Forum Discussion
jtallon wrote:
Moving the goal posts now? First it was "Chrysler", now it's "FCA as a whole". And at first it was EVERY ranking... but now it's not really EVERY ranking anymore, is it?
It always was Chrysler corporation. Now they are FCA. Perhaps I should have been more clear.
Again, as a whole the Fiat Chrysler Corporation makes un-dependible vehicles. That fact has not been changed.
Had they made good vehicles they would have not needed 2 bailouts from the US Taxpayer.Personally, I put a lot more stock in "dependability" than on "initial quality" anyway. A good reason to drive a GM or a RAM. Maybe not a Ford so much.
Possibly. GM does make some fine vehicles. Ram, not so much. Nor does the rest of the FCA companies.itguy08 wrote:
FCA as a whole is at the bottom.
...
There's those pesky FCA nameplates at the bottom, including, Chrysler.
Moving the goal posts now? First it was "Chrysler", now it's "FCA as a whole". And at first it was EVERY ranking... but now it's not really EVERY ranking anymore, is it?
Personally, I put a lot more stock in "dependability" than on "initial quality" anyway. A good reason to drive a GM or a RAM. Maybe not a Ford so much.
But hey, don't let a few pesky facts get in the way of some good hyperbole! Carry on, brother!mich800 wrote:
Lessmore wrote:
Interesting read. Sayonora to the Dodge minivan.
Dodge Minivan to end production 2016
They are just doing what maybe GM should do. Consolidating to one brand for the minivan and concentrate marketing efforts. No sense competing with yourself. Grand Caravan vs. Town and Country or Sierra vs Silverado
Exactly. They are working on doing what GM should be doing. FCA wants Dodge to be the entry level brand and Chrysler to be the luxury brand. Then Jeep and Ram.
It's amazing what the uninformed "think" may happen. Shows just how ignorant they are!jtallon wrote:
EVERY place, huh? Well, that sets a pretty easy bar to disprove your statement. I only need ONE reference to disprove "EVERY". JD Power should work, I would think.
FCA as a whole is at the bottom.
FCA brands in Problems per 100:
Fiat - 273
Chrysler - 173
Dodge - 192
Jeep - 197
Ram - 134
Average- 192.2 Problems per 100
Ford brands:
Ford- 188
Lincoln - 118
Average: 153 Problems per 100
GM:
Buick - 110
Chevrolet - 123
Cadillac - 114
GMC - 123
Average - 117.5 Problems per 100
So, yeah, FCA makes crappy vehicles.
And then there is this, released this week:
There's those pesky FCA nameplates at the bottom, including, Chrysler.Lessmore wrote:
Interesting read. Sayonora to the Dodge minivan.
Dodge Minivan to end production 2016
They are just doing what maybe GM should do. Consolidating to one brand for the minivan and concentrate marketing efforts. No sense competing with yourself. Grand Caravan vs. Town and Country or Sierra vs SilveradoLessmore wrote:
Interesting read. Sayonora to the Dodge minivan.
Dodge Minivan to end production 2016
link is useless just a bunch of redirects ,but as to the end of minivan - possible, but why did they just spend a billion on a complete new retool?
The line only has been running for 3 weeks.itguy08 wrote:
LOL Now I know you are high. EVERY place that tracks quality and dependability puts Chrysler vehicles at the bottom.
EVERY place, huh? Well, that sets a pretty easy bar to disprove your statement. I only need ONE reference to disprove "EVERY". JD Power should work, I would think.
And the link to the article:
JD Power 2015 Vehicle Dependability Survey
There's Chrysler... ranked above... Ford? Why, I'm shocked!
Hey, look! There's RAM, way up by Chevy... above the industry average, and WAY above Ford! Glad I didn't buy one of those Fords! Unreliable junk, just a few spots up the list from FIAT! :E
So, can we all get back to arguing about torque vs. horsepower, 2wd vs. 4wd, and gas vs. diesel now?Fast Mopar wrote:
itguy08 wrote:
Chrysler should have died in the 80's when Iacocca was first begging for cash from Uncle Sam. Like all the other defunct brands they would not be missed one bit by the general public.
Well now, that is a very intelligent insight.
What makes Chrysler better and more special than all those that came before them and failed? Sure isn't the quality of their vehicles - in the bottom of that race in every place that tracks those things. Sure isn't profitability - they put the most cash on the hood of all manufacturers.
When something can't support itself, it's time to say goodbye. . After, what 3 owners, none can make it work, it's time to stick a fork in it cause it's done.
Nothing they make is special and cannot be replaced by others. Someone will buy the plants. Someone will pick apart the good (Jeep and maybe Ram) and the rest will go bye bye.dodge guy wrote:
Actually it's the other way around, why would FCA keep the GM trucks?!
Are you high? Do you really think the weaker of the 2 companies (FCA) would survive? If they merged, GM would be the new owner/last man standing.As far as the minivan goes GM dropped out of that market because they couldn't build anything worthwhile to anyone! There is a reason the Mopar minivans are still around, no one can build anything competitive!
LOL. Except Huyndai/Kia, Toyota, Honda, and some years Nissan.
As far as anyone missing Chrysler....there are quite a bit that would miss them. They build some of the best cars on the road. Despite what some consumer magazine editors opinion thinks!
LOL Now I know you are high. EVERY place that tracks quality and dependability puts Chrysler vehicles at the bottom. From actual owners. Yea, the few delusional Mopar fans would miss the but the rest would simply do like they are doing now and ignore them.
Driving dynamics, few would put them anywhere near the best!
