FCA Isn't Willing to Let Go of Its Rear-drive Cars Just Yet: Report

by Steph Willems

Published: November 7th, 2016

fca isn t willing to let go of its rear drive cars just yet report

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles sure loves its aging rear-wheel-drive LX platform, so much so that it might just keep it around for an extra two years.

According to Automotive News, sources claim the Dodge Charger, Challenger and Chrysler 300 will forgo their planned platform swap in 2018 and soldier on until at least 2020. If true — and FCA’s lack of allegiance to long-term product plans lends it credence — that means no major redesign for the models until 2021.

It’s good news for lovers of the current generation models, but it’s yet another sign that the Chrysler 300 may be doomed.

FCA’s constantly evolving product pipeline calls for the Challenger and Charger to adopt the Alfa Romeo Giulia’s Giorgio platform for the 2019 model year. The swap would likely see the models drop significant weight. Still, this isn’t the first rumor about a potential life extension for the LX-platform trio, and it’s backed up by hazy details contained in FCA Canada’s new labor contract.

The automaker has a habit of keeping old, profitable models around beyond their lifespan. Exhibit A? The Dodge Grand Caravan, which should have bowed out shortly after the appearance of the Chrysler Pacifica. Give ’em a cheaper option that we can also throw to fleets, figured FCA — a strategy the automaker has in store for the current-generation Ram 1500.

If what the sources claim is true, expect an LX-platform vehicle styling refresh in 2018.

Officially, FCA boss Sergio Marchionne has praised the Giorgio platform up and down. In a conference call last month, Marchionne said, “I think it’s proved out to be all and more than we expected, and I think its utilization across a wide range of applications within the group is probably the most beneficial thing we’ve done from a technical development here in a long time.”

The platform, stretched and likely widened before arrival, could underpin a rumored Dodge Barracuda convertible.

Lost in all this is the fate of the sole Chrysler passenger car in FCA’s stable (the 200 doesn’t count — it’s dead come December). The only mention of the 300 in product timelines concerns a possible redesign around 2020. Two sources — one inside FCA and another at a supplier — told Automotive News that one of FCA’s large cars likely won’t survive the platform swap.

All signs point to the 300. Earlier this year, Marchionne mulled publicly that a future 300 could borrow the front-wheel-drive Pacifica platform.

Then, in last month’s conference call, the CEO dropped another hint.

Speaking of the Giorgio platform, Marchionne claimed the platform would “preserve the uniqueness of the rear-wheel-drive offering that we have across fundamentally four brands which are Alfa, Maserati, Dodge and potentially Jeep.”

His failure to mention Chrysler was glaring. Maybe there’s still a future for the 300 in Chrysler’s lineup — continuing the storied brand without a passenger car seems unthinkable — but it’s sure looking like rear-wheel drive is out of the question.

#Chrysler300 #DodgeChallenger #DodgeCharger #Fca #FiatChryslerAutomobiles #GiorgioPlatform #LXPlatform #Platforms #ProductPlanning #Redesigns

Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 43 comments

Flipper35 on Nov 08, 2016

I like the 300C concept from years ago. If they styled the sides like the concept with the current Pacifica grill design I think it would freshen it up nicely.

Like Reply
Tomsriv on Dec 08, 2016

They should have made a 300 wagon as a Magnum replacement. The Magnum was ahead of its time by about 8 years. Now wagons are popular on smaller cars, but the Magnum is a huge seller on the used car market. The 300 styling would work better with the current body style. It would look like one solid block of metal rolling down the road.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.