Should Dodge/Chrysler now offer a large SUV in the U.S.?
02-17-18, 07:02 PM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Should Dodge/Chrysler now offer a large SUV in the U.S.?
The ongoing success of full-sized, body-on-frame SUVs in the U.S., seems to beg the question, to me at least, if it's now time for Chrysler or Dodge to jump on the bandwagon and offer an SUV here that is comparable in size and platform to Expeditions, Navigators, Tahoes, Suburbans, Yukons, and Escalades. Dodge has not done so since the 2-door Ramcharger of decades ago...which was clearly full-size in width, but not really in length, as it had only two doors, to compete with the full-size-width 2-door Ford Bronco and Chevy Blazer of that era. Plymouth offered a similar Trail Duster, but it was less-successful than the Ramcharger, and did not stay not in production as long.
Dodge did offer the Durango, of course, (even in a wild blue/white-stripe Shelby version)...but the Durango, despite being slightly longer than the typical mid-size SUVs of that era, was not a true full-sizer (kind of like the first-generation Toyota Tundra, before it was expanded to a true full-sizer for the 2Gen). Today, Dodge produces a large, true, full-sizer in Mexico (two doors, like the Broncos and Blazers of the early-mid 90s) on the full-size Ram platform......but it is not brought to the U.S. because FCA is (apparently) afraid that, in its present form, it will mess up the corporation's CAFE average here. It has two doors, because Dodge, in its research, found that many possible buyers and enthusiasts preferred the look of the 2-door over the 4-door (for SUV's, I prefer the 2-door look myself).
Which brings us to this thread......What do you all think? Should Dodge (or Chrysler, with upmarket version, and maybe stretched to 4 doors) introduce it to the U.S. As I see it, there are pros and cons both ways. Gas is currently cheap (or, at least reasonably-priced), so the generally low MPG that these vehicles get is probably not a current issue.....but could become one if gas prices spike. It would cost money to engineer the 2-door Mexican version to American safety/emissons regulations (and even more money to re-engineer it for four doors). But, for vehicles like these, that initial money can be recovered relatively quickly because of the large profits these vehicles bring...you don't have to sell many of them before you break even and start making a surplus. And, right now, nobody else in the U.S. is selling a classic two-door, squared-off SUV. Ford had a chance do so with the upcoming 2020 Bronco, which will be Ranger-based and mid-size, not full-sized, but somebody in management apparently nixed the idea and committed to 4-door production. Here (may?) be Dodge's chance to capture some of that enthusiast 2-door market....and also offer a for-door version as well for families.
So...what do you think?
And here's a link from Car and Driver that also goes into the question:
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...test-road-test
Dodge did offer the Durango, of course, (even in a wild blue/white-stripe Shelby version)...but the Durango, despite being slightly longer than the typical mid-size SUVs of that era, was not a true full-sizer (kind of like the first-generation Toyota Tundra, before it was expanded to a true full-sizer for the 2Gen). Today, Dodge produces a large, true, full-sizer in Mexico (two doors, like the Broncos and Blazers of the early-mid 90s) on the full-size Ram platform......but it is not brought to the U.S. because FCA is (apparently) afraid that, in its present form, it will mess up the corporation's CAFE average here. It has two doors, because Dodge, in its research, found that many possible buyers and enthusiasts preferred the look of the 2-door over the 4-door (for SUV's, I prefer the 2-door look myself).
Which brings us to this thread......What do you all think? Should Dodge (or Chrysler, with upmarket version, and maybe stretched to 4 doors) introduce it to the U.S. As I see it, there are pros and cons both ways. Gas is currently cheap (or, at least reasonably-priced), so the generally low MPG that these vehicles get is probably not a current issue.....but could become one if gas prices spike. It would cost money to engineer the 2-door Mexican version to American safety/emissons regulations (and even more money to re-engineer it for four doors). But, for vehicles like these, that initial money can be recovered relatively quickly because of the large profits these vehicles bring...you don't have to sell many of them before you break even and start making a surplus. And, right now, nobody else in the U.S. is selling a classic two-door, squared-off SUV. Ford had a chance do so with the upcoming 2020 Bronco, which will be Ranger-based and mid-size, not full-sized, but somebody in management apparently nixed the idea and committed to 4-door production. Here (may?) be Dodge's chance to capture some of that enthusiast 2-door market....and also offer a for-door version as well for families.
So...what do you think?
And here's a link from Car and Driver that also goes into the question:
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...test-road-test
Last edited by mmarshall; 02-17-18 at 07:10 PM.
02-17-18, 07:17 PM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Chrysler is currently selling several what could be called CUVs, with Jeep and Fiat nameplates on them (Renegade, Patriot, 500X, etc...and the slightly larger Journey).
02-17-18, 07:27 PM
#4
The Aspen, though, wasn't a true full-sizer. Like the Durango, it sat in an odd size-category between the mid-size Explorer/Blazer and the big classic body-on-frame full-sizers.
Chrysler is currently selling several what could be called CUVs, with Jeep and Fiat nameplates on them (Renegade, Patriot, 500X, etc...and the slightly larger Journey).
Chrysler is currently selling several what could be called CUVs, with Jeep and Fiat nameplates on them (Renegade, Patriot, 500X, etc...and the slightly larger Journey).
02-17-18, 10:23 PM
#5
Bob Lutz has been writing a column for Road & Track for the past couple years. Good stuff and worth a read, he of course has great insight about what goes on behind the scenes at auto-makers, their decision making process, he was of course the Wizard, the man behind the curtain for many decades at several different car companies.
Anyways, in one of these articles for R&T, he talks about his time at Chrysler in the 90's, and how he had to ****-can a proposed SUV based on the then new 1994 Dodge Ram. It was going to be a Tahoe/Suburban competitor, two different wheelbases, similar size, use that same 90's Dodge truck styling. He even admitted it would have been a run-away sales success, but that about midway through the design process he had to put his thumb down and cancel it because it would run majorly afoul of current CAFE fuel economy regulations.
Of course the 90's were when Chrysler was under good management and they couldn't figure out how to crack the CAFE nut for a full size SUV. I know people say maybe in the late 90's/00's they could have improved the fuel economy enough to make that full size SUV happen. But then the Mercedes buyout happened, all the good people(including Lutz) jumped ship, there was no vision, no direction at Chrsyler for a number of years, then Benz sold them, then they went bankrupt, then they were bought out by an Italian company that made more money selling 700 Ferraris than selling 5 million microcars. Lack of cohesive vision and leadership is why there are so many holes in the Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep lineup.
Anyways, in one of these articles for R&T, he talks about his time at Chrysler in the 90's, and how he had to ****-can a proposed SUV based on the then new 1994 Dodge Ram. It was going to be a Tahoe/Suburban competitor, two different wheelbases, similar size, use that same 90's Dodge truck styling. He even admitted it would have been a run-away sales success, but that about midway through the design process he had to put his thumb down and cancel it because it would run majorly afoul of current CAFE fuel economy regulations.
Of course the 90's were when Chrysler was under good management and they couldn't figure out how to crack the CAFE nut for a full size SUV. I know people say maybe in the late 90's/00's they could have improved the fuel economy enough to make that full size SUV happen. But then the Mercedes buyout happened, all the good people(including Lutz) jumped ship, there was no vision, no direction at Chrsyler for a number of years, then Benz sold them, then they went bankrupt, then they were bought out by an Italian company that made more money selling 700 Ferraris than selling 5 million microcars. Lack of cohesive vision and leadership is why there are so many holes in the Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep lineup.
02-18-18, 03:11 AM
#6
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Bob Lutz has been writing a column for Road & Track for the past couple years. Good stuff and worth a read, he of course has great insight about what goes on behind the scenes at auto-makers, their decision making process, he was of course the Wizard, the man behind the curtain for many decades at several different car companies.
Anyways, in one of these articles for R&T, he talks about his time at Chrysler in the 90's, and how he had to ****-can a proposed SUV based on the then new 1994 Dodge Ram. It was going to be a Tahoe/Suburban competitor, two different wheelbases, similar size, use that same 90's Dodge truck styling. He even admitted it would have been a run-away sales success, but that about midway through the design process he had to put his thumb down and cancel it because it would run majorly afoul of current CAFE fuel economy regulations.
Of course the 90's were when Chrysler was under good management and they couldn't figure out how to crack the CAFE nut for a full size SUV. I know people say maybe in the late 90's/00's they could have improved the fuel economy enough to make that full size SUV happen. But then the Mercedes buyout happened, all the good people(including Lutz) jumped ship, there was no vision, no direction at Chrsyler for a number of years, then Benz sold them, then they went bankrupt, then they were bought out by an Italian company that made more money selling 700 Ferraris than selling 5 million microcars. Lack of cohesive vision and leadership is why there are so many holes in the Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep lineup.
Anyways, in one of these articles for R&T, he talks about his time at Chrysler in the 90's, and how he had to ****-can a proposed SUV based on the then new 1994 Dodge Ram. It was going to be a Tahoe/Suburban competitor, two different wheelbases, similar size, use that same 90's Dodge truck styling. He even admitted it would have been a run-away sales success, but that about midway through the design process he had to put his thumb down and cancel it because it would run majorly afoul of current CAFE fuel economy regulations.
Of course the 90's were when Chrysler was under good management and they couldn't figure out how to crack the CAFE nut for a full size SUV. I know people say maybe in the late 90's/00's they could have improved the fuel economy enough to make that full size SUV happen. But then the Mercedes buyout happened, all the good people(including Lutz) jumped ship, there was no vision, no direction at Chrsyler for a number of years, then Benz sold them, then they went bankrupt, then they were bought out by an Italian company that made more money selling 700 Ferraris than selling 5 million microcars. Lack of cohesive vision and leadership is why there are so many holes in the Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep lineup.
Yeah, I read Bob's column every month in R&T. I don't remember the specific article you mention, but I'll take your word for it. Still, if Ford and GM could produce full-size, pickup-based SUVs and still meet CAFE standards, Chrysler should have been able to do so as well. Their management, at the time, couldn't have been any worse than what we saw at GM.
Last edited by mmarshall; 02-18-18 at 03:14 AM.
02-18-18, 05:38 AM
#7
Lexus Fanatic
A large full size two door suv by Chrysler would be absolute suicide. It would never sell. Even worse if it was on a body on frame design.
And argument coiuld be made for a large cross over SUV. Then again, very unlikely to sell in high enough volumes.
The writing on the wall for BOF models has been for a least a decade. Ford Explorer, Chevy Trailblazer, Hummer H3, FJ Cruiser, Jeep Commander, Aspen, Durango and
KIA Boreggo all no longer live on as body on frame models. The large body on frame models from GM, Ford and Toyota are all legacy models, the tooling and designs are all paid off and they are living off this for decades upon decades. Toyota can only offer the 4Runner because they make so many models off the same frame and chassis and part numbers for world wide production.
Lastly, as Chrysler kills off the 200 and I think Dart?? One needs to keep on mind that the overall automobile marking is contracting and not expanding. So these new buyers have to come from the expense of something else. I can’t imagine there are that many people clamouring to have a full size Chrysler SUV.
And argument coiuld be made for a large cross over SUV. Then again, very unlikely to sell in high enough volumes.
The writing on the wall for BOF models has been for a least a decade. Ford Explorer, Chevy Trailblazer, Hummer H3, FJ Cruiser, Jeep Commander, Aspen, Durango and
KIA Boreggo all no longer live on as body on frame models. The large body on frame models from GM, Ford and Toyota are all legacy models, the tooling and designs are all paid off and they are living off this for decades upon decades. Toyota can only offer the 4Runner because they make so many models off the same frame and chassis and part numbers for world wide production.Lastly, as Chrysler kills off the 200 and I think Dart?? One needs to keep on mind that the overall automobile marking is contracting and not expanding. So these new buyers have to come from the expense of something else. I can’t imagine there are that many people clamouring to have a full size Chrysler SUV.
Trending Topics
02-18-18, 06:25 AM
#8
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
still does! in fact, alex on autos just ordered one! he couldn't find a better combo of space, features, value, and towing capability in anything else and you know he knows cars!
in u.s./canada at least i completely agree.
they could basically turn the pacifica into a ute (replace the sliding doors with regular doors and make it look more 'tough' or something) 
yup!
if anything i'd make it a jeep and not a chrysler.
And argument coiuld be made for a large cross over SUV. Then again, very unlikely to sell in high enough volumes.
The writing on the wall for BOF models has been for a least a decade. Ford Explorer, Chevy Trailblazer, Hummer H3, FJ Cruiser, Jeep Commander, Aspen, Durango and KIA Boreggo all no longer live on as body on frame models. The large body on frame models from GM, Ford and Toyota are all legacy models, the tooling and designs are all paid off and they are living off this for decades upon decades. Toyota can only offer the 4Runner because they make so many models off the same frame and chassis and part numbers for world wide production.
KIA Boreggo all no longer live on as body on frame models. The large body on frame models from GM, Ford and Toyota are all legacy models, the tooling and designs are all paid off and they are living off this for decades upon decades. Toyota can only offer the 4Runner because they make so many models off the same frame and chassis and part numbers for world wide production.
Lastly, as Chrysler kills off the 200 and I think Dart?? One needs to keep on mind that the overall automobile marking is contracting and not expanding. So these new buyers have to come from the expense of something else. I can’t imagine there are that many people clamouring to have a full size Chrysler SUV.
02-18-18, 06:43 AM
#9
Lexus Fanatic
Yes I agree. I read mmarshalls post to mean FCA branded products. I don’t think a Jeep full size would work either, Commander did not succeed.
One could argue Toyota has been a failure on the large BOF segment. They don’t sell very many Sequoias and the Lx and LC are niche models that sell in low volume and could only survive in North America because of the worldwide distribution.
On a flip side, Nissan used to have a full size North American made BOF suv that was both sold in Nissan and Infiniti models. Nissan did the right thing to stop production and import the Armada and QX.
02-18-18, 10:10 AM
#10
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Technically, that's true, but, it is more or less a given statement that any true Tahoe/Expediton-fighter would come from Dodge, or possibly, in a more-plush version, from Chrysler. I wouldn't look for one under the Fiat or Jeep nameplate......chances are, that's just not going to happen.
One could argue Toyota has been a failure on the large BOF segment. They don’t sell very many Sequoias and the Lx and LC are niche models that sell in low volume and could only survive in North America because of the worldwide distribution.
On a flip side, Nissan used to have a full size North American made BOF suv that was both sold in Nissan and Infiniti models. Nissan did the right thing to stop production and import the Armada and QX.
The main problem with the Armada and QX56 was the unacceptable defect-rate (by today's standards) from the quality-control problems at the Canton, MS plant.
Last edited by mmarshall; 02-18-18 at 02:21 PM.
02-18-18, 11:19 AM
#11
Yes I agree. I read mmarshalls post to mean FCA branded products. I don’t think a Jeep full size would work either, Commander did not succeed.
One could argue Toyota has been a failure on the large BOF segment. They don’t sell very many Sequoias and the Lx and LC are niche models that sell in low volume and could only survive in North America because of the worldwide distribution.
One could argue Toyota has been a failure on the large BOF segment. They don’t sell very many Sequoias and the Lx and LC are niche models that sell in low volume and could only survive in North America because of the worldwide distribution.
I'd argue part of the struggle is the Sequoia has been neglected for so long. The first generation was very popular, but the current one doesn't really have much to offer other than volume and overall Toyota durability. There are some questionable materials too last I saw. This was a few years ago now.
02-18-18, 02:22 PM
#12
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Have you ever experienced the Commander? It was very cheap inside, reliability was lacking (Consumer Reports gave it many 'Very Poor' ratings in several areas), and it had three powertrains, two of which were severely lackluster in the 3.7L V6 and 4.7L V8. The optional 5.7L Hemi was better, though more expensive for a questionable SUV.
I'd argue part of the struggle is the Sequoia has been neglected for so long. The first generation was very popular, but the current one doesn't really have much to offer other than volume and overall Toyota durability. There are some questionable materials too last I saw. This was a few years ago now.
I'd argue part of the struggle is the Sequoia has been neglected for so long. The first generation was very popular, but the current one doesn't really have much to offer other than volume and overall Toyota durability. There are some questionable materials too last I saw. This was a few years ago now.
The Commander, though large by Jeep standards, is not a true full-sizer compared to Tahoes and Expeditions. I agree on the cheap interior materials for both it and the Sequoia.
Last edited by mmarshall; 02-18-18 at 04:37 PM.
02-18-18, 04:02 PM
#13
Lexus Fanatic
Have you ever experienced the Commander? It was very cheap inside, reliability was lacking (Consumer Reports gave it many 'Very Poor' ratings in several areas), and it had three powertrains, two of which were severely lackluster in the 3.7L V6 and 4.7L V8. The optional 5.7L Hemi was better, though more expensive for a questionable SUV.
I'd argue part of the struggle is the Sequoia has been neglected for so long. The first generation was very popular, but the current one doesn't really have much to offer other than volume and overall Toyota durability. There are some questionable materials too last I saw. This was a few years ago now.
I'd argue part of the struggle is the Sequoia has been neglected for so long. The first generation was very popular, but the current one doesn't really have much to offer other than volume and overall Toyota durability. There are some questionable materials too last I saw. This was a few years ago now.
I would agree that the interior materials of the Sequoia are questionable. I would not really call them cheap, but questionable is a fair way to put. Ford, and GM were not much better at the time. GM was worse than Toyota at the time for their full size trucks and SUVs, but they didn’t overhype it. I think people have a negative perception of the Sequoia in part because of the Tundra, it was really overhyped by Toyota at time and trouble with Toyota historically is that when you don’t opt for the top limited models, materials can sometimes be questionable. And it the Land Cruiser at the time, and it is natural to compare the Sequoia to a Land Cruiser that was a little bit better inside.
Toyota has never been the top dog in materials, you have to go to Lexus for that, they usually are fully competitive with other makes. They were and still are better than GM and Ford for the most part.
But yes, Sequoia has languished on way too long. The current crop of GM and Ford full sizers are far superior
Last edited by Toys4RJill; 02-18-18 at 04:08 PM.
02-18-18, 05:03 PM
#14
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
I would agree that the interior materials of the Sequoia are questionable. I would not really call them cheap, but questionable is a fair way to put.
GM was worse than Toyota at the time for their full size trucks and SUVs, but they didn’t overhype it.
I think people have a negative perception of the Sequoia in part because of the Tundra, it was really overhyped by Toyota at time and trouble with Toyota historically is that when you don’t opt for the top limited models, materials can sometimes be questionable. And it the Land Cruiser at the time, and it is natural to compare the Sequoia to a Land Cruiser that was a little bit better inside.
I read mmarshalls post to mean FCA branded products
Last edited by mmarshall; 02-18-18 at 05:10 PM.
02-18-18, 05:29 PM
#15
Lexus Fanatic
That was, IMO, probably not a fair comparison. The Land Cruiser costs the better part of twice what a Commander did....and had twice the materials in its construction.
Hey, call it what was it was.....a second-rate interior. I believe (though I could be wrong on this) that the Sequoia also has the C-channel frame you dislike. But, to compensate, the Sequoia, like most Toyotas, offers a well-designed/well-built drivetrain that will usually go to 200K or more. People on this forum often like to criticize Toyota/Lexus engines (too dated, too slow, too this, too that LOL), but, IMO, engines are one of the things that Toyota does best.
GM, I remember, specifically started to address the El Cheapo interiors and poorly-done, Push-and-Pray brakes in their big SUVs for the 2007 model year. I did a full-review on the then-new 2007 Chevy Tahoe, specifically to check out those claims, and found them generally (but not totally) true. The new brakes were much better then in the past, and polished wood-tone, chrome, brushed-metal, and soft-touch materials had replaced the old GM matte-plastic junk inside....at least on the dash and door panels.
Again, IMO, an unfair comparison. Even with its questionable materials, a Sequoia doesn't cost 90K like a Land Cruiser. With the Land Cruiser, you get what you pay for. And, don't forget....Land Cruisers are used in some of the most forbidding driving conditions on the planet, such as Middle Eastern deserts and African Savannas.....Sequoias aren't.
I addressed that issue a few posts ago. Fiat and Jeep, for a number of reasons, are not likely to introduce a true Tahoe/Expedition-fighter....if it comes at all, you can bet the monthly rent it would be as a Dodge...or, perhaps in a more-plush version, as a Chrysler. More likely, though, Dodge-only....with a top-dog trim like the Ford King Ranch or the Ram's Longhorn.
Hey, call it what was it was.....a second-rate interior. I believe (though I could be wrong on this) that the Sequoia also has the C-channel frame you dislike. But, to compensate, the Sequoia, like most Toyotas, offers a well-designed/well-built drivetrain that will usually go to 200K or more. People on this forum often like to criticize Toyota/Lexus engines (too dated, too slow, too this, too that LOL), but, IMO, engines are one of the things that Toyota does best.
GM, I remember, specifically started to address the El Cheapo interiors and poorly-done, Push-and-Pray brakes in their big SUVs for the 2007 model year. I did a full-review on the then-new 2007 Chevy Tahoe, specifically to check out those claims, and found them generally (but not totally) true. The new brakes were much better then in the past, and polished wood-tone, chrome, brushed-metal, and soft-touch materials had replaced the old GM matte-plastic junk inside....at least on the dash and door panels.
Again, IMO, an unfair comparison. Even with its questionable materials, a Sequoia doesn't cost 90K like a Land Cruiser. With the Land Cruiser, you get what you pay for. And, don't forget....Land Cruisers are used in some of the most forbidding driving conditions on the planet, such as Middle Eastern deserts and African Savannas.....Sequoias aren't.
I addressed that issue a few posts ago. Fiat and Jeep, for a number of reasons, are not likely to introduce a true Tahoe/Expedition-fighter....if it comes at all, you can bet the monthly rent it would be as a Dodge...or, perhaps in a more-plush version, as a Chrysler. More likely, though, Dodge-only....with a top-dog trim like the Ford King Ranch or the Ram's Longhorn.
New GM SUVs, a bit of a different story.