Challenger falling behind in road courses?

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

would you believe me if I said I learned that phrase from a sock puppet?

Yes. And that should concern you.

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by a_Username

And we are only saying that a failing company needs to make cars that idk, SELL? MAKE PROFIT SO IT CAN GET BACK ON ITS FEET?

No, Kevin says you have to limit production on the cars that sell.

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by kevin2323

when you sell 29000 challengers in a year and you build 30000 you pretty much have the production right on point...you dont even need to know about economics for that one.

Apparently you and the Chrysler top dogs think the same.

And there is a reason GM is starting to pay back it's bailout money, while Chrysler is still bleeding money.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

Apparently you and the Chrysler top dogs think the same.

And there is a reason GM is starting to pay back it's bailout money, while Chrysler is still bleeding money.

Yep. And it has more to do with the entire fleet of vehicles, rather than just one....especially one that was design to be viable at 30,000 units. The fact its sales are so low is not a bad thing...

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

The fact its sales are so low is not a bad thing...

How in the world can anyone say that low sales are not a bad thing?

Heck, the Mustang sales forecasts projected less than 100,000 units for the first year, but once Ford saw the public demand, more than 1,000,000 were built in the first 18 months. And we see how that worked out for Ford. What if Ford had just stuck with their plans/projections and limited Mustang production despite higher consumer demand than they predicted?

[Stew]

Originally Posted by wbt

Read through the thread and you will find several of us who are not pleased with the Fiat deal, lack of progress and vision that has been laid out. It is full of fail.

Who gives a damn about a SRT8 with 500HP. Ford GT500 offers 540 and will trounce all over an SRT8 with more HP. If/when the Z28 releases expect the CTS-V drivetrain meaning another stomping. Puts Dodge at the bottom again for "future" thinking. I own 2 Chrysler products and both will be out of my ownership this year. Second issue that no one has mentioned is the PCM code on the Dodge vehicles. My CSRT has yet to be opened meaning tuning is non-existent unless you bypass which requires harness splicing. Pain in the balls.

Both Ford and GM offer PCM unlock capabilities which makes it easy to tune the cars for the mods installed. Another huge failure in the face of Chrysler/Fiat.

We can go on and on about the failures. Glad for those who like their Dodge vehicles. Too bad they are bottom of the line performers and the future with the Fiat platforms is not promising.

Dude, your post shows a total lack of understanding of the car industry. Fiat IS making changes, BUT like anything it takes time. They cannot design new cars, change the factories for said cars, and get them in production in a few months, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE! It takes YEARS. Just like Ford started working on the Coyote in 2007 and HAD to cut 12 months off of normal development to get it out now. They ar doing upgrades and refreshed out by late this year, not to mention the 11 Grand Cherokee, Charger, 300, Durango based on the Grand Cherokee, updated Challenger in 11, new Caliber interior and enhancements this year, the intro of the Fiat 500 which is sure to be a hit (LOVE the Abarth version!). It takes TIME and MONEY to do these things. They don't have money and replacing the current lineup will take YEARS not months. From what I am seeing Fiat is working hard on this. Please go to allpar.com and check out the 5 year plan, some pretty interesting stuff.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

How in the world can anyone say that low sales are not a bad thing?

It depends on how you choose to look at it. From a financial standpoint -- Chrysler's standpoint -- it is not a bad thing. They built 30,000 or whatever cars, and they sold 29k. They met demand, and their target sales goal for profitability/viability. End of story.

From another, perhaps, "world-domination" standpoint...it's a bad thing.

It all depends.

[1bad65]

Dragoneye, I just think if you make 30,000 cars, and sell 29,000 of them (which is basically 100%), you should at least raise production somewhat the next year and see if you again sell over 96% of them.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Yep. And it has more to do with the entire fleet of vehicles, rather than just one....especially one that was design to be viable at 30,000 units. The fact its sales are so low is not a bad thing...

I agree here, even if they sold 100k Challengers a year, it would be far from enough. Their current range of midsizers and compacts (the bread and butter) are either highly outclassed or even nonexistant (they should have updated the Neon and at least sold it beside the Caliber, would have ben better thn replacing the Neon with a bigger, less fuel efficient entry level car with nothing below it). The redesigned Charger is a start, but until they have competitive vehicles in the midsize sedan and compact sector, they ARE going to keep losing money. Like I said previously though, this is going to take time, no way around it.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

Dragoneye, I just think if you make 30,000 cars, and sell 29,000 of them (which is basically 100%), you should at least raise production somewhat the next year and see if you again sell over 96% of them.

If the demand is there, you can raise production on a month-by-month basis. The demand for more than 30k Challengers was not there.

It's not very smart at all to build a surplus of cars and "hope to sell them". That increases standing inventory which costs dealers' money, the company paid to build cars that weren't sold, etc...

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

If the demand is there, you can raise production on a month-by-month basis. The demand for more than 30k Challengers was not there.

It's not very smart at all to build a surplus of cars and "hope to sell them". That increases standing inventory which costs dealers' money, the company paid to build cars that weren't sold, etc...

Yes, one thing they are doing is cutting back production on all cars anyways as to not have a surplus. Sergio is not stupid, he and Fiat know the vehicles in the lots need updating badly, they are doing what they can.

[MrIcky]

I think it's an interesting point that the manual is an extra cost option (which is the reverse of everything else). I think the first year for the SRT they didn't even offer a manual? Makes me think that from the beginning they may have been appealing to a different portion of the market than who is posting here.

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

If the demand is there, you can raise production on a month-by-month basis. The demand for more than 30k Challengers was not there.

I agree about the month-by-month production increases if demand supports it.

However, how can you say that demand for more than 30k Challengers was not there when many Dodge dealers were charging dealer markup on the ones they got?

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

However, how can you say that demand for more than 30k Challengers was not there when many Dodge dealers were charging dealer markup on the ones they got?

I can say that...because sales and production numbers indicate that as fact. We can discuss the nitty-gritty details underlining it all, but they built 30k, and they sold 29k. End of story.