres a certain product in mind. Its not really news, because the Mustang, Wrangler, Grand Cherokee, all fullsize pickups, PT Cruiser, Camaro, and many others sell as fast as they can make them. And only the Big 3 can really do those vehicles properly. Chasing the Japanese and Europeans with their products is completely asinine. It was born out of a bunch of useless regulations which only serve to shoot ourselves in the foot. People who want appliance like cars know where to get them…from the companies that SPECIALIZE in them and do a much better job. You don’t see Honda trying to build a Challenger, do you? They tried a pickup and we see how that turned out.
Chrysler’s smart move would be to focus on the vehicles that make buyers passionate about American cars…not just in Europe but here too. We all know what they do best…they just need to focus on that and kick the ass of everyone else at doing it.
“Just whats so American about a fwd sedan powered by a V6 and slushbox?”
– well to the average European, it’s the V6 and the ‘slushbox’ (and usually the size of the vehicle). Remember, we Europeans are used to I4 engines (lately, they have been forcing 3-cylinder and even 2-cylinder engines on us) so a V6 (and anything with more than 2 liter displacement) seems like a giant engine to us.
And of course, the automatic transmission. It is not so rare in Europe anymore actually, especially in premium cars (and also available in most popular models, but as a quite costly extra option).
For a European who wants an automatic and engine with a little more displacement than the usual 1.2-2.0 liter, but won’t/can’t pay what European makes charge for that, an ‘American’ is the answer; and that could be one of the Dodges from the article, or a Chevrolet (of course, most Chevrolet models on EU market are actually Korean, but are available with bigger engines than most Euro-cars, and with slushboxes, the price still competitive with European offerings with smaller engines and manual transmission).
The thing is, most Europeans are somewhat hesitant still to buy such cars, but ‘cheap interiors’ might not be the main reason – they are afraid of automatic transmissions and of bigger engines (in the latter case, it is actually higher registration taxes for big displacement, and slightly higher fuel consumption, this is a problem with crazy fuel prices in EU)
Oh and FWIW, Im a solid fan of both the Nitro, and the Caliber…at least when outfitted properly.
Only gripe with the Nitro is it was basically a Liberty with a better engine available, but it cost you the ‘real’ 4×4 system. I did always like its styling at least as well as the Lib. Reviewers blab on about how it doesn’t get the same mpgs as the CR-V, Rav4 and other cute utes but that’s a stupid argument since its comparing apples to anvils. These are TRUCKS, not tarted up cars.
The Calibers interior WAS a bit on the chintzy side, but I could live with that given that the SRT4 version was a total barnstormer. I liked it better in just about every way than the PT Cruiser I had. Dodge’s design cues are just more to my liking and it was even more powerful than the old 2.4 Turbo. The 2nd gen Neon never even registered on my radar since its a sedan. If I cant have a 2 door coupe, then give me a 5 door hatch…but a sedan..NO WAY. Dart? What Dart?
This brings to mind my experiences with Ford of Japan 12/93-7-95. Ford sold the Laser (a rebadged Mazda), Mondeo, Taurus, Mustang, Explorer, and Town Car (with gray-market imports of the then-current Continental). Taurus, as one could imagine, was way too big for a practical family car in Japan. Mondeo, while right-sized, didn’t offer anything Japanese consumers couldn’t get from Toyota or Nissan. The two best sellers (other than Laser) were Mustang and Explorer, which were big and definitely American in concept. The lesson I took from this is that American cars can sell in Japan (in decent if not large numbers) if they’re unapologetically American and offer something customers can’t get from their domestic manufacturers.
I’m a mess of unexamined prejudices when it comes to American cars, so probably quite typical of the general non-US public. Growing up (70s and 80s in the UK), I just assumed that all American cars were big floaty gas-guzzling V8s that wouldn’t go around corners. I was aware of “muscle cars” and that they were fast in a straight line, but with unsophisticated handling (European prejudice at work no doubt – we have fine dining and Macpherson struts, you have hamburgers and leaf-springs). I’ve learned a huge amount in the last few years from CC, and on the whole, I think I was at least partially correct.
Since coming to NZ I had pretty much only seen things like the PT Cruiser and Ford Taurus, neither of which impressed. Plus big SUVs, which always looked like they would cost a lot to run (apart from CC, I also spend time on http://www.reddit.com/r/Justrolledintotheshop/ which often confirms this particular prejudice). The more modern Dodges I’ve seen looked pretty disposable.
It sounds from this article that things are turning around, but I’m going to guess that the general NZ public isn’t really aware of this. I really think they should have put a few batches of Vipers into this market to get the halo effect going before they dumped all these cruddy appliances. There will be some serious marketing needed to overcome the mistakes they’ve made
Ray Lintott imported one of the original Vipers into Aussie to race it while fast in a straight line it didnt corner well and the brakes were rubbish in the showroom showdown series it was a joke, however once suitably modified and entered into another category it proved quite fast it just needed proper brakes and the suspension retuned from the mush setting. Bringing them out in stock form might not work too well, remember the mush suspension tuning we see on Jap imports is the standard setting for the USA too long straight roads with gentle curves are sorely lacking here.
if you think reddit tells you what you need to know, I have no idea what to say.
good lord.
I am surprised nobody has mentioned that at one time (1987- 1994) Chrysler owned a very European company. Lamborghini.
The Diablo was was one of the first 200mph super cars.
I like it far better then what VW/ Audi/ Lamborghini has produced since.
The VT model had awd, as is common in so many modern super cars.
Chrysler Europe deserves some cred for that…
Another credit to Chrysler is figuring a more effective solution of engineering and certifying the dual airbag system in Lamborghini Diablo without spending millions and sacrificing countless Diablos.
An Italian engineering company demanded millions of dollars and at least ten Diablos for developing the dual airbag system. However, Chrysler and Lamborghini baulked at the ridiculous cost and demand.
Back in Michigan, the Chrysler engineers used Dodge Diplomats as a guinea pig in determining the optimal location of air bag sensors and triggers. When they found the optimal solution, they fitted the same equipment in the same location inside Diablo. Just one crash test was all they needed to prove that air bags in Diablo satisfied the US regulations.
About that Italian company, the executives were screaming murder about the ‘cheat’. Tough.
I think there is another point to be made (if it has not been made already): what I think Chrysler also did wrong was to sort of give up. I mean, the 1st Neon DID sell here (Europe) even if not spectacularly; what should have happened with the 2nd version was an upping of the ante on quality and materials. This is exactly what Skoda, Dacia, KIA and Hyundai did with their ranges: a foot in the water, get burned, go home, do homework, try again etc. etc. Perhaps with the Dart they now have a car which could do this but I don’t think it’s offered – it would actually fit between the Fiat Bravo and the Freemont and, assuming being offered with a good diesel (not a problem as Fiat does produce very good units) and a COMPETITIVE price it may carve its place.
I would very much like to see whether the Jeep Renegade can replicate the PT’s success – I actually like its style, trendy but not as “outworldy” as a Nissan Juke. Again, competition here is NOT something like a VW Tiguan but rather the Dacia Duster which is significantly cheaper (yes, the entry model is very basic but the top of the range is fully appointed and still undercuts the Renegade by 20%). Whether someone on management level understands this I doubt though…
I don’t think the Dodge Dart (based on the Alfa Romeo Giulietta platform) will work. A sedan in this class is a no-go area.
Agreed on the diesels. Their 1.3, 1.6 and 2.0 liter diesels are excellent. Plus the VM Motori engines of course, since Fiat fully owns VM.
“I think there is another point to be made (if it has not been made already): what I think Chrysler also did wrong was to sort of give up. I mean, the 1st Neon DID sell here (Europe) even if not spectacularly; what should have happened with the 2nd version was an upping of the ante on quality and materials. ”
Daimler wouldn’t even pay for that for the US market Neon.
I’ve seen a few Dodge Avengers round Manchester way. Most of them tend to be the SXT version, and in good condition at that. The SXT seems to be a Q-car here in the UK; most buyers preferred the sportier Volkswagen Passat and Volvo S60 saloons instead – Ford didn’t really offer a sporty Mondeo in the UK market, although AFAIK the Australians got one called the XR5.
I wonder if pricing was one of the main reasons Dodge had slow sales in the UK; an entry-level 2.0 SE petrol was £14,780 in the UK (in the U.S. at that time it was $19,640, which was equivalent to £9,881 in April 2008 – according to the exchange rate converter I used – OANDA rates, but not sure if that’s the best to use.).
That said, I actually was considering buying one back then, but there weren’t many Dodge dealers in Manchester at the time, apart from a Chrysler one in the city centre.
Nowadays they’re rare in the UK… if anything, the equivalent Chrysler version, the Sebring seems more common. However, it’s bubble/hardtop styling, looked, to me at least, a little bit unconventional. Ironically, if anything, the new 200 sedan looks more like a Dodge product, less Chrysler.
Not sure how car prices are determined with exchange rates and things… but that’d make for an interesting feature on here, wouldn’t it? It’s often asked on motoring sites why are cars so expensive in one country but not another etc. – anyone willing to do a writeup of that?
The Avenger just seems like an all-round misstep to me. I assume someone likes the styling? Personally I think they’re pretty horrible. Trying to be a 3/4 scale Charger, I get it, but it just doesn’t work. I didn’t like the previous 200 either. The new 200, on the other hand, is a good looking car, if not terribly distinctive. Why are they depriving Dodge of an Avenger based on that newer, more attractive architecture? Right now they’re still stuck in rental-car fleet hell from what I can see–very few around with the big rims or spoilers.
The Caliber just seemed sort of misguided. “Hey, SUVs are popular right now, and hatchbacks are space efficient, so let’s build a compact car that sort of looks like a mini-SUV…” But again, the interiors let them down and I don’t think that many folks took to the styling. SRT-4s were nice though; a former co-worker had an orange SRT-4 with the polished wheels. That one got the look right and had the performance to back it up.
I’m sure someone said it earlier but the cars that came from Chrysler during the Cerebus era were pure crap. It was a matter of not knowing how to run a car company, not because the Chrysler rank and file thought they could win with a plastic knife. Cold financial people calling the shots doesn’t work, you need a hot-head like Sergio to turn things around. To be clear Johan isn’t a hot-head he’s an idiot.
Having recently spent ~1100 miles in a rented 2013 Avenger, I concluded that it is the single worst car I have ever driven. Ever.
My wife and I drove it from Sacramento, to LA, to Tucson, and ever last mile was miserable. My 2004 xB with 4x the miles and a tire rubbing issue (wide wheels) has less NVH. The stereo was sort of broken, and got worse throughout the journey. Every bump in the road sent the car shooting sideways a foot one way or the other. The seats were flat and hard, and the engine was noisy, but was mostly sound and fury indicating nothing. The transmission was constantly hunting for gears (I5 southbound up the Grapevine was absolutely terrible), and the ratios made no sense. 5th and 6th were super tall, so any change in grade made the car alternately switch between screaming in 4th and lugging in 5th.
…and the chrome accents in the SXT interior are HELL on a sunny day. There’s a bunch of strips of chrome on the dash that are aligned in such a way as to constantly project blinding glare into the driver’s face on a sunny day at every hour.
Mind you, this rental had a bit over 40k on the clock. I understand that it’s had a hard life.
Once we got to Tucson, we got so frustrated with the busted stereo (that was seriously the final straw) on our excursion to Tombstone, that we went to Hertz the next day to exchange the car for the rest of our trip. We were given a 2013 Passat with even more miles on it and it was seriously fantastic. The power delivery was better. The seats were more comfortable, nothing was broken. The outward visibility was terrific. The Passat was also a much more handsome (if less exciting to look at) car, and I absolutely loved it, despite my aversion to modern VWs. This example had the 2.5 I5 backed by a 6 speed automatic, and it was pretty pleasant. I’d like it more if it was a manual, but as rentals go, it was fabulous. The handling was confidence-inspiring, if not outright sporty, and the transmission knew what to do.
So, yeah, the Avenger isn’t successful because it’s just damned terrible. On every front, it’s an also-ran in the midsize segment, at best.
Avengers are a very rare sight in the U.K as are Calibers. Any that come up for sale are laughably cheap as an orphaned brand. I think the problem was, when introducing a new brand to a foreign market, the product has to be better than what is already available, or if not, then priced lower to compensate and tempt buyers in. Dodges were neither. M.G found this out, too with the MG6. A car that was demonstrably worse in every way than the competition but was priced the same…little wonder their sales numbers were scarcely into double figures by the time it was pulled. (The few buyers presumably harbouring misguided nostalgic thoughts, of the time when MG was a British firm building cars in Abingdon, Oxfordshire rather than a cobbled together mishmash of bits of Rover 75 nailed together in nanjing)
Dodge fielded a 2.4 gas engine. Nobody here buys a gas engine that big in a family sized sedan unless it’s a performance variant, in which case it needs to be exceptional. The de facto engine choice in this segment is a turbo diesel. Given that European manufacturers have been refining TDs for decades to offer performance superior to petrol engines while delivering superb m.p.g,the competition was fierce to say the least. Look at what happened with British Leyland. We don’t buy our own country’s products if they’re crap, we sure won’t buy anyone else’s.