Chrysler Needs to CREATE a Market as did Honda

I bought the Charger R/T nearly fully loaded... My steering wheel goes
in and out AND up and down.....

I'd say they're creating a market with that car. The slight body style
change and the revival of the charger brand creates a 4dr sports car
market. yeah the 300 is the same car and the magnum is just the wagon
version but in the end the charger is the 4dr sports car luxury
sedan... Wheel squealin family car.....

Screw gas mileage and screw the price.......


--
blank
------------------------------------------------------------------------
blank's Profile: http://www.usenetcars.com/member.php?userid=1
View this thread: http://www.usenetcars.com/showthread.php?t=391578

"blank" > wrote in message
...
>
> I bought the Charger R/T nearly fully loaded... My steering wheel goes
> in and out AND up and down.....
>
> I'd say they're creating a market with that car. The slight body style
> change and the revival of the charger brand creates a 4dr sports car
> market. yeah the 300 is the same car and the magnum is just the wagon
> version but in the end the charger is the 4dr sports car luxury
> sedan... Wheel squealin family car.....
>
> Screw gas mileage and screw the price.......
>

I don't see this market your talking about - unless what your talking about
are the 50 year old empty nester baby boomers who finally have some money to
spend
since the kids aren't sucking it out of their wallets, and are out to have
one
last car fling with a new car. That's probably why they put 4 doors on it
and a plush suspension that can't keep the tires from wheel hopping when you
gun
the engine. My 4 year old can squeal the tires on his battery powered
plastic
ride-in car, big whoop de do.

But for the younger crowd who's 15 years behind your crowd, there
isn't any such thing as a 4 door sports car. If Chrysler really wanted to
have
Chargers viewed as sports cars, they would
bring out a 2 door and bring out a ragtop 2 door. Otherwise all it is is
just
another boring 4 door sedan that someone slapped a legendary car name
on the fender to try to get away with tacking on an extra $7K to the sticker
price.

Unfortunately right now the demographics in the US means theres a lot
more of your age bracket buying cars than the younger crowd. So there's
nothing
out there for the younger crowd except for Chrysler sports cars like the
Viper that none of them can afford . That is going to create a real crunch
for Chrysler 15 years from now when that group is in their mid life crises
with money to burn and wanting to buy a feel-young-again sports car.
They won't be there for Chrysler then because they will have been so used to
buying Japanese cars that Chrysler will be just another automaker
that they've been trained to believe only makes "old people' cars, receeding
into the dustbin of history.

GM did the exact same thing with Oldsmobile then belatedly tried to
save the name with the Alero, too little to late, though.

Ted

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> I don't see this market your talking about - unless what your talking about
> are the 50 year old empty nester baby boomers who finally have some money to
> spend
> since the kids aren't sucking it out of their wallets, and are out to have
> one
> last car fling with a new car. That's probably why they put 4 doors on it
> and a plush suspension that can't keep the tires from wheel hopping when you
> gun
> the engine. My 4 year old can squeal the tires on his battery powered
> plastic
> ride-in car, big whoop de do.
>
> But for the younger crowd who's 15 years behind your crowd, there
> isn't any such thing as a 4 door sports car. If Chrysler really wanted to
> have
> Chargers viewed as sports cars, they would
> bring out a 2 door and bring out a ragtop 2 door. Otherwise all it is is
> just
> another boring 4 door sedan that someone slapped a legendary car name
> on the fender to try to get away with tacking on an extra $7K to the sticker
> price.
>
> Unfortunately right now the demographics in the US means theres a lot
> more of your age bracket buying cars than the younger crowd. So there's
> nothing
> out there for the younger crowd except for Chrysler sports cars like the
> Viper that none of them can afford . That is going to create a real crunch
> for Chrysler 15 years from now when that group is in their mid life crises
> with money to burn and wanting to buy a feel-young-again sports car.
> They won't be there for Chrysler then because they will have been so used to
> buying Japanese cars that Chrysler will be just another automaker
> that they've been trained to believe only makes "old people' cars, receeding
> into the dustbin of history.
>
> GM did the exact same thing with Oldsmobile then belatedly tried to
> save the name with the Alero, too little to late, though.

What you're saying, then, is "It's not your father's Chrysler". 8^)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> - unless what your talking about are the 50 year old empty
> nester baby boomers who finally have some money to spend
> since the kids aren't sucking it out of their wallets, and
> are out to have one last car fling with a new car. That's
> probably why they put 4 doors on it and a plush suspension
> that can't keep the tires from wheel hopping when you gun
> the engine.

I think that's what the Crossfire is for. Every time I see a
Crossfire there's always someone older than 50 driving it.

Ford probably created the Thunderbird for the same reason.

What they forgot is that old people don't want to drive small cars, no
matter how expensive or chic they (the cars) are.

Back in the late 60's and early 70's, when you look at the advertising
material for cars like the Monaco line, there were 4 doors and 2 door
versions of that car. The Lincoln Mark series (with 500 cubic inch
engines and 10 foot long hood and its ->2 doors<- were also geared
towards someone with $$$ that didn't have kids (or that had kids who
moved out). I don't see any equivalent to the Dodge Monaco 2-dr or
the Lincoln Mark IV any more.

At some point I'm going to give my '2000 300m to a family member and
when I look for a new car it's going to be tough. I think Lexus is
high on my list. It's too bad that Chrysler no longer makes anything
that appeals to me. It's not Chrysler's fault - it's Daimlers. It's
plain as day that Chrysler is simply not able to design and build a
car without interference (or complete oversight) from Daimler
management. Back when Chrysler was independent, they may not have
been the best car builder on the planet, but they had spirit. Who
else put a bumble bee logo or a road runner horn in a car? On damn
good looking cars too.

If you're over 40, and a male, and want to buy a vehicle for you
(kids/family be damned), and are not on a budget, it seems what you
end up buying is an SUV-ish vehicle, or maybe a jeep, or a truck.
There is no car under $80k that stands out from the crowd. Maybe you
can blame it on the wife, who (they say) plays a more than 50% role in
a purchase decision. And we all know that women practically never pay
attention to vehicle makes or models. One car looks like any other
car to them.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Steve wrote:
>
>
>>>With the Koreans selling toastermobiles loaded up with power
>>>everything, a zero-options car just doesn't have the power to sell any
>>>longer, as it seems.
>
>
>>Amen. The buying public is just stoopid enough to prefer a complete POS
>>Kia with a bazillion options including power nose-pickers, rather than
>>buy a very solidly engineered but stripped-down Neon or Focus for the
>>same price.
>
>
> For that matter, where's it written that only small/cheap cars can be
> strippers? I have to wonder what might happen if DC were to market a
> cloth-upholstered, manual-locks, manual-windows, toy-free, steel-wheel
> variant of the 300/Magnum.
>
> But what would they *name* such a car, though? Gosh, that'd be a toughie.
> Plymouth Savoy...?

Belvedere? Coronet? Custom Royal? Newport? :-)

If it had 2 doors, they could call it either a Plymouth Roadrunner or a
Dodge Super Bee. And there would be MUCH rejoicing....

Art wrote:


>>But what would they *name* such a car, though? Gosh, that'd be a toughie.
>>Plymouth Savoy...?
>
>
> It would still be ugly.

Agreed on the 300, but I think the Magnum is a real beauty. The Charger
is better than I expected, but not as pretty as the '99 Charger Concept was.

Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

> "Daniel J. Stern" > writes:
>
>>For that matter, where's it written that only small/cheap cars can be
>>strippers? I have to wonder what might happen if DC were to market a
>>cloth-upholstered, manual-locks, manual-windows, toy-free, steel-wheel
>>variant of the 300/Magnum.
>
>
> I was disappointed to learn you have to get leather seats to get a
> Hemi in the Charger. My experience has been that there are very few
> climates where leather upholstery is actually superior to cloth -- as
> a matter of fact, I'm really just taking it on faith that there must
> be one *someplace* since leather is regarded as up-market.
>
> Cloth is definitely better anyplace that gets either hot or cold.
> That was one thing that convinced us to get an Intrepid R/T rather
> than a 300M: cloth seats.

REAL upholstry-grade vat-dyed, non-laminated leather is as comfortable
as cloth. But you can't even get it on most furniture anymore, let alone
in a car. Even the "good" leathers that high-end cars use are not really
all that good anymore.

>
>
> I don't see this market your talking about - unless what your talking about
> are the 50 year old empty nester baby boomers who finally have some money to
> spend
> since the kids aren't sucking it out of their wallets, and are out to have
> one
> last car fling with a new car. That's probably why they put 4 doors on it
> and a plush suspension that can't keep the tires from wheel hopping when you
> gun
> the engine. My 4 year old can squeal the tires on his battery powered
> plastic
> ride-in car, big whoop de do.
>
> But for the younger crowd who's 15 years behind your crowd, there
> isn't any such thing as a 4 door sports car.

I'm 41, so I'm *nearly* 15 years behind that crowd. The Charger is just
fine for me- and in fact the Magnum is a little better from a
practicality standpoint. I do wish there was a 2-door option, because
(if I were considering a new car for ME right now, not a new family car)
the Mustang would be the ticket. But that's not the worst hole in the
lineup IMO.

The gaping hole is in a lower price class: What's missing from many car
companies' lineups is more like what the thread started on earlier- a
CHEAP "muscle car" that is inexpensive enough to be a first car for the
20-something crowd, and appealing enough when optioned up to be a
non-family daily driven car for young parents or singles in the
30-something range. Something the size of a Sebring, but with a Hemi
under the hood and rear-drive. No power anything, cloth seats, sporty
styling but for the most part all "go" and no "show."

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>> "Daniel J. Stern" > writes:
>>
>>>For that matter, where's it written that only small/cheap cars can be
>>>strippers? I have to wonder what might happen if DC were to market a
>>>cloth-upholstered, manual-locks, manual-windows, toy-free, steel-wheel
>>>variant of the 300/Magnum.
>>
>>
>> I was disappointed to learn you have to get leather seats to get a
>> Hemi in the Charger. My experience has been that there are very few
>> climates where leather upholstery is actually superior to cloth -- as
>> a matter of fact, I'm really just taking it on faith that there must
>> be one *someplace* since leather is regarded as up-market.
>>
>> Cloth is definitely better anyplace that gets either hot or cold.
>> That was one thing that convinced us to get an Intrepid R/T rather
>> than a 300M: cloth seats.
>
> REAL upholstry-grade vat-dyed, non-laminated leather is as comfortable as
> cloth. But you can't even get it on most furniture anymore, let alone in a
> car. Even the "good" leathers that high-end cars use are not really all
> that good anymore.
>

You can still find that leather on furniture but it would not hold up in a
car. Too much sun.

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> >
> > I don't see this market your talking about - unless what your talking
about
> > are the 50 year old empty nester baby boomers who finally have some
money to
> > spend
> > since the kids aren't sucking it out of their wallets, and are out to
have
> > one
> > last car fling with a new car. That's probably why they put 4 doors on
it
> > and a plush suspension that can't keep the tires from wheel hopping when
you
> > gun
> > the engine. My 4 year old can squeal the tires on his battery powered
> > plastic
> > ride-in car, big whoop de do.
> >
> > But for the younger crowd who's 15 years behind your crowd, there
> > isn't any such thing as a 4 door sports car.
>
> I'm 41, so I'm *nearly* 15 years behind that crowd. The Charger is just
> fine for me- and in fact the Magnum is a little better from a
> practicality standpoint.

Practicality isn't in the same realm as a real sports car.

> I do wish there was a 2-door option, because
> (if I were considering a new car for ME right now, not a new family car)
> the Mustang would be the ticket. But that's not the worst hole in the
> lineup IMO.
>
> The gaping hole is in a lower price class: What's missing from many car
> companies' lineups is more like what the thread started on earlier- a
> CHEAP "muscle car" that is inexpensive enough to be a first car for the
> 20-something crowd, and appealing enough when optioned up to be a
> non-family daily driven car for young parents or singles in the
> 30-something range. Something the size of a Sebring, but with a Hemi
> under the hood and rear-drive. No power anything, cloth seats, sporty
> styling but for the most part all "go" and no "show."
>

I agree wholeheartedly on that one, but the auto companies have all decided
that people that have enough money to spend on a sports car that isn't
practical must have a ton of money.

The other thing missing is a pure, clutch-driven manual transmission coupled
to a powerful V6 or V8. Somehow the car companies got it into their stupid
heads that clutches only belong on 1500 cc 4 bangers. I don't want some
power-ass-sissyed manual transmission wannabe, I want the real thing.

And, speaking of clutches, since when did it become accepted for 4x4's to
have automatic transmissions? Where did that come from?

Getting back to the ideal vehicle though, I am not convinced that power
accessories add a whole lot to the cost to manufacture, but I guess you need
something to option. I would draw the line at power windows, though, I
would be pretty leery of a new vehicle that had manual cranks - that's a
safety issue really, you don't want drivers screwing with a crank while
driving
down the road. And A/C is a must-have as well. But I'd be happy to drop
the rest of it.

Ted