For reliability and overall quality purposes, you're probably right Lou. That being said, the Caravan was the first, original and a very good minivan, and recently the 300M rocked the entry lux segment of the industry for several years. They make great looking, subpar vehicles for the most part.

PH

I've represented most of the major automotive companies, at one time or another, on varying degrees of assignments regarding advanced engineering and design. Every car company has their price points and market segments that they cater to.

In the American market, Chrysler is no worse than any other manufacturer and in fact, better in several ways. I applaude their entrepenurial spirit of the pre-Daimler days. GM is now, and will be, introducing increased quality and some great products, on all levels. Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, etc are on a whole different marketing segment and to attempt to compare, would be apples and oranges. I could speak volumes of the comparisons between the companies 'under the skin', but it's unnecessary to make the point.

For one quick example, I can say, I've owned Jeep Grand Cherokees, from the base Laredo up to their top of the line Overland. Same basic vehicle, however the differances between them are worlds apart in interior quality, etc. As with most things, it's very dangerous to 'generalize'.

quote:

Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
They make great looking, subpar vehicles for the most part.

OK, now I know you've been drinking. The only thing worse than Chrysler's quality is their looks. I was overseas when they came out with most of their recent abominations. We'd come back on vacation and I'd see one and just about throw up, my wife and I would look at each other and wonder in amazement who could have produced such an ugly car. We'd see "Chrysler". Then later we'd see a different one and go through the exact same scenario.

The 300, Magnum, and Cruiser all belong in the history books with the Pacer, Gremlin, and Pinto as the ugliest vehicles ever produced. Makes me really wonder who's running their design team.

I realize that we're being invaded from the south, and they probably need cheap autos, but at least we could make sure that we make decent looking ones for them.

Personally, I think the 300 and the Magnum were pretty well done. I don't have one in my garage, but I can appreciate the styling and the market they're reaching out to. To each their own.

Granted the PT Cruiser (designed prior to the Chevy HHR) the Pacer, Gremlin (AMC's)& Ford Pinto could potentially be added to the 'ugly list'. But that list should likely include the Pontiac Aztek, the Citroen 2CV, Honda Element, Scion xB, Hummer, VW Thing, Yugo, early Honda Civics, Renault Fuego, Fiat Twingo, Fiat Multipla. The list is long and the ugly stick reaches far.

So, really, your point is?

I'd be curious to know just what fine four wheeled work of art you have in your garage, Foghorn....

quote:

Originally posted by Foghorn Leghorn:
Makes me really wonder who's running their design team.

A quick insight: No one individual runs a styling design team and chooses the end product direction. There is, indeed, a Design Director. But their power and influence does have limitations. The top executive bodies have a huge influence as well as the boards of directors to a lessor extent. I've spent years in the Design Studios of Ford, Chrysler, GM, Volvo, Mercedes and BMW. While the mentalities of each may differ greatly, the general business operation generally does not.

Sorry KSC, but I have to agree. Chrysler has been putting out some butt ugly cars the last few years. The only one that is any good is the Pacifica. It's a bit clunky looking, but okay for what is. The Magnum is awful. My kids hate it to the point of complaining every time they see one. Their trucks' design has to be a joke right? It's like a parody of what a "real man's truck" should look like. And for what it worth I drive an Audi A6. Maybe you dislike it's design, but I find it much more elegent than anything coming out of Chrysler.

I do indeed appreciate the Audi A6. To be clear, I have no personal direct affiliation, or affinity, to Chrysler. No more so than any other manufacturer. I just felt compelled to point out an overall big picture. I suppose I bristle when I read an overtly generalized statement that paints a stroke with a very wide brush. I greatly respect Chrysler for the styling chances they've taken (particularly during the pre-DCX days). It'll be interesting where their direction goes now that Daimler has moved on.

I can appreciate taking a chance, trying something new. The Edsel and Aztek were also new and different, and ugly. Maybe I’m just not their target audience, but their current lineup I find foolish looking. They seem to be trying too hard to be macho looking.

quote:

Originally posted by KSC02:
I greatly respect Chrysler for the styling chances they've taken (particularly during the pre-DCX days).

Reminds me of Homer Simpson's styling chance that his brother took with him.

And didn't Uncle Herb lose his job over that?

quote:

Originally posted by KSC02:
So, really, your point is?

My point is....not only does Chrysler build junk, they build really ugly junk. And VT is spot on with "butt-ugly". There are design differences, then there are separation differences. Chrysler has succeeded in the separation differences. So much so, that this year they stopped producing the Cruiser and Magnum. I remember the first time we saw the Magnum. My kids had the same reaction and said "what is it"? I replied....."I think it's a hearse, but if it is, it's a really ugly hearse."

As for their trucks, the ONLY reason to buy one of their trucks is for the Cummins engine, the rest is junk. I wonder in amazement every time I see one of their trucks on the road with the gas engine, just doesn't make any sense.

As for what's in my garage....I have two trucks (one Ford diesel-before they decided to pimp this model out, and a 19 year old Toyota) and two Honda's.

You're clearly a man of vision, Foghorn.
Enough said.

quote:

Originally posted by KSC02:
You're clearly a man of vision, Foghorn.

Ya, I know. Everybody I know says that I over think everything. However, most people buy autos based on emotions rather than sense, without taking everything into account. Such as that $3000-$5000 battery that's in the hybrids, that will need to be replaced in a few years....and where does that so-called "green" technology go after it's disposed of? Yet people line up to buy these things.

Getting back on topic...

Chinese goods are imported because they are cheaper. Why? Cost of production; lower labour costs and the safety and quality of materials used is poorer as well.

We have always imported stuff from other countries. (just off the top of my head, say like wine. )

The main point I believe, as someone pointed out, is the lack of liability of the manufacturer when things go wrong. I don't know much about American laws but in Canada, you can sue the distributor of those faulty products and the manufacturer as well, although the impact of a claim on the latter may be more symbolic than practical.

It is not unwarranted to boycott products from a country based on a perceived safety risk or even for political reasons but be careful cause it can be a two-way street. The war in Iraq or the Bush administration aren't too popular anywhere else than in certain parts of the USA.

quote:

Originally posted by Foghorn Leghorn:

quote:

Originally posted by KSC02:
You're clearly a man of vision, Foghorn.

Ya, I know. Everybody I know says that I over think everything. However, most people buy autos based on emotions rather than sense, without taking everything into account. Such as that $3000-$5000 battery that's in the hybrids, that will need to be replaced in a few years....and where does that so-called "green" technology go after it's disposed of? Yet people line up to buy these things.

Yes Hybrid cars are not completely unpolluting but remember, money poured into these kinds of things keep manufacturers improving these types of vehicules and they make them better with more competition to feed the growing demand. And I do believe they reduce emissions as well as are more economical on gas that their non-hydrid counterparts.

quote:

Originally posted by Foghorn Leghorn:
Such as that $3000-$5000 battery that's in the hybrids, that will need to be replaced in a few years....and where does that so-called "green" technology go after it's disposed of? Yet people line up to buy these things.

You ARE on to something there. There's a lot of 'gimmicks' on the market right now. For instance, the 'new' 8 cyl. engines that turn off 4 cylinders when you drive between 35 and 60mph. Now how often do YOU drive between these speeds. Typically it's either above or below this. AND it improves your mileage, on average, 15%. Now when a fat SUV gets 15mpg, 15% is about 2mpg. BIG DEAL.

I readily admit, the auto companies have got a long way to go before they really start truly getting green. I've heard the mentality by some 'chiefs' that we are 'getting green' because we're making cars that are really cheap for some countries. And though they ARE dirty, they're LESS DIRTY than the really old crap they're driving in poor countries now. So see? We're improving the planet."

I readily admit, the auto companies have got a long way to go before they really start truly getting green.

I agree totally with you here. The honda I had back in the mid 80's got 40mpg. Has anyone heard about the cars that can run on compressed air. Heard about it the other day & they seemed pretty cool. Only down side I noticed is the top speed of apx. 60mph, shouldn't matter with city driving though.

I'm pretty much "function over form" but if the Dodge Magnum got 50mpg, I'm still not sure I'd put it in my garage. If I did, I'd have to install a puke bucket just inside the garage door for everytime I went into the garage.

If the EPA would leave the diesel makers alone, and the Dodge 3500 got 30mpg (or even 25mpg) I'd consider it.