Here’s the range, from the site:

LX
Great American Package
Touring
Touring Walter P. Chrysler Executive Series Signature Series Value Package
Limited
300C
300C Walter P. Chrysler Executive Series
300C SRT Design
Heritage Edition
300C SRT8

A couple of those I haven’t even heard of. Chrysler, to their credit, has been trying to keep interest in their flagship.

Good plan. Where’s the competitive GM compact car, to beat the wedge of cheese Civic, the long-in-the-tooth Corolla, or the idiosyncratic Mazda3?

Oh wait, never mind.

These are the cars 1st time buyers look at, and those people become brand-loyal 2nd time buyers when it’s time to get something that can accomodate a child’s seat.

Come on man, you are comparing a Sentra with a Pontiac 6000!

I remember the 1980s very well and a 1987 Nissan Sentra was the cheapest car you could buy outside of a Yugo or a Hyundai Excel. The Pontiac 6000 was the mean of GM production cars of that era.

To be fair you need to compare your Pontiac 6000 to a 1986 or 1987 Nissan Maxima. Now your 6000 is coming up short in very major ways. While your 6000 was equiped with an el cheapo TBI FI the Maxima was equiped with a fully electronic TPI Fi system. While your 6000 was squeeling sideways under heavy breaking with its rear wheel drums the Maxima was making use of discs all around. The 1987 Maxima was also putting out a healthy 157hp to the v6 6000s 128 or 135.

I will even grant you that the Maxima did cost a few more bucks than a 6000 so I will drop it down to a Stanza. Now the v6 equiped 6000 would leave any Stanza in the dust but outside of that the Stanza was the better built car. Trust me I have spent enough time with an 87 Stanza and 6000 to know.

Wait, if I am correct Pontiac was still sell those T1000 Chevette clones to compete with the Sentra back than. I dont think you want to go there.

Like the Cadillac V-8-6-4? Wasn’t the best usage of money, from what’s been said. And your example is only one anecdote versus the sea of evidence throughout history. The Big Three may have good ideas at times, but their execution leaves much to be desired. The Japanese may not have been the hugest innovators, but their patience allowed them to see the land mines GM, Ford and Chrysler stepped on, so they could avoid them.

@Landcrusher

I guess the reason I don’t think styling is as important as some here say is that usually the company that has the most adventurous design is the one that has to because they’re behind. Lambos are more aggressive than Ferraris. Recent Chrysler have more style than Chevys. Same with Nissan and Toyota. When they bring out a new car, not sure if it will overtake the leader, they need something else to stand out. The leader, however, just needs to not pull a ‘96 Taurus.

As for Porsche and its high-profit, low-volume ways, well…I was one of the few saying that GM updating their SUVs early was a good thing. I know that wasn’t the “in” thing to do, but GM’s offerings were almost 7 years old. And I know that everyone looks at the hybrid GMT-900s as another cynical money grab, but I’ve always thought that if you want to save gas in a fleet, putting a hybrid in a 15 mpg vehicle to get 20 mpg will save more gas than it would making a 40 mpg vehicle get 45 mpg. And I do think that there are people who drive bigger SUVs who would like a smaller fuel bill afforded by a hybrid. The problem isn’t the idea. Once again, it’s the execution. This time, the pricing.

You can get a Chevy Tahoe LS 4×4 for $38,795.
The Hybrid 4×4 version starts at $53,295. That’s a $14,500 premium! The hybrid’s not on TrueDelta, so I’m not sure as to what extra goodies are made standard, but STILL that’s a steep ask.

And I don’t think I would have killed the Miata. If you want to be thought of as a sporty car company, an inexpensive, rear-drive two-seater coupe or roadster isn’t a bad idea. If you want to be thought of as a serious off-roader company, however, why do you need a double-engined, zero-turning radius, carbon fiber-bodied dune buggy with unfathomable dials? It’s just TOO extreme. I would have been on board for the Gladiator or whatever the other Jeep compact truck concept was called. That was a good idea that would have made good sense. I think the Trailhawk would have worked (taking the openness of the Wrangler and giving it to a Grand Cherokee-sized vehicle), though I’d have been a bit worried about the crash ratings. Unfortunately, I would have green-lighted the Compass, too. In my defense, I was thinking, ‘Hmmm. It won’t be good on the rocks, but it’ll be great in the forest. It will expand Jeep’s outdoorsy image, without diluting it.’ A seven-slot rally thoroughbred, not a Caliber reskin with a tampon dispenser.

By 1987, Detroit cars had electronic fuel injection, distributorless electronic ignition,
lockup torque converters, overdrive transmissions, etc.

I’ve owned both an ‘87 Sentra and an ‘87 Pontiac 6000. The Sentra was easily the biggest POS I’ve ever had.

While the 6000 would start in any weather at the turn of a key, the Sentra kept you guessing, “Is this a one-pump day or a two-pump day” knowing that a wrong calculation would leave you cranking and cranking, foot to the floor, until you got either a smoke plume or a dead battery.

The Sentra’s carburetor had a bunch of electro-vacuum devices attached to it, some of them leaky, none available at the parts houses or Nissan unless attached to a new carb that cost more than the rustbucket was worth. Whenever I plugged another vacuum leak, it really didn’t do ANYTHING , positive or negative to performance or economy other than to reduce engine shake at idle.

What the Hell was all of that crap for, anyway.

Should I have needed a new injector unit for the Pontiac’s throttle-body injection system, I could have had one for $60. I replaced one on another car by unplugging the electrics, prying the unit out with a screwdriver, and gently tapping the new one in with a small hammer and block of wood.
The car started right up on the new unit–no adjustments necessary.

The body of the Sentra was a rat’s nest of boxed-in areas that rusted through.You didn’t store anything in the trunk and the carpets “squished for days after a rain.

The Pontiac had a couple of almost-through spots on the door bottoms, but the passenger and trunk compartments stayed dry and dustless.

The Sentra could have redeemed itself with good fuel economy, but got the same 27mpg in good weather as the bigger, more comfortable Pontiac.

In cold weather, the Pontiac slipped to 23mpg; the Sentra plummeted to 19. Some economy car!

IMHO, Detroit’s 1980s ads should have “outed” all of the Jap competition that was creaking along with carbs and mechanically-driven/timed ignitions while Detroit was busy spending millions on Engine Management Systems of The Future.

I have to disagree with what I think you mean. I think you may be missing the mark. Sure, we all want hot wheels cars, here. Yes, many more people buy Camcords. Yes the big 2.8 boards are in their own world.

Still, your example of the Altima was the better point. They made a car that everyone thought was going to be a Camcord with more style, and they started gaining ground. It’s only after the cars prove unworthy that they stop selling. If GM came up with a boring car that equaled the Camcords in everyway, how many years before they really started to get back market share? Wouldn’t they be better off with an “Altima” that has Camcord quality? Are redeeming qualities that are not boring somehow a negative?

If you can’t get the quality, you will NEVER outsell Camcords. So, if you can’t get the quality right, either stick to what you are good at, or build exciting crap, or hit’em where they ain’t. Even if you get the quality, are you desiring to wait years for people to realize it?

I assume you don’t want the 2.8 to ignore my point about Porsche profit and the bottom line being the bottom line? What they are good at is building SUV’s for low dollars and selling them at high prices. The market for that may come back around. Or, the hybrid versions may work. But there are people still making vacuum tubes. If you make the best of something, you can keep doing it for a long, long time.

In the meantime, they can try to beat the Camcord, but wouldn’t they best hedge their bets by trying to come out with something different at the same time? Would they be better off laying off the few thinkers they may have left because we know those people don’t want to redo the Camcord? Let’s fire everyone with a good idea? Would you have killed the Miata?

There are a few niches with better odds for success than the 2.8 trying to beat the Camcord next year. Do a peoples’ car, or a peoples’ SUV. If boring is good, insanely boring is better. Only insanely boring has cache that Camcord doesn’t. Make the next VW, or citreon super seller, or Model T. That would get us all behind them, AND the world market for one of these is about to start doubling at an insane rate.

Make it out of composites, or make it out of cheap steal body on frame with rivets. Whatever. Make something that isn’t even US compatible and export it. Make it in palestine for the palestinians. I don’t care, just stop sitting around with a bunch people who have never really made anything in their lives drinking coffee and stroking each other.

Great things often take lots of boring hard work, but they are rarely accomplished in the USA without passion. The 2.8 people need passion about something other than dividing up the left over crumbs of their once thriving empires. You won’t get it with the new Bu. I don’t care if it’s twice the car of any Camcord. Ain’t gonna get it done. Not gonna raise morale, not gonna tip the buyers perceptions, and not gonna save the day. I am not saying it’s a loser, just that it’s not a horse that will run from the back of the pack to win the race.

Heck, the Japanese didn’t win with the Camcord’s until they had carved out a niche in subcompacts. Even if the target is winning the Camcord segment, I think you have to approach it somehow from the flank.

Hope that’s enough prose for you. Sorry if my metaphors and similes were not up to the standard.

:)

When the history of the American automotive industry is written, one whole chapter should be devoted to the stupidity of killing off names which have huge brand equity. I can hardly believe that the high priced marketing folks still think this is a good idea.

Nissan likewise did itself a big disservice way back when they changed from Datsun to Nissan in the US market. It was only a few years later that they fell into the arms of Renault of all companies as their savior. Renault has substituted cost cutting and fashion chasing for quality and Nissan’s results show it.

For decades Japan’s auto industry was led by Toyota with Nissan/Datsun hot on it’s heels. Now Nissan is a second class player back in the pack after Toyota and Honda.

One final note. Sometimes the only thing worst than letting a car get stale is to completely botch the redesign. That is exactly how Ford took Taurus from #1 in sales for 1995 to Rental Queen with the 1996 Oval Design Nightmare.

I still stand by the statement that if you want to keep the volume rolling then there has to be some substantial good reason for a person to trade in the old wheels for new. There is method to the Japanese practice of a new vehicle every 5 years or so.

(Mustang and Corvette notwithstanding)

If they get it right, it rots on the vine. While they chase Camcords, Global platform-swapping, and core clouding endeavors like SAAB, Jaguar, etc Detroit manages to alienate everyone remotely interested in their cars. You can bet a large swath of American motorists will go for a new Ford Galaxie, Chevrolet Chevelle, Buick Wildcat, Pontiac Grand Prix, Cadillac Eldorado (the list goes on and on) who wouldn’t otherwise consider American cars.

Then again, they do consider Detroit products when the incentives roll out every 2-3 months. Discounting or American innovation? I know which one I’d rather have.

I think this goes to show once again that the brain of an enthusiast operates on an entirely different wavelength than most people’s. And once again, that’s a bad thing. Any automaker fool-hardy enough to follow the chain of thinking advocated in this article would be immeasurably screwed. Not the “don’t advertise what you don’t have” part. That’s common sense. But the rest?

The chief difference between now and the 50s…60s, whatever, when you had those yearly updates, is the customer. People didn’t mind their cars breaking down, because they were used to it. They drank gasoline like a frat boy drinks Budweiser, but no one cared, because that’s what cars did. And, god forbid, you had a crash…let’s face it…you were going to die. But once people realized that you could buy a car that wouldn’t leave you stranded, didn’t suck a walletful of fuel, and (eventually) would be safe, they changed their tune in droves. Suddenly, having the “nu nu nu!” style wasn’t as important. That process is well documented here and in other sites. But this article just seems to be ignoring it. The reason cars like the Hurricane don’t get made and why constant updating isn’t done is because it would be ridiculous and unnecessary. Like the Bugatti Veyron, it would impress people for…a day. Then they would leave and buy something they can carry their children in without getting vertigo.

And another thing, I don’t think the biggest problem is that the domestics don’t update their cars enough. It’s that six months after a car is launched, you never hear about it ever again. I think just having a yearly campaign would be a lot more cost-effective than doing what you’re suggesting. I’m seeing more commercials for the ninth-gen Corolla at the end of its (too long) run than I have for the Cobalt, which is half as old. And even then, the ads just say you can lease an LS with a manual transmission that no one wants and nothing standard but the air inside for the change under your sofa, so head to your nearest Chevy dealer. Or not.

When I frequented domestic boards, the arguments I heard all the time were “Only sheep buy Toyotas” and “Yeah, our cars don’t sell, but at least they aren’t boring.”, which is just a ludicrous statement. People don’t mind boring. Hell, some people seek it out. I’m not trying to speak for all Americans, but I think saying that we want a car that takes us from point A to point B in a reasonable amount of pace and comfort without looking ridiculous is fair. No, it’s not an either-or dilemma, Farago. More like a continuum. Take for instance, the 2002-3 Nissan Altima.

It’s by no means the prettiest car I’ve ever seen in my life, but it was the first mid-size car in a while that people could look at for 30 seconds without feeling the need to leave to do something else. And in its first year of sales, it seemed to be taking from Camry and Accord. Brilliant. Until people started complaining about the cheap, rattling trim. And the noisy engine. And the comparatively bad fuel economy. Just in time for Nissan’s crippling quality problems. So far as I can tell, the only thing the Altima has done is lead to the over-styling of the ‘07 Camry and ‘08 Accord, both of which will still sell better. That’s the thing. Chances are, a good-looking mediocre car isn’t going to sell better than a more plain car that actually is good.

M-B has an almost identical wheel too !

I would kill to drive the warthog from the Xbox game Halo in the real world. So it takes 11 gallons to cross 250 yards? Big deal.

Hey Jeep or Hummer – build me a warthog dammit.

This is exactly what the Big 2.x DON’T need to be doing. Because they’ll divert resources into meaningless cosmetic changes instead of fixing the very real mechanical and quality issues that seem to accompany most new models out of Detroit.

Emulate Toyota and Honda and constantly fix/improve the bugs in your vehicles. Annual cosmetic changes are from the bad old days when Detriot operated like three divisions of a monopoly and could waste time prettifying its dinosaur-tech leaf-sprung, drum-braked, OHV-engined vehicles.

One word: Porsche.

There is a lot more to be made selling volume than high dollar, but let’s not forget that the bottom line is still the bottom line.

If the 2.8 could convince the country that they are not here for our needs, but to make money, and that they should be able to do that with less interference from laws and lawyers, then it would be as easy thing for them to succeed.

They aren’t the best at making Camry killers because for over a decade they were making all their money on SUV’s. They may have been short sighted, but if we would all stop having such an attachment to them it would help. The problem is that there is no flexibility in the business, so they cannot take advantage of their “Americanness”.

Stop over regulating them on every angle, and they will win. We should regulate transparency on crash issues, and warranties. We should regulate a minimum amount of pollution per mile. We should have reasonable employee protections. That should be it.

Then stop letting them lose millions over lawsuits for things that are other peoples faults and we will have our 100 mpg flying robot cars in a couple decades.

A 4WD vehicle that can spin on a dime can be built for you buy several aftermarket specialty shops. It might cost you a pretty penny but if you can afford it hey!

Vehicles like this are not the mission of GM, Ford, or Chysler. These companies are no different than Honda or Toyota, they are mainstream auto manufacturers that need to succeed by producing desirable mainstream automobiles.

If anything Toyota is the company that currently needs to think outside the box. They have the money and means to explore “new and exciting” niche products. The irony is unlike Detroit Toyota does understand that these type of “side trips” only take R&D money away from their consistant money maker MAINSTREAM products.

The big 2.8 and domestic car fans need to get it though their heads that rehashing former products that were popular for reasons outside of being excellent designs is a big fat waste of time. While Ford has been busy making poorly built retro Mustangs Hyundai is working on the what might possibly become the real “new” Mustang with the first AFFORDABLE new RWD coupe in god nows how many years!

So while the Big 3 agonized over fabric choices, the Japanese focused on little things like reliability, combustion efficiency and quality. Looks like that was the smarter path.

Honda and Toyota are successful because they are focused on a simple mission; Build the best decently price ($25,000) family sedan!

THAT IS WERE THE MONEY IS AT STUPID!

Since the current perception is that Detroit can NOT build a good everyday car the rest of their lineup suffers under this preception. If these guys cant build a decent family sedan why do you expect them to build anything else that is good.

Cars like the Mustang and 300c will always sell well when they are freshly introduced. Americans LOVE a good fad! The problem is these types of cars “play out” quickly because they tend to have more “flash” than substance. This strategy leaves the Big 2.8 with an endless line of half-ass, flashy, cute cars that DO NOT measure up to the industry leaders in any way.

So at the end of the day what do you want in your driveway? A flashy 300C POS that looks silly after a year or so. It also makes the owner look rather lame in short order. Or would you rather go with the serious, no-nonsense Accord that make you look like a smart, secure individual.

Also, Ford has found a good idea with all the special editions. They sell. And they likely bring people into the show room. We tell jokes here, but they do sell.

So, what’s the downside with more changes to cars each year? As mentioned, it’s production costs. Also, there may be a depreciation increase. Still, if it sells more cars, you would be ahead I think.

Why don’t we get more hot wheels cars from the 2.8? Because no matter what hot, fresh, and original idea you come up with, if the car is just mediocre, or worse, the sales fizzle. The design becomes linked in everyone’s minds with the crappy car instead of the dreams they inspired. Then they hate you for it. Examples – PT Cruiser, T-Bird, Prowler, etc.

The new styling that brought Chrysler back from the dead over a decade ago, started killing it again the second people realized that the cars were falling apart. When even a three year old version could be seen rolling down the road looking like a worn out old car, no one was impressed with them anymore. Quite the opposite, most people didn’t want to be seen in one. The styling that made them unique now made the owners stand out as suckers rather then fashion mavens.

To make an analogy, it’s like when you eat something that makes you sick. My wife got sick off of some bad shrimp once. She doesn’t like it anymore. It tastes bad to her. She wonders how she used to eat it at all. She forgets she used to love the stuff. Now she eats less seafood overall, and certainly doesn’t enjoy it as much.

OTOH, My mom used to hate gatorade. Could NOT understand how I drank it. Then she got sick and the doctor made her drink the stuff. Her body needed the gatorade, and now she likes it. Her body tricked her taste buds into liking something she previously hated because it had such a good reaction to it.

Cars are the same way.

Then people that said, “Well, I just don’t like it because of the headlights, or tailights, or the funky color of the instrument binnacle”, would then look at each refresh, and go, “Oooh, thats different, maybe I will look at that!”.

That said, I don’t think it would be realistic. The retooling, even for small headlight and taillight changes would strap the domestics profit margins even more (and then we would be writing articles on how idiotic it is for the domestics to spend wasteful money retooling for small changes every year). And I believe that is where the aftermarket add-ons/tuner industry has its place. Get tired of your 300C? Bolt on a really shiny fake Rolls-Royce grill… and then change it in two years when you get tired of it.

I think the best compromise would be the “special editions” we see Ford churning out with the Mustang. It keeps people interested in the vehicle, and gets older Mustang drivers to go back to the dealer to oogle over the latest Shelby GT/Mach 1 /California Special /Bullitt/Triple White Secretary Special /V-6 Automatic Pony Package with extra viagra in the glove box Editions.

If Chevrolet and Dodge follow suit with thier “halo” cars (including the Wrangler), the toys the article talks about, people with a urge to buy a car that minute will walk in the showroom, and then readily be talked into the slower selling (but much more affordable) sedan that has been languishing on the lot for 160-days with a lot of incentives…. and a paint scheme similar to the Halo Car.

P.S. I’m glad Porsche doesn’t follow this rule at all…. otherwise people would stop mistaking my older Porsche for a brand new one!

P.S.S. I am taking therapy for displaying occasional shallow characteristics.

cars can be camry boring underneath, but why do they have to be so lame on top?! it doesn’t cost more to make a car look cool, does it? sheet metal is sheet metal.

it’s so frustrating sometimes.

Then ditto for most women. Cars, clothing, cell phones, purses, shoes, etc. …. we all have our childish vices.

I’m not sure exactly when Detroit lost the keep it fresh magic, but they sure lost it. Up into the 1960s every car model got freshened every year and a complete redo every 3-5 years. Grills, lighting, dashboards, interiors and such were always changing.

In the 1970s when safety and emissions regulations started notching up these regular updates started dying off. Interestingly enough, the Europeans mostly had never done the annual change for the sake of change thing. The VW bug, Volvos, Mercedes and BMWs which made it to the US typically had long model lifetimes.

Today the leaders in keeping it fresh are the Japanese. Every volume model gets a complete redo every five years or so. Honda typically ramps up included equipment once or twice during the lifetime of a design in order to keep up some buyer interest. Since new car loans are typically 4-5 years it makes sense that when new car buyers are in the mood for another new car they should see something really new when they stop for a look.

Pity the poor Grand Marquis owner who is in for a 100k mile service at their friendly dealer and pokes a head into the showroom to see what’s new. If they happen to find a Grand Marquis they will be disappointed to see that it looks like their current car after a really nice wash and detailing job. No reason to get a new one.

Which is why people go out buying 3-Series BMWs, and if you’re only in for family or couple transport, there is really nothing a Camry won’t do better for thousands less. But it has the pistonhead kudos and social appeal of herpes.

Back in the 1950s, the presentation of a new-model-year Cadillac was a showstopper – and it did nothing to actually improve the car. All it did was keep people’s love for big Caddies alive. These days, you get the same Lincoln Town Car for what feels like two million years – and even when it was launched, it was so boring it seemed like Belgium on wheels. (Can you imagine a ten-year-old and his mates pressing their noses against a dealership window for a Town Car…?)

What I simply do not understand is the complete failure of the Big 2.8 to even capitalise on their own success: glamorous, drool-over-me cars like the Mustang, the 300C, or the PT Cruiser (for $15,000, nothing will ever be as great), sold like hotcakes, and people were falling over themselves to get their hands on one. Yet somehow Chrysler managed to launch the Sebring next, which is so screamingly awful it should come with a written apology from the CEO, and scrap the PT. Hmm.

So why are the imports and transplants stealing the show left, right and centre? Because GM, Lincoln, and Chrysler singlehandedly pissed away decades of history of fascination, desirability and drooling over cars (just compare a 1959 Eldorado Biarritz and a Cimarron if you don’t believe me).

I had hoped Jeep would come out with a fun, affordable little car. A Manx Dune Buggy you didn’t have to build yourself. It’s a niche I think is empty at the moment.