How not to sell a vehicle in 10 easy steps

[Blue Oval Guide]

Click here for the article

[goblue93]

Click here for the article

 

Good stuff. And Ford is the company in trouble?

Edited September 30, 2006 by goblue93

[IPITYDAFOOL VIRUSFREE]

Good stuff. And Ford is the company in trouble?

American Autos in general are in trouble. An Suv is a big square station wagon. The Suv was derived from the Jeep Cherokee which has been Chrysler's mainstay for over 20 years. Town and Country and Cherokee are excellent autos. I dont think Chrysler is betting on selling more than 50.000 of these, and they will definitely be at the Rental facilities if they are expecting more sales.

[Edgey]

I don't think Detroit as a whole is in trouble, I think GM has turned the corner and Ford is just a few years away from doing the same. Chrysler was in a recovery, now it's heading for catastrophe and will have to reorganize to stop the slide.

[RichardJensen]

GM's doing okay on costs (a few analysts say they've got a better handle on parts and materials costs than Ford--it's possible, Ford still has a lot of inefficiencies in parts sharing, etc.), but I don't think they've turned the corner on product development.

[DSenstad]

I always thought that Chrysler had style and little else, now I guess they are stuck with just little else. Either those photos don't do it justice, or the Element has competition for the most butt ugly car on the market at this time. It looks like an eye sore.

[Edgey]

GM's doing okay on costs (a few analysts say they've got a better handle on parts and materials costs than Ford--it's possible, Ford still has a lot of inefficiencies in parts sharing, etc.), but I don't think they've turned the corner on product development.

 

It seems GM's product development is where Ford is heading with an emphasis on quicker turn around, better quality and safety, bolder styling, and global platform sharing. GM is considerbly quicker to market with new product than Ford has been, although most of the that is time spent before projects are greenlighted. GM is much quicker when deciding on new products and Ford is much more laborious and calculating. It just looks like GM is a glimpse at where Ford hopes to be in a few years.

Edited September 30, 2006 by Edgey

[RichardJensen]

It seems GM's product development is where Ford is heading with an emphasis on quicker turn around, better quality and safety, bolder styling, and global platform sharing.

This is not necessarily true.

 

GMT900 took years, and the GMT800s grew old before their time. The 'W' body is old enough to vote, and while the Delta and Epsilon are certainly far better then the J and N bodies they replaced, the fact that they're globally sourced means little, when one takes into account that the products built on them are aimless. The Lucerne and DTS ride on an updated 'G' body that is 12 years old.

 

Ultimately, GM has to adopt a customer driven approach to product development.

 

With Bob "golden gut" Lutz at the top of the PD pyramid, I doubt that's going to happen any time soon.

 

Of the GM divisions, only Cadillac and Hummer have anything that even resembles lifestyle marketing, and even with these divisions, product decisons are still well isolated from sound customer research. Lutz, as the highest placed 'car guy' in the business, is the leading proponent of the old approach to vehicle design and development in Detroit. It is ultimately a dead-end. All the efficiencies in time to market are wasted if the product itself is not well-conceived.

 

I'm convinced, from all I've seen at GM, that their products are not well-conceived. The zetas are a classic example. Driven by the year and half wonder that was the 300C, GM has decided to gamble on replacing the W-body with a RWD architecture. Time will tell if this is a successful gamble. However, I can tell you right now that it IS a gamble. And the last thing GM, down to its last few dollars, so to speak, should be doing is gambling.

 

----------------------------

 

Read the press-kit for the new Super Duty.

 

In just about every other paragraph, you'll see members of the Ford design team talking about how this feature or that feature was added because it was what customers wanted. The truck looks the way it looks because it fit the way customers viewed their trucks.

 

Why do you think Ford has been able to keep the F-Series on top all these years?

 

Because the design and development process on the F-Series unit is customer driven. It is not so much due to this genius engineer or that brilliant manager. It has to do with a culture that has focused on customer input.

 

Ford needs to do this with all their products, and they need to cross-polinate. They need to interview current Fusion owners about what they would like to see in the next Edge. They need to interview Five Hundred owners about the Fairlane, Edge owners about the Fusion, etc.

 

Only by carefully and studiously soliciting customer feedback can Ford solidly lockdown retail volume.

Edited September 30, 2006 by RichardJensen

[rsgnome]

Very nice. I've always thought that the Aspen, in of iteself, was a pointless vehicle. In this day and age, the last thing any auto maker needs is another SUV... much less one that looks like *that*.

 

The advertisment oddities are just icing on the cake. I truly am under the impression that Chrysler has no idea what they're doing. As if that needed to be said, especially when the next Sebring is taken into account.

[ebritt]

GM's doing okay on costs (a few analysts say they've got a better handle on parts and materials costs than Ford--it's possible, Ford still has a lot of inefficiencies in parts sharing, etc.), but I don't think they've turned the corner on product development.

They have to work more on convincing the public that they are reliable. If everyone thinks they are junk,no sales.

[JLaudioF150]

But it's available with a HEMI!

[Edstock]

 

Well, they sure nailed the typography — the font they used sure recalls all those 70's Chrysler products with the plastic filigree trim, Ricardo Mentalblock and real Corinthian leather. All it needs are opera lights.

 

If Chrysler had the imagination, IMHO, they should try working their "fuselage" styling from the early 70's into a modern sedan to replace the 300, which reprises the mid-50's.

 

In the picture of the '71 below, notice how nicely the side window glass is done, compared to the heavy window frames of the current 300.

 

.

[Hellcat_F6F]

 

Well, they sure nailed the typography — the font they used sure recalls all those 70's Chrysler products with the plastic filigree trim, Ricardo Mentalblock and real Corinthian leather. All it needs are opera lights.

 

If Chrysler had the imagination, IMHO, they should try working their "fuselage" styling from the early 70's into a modern sedan to replace the 300, which reprises the mid-50's.

 

In the picture of the '71 below, notice how nicely the side window glass is done, compared to the heavy window frames of the current 300.

 

.

 

I'd pay $700 for that old C body in a heartbeat! I love the "fuselage" era Chryslers, always have. One of these days, if I can keep my job @Ford, I want to get a 69-72 Imperial coupe. I love the styling of those cars.

[630land]

The cars that really hurt Mopar in the late 70s were the "Bluesmobile" cars of 1974-78. They were white elephants, only cops bought them, and GM's big cars cleaned their clock. i.e. Outsold them handily.

 

The current Aspen SUV is a bomb about to explode. I bet it will quietly dissapear like the Mitsu Dakota, I mean Raider. I am sure Thrifty and Dollar will offer deals on renting Aspens. Look for used ones valued at 33% of MSRP in a year.

Edited October 1, 2006 by 630land

[grbeck]

The fuselage 1969-73 models didn't sell as well as Chrysler had hoped. The Dodge and Plymouth, in particular, didn't go over well with buyers, which resulted in Chrysler performing an emergency makeover for the Fury and Polara/Monaco for the 1970 model year. There were also serious build quality problems with these cars.

 

The next-generation big cars from Chrysler were hurt by the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo, along with a lack of distinction between the Plymouth and Dodge versions.

 

As for the new Aspen - it's an answer to a question nobody is asking. On the other hand, Chrysler probably spent next-to-nothing to bring it to market, so I doubt the corporation will lose anything except its pride if it flops.

 

The choice of "Aspen" for the name is curious - it hardly recalls one of Mopar's all-time hits. The mid-1970s were a low point in Chrysler's history, ending in the federal bailout in the early 1980s. Newport, Windsor or Saratoga would have been better choices.

[2005GTP]

Or........make it look like this:

[JLaudioF150]

How not to sell a luxury suv:

 

1. Don't make it a mini-me (Navigator ---> Aviator)