Rumorpile: Chrysler's Future Lineup Is 'Under Re-evaluation'

Does this mean the return of the LeBaron and Cordoba?

Would be sweet

Or is this FCA getting stuck between government regulations and market forces? Car company needs to sell cars to make money. Car company needs to sell the right cars to be compliant. Good luck.

I foresee crossovers gaining, compacts diminishing and Hybrids being the sweet spot with a few more EVs coming onto the scene.

A Chrysler 100 as an Encore/Trax competitor leaning on the luxury side of things rather than the Off-Road side like the Renegade would probably be a better move than a Chrysler Dart. 

A Chrysler 100 as an Encore/Trax competitor leaning on the luxury side of things rather than the Off-Road side like the Renegade would probably be a better move than a Chrysler Dart. 

So in other words your advice to FCA would be to build an Encore competitor as the Chrysler 100?

Yes.  They already have the "rugged" version in the Renegade.  There is the Italian connection in the 500x.   But I couldn't sell either of them to my partner as he likes the more luxury feel of the Encore.  It would be a good fit for Chrysler I think and it is the hottest growth segment right now. 

Do they really need Chrysler and Dodge?  They could move the 200 to Dodge as an Avenger, give Dodge a new crossover, Dodge has the minivan already.  You could argue that they don't need Chrysler at all anymore.  I could argue they don't need Fiat or Alfa either, or Maserati for that matter.  Maybe they should just have Jeep, Ram and 1 car brand.

I don't think they need Fiat or Alfa.... but as long as Serg is at the helm, those two brands are untouchable.

Chrysler (the brand) is a lot healthier than you give them credit for SMK. They might even outsell the entire VW brand in the US this year... and with only 3 vehicles in their lineup.

Chrysler needs to be Buick but with a broader range of product. Premium cars without going all the way to Cadillac/Benz level. They are so close to being able to do this with the cars they have now.... better interiors and upgraded powertrains would be all it takes.

Dodge can handle the family car business.

Ram and Jeep have their respective niches.

Let Maserati handle the luxury end as it has more brand recognition than Alfa. 

How about something a little larger more Escape/Nox/CR-V-like instead of another Renegade/500x? I know Jeep has the Cherokee but that's the only SUV of that size FCA really has. It'd put a second, more luxurious, vehicle in that class. I'd assume it would more compete with the Terrain Denali or Escape Titanium.

How about something a little larger more Escape/Nox/CR-V-like instead of another Renegade/500x? I know Jeep has the Cherokee but that's the only SUV of that size FCA really has. It'd put a second, more luxurious, vehicle in that class. I'd assume it would more compete with the Terrain Denali or Escape Titanium.

You're forgetting the Journey.  But yes, I think a lux version of the Cherokee would be a nice Chrysler.   It's just that the small CUVs are the hottest new segment right now, so get in while they can with an Encore/Trax car.  Easier to win customers when the segment is new.  In the CR-V segment, people just turn in their CR-V and lease another without thinking.

The minvan without sliding doors? lol Yeah, I always forget that because it doesn't seem to compete with anything, in my opinion at least. I passionately hate the Journey. It just seems so..awkward to me..

But would they be stealing their own sales from a Renegade or 500x though?(doubtful they'd steal 500x sales as there aren't many dealers around to steal from). I guess the same could be said for the Cherokee though...

The Avenger Journey still sells decent, and just a year or two ago was over 100k units a year... so it's competing with something.  It's CR-V/Nox priced but with a third row for tiny tots, and it actually comes with a V6 which the CR-V/Rogue/RAV-4 do not.  So it has its place. 

I don't think Encore sales and Renegade sales are very interchangeable.  While both vehicles are in the same size class, they appeal to very different types of consumer.  I would expect a Chrysler CUV of that size to appeal to an Encore consumer rather than a Renegade consumer.

I think you mean Journey.  The Avenger was a small midsize FWD sedan that was discontinued a good while back.

Is it normal to go under all those re-evaluations as FCA seems to do lately...

I  mean...I get the part where a manufacturer is pro-active in dealing with the ever changing automotive scene and reacts to the fast changes that the industry seems to do, but in my opinion, FCA seems to be re-evaluating every 6 months...

Just engineer a bloody product and send it out already for crikey's sake...

Chrysler needs a LX  platform replacement as of yesterday.

Ditto Dodge.

Chrysler needs that 100 sedan as of yesrterday.

Chrysler ALSO needs a 100 based CUV as of yesterday...not either or...

Alpha Romeo needs that RWD sedan that Sergio is showing us...as of yesterday...

Alpha Romeo needs luxury SUVs and  CUVs and 4 door coupes and 2 door coupes as of yesterday...

Fiat...needs more cars than that 500 vehicle and the spin off of it as of.....yesterday...

You people dont know how much I HATE this expression..."I need this yesterday"

And I NEVER thought Id EVER use it...however...in this case...I deem it to be very very appropriate.

Chrysler is a US/Canada brand not a global brand.  Volkswagen could sell zero cars in the USA and still sell 8 million elsewhere.    FCA just has too many niche brands that are too localized to certain regions.  Sergio wants industry consolidation, but he can't even consolidate his own house.  And they can't keep product fresh across 7 or 8 brands, they are like GM of 10 years ago without the sales volume.  

Alfa should be killed and all those cars to Maserati, then they'd have 3 sedans, a coming crossover and the 4C sports car.  I still think Dodge and Chrysler could merge to one brand, unless Ram is killed and Dodge becomes a truck, van and muscle car brand.  Jeep is fine, Chrysler would be car and crossovers, no crossovers to Dodge.

There was a time when people thought, how can GM kill Pontiac or Saturn or Hummer, etc.  Where will that volume go.  Well those brands are gone and not really missed, and they still have volume, and they are more profitable.    If FCA cut half their brands in time they would not be missed.

I think making Chrysler more a Buick/Lincoln/Acura competitor is a fantastic idea.  Same too making the 100 an Encore sized crossover based on the renegade.   I like the idea of Dodge as an all performance division, but sure that is feasible in he long run. 

They need to focus on PHEV/EV  NOW.

FCA was at the bottom of the most recent Union of Concerned Scientists emissions rankings for carmakers.  When it comes to fuel efficiency, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) is among the lowest of all U.S. automakers and had to buy 8.2 million megagrams of emissions credits.

They need to focus on PHEV/EV  NOW.

 

FCA was at the bottom of the most recent Union of Concerned Scientists emissions rankings for carmakers.  When it comes to fuel efficiency, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) is among the lowest of all U.S. automakers and had to buy 8.2 million megagrams of emissions credits.

Get the low hanging fruit first. They need a new family of fuel efficient 4-cylinder engines.  The Tigershark just isn't cutting it. 

Mazda is the most fuel efficient of all manufacturers aside from Tesla.  They have zero hybrids.

 

They need to focus on PHEV/EV  NOW.

 

FCA was at the bottom of the most recent Union of Concerned Scientists emissions rankings for carmakers.  When it comes to fuel efficiency, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) is among the lowest of all U.S. automakers and had to buy 8.2 million megagrams of emissions credits.

 

Get the low hanging fruit first. They need a new family of fuel efficient 4-cylinder engines.  The Tigershark just isn't cutting it. 

 

Mazda is the most fuel efficient of all manufacturers aside from Tesla.  They have zero hybrids.

 

Bingo, the new family of 4s can't come soon enough. 

They obviously need to pilfer more from Mazda. ActiveTiger or...er SkyShark. I like SkyShark. Yes, that one!!!

Mazda will rake in the monies, and again it proves... being the biggest, isn't always best.

They obviously need to pilfer more from Mazda. ActiveTiger or...er SkyShark. I like SkyShark. Yes, that one!!!

 

Mazda will rake in the monies, and again it proves... being the biggest, isn't always best.

The Tigershark is actually a collaboration between FCA, Hyundai, and Mitsubishi.  Each manufacturer tunes it differently to their own needs.   But you're right, it would have been better if those three had paid Mazda to do the engine.

I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

 

I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

 

Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

 

The CX-9 is getting a boosted 2.5 liter 4-cylinder with 250 horsepower and 310 lb-ft of torque.   No need for a Pentastar.

 

I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

 

Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

 

Why waste R&D dollars on a V6 wen you can go Hybrid for the CX-9 and use a turbo 4 plus a decent electric motor.

Better yet, use their I4 N/A as a generator and go with a pure electric AWD power train. Make the CX-9 like the Volt. 

Pure EV for the first 80 miles and then generator driven.

 

I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

 

Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

 

Well, we will have o agree to disagree.  The V6 has it's merits in a larger car, as an option in the CX9 and 6.  With Mazdas expertise and lighter vehicles I would guess they could rather easily get a highway feature in the mid 30s (it already 31 in the heavy LX cars and 32 in the fwd 200).  As for the rest of their lineup, nope.  it is a moot point and thought anyways as we should be seeing the new Chrysler 4s in less than a year that includes at least a couple turbo 4s.  I wouldn't mind seeing them collaborate on a small truck either, i have a soft spot for the older Mazda trucks (pre 93 Ranger spinoff).

 

 

I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

 

Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

 

Why waste R&D dollars on a V6 wen you can go Hybrid for the CX-9 and use a turbo 4 plus a decent electric motor.

 

Better yet, use their I4 N/A as a generator and go with a pure electric AWD power train. Make the CX-9 like the Volt. 

 

Pure EV for the first 80 miles and then generator driven.

 

Interesting you mention this as we should see such a setup on the new Town and Country available in a few months.  The thought on the 880 that Chrysler is touting about the T&C's intro is 8 passenger and either 80 MPGE or 80 miles on straight electric power.  Also, the T&C is going to offer an AWD system with electric motors powering the rear wheels so it doesn't effect the stow and go seating.  Oh, I think someone said something about them needing hybrids earlier too.  Actually the more I think about it, with a turbo 4 family, a new high tech plug in hybrid system, and the available new rwd platform appearing in the Alfa, why do they need a partner again?

 

 

 

I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

 

Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

 

Why waste R&D dollars on a V6 wen you can go Hybrid for the CX-9 and use a turbo 4 plus a decent electric motor.

 

Better yet, use their I4 N/A as a generator and go with a pure electric AWD power train. Make the CX-9 like the Volt. 

 

Pure EV for the first 80 miles and then generator driven.

 

Interesting you mention this as we should see such a setup on the new Town and Country available in a few months.  The thought on the 880 that Chrysler is touting about the T&C's intro is 8 passenger and either 80 MPGE or 80 miles on straight electric power.  Also, the T&C is going to offer an AWD system with electric motors powering the rear wheels so it doesn't effect the stow and go seating.  Oh, I think someone said something about them needing hybrids earlier too.  Actually the more I think about it, with a turbo 4 family, a new high tech plug in hybrid system, and the available new rwd platform appearing in the Alfa, why do they need a partner again?

 

They don't need a partner, they need to dump the vampire brands that are sucking blood out of the money makers.... but Sergio likes to keep the Vampires as pets.

 

 

 

 

I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

 

Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

 

Why waste R&D dollars on a V6 wen you can go Hybrid for the CX-9 and use a turbo 4 plus a decent electric motor.

 

Better yet, use their I4 N/A as a generator and go with a pure electric AWD power train. Make the CX-9 like the Volt. 

 

Pure EV for the first 80 miles and then generator driven.

 

Interesting you mention this as we should see such a setup on the new Town and Country available in a few months.  The thought on the 880 that Chrysler is touting about the T&C's intro is 8 passenger and either 80 MPGE or 80 miles on straight electric power.  Also, the T&C is going to offer an AWD system with electric motors powering the rear wheels so it doesn't effect the stow and go seating.  Oh, I think someone said something about them needing hybrids earlier too.  Actually the more I think about it, with a turbo 4 family, a new high tech plug in hybrid system, and the available new rwd platform appearing in the Alfa, why do they need a partner again?

 

 

They don't need a partner, they need to dump the vampire brands that are sucking blood out of the money makers.... but Sergio likes to keep the Vampires as pets.

 

I agree here and am hoping he does retire in 18 (would be nice if sooner).  I am probably the rare one that can live with Alfa if done right, but Fiat is just one big ole sucker.  It was a nice try, but needs to be taken back to Europe and maybe killed there too. 

 

 

I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

 

Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

 

 

The CX-9 is getting a boosted 2.5 liter 4-cylinder with 250 horsepower and 310 lb-ft of torque.   No need for a Pentastar.

 

Well, there ya go then! lol

Also, How large is the CX-9? Is it Explorer side? or more like an Edge? It's a 3-row SUV, right? So I assume it's larger, more Explorer-like.

 

 

I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

 

Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

 

Why waste R&D dollars on a V6 wen you can go Hybrid for the CX-9 and use a turbo 4 plus a decent electric motor.

 

Better yet, use their I4 N/A as a generator and go with a pure electric AWD power train. Make the CX-9 like the Volt. 

 

Pure EV for the first 80 miles and then generator driven.

 

I like it. Sounds pricey, but I like it. 

 

 

 

I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

 

Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

 

 

The CX-9 is getting a boosted 2.5 liter 4-cylinder with 250 horsepower and 310 lb-ft of torque.   No need for a Pentastar.

 

Well, there ya go then! lol

 

Also, How large is the CX-9? Is it Explorer side? or more like an Edge? It's a 3-row SUV, right? So I assume it's larger, more Explorer-like.

 

Between Edge and Explorer in length, but narrower.  Yes it's a 3-row, but I think the 3rd row is rather tight.  The advantage of building the platform to only use 4-cylinder engines is that the engine cradle can be smaller and lighter. Making the decision early on to say "no V6 ever" allows them to save weight.  They say that the platform itself dropped 287 lbs, but I don't know if that includes the switch from a 3.7 liter V6 to a Turbo-4 or not.  If that weight loss is just in the structure, then total weight loss should be over 300lbs, putting it under 4,000 lbs in FWD form.   That's a good bit of torque, and at a low RPM, for a CUV under 4k lbs. It should move along smartly.

 

 

 

I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

 

Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

 

 

The CX-9 is getting a boosted 2.5 liter 4-cylinder with 250 horsepower and 310 lb-ft of torque.   No need for a Pentastar.

 

Well, there ya go then! lol

 

Also, How large is the CX-9? Is it Explorer side? or more like an Edge? It's a 3-row SUV, right? So I assume it's larger, more Explorer-like.

 

Per their web site,

CX-9 has a wheel base of 113.2" with an over all length of 200.6" then a width of 76.2" and height of 68" and ground clearance of 

6"

Ford Explorer has a wheel base of 112.8" and an over all length of 198.3" then a width of 78.9" and height of 71.0" and ground clearance of 7.8"

 

 

 

 

I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

 

Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

 

 

The CX-9 is getting a boosted 2.5 liter 4-cylinder with 250 horsepower and 310 lb-ft of torque.   No need for a Pentastar.

 

Well, there ya go then! lol

 

Also, How large is the CX-9? Is it Explorer side? or more like an Edge? It's a 3-row SUV, right? So I assume it's larger, more Explorer-like.

 

Per their web site,

 

CX-9 has a wheel base of 113.2" with an over all length of 200.6" then a width of 76.2" and height of 68" and ground clearance of 

6"

Ford Explorer has a wheel base of 112.8" and an over all length of 198.3" then a width of 78.9" and height of 71.0" and ground clearance of 7.8"

 

That's the current one. 

 

 

 

 

I have always thought them and Mazda would have a good synergy.  Get 4 cylinders from Mazda and give them access to the excellent Pentastar V6 (which would make the 6 far more interesting IMHO). 

Does Mazda even want a V6 anymore though? If they are the most efficient lineup, like Drew said, then they're probably content with a family of 4's. They'd probably prefer to boost a 4 banger rather than throw in a heavier V6 because they put so much emphasis on driving dynamics. 

 

Afterthought: I completely forgot about the CX-9. To me, that would be the only application for a V6 in their lineup. Everything else can be done with an I4, boost or n/a. 

 

 

The CX-9 is getting a boosted 2.5 liter 4-cylinder with 250 horsepower and 310 lb-ft of torque.   No need for a Pentastar.

 

Well, there ya go then! lol

 

Also, How large is the CX-9? Is it Explorer side? or more like an Edge? It's a 3-row SUV, right? So I assume it's larger, more Explorer-like.

 

 

Between Edge and Explorer in length, but narrower.  Yes it's a 3-row, but I think the 3rd row is rather tight.  The advantage of building the platform to only use 4-cylinder engines is that the engine cradle can be smaller and lighter. Making the decision early on to say "no V6 ever" allows them to save weight.  They say that the platform itself dropped 287 lbs, but I don't know if that includes the switch from a 3.7 liter V6 to a Turbo-4 or not.  If that weight loss is just in the structure, then total weight loss should be over 300lbs, putting it under 4,000 lbs in FWD form.   That's a good bit of torque, and at a low RPM, for a CUV under 4k lbs. It should move along smartly.

 

First, Thanks both you and dfelt!

Second, a sub 4000lb suv of that size even in "just" FWD form is fantastic! My Escape, I believe, tips the scales just a tad over 3800 with AWD and the damn panorama sunroof. So for something to grow in size that much and gain less than 200lbs is a job very well done, yet again, my the Mazda crew.  I like everything Mazda has done in the past 3ish years. They're the "drivers cars" of the common folk and put up fantastic economy numbers while doing so. Oh, and they are all the best looking in their respective classes, IMO. I don't know about the interior comparisons as I haven't been in one, let alone all of the competition for a comparison. 

First, Thanks both you and dfelt!

 

Second, a sub 4000lb suv of that size even in "just" FWD form is fantastic! My Escape, I believe, tips the scales just a tad over 3800 with AWD and the damn panorama sunroof. So for something to grow in size that much and gain less than 200lbs is a job very well done, yet again, my the Mazda crew.  I like everything Mazda has done in the past 3ish years. They're the "drivers cars" of the common folk and put up fantastic economy numbers while doing so. Oh, and they are all the best looking in their respective classes, IMO. I don't know about the interior comparisons as I haven't been in one, let alone all of the competition for a comparison.

The very latest generation of Mazdas have fantastic FANTASTIC interiors.  The CX-3 far far exceeds it's class and would put an Audi Q3 to shame.  Easily best in class.

I sat in the new CX-9 in LA and it is every bit as good as these press photos suggest.

 

First, Thanks both you and dfelt!

 

Second, a sub 4000lb suv of that size even in "just" FWD form is fantastic! My Escape, I believe, tips the scales just a tad over 3800 with AWD and the damn panorama sunroof. So for something to grow in size that much and gain less than 200lbs is a job very well done, yet again, my the Mazda crew.  I like everything Mazda has done in the past 3ish years. They're the "drivers cars" of the common folk and put up fantastic economy numbers while doing so. Oh, and they are all the best looking in their respective classes, IMO. I don't know about the interior comparisons as I haven't been in one, let alone all of the competition for a comparison.

 

The very latest generation of Mazdas have fantastic FANTASTIC interiors.  The CX-3 far far exceeds it's class and would put an Audi Q3 to shame.  Easily best in class.

 

I sat in the new CX-9 in LA and it is every bit as good as these press photos suggest.

 

 

Their styling is very reminiscent of recent Audis, IMHO a VERY good thing.

 

First, Thanks both you and dfelt!

 

Second, a sub 4000lb suv of that size even in "just" FWD form is fantastic! My Escape, I believe, tips the scales just a tad over 3800 with AWD and the damn panorama sunroof. So for something to grow in size that much and gain less than 200lbs is a job very well done, yet again, my the Mazda crew.  I like everything Mazda has done in the past 3ish years. They're the "drivers cars" of the common folk and put up fantastic economy numbers while doing so. Oh, and they are all the best looking in their respective classes, IMO. I don't know about the interior comparisons as I haven't been in one, let alone all of the competition for a comparison.

 

The very latest generation of Mazdas have fantastic FANTASTIC interiors.  The CX-3 far far exceeds it's class and would put an Audi Q3 to shame.  Easily best in class.

 

I sat in the new CX-9 in LA and it is every bit as good as these press photos suggest.

 

 

Damn, gorgeous interior! 

I wish when I was car shopping the CX-5's that I could afford weren't only the first model year which had the 155hp engine, no thanks. The '14s were a little out of my comfort zone when it came to dollar signs and I wasn't going to stretch myself for a vehicle. 

 

First, Thanks both you and dfelt!

 

Second, a sub 4000lb suv of that size even in "just" FWD form is fantastic! My Escape, I believe, tips the scales just a tad over 3800 with AWD and the damn panorama sunroof. So for something to grow in size that much and gain less than 200lbs is a job very well done, yet again, my the Mazda crew.  I like everything Mazda has done in the past 3ish years. They're the "drivers cars" of the common folk and put up fantastic economy numbers while doing so. Oh, and they are all the best looking in their respective classes, IMO. I don't know about the interior comparisons as I haven't been in one, let alone all of the competition for a comparison.

 

The very latest generation of Mazdas have fantastic FANTASTIC interiors.  The CX-3 far far exceeds it's class and would put an Audi Q3 to shame.  Easily best in class.

 

I sat in the new CX-9 in LA and it is every bit as good as these press photos suggest.

 

 

Drew, is that nav screen move up and down into the dash? Looks like it could.

 

 

First, Thanks both you and dfelt!

 

Second, a sub 4000lb suv of that size even in "just" FWD form is fantastic! My Escape, I believe, tips the scales just a tad over 3800 with AWD and the damn panorama sunroof. So for something to grow in size that much and gain less than 200lbs is a job very well done, yet again, my the Mazda crew.  I like everything Mazda has done in the past 3ish years. They're the "drivers cars" of the common folk and put up fantastic economy numbers while doing so. Oh, and they are all the best looking in their respective classes, IMO. I don't know about the interior comparisons as I haven't been in one, let alone all of the competition for a comparison.

 

The very latest generation of Mazdas have fantastic FANTASTIC interiors.  The CX-3 far far exceeds it's class and would put an Audi Q3 to shame.  Easily best in class.

 

I sat in the new CX-9 in LA and it is every bit as good as these press photos suggest.

 

 

 

Drew, is that nav screen move up and down into the dash? Looks like it could.

 

Don't know.  I tweeted the Mazda PR guy to ask.

Mazda is also working on HCCI...

Mazda is also working on HCCI...

So is GM. I believe they were expecting to have it in some vehicle application prior to 2020. I wouldn't be surprised if their newest engine families were designed so they can be retrofitted with the technology.

Mazda is also working on HCCI...

What is HCCI?  Is that the gasoline compression ignition? 

Yup, yup, yup.

It is about as difficult, if not more than trying to build a diesel engine without exhaust after-treatment to comply with U.S. emissions regulations.

But it's the key to unlocking an new wave of efficiency for gas engines.

It might permanently make diesels irrelevant for passenger vehicles. 

Yup, yup, yup.

 

It is about as difficult, if not more than trying to build a diesel engine without exhaust after-treatment to comply with U.S. emissions regulations.

 

But it's the key to unlocking an new wave of efficiency for gas engines.

 

It might permanently make diesels irrelevant for passenger vehicles. 

Indeed.... the key is that an HCCI engine cannot run in that mode all the time.  It only runs in HCCI mode under light loads... put too much fuel/air mixture into the cylinder and then things don't work right. The big issue GM was having when it was working on it back in the Saturn days was the transition from HCCI to normal spark ignition.  The engine worked fine in either mode, but it was the switching of modes that was less than graceful.   Even then, I think that Aura would only run in HCCI at stead speed from 35 - 55 mph, but don't quote me on that.

Yup, yup, yup.

 

It is about as difficult, if not more than trying to build a diesel engine without exhaust after-treatment to comply with U.S. emissions regulations.

 

But it's the key to unlocking an new wave of efficiency for gas engines.

 

It might permanently make diesels irrelevant for passenger vehicles. 

I think Hyundai has been working on this for a few years at this point. No clue where/how the progress is at this point though. I just remember reading something on it quite awhile ago and I thought the idea was awesome. 

Definitely make diesels irrelevant in passenger vehicles. I don't know what kind of energy difference there is between a given amount of diesel vs gasoline but if you can get diesel efficiency with gasoline prices, we're talking monster jump in the industry. 

 

Yup, yup, yup.

 

It is about as difficult, if not more than trying to build a diesel engine without exhaust after-treatment to comply with U.S. emissions regulations.

 

But it's the key to unlocking an new wave of efficiency for gas engines.

 

It might permanently make diesels irrelevant for passenger vehicles. 

I think Hyundai has been working on this for a few years at this point. No clue where/how the progress is at this point though. I just remember reading something on it quite awhile ago and I thought the idea was awesome. 

 

Definitely make diesels irrelevant in passenger vehicles. I don't know what kind of energy difference there is between a given amount of diesel vs gasoline but if you can get diesel efficiency with gasoline prices, we're talking monster jump in the industry. 

 

Well, it's not not going to go into HD trucks, it doesn't have the torque.  Overall, the power characteristics of the engine don't change, because anything above light throttle and it switches back to being a conventional engine.   The only advantage is in fuel savings during light load times.... You'd get fantastic highway fuel economy, but city would be the same as any other conventional gasoline engine of the same size and features since that's when you're into the throttle most often. 

 

 

Yup, yup, yup.

 

It is about as difficult, if not more than trying to build a diesel engine without exhaust after-treatment to comply with U.S. emissions regulations.

 

But it's the key to unlocking an new wave of efficiency for gas engines.

 

It might permanently make diesels irrelevant for passenger vehicles. 

I think Hyundai has been working on this for a few years at this point. No clue where/how the progress is at this point though. I just remember reading something on it quite awhile ago and I thought the idea was awesome. 

 

Definitely make diesels irrelevant in passenger vehicles. I don't know what kind of energy difference there is between a given amount of diesel vs gasoline but if you can get diesel efficiency with gasoline prices, we're talking monster jump in the industry. 

 

 

Well, it's not not going to go into HD trucks, it doesn't have the torque.  Overall, the power characteristics of the engine don't change, because anything above light throttle and it switches back to being a conventional engine.   The only advantage is in fuel savings during light load times.... You'd get fantastic highway fuel economy, but city would be the same as any other conventional gasoline engine of the same size and features since that's when you're into the throttle most often. 

 

Interesting, I didn't know that. Thanks! 

I was actually going to ask if they would be gaining the diesel-like power band but you already answered that. 

The Wikipedia page for HCCI is quite detailed and informative.