Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / February 2006
Is Chrysler Nuts?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
C. E. White - 11 Jan 2006 17:22 GMT I just saw some highlights of the Detroit Auto Show and one of the featured "all new" Chrysler products was the Aspen full size SUV? I had several problems with this "concept" -
1) They claimed the Aspen was Chrysler's first SUV. Are they trying to disown all the Pacifica ads? I'll admit the Pacifica is really just a squashed mini-van, but I sure seem to recall it being advertised as an SUV. Of course no one who actually wanted an SUV would go with in 10 miles of that turkey. But it is a decent, if overpriced, mini-van.
2) They claim it is "full sized." Compared to what? A RAV4? It is just a warmed over Durango. Since Dodge is constantly calling the Durango the roomiest SUV in its class, it can't be a full sized SUV, since it is smaller than all the real full size SUVs (Expedition, Tahoe, Suburban, Sequoia, etc) and barely larger than an Explorer or Trailblazer. So it reality, this is just a big mid-sized SUV.
3) Aspen??? That name was already discredited years ago when it was slapped on those horrible mid-sized sedans. I guess Aspen is better than Volante.
4) Does the world really need a clone of the worst SUV sold in the US? Slapping a Chrysler grille on that turkey is not going to elevate it to the status of merely mediocre. I suppose if you want to go fast in a straight line, the Aspen (LOL) with the hemi fits the bill. Of course in every other way, it is a turkey.
More marketing genius from Chrysler....
At least the Challenger looks nice. I wonder if they will screw that up?
Ed
Ad absurdum per aspera - 11 Jan 2006 18:55 GMT > 1) They claimed the Aspen was Chrysler's first SUV. I guess if you define "Chrysler" strictly enough, you get to palm off not only the Durango but the several generations of the late, lamented Power Wagon onto Dodge.
> I'll admit the Pacifica is really just a squashed mini-van Or perhaps what the station wagon evolved into, in a slightly more orderly parallel universe that bypassed the SUV craze entirely.
Okay, an expensive parallel universe.
It's a handsome vehicle and looks like a real asset to some lifestyles, but neither instinctively nor after thinking about it would I classify the Pacifica among SUVs.
> At least the Challenger looks nice. I wonder if they will screw that up? It sure does. I wonder if an SRT-10 variant is mechanically feasible, since king-hell engine options were key to the Challenger/Barracuda tradition (even if most were probably bought with a mild LA-block or a Slant Six). Hopefully they learned a thing or two from Ford's revival of the Thunderbird.
--Joe
Ad absurdum per aspera - 11 Jan 2006 22:47 GMT > several generations of the late, lamented Power Wagon Actually the word I was aiming for was Ramcharger, a worthy contender in the K-Blazer/Big Bronco/SJ-chassis Wagoneer era, though some Power Wagons were indeed produced in a carryall configuration. (Which reminds me that Jeep was an acquired scion of Chrysler during the last several years of the Grand Wagoneer, though again, that long-serving chassis didn't appear under the Chrysler nameplate.)
Not that it wouldn't be amusing to put 9.00x16 military nondirectionals on a Pacifica , though. Maybe that'd be the next "dubs" fad!
They've similarly got the technological basis for a *really* full-sized SUV in their much respected 3/4 ton pickup, but the "Fordzilla" and the 2500-series Suburban might be at least enough for that market already.
--Joe
Snow - 11 Jan 2006 19:06 GMT > 1) They claimed the Aspen was Chrysler's first SUV. Are they trying to > disown all the Pacifica ads? I'll admit the Pacifica is really just a > squashed mini-van, but I sure seem to recall it being advertised as an > SUV. > Of course no one who actually wanted an SUV would go with in 10 miles of > that turkey. But it is a decent, if overpriced, mini-van. I believe the Pacifica is classed as an XUV or cross-over utility vehicle, meening its 1/2 way between your Durango and a real stationwagon from days of yore.
> 2) They claim it is "full sized." Compared to what? A RAV4? It is just a > warmed over Durango. Since Dodge is constantly calling the Durango the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and barely larger than an Explorer or Trailblazer. So it reality, this is > just a big mid-sized SUV. If its a copy (rebadged) Durango then would it not be classed as full size?? Last I saw the Durango was/is a full size truck.
> 3) Aspen??? That name was already discredited years ago when it was > slapped > on those horrible mid-sized sedans. I guess Aspen is better than Volante. I know a couple aspen owners who would Love to meet you...lol Oh and one of them owns a Wagon version.
> More marketing genius from Chrysler.... Probably the same genius who decided to do away with the ole' Jeep Cherokee due to its old square look only to bring out the new Commander with the ole Cherokee look.
Snow...
Daniel J. Stern - 11 Jan 2006 20:56 GMT > I just saw some highlights of the Detroit Auto Show and one of the > featured "all new" Chrysler products was the Aspen full size SUV Yeah, eh?
"Ja, ve understand diss American mahh-ket. Ve vill mahh-ket stupidisch American-brand ess-yoo-fee for de stupidisch American con-soo-mahh. NOW IST DE TIME ON SCHPROCKETS VEN VE DANCE!"
> 2) They claim it is "full sized." Compared to what? A RAV4? Welcome to 2006, when a car of roughly equal proportions to a Dart or Valiant is considered "full sized".
> 3) Aspen??? That name was already discredited years ago when it was > slapped on those horrible mid-sized sedans. I guess Aspen is better than > Volante. Aston-Martin will doubtless get an Excedrin-sized headache if they ever read your words. The brand you were looking for was *Volar*.
John Smith - 11 Jan 2006 21:55 GMT "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>"Ja, ve understand diss American mahh-ket. Ve vill mahh-ket stupidisch > American-brand ess-yoo-fee for de stupidisch American con-soo-mahh. NOW > IST DE TIME ON SCHPROCKETS VEN VE DANCE!" Ever notice the pronunciation of "Chrysler" has become "Chryzler"? This is with English speaking commercial announcers.
Daniel J. Stern - 11 Jan 2006 23:06 GMT > Ever notice the pronunciation of "Chrysler" has become "Chryzler"? This > is with English speaking commercial announcers. In Canada and Australia, it's always been "Kryzler" with the first syllable's vowel the same as in the word "cry"; the US pronunciation is variable by region but tends towards "Kreissler", with the first syllable's vowel the same as in the word "fight".
John Smith - 12 Jan 2006 00:19 GMT >> Ever notice the pronunciation of "Chrysler" has become "Chryzler"? This >> is with English speaking commercial announcers. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > variable by region but tends towards "Kreissler", with the first > syllable's vowel the same as in the word "fight". Round this part of Canada people have always called it "Kreissler" but only recently have ads popped up around here that are "Kryzzler"
Geoff Miller - 12 Jan 2006 17:47 GMT > Ever notice the pronunciation of "Chrysler" has become "Chryzler"? > This is with English speaking commercial announcers. And then there's that Swedish car manufacturer, "Vawlvo." How can anyone f.ck *that* up? According to the rules of English phonics (and more to the point, of *Latin* phonics -- "Volvo" means "I roll" in Latin), the first syllable obviously rhymes with "bowl," not with "crawl" or "bawl."
I've also noticed that nobody seems to know how to pronounce the name of the Visa credit card anymore; people say "Veeza." There's no "z" in "Visa," dammit!
Geoff
 Signature "This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. This is only a test. Had this been an actual emergency, you'd be writhing on the ground in unspeakable agony, bleeding from every orifice, with your blackened skin falling away in ragged strips."
Mike T. - 12 Jan 2006 18:04 GMT > And then there's that Swedish car manufacturer, "Vawlvo." How > can anyone f.ck *that* up? According to the rules of English > phonics (and more to the point, of *Latin* phonics -- "Volvo" > means "I roll" in Latin), the first syllable obviously rhymes > with "bowl," not with "crawl" or "bawl." You're confused. V-o-l-v-o is pronounced "ford" (rhymes with gourd). Get it RIGHT, man! :) -Dave
Scott en Aztlán - 13 Jan 2006 04:19 GMT >> And then there's that Swedish car manufacturer, "Vawlvo." How >> can anyone f.ck *that* up? According to the rules of English [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >You're confused. V-o-l-v-o is pronounced "ford" (rhymes with gourd). Dave,
I believe you have misspelled "Jaguar."
 Signature What the heck, I'll play too. - Dave
Dave - 13 Jan 2006 10:09 GMT
>>> And then there's that Swedish car manufacturer, "Vawlvo." How >>> can anyone f.ck *that* up? According to the rules of English [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I believe you have misspelled "Jaguar." Yes, I did. And J-a-g-u-a-r is also pronounced "ford" (rhymes with gourd).
:) -Dave Snow - 11 Jan 2006 22:35 GMT Its Volare, you forgot the "e". vo-lar-e .
Snow...
Daniel J. Stern - 11 Jan 2006 23:46 GMT > Its Volare, you forgot the "e". vo-lar-e . VoLAR...wo-WO! VoLAR...wo-wo-wee-oh!
Ad absurdum per aspera - 12 Jan 2006 14:50 GMT > VoLAR?...wo-WO! VoLAR?...wo-wo-wee-oh! Oh, God, somebody else whose brain cells have devoted themselves unbidden to an audio memory of the commercial. Bet you can also retrieve the guy half speaking/half singing, in the vaguely British way that is supposed to make us think of Down East old money, "Unbelievable that Aspen has a wagon..."
Could be worse. I seem to recall some make-fun-of-newspaper-gaffes column (maybe in Columbia Journalism Review?) that caught some concert reviewer mentioning "Me And My Arrow." Presumably he meant "Me And My Shadow," though I suppose there is some horrifyingly finite possibility that the performer actually emitted a Plymouth commercial onstage...
Joe "Sympathies" Chew
Daniel J. Stern - 12 Jan 2006 15:50 GMT >> VoLAR?...wo-WO! VoLAR?...wo-wo-wee-oh! > > Oh, God, somebody else whose brain cells have devoted themselves > unbidden to an audio memory of the commercial. Actually, I was recollecting the song "Volare", as sung by a great many (too many?) performers over the years, including, fairly recently, the Gypsy Kings.
Kenneth P. Stox - 12 Jan 2006 04:37 GMT > Its Volare, you forgot the "e". vo-lar-e . The most god forsaken piece of crap ever to wear the Chrysler name. By the time they got done with all the recalls, it was easier to list the parts of the car that hadn't been replaced.
Erik Meltzer - 12 Jan 2006 16:08 GMT Hi!
> > Its Volare, you forgot the "e". vo-lar-e . > > The most god forsaken piece of crap ever to wear the Chrysler name. You mean, worse than the Horizon, 1308, or Samba?
Yours, Erik.
 Signature "Simply, I'd say that porting is impossible. It's mostly in C, but most people wouldn't call what I write C." -- Linus Torvalds about Linux, 26 August 1991
Kenneth P. Stox - 13 Jan 2006 03:09 GMT > Hi! > >>> Its Volare, you forgot the "e". vo-lar-e . >> The most god forsaken piece of crap ever to wear the Chrysler name. > > You mean, worse than the Horizon, 1308, or Samba? I should be more specific, the 1976 model. By the 1977 model, the worst problems had been solved.
Geoff Miller - 13 Jan 2006 15:28 GMT [Volare]
> The most god forsaken piece of crap ever to wear the Chrysler name. By > the time they got done with all the recalls, it was easier to list the > parts of the car that hadn't been replaced. I always had the impression that the Volare/Aspen was basically an enlarged Dart/Valiant, and that was a very reliable car.
I saw an Aspen sedan on my way home from work a couple of days ago. Hadn't seen one of those in years.
Geoff
 Signature "This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. This is only a test. Had this been an actual emergency, you'd be writhing on the ground in unspeakable agony, bleeding from every orifice, with your blackened skin falling away in ragged strips."
Snow - 13 Jan 2006 16:12 GMT Was it light grey (almost silver), black tinted windows with dual exhaust?.. Oh wait you probably don't live in Canada, let alone Northern Ontario.
Snow...
> [Volare] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Geoff Scott en Aztlán - 14 Jan 2006 03:44 GMT >I saw an Aspen sedan on my way home from work a couple of days ago. No doubt being driven on CA-17 by an octogenerian with junk piled up to the windowsills. ;)
 Signature What the heck, I'll play too. - Dave
Geoff Miller - 14 Jan 2006 19:24 GMT : I saw an Aspen sedan on my way home from work a couple of days ago.
> No doubt being driven on CA-17 by an octogenerian with junk piled up > to the windowsills. ;) You're remarkably close.
It was an old junker plodding up the right lane of 17 just outside of Los Gatos, heading toward Sant Cruz. I went by too fast to get a good look at what was inside of it or who was driving it.
Incidentally, I mentioned in a previous post that the Aspen/Volare was an outgrowth of the Dart/Valiant. When I first started driving in the Seventies, I learned to avoid getting behind all of those cars because they were often driven Slothfully -- even when they weren't being driven by old people, which was often the case. (Back then oldsters had a noticeable preference for Chrysler products -- compacts, full-size sedans, you name it. The current crop of crumblies seems to prefer Buicks.)
I've had occasion to drive the odd Dart or Valiant over the years (and have ridden in a Volare), and even when equipped with the Slant 6, they weren't underpowered. That was the origin of my theory that certain cars either have a psychological effect on people that causes them to drive like roadslugs and get underfoot. Or more likely, they attract the sort of buyers who already have that sort of driving style.
Some are more obvious than others, of course. Volvo, for example, markets its cars primarily to the sort of people who are terrified of driving. And Priuses are fashion accessories for tree huggers who drive slowly in order to conserve fuel and save Mudda Oit'.
Others are less so. The Toyota Camry, for example, is _de rigeur_ among Chinese immigrants in the Bay Area -- a group that, to put it mildly, isn't typically associated with brisk driving. Minivans, of course, are Mommy-mobiles, and women are passive, pokey-assed drivers far more often than not. I find that the Mazda MPV tends to be in the way even more often than minivans in general, and I avoid getting behind the things when I can.
Geoff
 Signature "This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. This is only a test. Had this been an actual emergency, you'd be writhing on the ground in unspeakable agony, bleeding from every orifice, with your blackened skin falling away in ragged strips."
Dan J.S. - 11 Jan 2006 20:59 GMT >I just saw some highlights of the Detroit Auto Show and one of the featured > "all new" Chrysler products was the Aspen full size SUV? I had several [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Ed Chrysler is profitable. So they are doing something right. GM and Ford - they are betting on more large SUVs...
and I agree - Challenger is hot. I am getting one.
John Smith - 12 Jan 2006 00:16 GMT > Chrysler is profitable. So they are doing something right. GM and Ford - > they are betting on more large SUVs... > > and I agree - Challenger is hot. I am getting one. Chrysler's bread and butter is the Caravan. If I were buying a minivan I'd probably buy one.
But they are slowly losing ground to the Toyota and Honda vans.
The market will eventually get saturated with 300's (and related) and they won't be selling them in record numbers. If they lose the minivan they will lose what market share they have.
Geoff Miller - 12 Jan 2006 17:28 GMT > and I agree - Challenger is hot. I am getting one. Ain't it a beaut? I just saw the photos of it in the current issue of _Automobile_.
What I don't get is why the Challenger (and Barracuda) have always been classified as "pony cars" and lumped into the same category as the Mustang and the GM F-body. They aren't pony cars; they're intermediates. And the same applies to the AMC Javelin and AMX.
Geoff
 Signature "This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. This is only a test. Had this been an actual emergency, you'd be writhing on the ground in unspeakable agony, bleeding from every orifice, with your blackened skin falling away in ragged strips."
Kenneth P. Stox - 13 Jan 2006 03:15 GMT >> and I agree - Challenger is hot. I am getting one. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > They aren't pony cars; they're intermediates. And the > same applies to the AMC Javelin and AMX. The original AMX, 1968-70, was a two seater with a 97" wheelbase. It was smaller and lighter than any other of the pony cars. Definitely not an intermediate. Too bad the AMX3 never made it to the market, it was one sweet looking car.
Geoff Miller - 13 Jan 2006 15:38 GMT > The original AMX, 1968-70, was a two seater with a 97" wheelbase. > It was smaller and lighter than any other of the pony cars. Def- > initely not an intermediate. I wasn't going by its weight or wheelbase, but by its external dimensions, particularly its height. Like the Challenger and Barracuda, it's a tall, upright car along the lines of the intermediates of the time, not a low, compact car like the Mustang or F-body.
> Too bad the AMX3 never made it to the market, it was one sweet > looking car. That it was. The design looks like it had a bit of Pantera influence:
http://www.amxfiles.com/amcpix/amx3.jpg
Geoff
 Signature "This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. This is only a test. Had this been an actual emergency, you'd be writhing on the ground in unspeakable agony, bleeding from every orifice, with your blackened skin falling away in ragged strips."
Scott en Aztlán - 14 Jan 2006 03:45 GMT >> The original AMX, 1968-70, was a two seater with a 97" wheelbase. >> It was smaller and lighter than any other of the pony cars. Def- [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >intermediates of the time, not a low, compact car like the >Mustang or F-body. The primary features of a ponycar are a long hood and a short rear deck. I have never heard "low slung" as part of the definition.
 Signature What the heck, I'll play too. - Dave
Geoff Miller - 14 Jan 2006 19:37 GMT > The primary features of a ponycar are a long hood and a short rear > deck. I have never heard "low slung" as part of the definition. Well, now you go forth, sadder but wiser. If a long hood and short rear deck were all there was to it, the contemporary Thunderbird would've qualified as a pony car, and it obviously wasn't.
Think about it. The Mustang, and the Camaro and Firebird (and obviously, the Cougar) which followed it a few years later, are the cars that established the "pony car" format. In fact, "pony" doesn't just imply small size (as in "pony keg" or "pony league"); it also alludes to the Mustang.
The original Barracuda, the one with that big, wraparound back window, was just a low-budget modification of the existing Valiant. I wouldn't call it definitive in any way.
And the Challenger and second-generation Barracuda, coming onto the scene late, can't be said to be definitive, either. They were aimed at the sporty, youth-oriented market, but were actually closer in concept to intermediates like the Plymouth Road Runner and AMC Rebel Machine than to the Mustang and F-body.
Geoff
 Signature "This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. This is only a test. Had this been an actual emergency, you'd be writhing on the ground in unspeakable agony, bleeding from every orifice, with your blackened skin falling away in ragged strips."
Scott en Aztlán - 16 Jan 2006 02:02 GMT >> The primary features of a ponycar are a long hood and a short rear >> deck. I have never heard "low slung" as part of the definition. > >Well, now you go forth, sadder but wiser. Why sadder?
>If a long hood and >short rear deck were all there was to it, the contemporary >Thunderbird would've qualified as a pony car, and it obviously >wasn't. I didn't say ALL, I said primary.
Other features I recall were a (relatively) low price and, at least initially, an option list "as long as your arm."
>Think about it. The Mustang, and the Camaro and Firebird (and >obviously, the Cougar) which followed it a few years later, are >the cars that established the "pony car" format. In fact, "pony" >doesn't just imply small size (as in "pony keg" or "pony league"); >it also alludes to the Mustang. In fact, that is its primary allusion.
But even the original 1964 Mustang, the first Ponycar, was hardly "low slung." In fact, it was pretty damn tall - just like the Falcon upon which it was based.
 Signature What the heck, I'll play too. - Dave
Rick Brandt - 16 Jan 2006 02:46 GMT > > > The primary features of a ponycar are a long hood and a short rear > > > deck. I have never heard "low slung" as part of the definition. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > slung." In fact, it was pretty damn tall - just like the Falcon upon > which it was based. In fact the 65 Mustang was spec's at 52.2 inches high and the 1970 Dodge Challenger was spec'd at 51.5 inches (actually a bit shorter). The Challenger's wheelbase was only a couple inches longer 110 versus 108 and the 70 Baracuda actually was identical to the Mustang at 108 inches. The Mopar's might have "seemed" like bigger cars but that was mostly only true in width and weight.
Mind you this is comparing them to the (original) 65 stang which had gotten a bit larger by the time the Dodge was introduced.
I personally have never heard anyone call anything a "pony car" besides the Mustang, Camaro, and Firebird, but to say that the Challenger and Cuda were not in the same category is just silly. They clearly were and were targeting the same market demographic (as was the Javelin).
Geoff Miller - 18 Jan 2006 16:04 GMT > In fact the 65 Mustang was spec's at 52.2 inches high and the > 1970 Dodge Challenger was spec'd at 51.5 inches (actually a bit > shorter). The Challenger's wheelbase was only a couple inches > longer 110 versus 108 and the 70 Baracuda actually was identical > to the Mustang at 108 inches. The Mopar's might have "seemed" > like bigger cars but that was mostly only true in width and weight.
> Mind you this is comparing them to the (original) 65 stang which > had gotten a bit larger by the time the Dodge was introduced. I'm curious what the figures for the '70 Mustang are (especially its height), since that would be a more direct comparison than the '65. In 1965, *most* American passenger cars were taller and more upright than their 1970 equivalents, after all. Just subjectively, the Chal- lenger/Barracuda always struck me as a taller, more upright car than the Mustang, in the manner of the Duster/Demon and Dart/Valiant if not quite *as* tall as those cars.
> I personally have never heard anyone call anything a "pony car" > besides the Mustang, Camaro, and Firebird, but to say that the > Challenger and Cuda were not in the same category is just silly. > They clearly were and were targeting the same market demographic > (as was the Javelin). Similarly, minivans target the same demographic that station wagons once did. More contemporaneously, the Honda Civic Si is aimed at the same demographic as the Scion xB. That in itself doesn't make those respective pairs of vehicles remotely similar, however. There's more to such things than market demographics.
The U.S. car magazines have lumped the Mustang, Camaro, Firebird, Challenger, Barracuda, Javelin and AMX together under the rubric "pony cars" for decades.
Geoff
 Signature "This thread is a riot. It really brings the dewy-eyed innocents out of the tall grass, where they can be picked off at leisure." -- Tim Scott
Geoff Miller - 18 Jan 2006 15:48 GMT >> The primary features of a ponycar are a long hood and a short rear >> deck. I have never heard "low slung" as part of the definition.
: Well, now you go forth, sadder but wiser.
> Why sadder? Just being a smartass. Don't place undue importance on it.
: If a long hood and short rear deck were all there was to it, : the contemporary Thunderbird would've qualified as a pony car, : and it obviously wasn't.
> I didn't say ALL, I said primary. Fair enough.
> Other features I recall were a (relatively) low price and, at least > initially, an option list "as long as your arm." The low price, I'll grant you. But long options lists were par for the course in those days for all but the most high-end cars. Even radios and heaters(!) were optional in a lot of cases. It wasn't until much later when the demands of the marketplace caused even a lot of relatively low-priced cars to come with things like, say, carpeting or cruise control or air conditioning or electric windows or rear window defoggers or AM/FM radios with tape decks/CD players/ MP3 players in them as standard equipment. And people wonder why cars are so expensive noadays...
> But even the original 1964 Mustang, the first Ponycar, was hardly "low > slung." In fact, it was pretty damn tall - just like the Falcon upon > which it was based. It was low slung by the standards of the day -- not like an MG, but more so than compacts and intermedates. It certainly wasn't as tall as the Falcon was. The Mustang used the Falcon's chassis, but that no more dictated its body height than it dictated its style of hubcaps.
As an aside, speaking of body height, I saw a Ford GT on the road over the weekend. I was amazed at how low it was; the only other one I'd seen was on an elevated platform at a car show. The thing was like a manhole cover with wheels!
Geoff
 Signature "This thread is a riot. It really brings the dewy-eyed innocents out of the tall grass, where they can be picked off at leisure." -- Tim Scott
Scott en Aztlán - 13 Jan 2006 04:27 GMT >What I don't get is why the Challenger (and Barracuda) >have always been classified as "pony cars" and lumped >into the same category as the Mustang and the GM F-body. Probably because Chrysler produced those cars to be direct competitors to the Mustang and Camaro/Firebird.
As for them being "intermediates," do not forget that, back in the 60s and 70s, those were COMPACTS (hard as that may be to believe today, when so-called "full-sized" cars are smaller). The Belvedere and Coronet were the intermediates.
>And the same applies to the AMC Javelin and AMX. Yes, those were ponycars, as well. :)
 Signature What the heck, I'll play too. - Dave
Geoff Miller - 13 Jan 2006 15:44 GMT : What I don't get is why the Challenger (and Barracuda) : have always been classified as "pony cars" and lumped : into the same category as the Mustang and the GM F-body.
> Probably because Chrysler produced those cars to be direct > competitors to the Mustang and Camaro/Firebird. While that's true as far as it goes, it wasn't what I was talking about. I was referring to their physical size.
Geoff
 Signature "This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. This is only a test. Had this been an actual emergency, you'd be writhing on the ground in unspeakable agony, bleeding from every orifice, with your blackened skin falling away in ragged strips."
Scott en Aztlán - 14 Jan 2006 03:48 GMT >> Probably because Chrysler produced those cars to be direct >> competitors to the Mustang and Camaro/Firebird. > >While that's true as far as it goes, it wasn't what I was >talking about. I was referring to their physical size. Don't forget how big Mustangs and Camaros got in the 1972-73 timeframe. I don't have the specs handy (and I'm too lazy to Google them) but my memory is that the sizes were pretty similar.
 Signature What the heck, I'll play too. - Dave
Alex Rodriguez - 12 Jan 2006 22:00 GMT If they can slap a Hemi sticker on it, it will sell. ------------ Alex
John S. - 14 Jan 2006 19:52 GMT Interesting that "C.E. White" or "Ed" posted once but never responded. A troll looking for food maybe?
> I just saw some highlights of the Detroit Auto Show and one of the featured > "all new" Chrysler products was the Aspen full size SUV? I had several [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Of course no one who actually wanted an SUV would go with in 10 miles of > that turkey. But it is a decent, if overpriced, mini-van. And your point is....????
> 2) They claim it is "full sized." Compared to what? A RAV4? It is just a > warmed over Durango. Since Dodge is constantly calling the Durango the > roomiest SUV in its class, it can't be a full sized SUV, since it is smaller > than all the real full size SUVs (Expedition, Tahoe, Suburban, Sequoia, etc) > and barely larger than an Explorer or Trailblazer. So it reality, this is > just a big mid-sized SUV. What is full sized.... It's a marketing term - just ask the car rental company.
> 3) Aspen??? That name was already discredited years ago when it was slapped > on those horrible mid-sized sedans. I guess Aspen is better than Volante. What is your point here - or is it just rambling.
> 4) Does the world really need a clone of the worst SUV sold in the US? > Slapping a Chrysler grille on that turkey is not going to elevate it to the > status of merely mediocre. I suppose if you want to go fast in a straight > line, the Aspen (LOL) with the hemi fits the bill. Of course in every other > way, it is a turkey. Are you making a satement here or asking a question...not sure.
> More marketing genius from Chrysler.... > > At least the Challenger looks nice. I wonder if they will screw that up? I don't know. Chrysler is the only one of three U.S. car companies that is not facing a wrenching restructuring and reduction of it's car lines to survive. That's hardly screwing up.
> Ed C. E. White - 16 Jan 2006 18:46 GMT What did you expect me to say?
> Interesting that "C.E. White" or "Ed" posted once but never responded. > A troll looking for food maybe? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And your point is....???? My point was that Chrysler appears to be redefining what they consider an SUV. I recall Chrysler advertising the Pacifica as an SUV, except now they claim the Aspen is the first "Chrysler" SUV. As others have pointed out, the Pacifica is really some sort of Crossover vehicle and not a true SUV - except I still recall it being called an SUV when it was first introduced. I never bought that, I just wish Chrysler would be more consistent. And finally both the EPA and IIHS list the Pacifica as an SUV.
> > 2) They claim it is "full sized." Compared to what? A RAV4? It is just a > > warmed over Durango. Since Dodge is constantly calling the Durango the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What is full sized.... It's a marketing term - just ask the car rental > company. I suppose, but Dodge continually claims the Durango has the most room of any SUV in it's class. Since the Durango is significantly smaller than all the full size SUVs (Suburban, Tahoe, Expedition, Excursion, Sequoia, Land Cruiser), it can't be a "full size" SUV. Therefore it must be a mid-sized SUV, which means the Aspens must be as well. However, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety lists the Durango as a large SUV. Either Chrysler is wrong when they claim the Durango is the roomiest SUV in it's class or they are wrong when they claim the Aspen is a full size SUV. Even marketers need to be honest and consistent. A full size Chrysler cannot be the same size as a mid-size Dodge.
> > 3) Aspen??? That name was already discredited years ago when it was slapped > > on those horrible mid-sized sedans. I guess Aspen is better than Volante. > > What is your point here - or is it just rambling. Just laughing at the geniuses at Chrysler who reached into the past to reuse one of the most discredited names in their history.
> > 4) Does the world really need a clone of the worst SUV sold in the US? > > Slapping a Chrysler grille on that turkey is not going to elevate it to the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Are you making a satement here or asking a question...not sure. Both. Do you think we need a clone of the least efficient passenger vehicle Chrysler sells (outside of the Viper I suppose). In any meaningful comparison of SUVs, the Durango comes out last. Slapping a Chrysler grille and new name on it won't make it better. Rather than spending money on rebadging it, why not improve it?
> > More marketing genius from Chrysler.... > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that is not facing a wrenching restructuring and reduction of it's car > lines to survive. That's hardly screwing up. I agree. Chrysler has introduced some very exciting cars. However, the "Aspen" seems like a stupid mistake. The only things dumber in recent memory are the Lincoln LT and the Cadillac EXT.
Ed
John S. - 18 Jan 2006 21:22 GMT > What did you expect me to say? > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > never bought that, I just wish Chrysler would be more consistent. And > finally both the EPA and IIHS list the Pacifica as an SUV. A precise definition of an SUV will be about as hard to pin down as one for a Sports Car. Isn't an SUV is really little more than an inflated station wagon? The ever popular Toyota Highlander qualifies as an SUV in many eyes, but isn't it really just an inflated station wagon?
> > > 2) They claim it is "full sized." Compared to what? A RAV4? It is just a > > > warmed over Durango. Since Dodge is constantly calling the Durango the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > marketers need to be honest and consistent. A full size Chrysler cannot be > the same size as a mid-size Dodge. Full size vs mid-size vs luxury vs compact - who knows what the the real definition is. A rental company will use one term while an insurer will use another.
> > > 3) Aspen??? That name was already discredited years ago when it was > slapped [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Just laughing at the geniuses at Chrysler who reached into the past to reuse > one of the most discredited names in their history. They coulda called it a Valiant...
> > > 4) Does the world really need a clone of the worst SUV sold in the US? > > > Slapping a Chrysler grille on that turkey is not going to elevate it to [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > "Aspen" seems like a stupid mistake. The only things dumber in recent memory > are the Lincoln LT and the Cadillac EXT. We will see...nostalgia does seem to sell cars. Look at how the VW Beetle fad has caught on. For me the old VW beetle and Kombi were little more than underpowered poor handling econoboxes. Many others have decidedly more positive memories.
> Ed Dan J.S. - 18 Feb 2006 22:19 GMT >I just saw some highlights of the Detroit Auto Show and one of the featured > "all new" Chrysler products was the Aspen full size SUV? I had several [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Ed at least chrysler is profitable... they are doing something right...
Dan J.S. - 18 Feb 2006 22:20 GMT i replied to this thread twice(three times now).. sorry...
|
|
|