Chrysler Needs to CREATE a Market as did Honda

This is scary. I agree with about 75% of ole Nomen's ideas. Bring back the
base Neon with no power anythings and gets 40 mpg. What more do you need for
a kids/work car??

Denny

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> Chrysler's biggest mistake is thinking they have to build cars to satisfy
> market demands
>
> Nothing could be further from the truth. The market does not know what it
> wants until the product is presented to it. Honda found that out the
> happy
> way when it shipped lightweight motorcycles to the American market in the
> middle '60s. There was NO market whatsoever for lightweights UNTIL Honda
> made them available. Of course, they were an instant hit and it wasn't
> too
> many years later that Harley-Davidson was on the ropes. All along, H-D
> thought the market only demanded heavyweights; boy, where they wrong.
>
> Chrysler needs to think out of the box just like Honda. They need to
> think
> aluminum, carbon fibre and 1500 pound, four passenger cars. They need to
> think 3 cylinder supercharged diesels that in those light cars
> out-accelerate their V-10 GAS GUZZLERS. They need to think round-section
> tires - people over 40 are not going to buy cars that look like they're
> riding on the rims. Chrysler has build cars that are so reliable they no
> longer need be followed all the time by a tow truck. (That means all the
> goodies I've suggested over the past year). Never mind cup holders, power
> seats, power windows and all that jazz. They need to think about a
> steering wheel that adjusts in and out, not just "tilts". Who needs a
> tilting steering wheel? Jaguar had an in and out steering wheel, to their
> credit. I suggest Chrysler engineers drop what they're doing and rent an
> XKE for a day. Bring back the crank sun roof because they're great for
> moonlit drives. How about seats that convert into beds to beat those $60
> a
> night and up motel bills. I hear Walmart loves overnighters in their
> parking lots so long as you buy your soda pop inside and use their comfort
> facilities.
>
> Of course, no matter how well Chrysler might some day build their cars to
> my specifications, it is all to naught if you can't service everything in
> a
> 15 minute timeframe. That's reasonable because that's the way Chrysler
> specifies they be BUILT. So if your starter, water pump, fuel pump or
> whatever under the sun needs R & R, its got to be done in 15 minutes or
> less. The whole front should tip up to expose all the mechanicals, just
> like the XKE did. Learn from the oldies, D-C. Fifteen minute service
> capability ALONE WILL SELL MILLIONS OF CARS, even if you don't make one
> other improvement! Who would not want to buy a car that has costs $15
> labor to change out a bum fuel pump instead of the present $150?
>
> If Chrysler does not offer a new car to a new market that other
> manufacturers do not, then there will be no Chrysler in five years. Mark
> my word on it. Chrysler nearly went under 20 years ago. It could happen
> again, only this time there will be no bailout.
>
> A lot of you out there don't really give a rat's ass about my suggestions.
> That's not who I'm talking too. I cannot talk to idiotic imbeciles. I am
> respectfully talking directly to the intelligent morons at Chrysler
> because
> if they don't start the design process immediately, if not sooner, its
> going to be too late. All the automobile manufacturing will be outsourced
> to China and that does not mean Chrysler will be outsourcing the jobs; no,
> Chrysler itself will be outsourced.
>

Chrysler is more creative than most. They've built a number of niche market
cars that made their own way. It didn't save Plymouth, though. The could
really benefit from an economy division now.....

I don't think any of these ideas are new. In business, fads just swing back
and forth. At one extreme, they get criticized for not listening to
customers, and then at the other, they get criticized for not thinking out
of the box. One minute you're not diversified enough, and in another you're
in trouble for not being "focused" on your core business. The truth is, if
business leaders would just do nothing at all, it would save companies a ton
of money. They really just wiggle back and forth to create an illusion of
progress.

Technically, it's another matter. Servicability, wasted space, packaging,
ergonomics, crashworthiness. They have a lot of constraints to deal with.
You could build a car for $3500 that would get 100 mpg. We have laws in the
U.S. that would keep it off the roads, though.

"Denny" > wrote in message
. ..
> This is scary. I agree with about 75% of ole Nomen's ideas. Bring back the
> base Neon with no power anythings and gets 40 mpg. What more do you need
> for a kids/work car??
>
> Denny
>
> "Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Chrysler's biggest mistake is thinking they have to build cars to satisfy
>> market demands
>>
>> Nothing could be further from the truth. The market does not know what
>> it
>> wants until the product is presented to it. Honda found that out the

Joe wrote:
> Chrysler is more creative than most. They've built a number of niche market
> cars that made their own way. It didn't save Plymouth, though. The could
> really benefit from an economy division now.....
>
> I don't think any of these ideas are new. In business, fads just swing back
> and forth. At one extreme, they get criticized for not listening to
> customers, and then at the other, they get criticized for not thinking out
> of the box. One minute you're not diversified enough, and in another you're
> in trouble for not being "focused" on your core business. The truth is, if
> business leaders would just do nothing at all, it would save companies a ton
> of money. They really just wiggle back and forth to create an illusion of
> progress.
>
> Technically, it's another matter. Servicability, wasted space, packaging,
> ergonomics, crashworthiness. They have a lot of constraints to deal with.
> You could build a car for $3500 that would get 100 mpg. We have laws in the
> U.S. that would keep it off the roads, though.

Bravo!! Excellent post.

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

Chrysler could very easily offer affordable cars. I don't believe the
profit margin would be big enough to satisfy the powers that be or the
Chrysler shareholders. Look at GEO for example. A line of American
badged econo cars at an affordable price. To affordable & to slim a
profit for GM not to kill off GEO. Bells & whistles are what makes the
money flow like water. Plymouth had the potential to be the Geo of the
Chrysler world catering to the basic transportation market. I want an
automobile with automatic, a/c, tilt & cruise. Not me being forced to
buy bundled & over inflated option packages that include things I'll
never use to get the things I do. Trucks come that way. Why not cars? My
'03 Ram had automatic, a/c, tilt & cruise & plastic coated chrome
wheels. Chrysler are you listening? I hope so... JL

J L wrote:

> Chrysler are you listening?

Chrysler is listening all right.

They're listening to their bosses in Germany.

They're being told to design cars that use more and more Mercedes
parts and systems.

They're being told that there is a luxury/performance level that they
must not cross lest they be in competition with Mercedes.

Chrysler could have had a much classier-looking sedan with more
universal appeal had they built the 300N concept car shown in 2000.
They could have had captured some of the youth market that went to
Honda and Nissan had they built the '99 Charger concept.

The LX platform has severe styling limitations and North American
consumers will get tired of it. Sometimes the answer to everything is
not "put a hemi in it". Not just because gas is heading towards $3 a
gallon.

Where is Daimler's push to market Chrysler cars in Europe? Where is
the synergy in this "partnership" ? So far it's only in one direction
- to put more Merc content into Chrysler.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, J L wrote:

> Chrysler could very easily offer affordable cars. I don't believe the
> profit margin would be big enough to satisfy the powers that be or the
> Chrysler shareholders. Plymouth had the potential to be the Geo of the
> Chrysler world catering to the basic transportation market. I want an
> automobile with automatic, a/c, tilt & cruise. Not me being forced to
> buy bundled & over inflated option packages that include things I'll
> never use to get the things I do. Trucks come that way. Why not cars?

Because that's not how the game's being played right now. 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.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, J L wrote:
>
>
>>Chrysler could very easily offer affordable cars. I don't believe the
>>profit margin would be big enough to satisfy the powers that be or the
>>Chrysler shareholders. Plymouth had the potential to be the Geo of the
>>Chrysler world catering to the basic transportation market. I want an
>>automobile with automatic, a/c, tilt & cruise. Not me being forced to
>>buy bundled & over inflated option packages that include things I'll
>>never use to get the things I do. Trucks come that way. Why not cars?
>
>
> Because that's not how the game's being played right now. 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. People gotta have their power nose-pickers. Its the same
reason people go buy cheaply-made-in-China, noisy, 3-year lifespan
window A/C units from Home Repo because they have remote control, rather
than spend a little more on a much quiter and 4x longer-lasting
Freidrich from an independent retailer. The market is just absolutely
brimming with examples of how optioned-up/engineered-down is
(unfortunately) whipping well-engineered/optioned-down in sales these
days. Don't blame manufacturers for what BUYERS are driving them to!

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...?

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> 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...?

It would still be ugly.

On the other hand, if you buy the Charger or 300 with a 6, the bottom line
is incredibly low for what you get.

"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.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
skype: jjpfeifferjr