By on June 27, 2015

2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee Exterior-004

The next iteration of the Jeep Grand Cherokee has been delayed to 2018 or 2019 and, according to reports from The Detroit Bureauit’s all Giulia’s fault.

Speaking with reporters at Chrysler’s Chelsea Proving Ground during the annual Chrysler Model Preview event, Jeep head honcho Mike Manley stated the brand’s top model won’t be seeing a new generation for the next three to four years, but that FCA’s merger rumor mill had nothing to do with the delay.

Reports from the other side of the pond may show the real reason for the delay: Alfa Romeo. Supposedly, the money needed to redesign the Grand Cherokee in the near term has been earmarked for the premium Italian marque which needs $5 billion over the next 10 years.

Manley also reiterated, “There will be only one vehicle” when it comes to the Jeep Compass and Patriot, though Jeep has not made a final decision on which will get the axe.

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

86 Comments on “Blame Giulia For Jeep Grand Cherokee Redesign Delay...”


  • avatar
    JD23

    Delay a redesign of FCA’s arguably most important and profitable vehicle to revive a luxury brand with a laughable reputation in North America. Makes sense.

    • 0 avatar
      Chocolatedeath

      This. Actually it’s not even laughable you mentioned this company and all you get is a screw face.

    • 0 avatar
      Richard Chen

      Lincoln is also getting $5 billion, and Cadillac $12 billion. Keeping moribund brands on life support is frightfully expensive.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        Well, $5 billion or even $12 billion don’t buy what they used to. Either number would make you the richest person in the world in 1915. Today $12 billion would tie you with Elon Musk for #100 on the Forbes 500 list.

    • 0 avatar

      #1 I’m disapointed in ChryslerFCA for building the 2012 Jeep SRT…they shouldn’t have built it till they had coherency with the redesign and built my 2014. I feel really bad for buyers stuck with the 2012 model and its 5-speed, and lack of Uconnect 8.4n.

      #2 FCA needs to highly differentiate the faces, tails and hoods of the SRT trims. I don’t want ANYONE driving a car that looks like mine, unless they spent $55,000/ $65,000 too…

      Seeing a 300S with the spoiler of my SRT makes me cringe.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      JD23
      I do not consider Jeep a luxury brand.

      The Grand in Australia sits below vehicles like the Pajero, Prado, etc.

      Considering Jeep a luxury vehicle is akin to calling a Tahoe a luxury vehicle.

      Do not confuse bling and luxury. Using this approach would make most Chinese vehicles luxury, they even come with leather.

      • 0 avatar

        “Do not confuse bling and luxury.”

        #1 It costs twice what the average American family can afford to pay for a car.

        #2 My 2014 SRT uses fuel at a rate roughly 2 – 3 times the average 4-cylinder-souless-econobox’s fuel use.

        #3 I’ve got a better infotainment system than the vast majority of luxury vehicles – INCLUDING the German-made $100,000 and up cars.

        Luxury is in the mind of the beholder and the mere fact my truck still commands a $65,000+ asking price means something.

        #4 Australians are upside down and driving on the wrong side of the car.

        • 0 avatar
          Roberto Esponja

          BTSR, don’t bother…Big Al from Oz is probably of the same mindset that considers an ML350 with Leatherette and no parking sensors a “premium” vehicle but a Grand Cherokee Summit plebeyan.

          Their loss…

        • 0 avatar
          thegamper

          I would have to agree with big al. A Jeep of any pedigree is not a luxury vehicle. There are certainly vehicles that are undeniably luxury vehicles RR, Bently, etc. But there are considerably more vehicles that are luxury vehicles because excellent marketing has the public convinced that they are. Many luxury vehicles, in my opinion, are such only because they come with a certain snob appeal and brand cache` that has taken decades of marketing to build. Regardless of the capability, craftsmanship, engineering prowess of its manufacturer these vehicles will be considered luxury because they wear a specific badge and people will gladly pay a hefty premium just for the psychological ego stroking that the badge carries.

          If you pulled up in a Jeep SRT in swankiest of swankiest places where all people want in a vehicle is to show the world that they have extra money to throw around, I think said people would turn their noses up at you.

          That being said, I would gladly buy a well appointed, capable, well engineered vehicle from a brand aimed at the proletariat that is 9/10ths the vehicle its luxury competitors build but at a third of the price. I would like to think I would continue to do this even if I had the means to buy the “luxury” vehicle as I do like money…probably more than cars.

      • 0 avatar
        ToniCipriani

        @Big Al from Oz

        “Considering Jeep a luxury vehicle is akin to calling a Tahoe a luxury vehicle.”

        Cadillac seems to have no issues that.

    • 0 avatar

      That what Ford did with Taurus repeatedly. Marchionne is a genius, did not you know that? FCA should also consider selling both Jeep and RAM altogether to get even more money to develop Alfa.

  • avatar
    Chocolatedeath

    It’s nice to know that they are using Chrysler’s money, for Chrysler’s best interests. This is more than a joke, this is one of those comedic tragedies.

  • avatar
    Firestorm 500

    No wonder no one wants to talk merger with them.

    They need to take a lesson from the Americans and kill unprofitable brands.

  • avatar
    RideHeight

    The Grand Cherokee can make even a row of urinals handsome.

  • avatar
    hreardon

    Asinine. The Grand Cherokee, along with Ram trucks, are the only profit engines at FCA.

    End of story.

    Can Jeep sell GCs in similar volumes to today three years from now without a redesign? Anything is possible, but this is the equivalent of Ford letting the F-150 stagnate.

    FCA is banking on the Jeep *brand* carrying them through this period. This is one heck of a gamble.

    No doubt, Sergio thinks that these new Alfas are going to sell like gangbusters here in the US. It’s a pipe dream that they will have any significant traction over the next ten-fifteen years.

    Sergio: it’s taken Audi 20 years to be taken as a serious player in the US market. You’re looking at that, at least, for Alfa.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      Your points are contradictory. You criticize Chrysler for having all of its eggs in one basket while you bash Marchionne for trying to create more baskets.

      In any case, it should be becoming clearer that FCA’s current focus is on fixing its problems in Europe. Its US situation is actually pretty good; what the company needs to do now is to compete in Europe against the Germans, and to eventually extend that competitiveness to a global level.

      Since it is next to impossible to dethrone the Germans on their home turf (which is 20% of Europe’s car market), the next best thing that he can do is attempt to take them on in the other 80% of the European car market. This is not particularly easy, but the company doesn’t have much choice.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        You make the best point in this case.

      • 0 avatar
        hreardon

        Pch –

        Huh? No, I’m arguing that it’s foolish to starve your most profitable brand to resurrect Alfa. There’s no criticism of Chrysler here, other than recognition of where the real value is in FCA today: Jeep and Ram.

        Sergio needs Alfa to be a volume player, I get that. He also needs cash to help Fiat and shore up Europe, I get that too. I also get that right now the only place where he can get the cash for these is from Jeep.

        But at the end of the day I really don’t give a rat’s you-know-what about Alfa or Fiat. As far as I’m concerned they’re lost causes, especially when it comes to the US market.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          The latest Grand Cherokee was launched for 2014. Keeping something around for 4-5 years is the industry norm, and doesn’t resemble anything close to “starvation.”

          • 0 avatar
            whynot

            The latest Grand Cherokee was launched in 2010 for the 2011 model year. Last year was the refresh. I think you are confusing it with the Cherokee?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2014-jeep-grand-cherokee-photos-and-info-news

          • 0 avatar
            whynot

            Yes…just a light mid-cycle refresh like I said.

            Have you completely forgotten the 2011 Grand Cherokee?

            http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2011-jeep-grand-cherokee-laredo-v6-4×4-road-test-review

            Edit: replace the x in 4×4 in the URL to make it work. For some reason I can’t get it to link properly despite just copying and pasting the URL. The commenting software is changing the formatting of the x

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            You must not have read the article.

          • 0 avatar
            whynot

            I did. The revisions are minor, nothing substantial. 4 or 5 years from now this thing will be 9-10 years old.

          • 0 avatar
            White Shadow

            You seemingly don’t understand vehicle generations. The current generation of the JGC is from the 2011 MY and is based upon a MB platform. For the 2014 MY, the vehicle received a mid-cycle refresh, which consisted of updated front & rear fascias (the rear update was very minor–mainly just revised taillights), 8-speed ZF transmissions, and an updated infotainment system.

            Current rumor is that a secondary facelift (even more minor this time) will bridge the gap to the extension of the next generation. If Toyota can stretch the 4Runner for 7 years, I’m sure Jeep will be just fine extending the Grand Cherokee. BTW, the current 5th generation 4Runner has been around since the 2010 MY, so it will be seven years old as soon as the 2016 models come out. The 4th gen 4Runner went from 2003 – 2009.

    • 0 avatar
      WhiskeyRiver

      There’s plenty of evidential history to suggest Jeep Grand Cherokees will survive and maybe even thrive in the next three or four years.

      I submit the XJ Jeep Cherokee as evidence which lived in the same box from 1984-1996 and further to 2001 with facelifts, power train and creature comfort upgrades.

      Make it useful and they will come.

      • 0 avatar

        I agree there is plenty of evidence that jeep buyers are less about newest and greatest infact extended life spans would help profitability. While I agree it seems a little silly I doubt it will cost them many sales.

      • 0 avatar
        Maymar

        Hell, from 2010 through 2014, this generation Grand Cherokee’s sales have been steadily increasing with small but consistent improvements. It’s also pretty limited in real competitors, with most of the market around that price being smaller crossovers or glorified minivans.

    • 0 avatar
      Firestorm 500

      hreardon: Seems you forgot about the Wranglers. Huge profits there.

      WhiskeyRiver: AMC got the XJ right with a timeless design. There are many people that wish the XJ was still made. The Liberty didn’t even come close as a replacement.

      • 0 avatar
        MBella

        I think the Liberty’s biggest problem was the lack of the Cherokee name. If they called it a Cherokee like in Europe it would have had the brand equity the XJ built. Changing the name made it just another small SUV at a time when people wanted their Yukon’s and Suburbans instead of a smaller SUV. It actually wasn’t too bad with more off-road capability than today’s CUVs. (Although missing the off-road capability of the XJ)

  • avatar
    Speed3

    So far Sergio has had a pretty good run at FCA. There is a lot of information we don’t have and he is probably doing what he thinks is best for FCA.

  • avatar
    dwford

    For the life of me I can’t figure out everyone’s obsession with Alfa. To spend $5b on it at the expense of other core products is crazy. It’s hard enough now to try and shop FCA for a car. You have to hop from Fiat to Dodge to Chrysler to Jeep to Ram to Alfa to Maserati to Ferrari just to find what you are looking for. Every other major automaker only makes you go to 1 or 2 different brands.

    • 0 avatar
      James2

      Unless you are the VW Group.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      Jeep and Ram are not core products outside of the US and Canada.

      It helps to remember that FCA operates in more than two countries.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        One might argue though these brand produce the profit which keeps the overall company afloat.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          I realize that the TTAC commentariat enjoys panicking, but it is quite normal and not a big deal to keep a model for 4-5 years.

          Along those lines, I would expect there to be some sort of mid-cycle refresh in 2016 or 2017.

          • 0 avatar
            whynot

            The Grand Cherokee had its mid-cycle refresh last year. It has already been on the market for 5 years.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            No, extensive changes were made for 2014. That was more than a mid-cycle refresh.

            A mid-cycle refresh usually consists of minor cosmetic changes to an existing design.

          • 0 avatar
            whynot

            Disagree with you there. The biggest thing from update was the 8 speed transmission and the new diesel in the US, which I believe is the same engine that was already available overseas (the rest of the engines in the US were carried over). The rest was just the standard minor cosmetic differences and repackaging of trim levels.

            I don’t see adding a larger Uconnect screen or additional option or two as examples of extensive changes. That is standard mid-cycle refresh stuff.

            The 1st gen Ford Fusion mid-cycle refresh was more substantial than the Grand Cherokee’s.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            It isn’t necessary to have a completely new platform or change every part of the car in order for it to be a new model.

          • 0 avatar
            whynot

            That is fine- but call it what it is. Don’t pretend the 2014 GC is some brand new exhaustively updated vehicle. In 2018-2019 it won’t be 4-5 years old. It will 8-9 years old. A mid-cycle refresh in 2016/2017 like you suggest would be the second one for the vehicle, not the typical one seen in a 4-5 model year car.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The TTAC panic crowd doesn’t grasp the fact that platforms are often kept for 8-12 years, which are then used for a couple of models, which in turn each have their own mid-cycle refreshes.

            The most recent Grand Cherokee came out in 2011. It was mildly upgraded in 2013, and more substantially upgraded for 2014, including a transmission upgrade, some modifications to the platform, and revisions to the interior.

            If the 2014 model gets a mid-cycle refresh in about 2016 and is replaced sometime around 2018, then this is completely normal. Leave it to the TTAC naysayers to go into full freakout mode over something that is completely normal.

          • 0 avatar
            Skink

            Did they change the VIN model number for 2014?

      • 0 avatar
        jpolicke

        You are correct. Unfortunately they only make a profit in 2 countries.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        But Sergio’s initial idea was to MAKE Jeep a global brand. Now he’s going to resurrect Alfa as a premium nameplate for the same purpose? I think he changed his mind because he couldn’t produce a cheap enough Jeep for the developing world, and is now going for the developing world’s top 10% and higher margins.

    • 0 avatar
      WhiskeyRiver

      whynot: “That is fine- but call it what it is. Don’t pretend the 2014 GC is some brand new exhaustively updated vehicle. In 2018-2019 it won’t be 4-5 years old. It will 8-9 years old. A mid-cycle refresh in 2016/2017 like you suggest would be the second one for the vehicle, not the typical one seen in a 4-5 model year car.”

      I’ll make my point again. The XJ Cherokee was basically the same platform from 1984 to 2001. They sold very well. 17 years on the same platform.

      This 4th generation WK2 Has finally driven the Cherokee nameplate back to sales levels not seen for the mark since 2003. Sales are an absolute sensation when compared to 2008-2010 sales.

      Can it carry on for 3 more years? Absolutely. if it’s good, it will sell. After all, consider that the Type 1 VW Beetle was built for 65 years…

  • avatar
    runs_on_h8raide

    Italians are illogical when emotions are in the mix. If I were execs at Ram and Jeep, I’m getting together to formulate a strategy, bringing in some private equity/hedge fund types and big shareholders to start a coup to spin off Jeep and Ram as one entity, because Marchionne has eviscerated his fiduciary responsibilities as a CEO to the shareholders.

    First they are delaying the all-new Ram until 2020 or w/e, now the Grand Cherokee…in lieu of the biggest profit markets in NA, for Alfas and Fiats? If that is not egregious and shyte management I don’t know what is.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      His biggest shareholder is the Agnelli family holding company, and he’s doing exactly what the Agnellis want, and that’s to negotiate a way to cash them out of the auto business at a big profit.

  • avatar
    nickoo

    Alfa will never be more than an extreme niche player. Keeping Alfa alive and putting more money into it, is a terrible executive decision. FCA will pay dearly for it in the long run. No one is going to stop buying BMW 3 series and start buying Alfas. The 3 series is the GOTO car in this segment and Alfa will never change that.

    FCA needs to do the following:
    KILL Alfa

    Move Maser into a position to complete with BMW/Lexus/Mercedes/Audi by giving them a compact sports sedan and an SUV based on the JGC

    Keep dodge as a full lineup minus RAM and keep them low cost entry level vehicles

    Move Chrysler into an Acura/Buick competitor

    Keep up the good work with RAM and Jeep’s real Jeeps, that is, the grand cherokee and wrangler.

    Keep FIAT as the funky euro brand in the USA, creating new Fiat models and expanding worldwide, rebadge Dodges as FIATs where appropriate, but not where Dodge already exists

  • avatar
    burgersandbeer

    I’m glad FCA is at least trying to put interesting product out there. Whether you think it looks good or not, it’s at least distinctive. More choice can never hurt, even if all it does is keep the established brands on their toes.

    A full redesign of the JGC can probably wait. FCA can always tweak the sheet metal or drop a new engine in it if necessary. No one said they wouldn’t touch it, just that it won’t be completely redesigned.

  • avatar
    STRATOS

    If it sells well why redesign now.FCA is all about the money and how to use it efficiently.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    It seems stupid to waste money on Alfa, but at the same time, who cares if they delay CJDR products a couple more years, none of the big sellers are stale. Constant refresh is only needed if you have an uninteresting line up, which they do not.

    The Wagoneer went a long time on the same basic platform, and it’s an idol to many. It’s how good the platform is, not how well can they keep up with the Kardashians like we see in the midsize segment.

    • 0 avatar

      Who, Wagoner? To many who?

    • 0 avatar
      bunkie

      The Wagoneer was a niche product. The original Cherokee, while credited with starting the 4-door SUV craze, was also a niche product for much of its life. The JGC is a core, high-volume, high-profit vehicle whose customers are squarely in the sites of every major manufacturer. It must also be remembered that the initial development cost was shared across both it and the Mercedes M class. Delaying the redesign of the JGC is a very, very big gamble.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    FCA appears to consider the Grand in it’s current guise successful enough to leave as is for another year.

    Why not? The investment of resources could be better spent………….maybe in another business.

    • 0 avatar
      RedStapler

      Because the other major OEMs are not standing still. The full size near-luxury part of the SUV market has high margins and strong competition.

      Figure 2-4 years from now this segment will have the Tesla Model X, as well as new(er) versions of all the current competitors.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    “FCA appears to consider the Grand in it’s current guise successful enough to leave as is for another year.”

    “Why not? The investment of resources could be better spent………….maybe in another business.”

    Maybe so but the Giulia is not the best diversion for those resources. Alpha-Romeo is not that competitive against BMW and Mercedes (even in Europe) and the new Giulia model will probably not enough to reverse the tide. Fiat-Chrysler needs to do some serious brand pairing such as eliminating Alpha, Lancia, and other Italian brands and keeping Fiat and building it up. Fiat-Chrysler will need to seriously consider eliminating either Chrysler or Dodge and investing more in Jeep and Ram. FCA needs to do some brand pairing as GM and Ford has done and focus resources where they can yield the greatest return. FCA does need a more competitive fuel efficient product line and that is why they should keep Fiat and put more resources there. At the same time FCA needs to keep Jeep and Ram competitive.

  • avatar
    mdensch

    The bloom is off the rose. Marchionne is looking less like the genius CEO everyone was swooning over a few short years ago and more like a sidewalk con man working a shell game.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      Those two occupations are more similar than you might suppose. Sometimes a genius CEO has to walk and talk like a sidewalk con man, but in the genteel auto business, it’s called selling. Iacocca selling the K car was mostly retail, and Sergio is selling wholesale.

    • 0 avatar
      formula m

      Marchionne could be doing this because FCA doesn’t have a plan for for the CAFE standards that are approaching. If they redesign the new Jeep but don’t have the drivetrains that will be needed in the near future would be pointless. He is searching for a merger so that he can piggyback off their vehicles to stay current with technology for FCA’s.

  • avatar
    probert

    Didn’t they just put out the renegade?

    Also jeep buyers aren’t exactly lovers of sophisticated styling. Change anything and you have to call a whaa-mbulance. Who wants to listen to that shite day in and day out.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Thanks, Alfa Romeo. Point is that spending money on Alfa might be a total waste of resources even in its home market of Italy. There might not be enough demand and the money spend could go toward developing new products for Fiat. Also the Giulia might not have a noticeable impact on the German sport and luxury cars.

  • avatar
    bobman

    I have to laugh at some of the comments here about feeding Alfa and starving Jeep. Also, about using Chrysler money. Chrysler was left for dead by Daimler and given to the scav dogs to be taken apart and feed their greedy investors. The loans were on the condition that Sergio took the helm. Otherwise, noone gave a flying f!ck about Chrysler. He used the money to rebuild Chrysler’s offerings. This was done to the detriment of Fiat to the point that the former head of Audi commented that Sergio was paying too much attention to Chrysler and not enough to Fiat.

    So, he wants to have a line of cars to compete in a segment that is very profitable. Alfa Romeo is the only brand that can compete in that space. Otherwise, what? The 300? They tried and always came in dead last when compared to other cars in that segment. I believe Sergio ‘gets it’ and this will work. It will give them an excellent vehicle to continue its growth and drive FCA to new heights.

    Go for it Sergio, don’t let these d!ck heads distract you from your goals.

  • avatar
    Maymar

    From what limited numbers I can find, about two thirds of all Grand Cherokees sold globally (a little over 250k units) are in the US. It may be profitable, but a larger SUV whose smallest engine is a 3.0 isn’t the most relevant outside of its home market. Now, on the other hand, the BMW 3-series sells about twice that many units globally, at a similar price range (at least in North America). Coupled with European luxury cars being a bigger deal in China, the Giulia (especially with a requisite long-wheelbase model) has the potential to be more successful globally (and, ergo, assuming similar transaction prices and development costs, more profitable). Not to say it will, but if they have the potential to be successful with it, it’s just as rational as focusing on the Grand Cherokee (or, for that matter, keeping Fiat successful to try and make inroads in India and continued success in Brazil).

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Maybe I am missing something but I don’t see the Giulia competing with BMW, Mercedes,or Jaguar in China. I can see putting more resources into Fiat itself. Hopefully FCA is correct because they have already spent the money on the Giulia. I can see sharing t

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Maybe I am missing something but I don’t see the Giulia competing with BMW, Mercedes,or Jaguar in China. I can see putting more resources into Fiat itself. Hopefully FCA is correct because they have already spent the money on the Giulia. I can see sharing platforms with Chrysler and Dodge. As for the 300 it is a product that for the most part has limited market, the time has past for full size rear wheel drive vehicles which have a limited market. FCA would waste resources by a complete redesign of the 300. The Grand Cherokee and Ram trucks are too big of a cash cow to neglect them for too long. Eventually Chrysler will have to put the resources into the GC and Ram trucks for new models. I can’t see any manufacturer in the near future having any interest with a merger with FCA–more negatives than pluses.

  • avatar
    anomaly149

    Most new competitors against the GC are a ways out and the current ones a horse length behind.

    Resurrecting Alfa gives them another global premium brand, which is where you get really high margins. Besides, Jeep already got the Renegade, which should sell like gangbusters globally.

    Gut feeling also says the delay should allow the GC to move to a more CAFE-aggressive platform, possibly all aluminum.

  • avatar
    SC5door

    I think some people are thinking that Jeep is going to just let the current model sit “as is”.

    Not true.

    16-17 brings a new Pentastar V-6 to the Grand Cherokee with direct injection. Expect some interior changes (like the joystick gear selector being tossed), and the Trackhawk package as well. I expect them to adapt full LED lighting for the rear as well.

  • avatar
    an innocent man

    If my math is correct, ’18 is only 2 model years away. I’m not sure why that’s such an issue. If this version was a big miss, maybe, but it seems they really nailed this one for the most part. Certainly, there will be some sort of refreshing along between now and then. Even without that, I think it has a few model years left before it gets stale.

  • avatar
    Skink

    I am cheered by FCA’s decision to delay reiñventing the Grand Cherokee.

    1. As others have noted, the Liberties weren’t Jeepy enough.

    2. Nor is the new, squinty, aerodynamic, compound curvy car named Cherokee.

    3. Nor is the new warpy, misshapen, clubfooted Renegade. Mark my words, it is a latter day PT Cruiser. Once the novelty wears off, people will discover it’s a poorly packaged Beanie Baby. Sales will dive.

    Notice a trend here? Cute cars with Jeep labels? From at least a styling point of view, the next Jeep Grand Cherokee will be less Jeep, and more of a trendchaser.

    As one who is too cheap to buy a new GC, keeping the status quo fora couple more years beyond what we had expected means more of the current style GCs will be available longer.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    FCA has already spent the funds to develop the Giulia. Now its just a matter of producing and marketing it and hoping it accomplishes what it is intended for. It is too late now. As for the GC it will probably become more like the Ford Explorer, a downsized model that will be based on a front wheel drive car platform. Possibly this Giulia could become the platform of the new GC which in this case the expenditure would be spread out over several models. With a couple of refreshes the GC could go to 2020, but it should be redesigned after that. Fiat-Chrysler should be building cash reserves up now and looking at trimming brands such as Dodge or Chrysler. Eventually FCA will be taken over by a competitor but they need to become a more attractive candidate for such.

  • avatar
    slance66

    Why does anyone care? It was updated in 2014. It is currently the best looking SUV in its class. It sells very well. What is the rush?

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    I realized after a minute what that particular JCG in that trim and color looks like to me.

    A raccoon.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Freddie: I have a 2019 Civic Si. I could have afforded a Type R, but just didn’t see the value when my...
  • -Nate: Beat away . I was thinking about this thread again to – day as I got off the i210 freeway and a late...
  • DenverMike: That’s one way of looking at it. From Ford’s perspective, that’s sales of $75,000...
  • quaquaqua: I work for Fluke, so I’m a little proud to see all the love in the comments!
  • Varezhka: I would take anything coming out of Best Car with a grain of salt. It’s an automotive version of a...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber