BREAKING: Windsor Will Begin Building A New Electrified Vehicle In 2024:

[redriderbob]

There should be a three or four-month overlap of both plants producing both the current and next-generation cars.

 

[Mopar392]

Could these 3 or 4 months turn to years, similar to what happened with Ram?

 

[TripleT]

Could these 3 or 4 months turn to years, similar to what happened with Ram?

Yes this is the new normal, shuffle the plants No supply disruption. Maybe Brampton will finally get fixed from the Renault era narrow constraints.

The world Electrified throws people off, and I think it is a bit on purpose. Todays cars are "Electrified". Moving forward everything will be "Electrified" but as growing proportion of its propulsion.

 

[cgseller]

What’s coming? A new Crossfire sports roadster that will serve as a hallo car for Chrysler. News that the 300 indeed will be totally returning as a next generation luxury sedan and built along side Charger and Challenger, that too will be announced, as will plans to develop a new Imperial, built in Italy, off a Maserati platform. Big news guys.
Is it not interesting that these Willyisms offer a wish list that folks want and not an electric appliance in the mix. Mopar Willy, The sage of sages strikes again!

@bill burke you got one of your wishes, with a nod that there is a desire to /replace/ the 300 with a comparable vehicle in a few model years from now - all BEV.

 

[TripleT]

@bill burke you got one of your wishes, with a nod that there is a desire to /replace/ the 300 with a comparable vehicle in a few model years from now - all BEV.

I expect everyone who been complaining about Chrysler getting attention to Put their order in the Day Airflow comes available, it it the Brands last chance. Oh I don't want a Electric Appliance..... OK then start writing the Obituary. With the accelerated push from regulators the Niche for Chrysler as the Electric and Techno brand is closing faster than they can implement it. Will be interesting to see STLA minivan, but it always been told the CUSW+ wasn't that far off to begin with.

 

[cygnus]

They could build a new Chrysler 300 alongside the new Charger/Challenger. Make it AWD and I6 PHEV only to make it unique vs. the Charger/Challenger. They're just lazy if they don't do it.

I will never buy an EV.

 

[cygnus]

@bill burke you got one of your wishes, with a nod that there is a desire to /replace/ the 300 with a comparable vehicle in a few model years from now - all BEV.

The current leadership is just chasing short term dollars under the delusion that Tesla's valuation is real/that EV margins will somehow different (in the longrun) than traditional automotive manufacturing/margins. Once they run out of EV fools and EV sales plateau (which _will_ happen, since we've hit the wall for rising vehicle ASPs), they'll come crawling back to PHEVs and high output ICE.

Either that or I never buy a new vehicle again in my lifetime and I begin stockpiling V8 Grand Cherokees and Broncos.

 

[TripleT]

They could build a new Chrysler 300 alongside the new Charger/Challenger. Make it AWD and I6 PHEV only to make it unique vs. the Charger/Challenger. They're just lazy if they don't do it.

I will never buy an EV.

There not lazy.... they have regulatory and market realities to deal with. The 300 sells like 2 per dealer. Loving a brand as a individual is NOT ROI.

 

[cygnus]

It takes effort and money to design a vehicle offering that lends itself to a favorable/unique position in the marketplace. They stopped trying with the 300 long, long ago to chase SUV profits. I stand by what I said, a 300 with AWD and PHEV only is a viable product offering.

 

[TripleT]

It takes effort and money to design a vehicle offering that lends itself to a favorable/unique position in the marketplace. They stopped trying with the 300 long, long ago to chase SUV profits. I stand by what I said, a 300 with AWD and PHEV only is a viable product offering.

Well those who are paying are going to take a flier on your word. Especially when there are major markets it won't even be allowed on the lots. The Customer base for formal sedans is too small for them recover the Money and Effort to bring it too market, and with every passing year it get smaller as those people age out. Targeting a growing and younger demographic is the only way the Brand survives. Mine or Your individual desire is not a ROI.

300 should be replaced with Tall Wagon.... and like you I prefer PHEV but I don't answer to the investors. Right now it kill me that the Recon isn't getting a powertrain that is practical for me.

If one want Chrysler brand to survive they should be rooting for the Airflow to be a excellent product. Otherwise Lancia it is.

In the end one could take their ball and go home. But that really isn't a argument that persuades those who have to pay. Right now is a bit of renaissance in the auto-motive industry, with new start up everywhere. Convince some of your liked minded people to pull a INEAOS a produce a retro-Model that you long for.

 

[cygnus]

Every program and proposed offering I've run in the industry has been wildly profitable (I started in 2009) so I'm going to disagree with you there.

 

[TripleT]

Every program and proposed offering I've run in the industry has been wildly profitable (I started in 2009) so I'm going to disagree with you there.

Well then put a group together and do it. Pull a INEOS you might even be able pull the Grandson in. Now is time.

Retro-Formal sedan with PHEV. Some of the L series IP probably even could be acquired as Brampton is renewed.

It easy to tell other people what to do with their money. Make it happen.

 

[TripleT]

Every program and proposed offering I've run in the industry has been wildly profitable (I started in 2009) so I'm going to disagree with you there.

I am not joking. About the INEOS model. The claim was exactly the same, the RR was abandoning it roots and that there was still a market for Traditional British SUVs. I might even be able to hook you up with some of those involved parties to see what is involved in executing it.

 

[cygnus]

We could all do without the whatabout-ism - continuing to apologize for the current leadership's unwillingness to do anything except if its rip your face off profitable will inevitably lead to a smaller and less competitive Chrysler once the current economic cycle turns.

 

[TripleT]

We could all do without the whatabout-ism - continuing to apologize for the current leadership's unwillingness to do anything except if its rip your face off profitable will inevitably lead to a smaller and less competitive Chrysler once the current economic cycle turns.

Not sure what you are talking about Whatabout-ism. Your very sure that the current managements ROI, Market research, and product planning is wrong. I am not apologizing for anything, I am explaining it. I have absolutely no reason as you do to doubt the assessment and frankly saw this coming years ago and stated clearly on this forum and others. The demographic that prefer that product is aging out of the market. But don't have access to their material to confirm or deny yours or my assessment. You seem absolutely positive that it is incorrect. This is the very Scenario the leadership at INEOS faced. They believed like you that the ROI, Market research, and Product Planning was abandoning a profitable and desirable market. It is NEARLY a identical situation.

You seem offended that I am with all serious intent suggesting that you and others who are positively sure that they have picked the wrong course, take advantage of this error and profit from this market that you are absolutely sure of. It seems there are some powerful people who agree and one could bring them along. This is not a call your bluff thing, it is a positive suggestion to make sure what you believe is available in the future.

Things to come back around. Like Vinyl records had one of the biggest years last in decades, you might just have the pulse on the next retro-movement. There are people currently playing the same game, piggy back, pull it off, and I am willing to help.

 

[cygnus]

You're positioning this as a whitespace opportunity for a new company to follow, which we both know is absurd with respect to the capital costs of launching a vehicle program for a startup automotive company.

I'm saying they're too busy chasing what they think is the hottest thing based on a competitor's stock price (TSLA) and this perception that manufacturing costs will go down due to decreased complexity of EV manufacturing (BS) and material costs will stabilize (LOL - where is your LiFePO4 strategy?), both of which demonstrate naivety if not outright ignorance.

The Big 3 have outsourced as much to the supply chain the last 20 years and now they've had a reckoning because they are beginning to realize that you can beat the hell out metal stamper/part supplier in the US all day, but when it comes time to 5x or 6x increase your chip buying for EVs (because EVs have sometimes 7x as many chips as the same ICE vehicle) and you need to go to Asia - they don't put up with your crap. Same is true for batteries.

So now they say - "oh, we will insource all of that." Yeah? Where you gonna buy all that nickel, magneius, cobalt? Glencore? They already locked up a deal with Tesla.

How many Computer Engineers (processor/lithography design) do you have on staff? Not Electrical Engineers - guys who have experience actually sending designs out to TSMC for fabrication. Oh, you don't? You've been buying all your stuff from wholesalers and having powertrain firmware guys take a stab at it, because those wet behind the ear CS grads couldn't spell CMOS? Interesting!

Second - where are EVs going to markets share plateau with respect to people's willingness to buy these things? Hint - it's A LOT lower than what they've determined internally. People are waking up, they're seeing those $15K 2014 Bolt owner battery replacement estimates. Most of the midwest/south has limited EV interest.

This isn't going to go how they think it is, and it could very well push GM into bankruptcy again because they're taking these rate increases on the chin with their BBB- bond rating ("investment grade" - aka, hold your nose).

 

[Mopar392]

Don’t know about the whole Stellantis, but CDJR should not put all their eggs in one basket.
Do a BEV, but offer the same vehicle in HEV or PHEV.
Keep your performance V8s but offer other engines in the bread and butter trims that can help your corporate average numbers. Examples of the above are BMW M and Mercedes AMG. They are keeping their V8s for the E segment, either cars or SUVs, and Sport cars. But they added electrification for performance. This way they can and would entertain a larger audience. And when the whole electrification flop, they would still have a market share.
While Dodge clearly stated no more HEMI in the next generation Charger and Challenger, Ford unveiled the next Mustang with an updated Coyote V8.
Sure the HO Hurricane engine has more power than the 392 HEMI, but the fuel efficI envy is only 1-2mpg better, and I’m willing to bet, the same power increase and fuel efficiency improvement can be achieved with the 392 HEMI, if it would get updated.

 

[TripleT]

You're positioning this as a whitespace opportunity for a new company to follow, which we both know is absurd with respect to the capital costs of launching a vehicle program for a startup automotive company.

I'm saying they're too busy chasing what they think is the hottest thing based on a competitor's stock price (TSLA) and this perception that manufacturing costs will go down due to decreased complexity of EV manufacturing (BS) and material costs will stabilize (LOL - where is your LiFePO4 strategy?), both of which demonstrate naivety if not outright ignorance.

I not absurd there are more automotive start ups now that you can Shake a stick at, and capacity sitting open at many....

If your idea has merit there are people who will finance it, or you can talk to one other Start ups like Ineos to adopt the model you wish. If you can't make a plausible case to more conservative large corporation surely the small more adventurous people would be game. And given the volume the implementation cost would far less then Stalantis. Which will make the ROI much easier.

I really get the impression you rather just be critical then to take some positive answer. I get it that is what places like this is for Arm Chair and complain.

I am all for it, I have been critical of slapping Jeep and Alfa on a PSA car so I get it.

As for BEV people need to speak with there vote. EPA and Several states have basically back the manufacturers in the corner. Frankly I think the end game is end to private transport, but they are playing the game as it as the rules are written now.

I am also not convinced the V8 is dead, just on a temp hiatus.

 

[cygnus]

The I6 Hurricane exists because before Europe went over the deep end with their stupid EV mandates, I think there was (still is?) a tax on anything over 3L. So the Hurricane is 2.999L. From what I understand, the Hurricane design is five or six years old if you can believe it. So it was abandoned for Europe and only exists in the US.

But it was a foolish decision based on the reasons Mopar392 referenced - there are ways to get better mileage out of the V8 for sure. But instead of scrapping the I6 and doing that, they're going forward with this five year old I6 design, and saying (internally) - "we'd rather put money in EVs instead of V8s because we think we can gut the UAW in the long run with decreased manufacturing complexity of EVs"

 

[Mopar392]

They have already invested in updating the V8, if we think about the rumored 426 Banshee.
They are already investing in developing the DC kits for the 6.2 and 6.4 HEMI. Whether it’s certifying some 3rd party parts or having it CAFE approved.