Chrysler Searches for Inner Beauty

[Flybrian]

Searching for Inner Beauty
Chrysler aims to improve interior quality
By RICK KRANZ AND BRADFORD WERNLE
Link to Original Article @ AutoWeek | Published 03/12/07, 7:47 am et

2008 Chrysler Town & Country

With an eye on its competitors, the Chrysler group has created a separate studio to make its interiors more attractive. Previously, a single studio designed interiors and exteriors.

The move follows criticism by dealers and journalists that Chrysler's interiors need work. Mentioned in particular: the textures, tones and abundance of unattractive plastic trim.

The concern is that "you can get to a point where maybe your cars aren't really competitive anymore because the interior is not as good as a competitor's," said Andrew Dyson, senior manager of Chrysler's product design office. "That could be the customer's deciding factor.

"Our aim is to raise the bar in terms of fit and finish. We've had good themes in the past, and we want to go even further with our themes, use really good materials and really get to a higher level."

Dyson was interviewed at the Geneva motor show.

The interior studio was created in October. Tim Annes is the chief designer, overseeing a staff of about 25.

As Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep vehicles are redesigned or restyled, the interior will be upgraded. The first upgraded vehicles probably will be 2011 models, Dyson said.

Dyson said the automaker has been admiring the interiors of Audi, Volkswagen and a "newcomer." And "we are quite impressed with what General Motors is doing," he said.

He said the cost of interiors will rise, and that will mean cuts elsewhere in vehicle development.

Dealers reacted positively to the prospect of better interiors.

"As the industry reaches a greater level of parity, those amenities and creature comforts are going to be more important," said Chuck Fortinberry, owner of Clarkston Chrysler-Jeep in Clarkston, Mich.

"They'll help take us to the next level and differentiate us against the rest of the pack."

Said Thomas Vann, owner of Team Hillsdale Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep in Hillsdale, Mich.: "We've seen drastic improvement in the cleverness of the interiors and the fit and finish. This was a problem for years.

"Even in the '90s, when they got on the cutting edge, the fit and finish was horrific. Door panels would pop out and just creak and groan. There would be three of us driving in minivans trying to figure out where the noise was coming from."

Fortinberry agrees: "You go back to the old Chrysler interiors - holy cow, we had some ugly stuff. If you look at Jeep Grand Cherokee and some of these other vehicles now, they've got a lot cleaner, more European look."

[Intrepidation]

"you can get to a point where maybe your cars aren't really competitive anymore because the interior is not as good as a competitor's,"

Ding!

But why cut costs "elsewhere"? Why not just raise the price a little. Making quality products means putting effort into all areas.

[Drew Dowdell]

you can get to a point where maybe your cars aren't really competitive anymore because the interior is not as good as a competitor's

Hello 1979.....

[Intrepidation]

Hello 1979.....

Everyone's interiors sucked back then, and not just Chryslers...in fact it's only now that GM and Ford are making decent-to-nice interiors

Edited March 14, 2007 by Dodgefan

[Satty]

Ding!

But why cut costs "elsewhere"? Why not just raise the price a little. Making quality products means putting effort into all areas.

Because this is still Chrysler, nobody is going to pay a premium for a Chrysler that just matches a Honda or Toyota and a $2500 rebate looks a lot worse to people than a $500 rebate.

[Intrepidation]

Because this is still Chrysler, nobody is going to pay a premium for a Chrysler that just matches a Honda or Toyota and a $2500 rebate looks a lot worse to people than a $500 rebate.

Yeah I guess, but as we've said before. The only way to get respect and sales from Camry and Accord drivers is to give it your all and not cheap out...otherwise why bother? I guess if they can cut costs by sharing underbody parts more or something then that's ok. I dunno.

[Drew Dowdell]

Everyone's interiors sucked back then, and not just Chryslers...in fact it's only now that GM and Ford are making decent-to-nice interiors

completely disagree.... seeing as I owned some '85s. My 85 Toronado had a leather steering wheel with brushed stainless steel spokes. And *real* stainless trim throughout the car. Sure there was plood, but it was at least attractive looking plood. A sleek gloss black panel crossed the dash and lined up with the intrument pod. It was a bitch for fingerprints, but looked great when polished up. A stitched leather like material covered the dash and it was soft and padded. I had 8 way power adjustable seats. The leather of the seats was soft and supple. Ergonomics weren't great, but that didn't come about till the early 90s anyway.

My 85 Continental had some of the sportiest seats to ever grace a Lincoln. Real wood everywhere. Soft padded dash. Great trip computer and climate control. surprisingly good ergonomics. Clean, attractive design with a nice European flair.

As for some more recent examples. Aurora, Intrigue, Alero, GTO.

[NOS2006]

There is no justifiable reason for why Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep vehicles cost as much as they do. They don't have the quality or materials put into them to justify their prices. And, if they aren't making much profit on what they sell, they better find ways to cut costs in areas because for what you get in these vehicles, you're paying too much.

[Intrepidation]

completely disagree.... seeing as I owned some '85s. My 85 Toronado had a leather steering wheel with brushed stainless steel spokes. And *real* stainless trim throughout the car. Sure there was plood, but it was at least attractive looking plood. A sleek gloss black panel crossed the dash and lined up with the intrument pod. It was a bitch for fingerprints, but looked great when polished up. A stitched leather like material covered the dash and it was soft and padded. I had 8 way power adjustable seats. The leather of the seats was soft and supple. Ergonomics weren't great, but that didn't come about till the early 90s anyway.

My 85 Continental had some of the sportiest seats to ever grace a Lincoln. Real wood everywhere. Soft padded dash. Great trip computer and climate control. surprisingly good ergonomics. Clean, attractive design with a nice European flair.

As for some more recent examples. Aurora, Intrigue, Alero, GTO.

I dunno if "completely" is the right adjective. I see your points, but for every car with a good interior, there was 3 or so with lousy interiors. First gen Neon, 2nd gen Stratus, previous gen (and current gen) Malibu, Cavalier, WindStar, Venture, pre-06 Implala (and even the current one has hard, cheap plastic), Grand Am (horrible plastics and fisher-price quality controls), first gen Intrepid...the list goes on.

But yeah, there are cars that had pretty good interiors.

Prizm (rattle free, great dash design, quality dash materials and plastic panels, but held back but horribly cheap door handles and some other parts)

Shadow (decent design for it's day, simple, soft, padded materials on doors, all armrests, upper dash, well textured plastics, put together solidly though with misalignment)

2nd Gen Intrepid (great design, quality materials for the most part, decent build quality)

...uh...I can't think of a Chevy onlyu because I haven't rid in a 90's one I liked (that I remember).

[Intrepidation]

There is no justifiable reason for why Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep vehicles cost as much as they do. They don't have the quality or materials put into them to justify their prices. And, if they aren't making much profit on what they sell, they better find ways to cut costs in areas because for what you get in these vehicles, you're paying too much.

I dunno if you're "paying too much" Price out a top level Avenger with all the options and it comes in about 3 grand less than an optioned-out Camry.

$33,300 VS $36,829 MSRP

I did this on edmunds if you're wondering.

[regfootball]

Yeah I guess, but as we've said before. The only way to get respect and sales from Camry and Accord drivers is to give it your all and not cheap out...otherwise why bother? I guess if they can cut costs by sharing underbody parts more or something then that's ok. I dunno.

new camry's plastics are cheesy bad...but near as bad as the new chryslers.

a new studio does no good if the beancounters direct them to have plastic that is no better than a garbage can.

[jbartley]

wow. they just got this memo? today? 2007!!!

Do they not read their own vehicle reviews?

[Cory Wolfe]

wow. they just got this memo? today? 2007!!!

Do they not read their own vehicle reviews?

Seriously. I thought something so obvious would be easy to see.

[CSpec]

So in 2010 Chrysler's interiors will be decent? Great.

[big blue]

2010? That's just a wee bit longer than everybody hoped for DCX. How come it took Chrysler so many years to act on fixing up their interiors? Did the execs never sit in their own cars?

[VenSeattle]

So in 2010 Chrysler's interiors will be decent? Great.

In other words, Chrysler's 3-year recovery plan involves a bunch of new vehicles with subpar interiors:

Chrysler Group Recovery and Transformation Plan

Continue the product offensive through 2009, with more than 20 all-new vehicles and 13 refreshed vehicles

Chrysler recovery plan beats The Way Forward

It will introduce 20 all-new models and 13 refreshed models by 2009, while cutting nameplate redundancies, for less Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep overlap. Jeep Compass' future may be doomed.

So we're really looking at an uncompetitive line-up through 2014! GM isn't sitting still and the imports certainly aren't. Best of luck!

Chrysler: Buy us... but don't look inside.

[Oracle of Delphi]

So in 2010 Chrysler's interiors will be decent? Great.

If there still is a Chrysler!

[red]

Wow, took them long enough to wake up.

As previously stated, the lead time for this new process implentation is nearly a full product cycle. And likely, interior quality will be raised in phases, similar to GM, and we might not see a competitive Chrysler interior until the middle of the next decade. Ouch!

[BrewSwillis]

They say they are going to fix the interiors.....and everybody still complains. Typical.

[bobo]

With Chrysler vehicles lately, it has almost been like they tried hard not to make them very nice so that Benzes would have a marked improvement in perceived quality. Lutz has said that putting more money in the interiors means lower incentives. It's so self-evident. The interiors of the newest compact and mid-size Chryslers and Dodges have been lacking a quality feel, and some are downright awful.

[BlkHhr104]

They say they are going to fix the interiors.....and everybody still complains. Typical.

People are complaining because Chrysler just realized oh hey um our interiors, yeah they blow... meanwhile back at GM and Ford they've already kicked things into gear with trying to improve interiors and their products overall.

[VenSeattle]

They say they are going to fix the interiors.....and everybody still complains. Typical.

Oh yeah... right. Like you haven't complained about GM taking too long to do something obvious.

[Northstar]

It's about damn time Chrysler did something to upgrade their interiors, but if we're getting the same crap until 2010 it might not matter, because Chrysler may be dead by then.

Now, I hope that the materials are better, too. I just saw "design," nothing about "upgrading plastics" or "using materials 100x higher in quality." And yes, I'm serious about 100x better. When their interiors are as bad as the currently are, they have to be improved 100 fold to be where they need to be. In other words, if they only made them twice as good as they are, they'd still suck.

[Flybrian]

What's sad is that the interiors in the mid-90s very actually rather good for their time.

I know certain people like to fondle themselves over the gauche 'tortoiseshell' steering wheel on the 300, but the overall layout and material quality is below today's average.

Throw some more shine on the LHS at top and its more luxurious than the current 300. Just because the outside of the car is blocky doesn't mean the inside needs to be as well.

[BrewSwillis]

What's sad is that the interiors in the mid-90s very actually rather good for their time.

I know certain people like to fondle themselves over the gauche 'tortoiseshell' steering wheel on the 300, but the overall layout and material quality is below today's average.

Throw some more shine on the LHS at top and its more luxurious than the current 300. Just because the outside of the car is blocky doesn't mean the inside needs to be as well.

You can't equate roundness to quality.......well, maybe you can.....but I prefer the look of the blockier interior to match the blockier exterior. The 300 would look really stupid with a interior that looks like it's filled with bubbles (as most 90's interiors do), and an exterior that looks like a bank vault. All that round stuff makes me want to throw up! I'm glad the 90's vehicle look is mostly gone.

Just look at the sales of the 300 to see if the buying public likes the new interior.

Edited March 15, 2007 by BrewSwillis

[VenSeattle]

Just look at the sales of the 300 to see if the buying public likes the new interior.

The sales of the current 300 has marginally exceeded sales of the previous 300M/LHS/Concorde which it replaced (maybe by 20k-30k depending on the year compared.) But all of them were/are fleet queens too. As a comparison, the last gen 300M/LHS/Concorde triplets shared the same interior at one point in each of their lives.

[BrewSwillis]

The sales of the current 300 has marginally exceeded sales of the previous 300M/LHS/Concorde which it replaced (maybe by 20k-30k depending on the year compared.) But all of them were/are fleet queens too. As a comparison, the last gen 300M/LHS/Concorde triplets shared the same interior at one point in each of their lives.

You would also have to factor in Toyota's, Honda's, other Japanese and Korean's grossly increased market share, to compare older vehicle sales to current vehicle sales. How do old Taurus sales compare to new 500/Taurus sales? That the 300 is beating it's older models in sales, speaks volumes for it's consumer appeal. There were nowhere near as many choices in the early 90's.

[big blue]

Even then, the 300's sales are most likely coming from the EXTERIOR styling cues and the inside is what people are giving up in favor of the car's skin.

[Northstar]

You can't equate roundness to quality.......well, maybe you can.....but I prefer the look of the blockier interior to match the blockier exterior. The 300 would look really stupid with a interior that looks like it's filled with bubbles (as most 90's interiors do), and an exterior that looks like a bank vault. All that round stuff makes me want to throw up! I'm glad the 90's vehicle look is mostly gone.

Just look at the sales of the 300 to see if the buying public likes the new interior.

Dude, what the hell are you talking about? You think whether an interior is round or blocky has anything to do with the quality of the interior?

While most of Chrysler's interiors aren't aesthetically pleasing to my eyes, I don't complain about the design, at least not very often. I complain about the materials. Quality = quality of materials and build quality. Quality has nothing to do with design. You could have the highest quality interior and the ugliest interior of all time in the same car.

[VenSeattle]

You would also have to factor in Toyota's, Honda's, other Japanese and Korean's grossly increased market share, to compare older vehicle sales to current vehicle sales. How do old Taurus sales compare to new 500/Taurus sales? That the 300 is beating it's older models in sales, speaks volumes for it's consumer appeal. There were nowhere near as many choices in the early 90's.

We're talking late 90's, not early 90's... you know, when Chrysler was rolling in money and profitable. Actually, the mid/large sedan market has shrunk since then... not grown.

GM has eliminated: Eighty-Eight, Aurora, Intrigue, Bonneville, LeSabre, Park Avenue, Regal, & Century replacing them all with just the LaCrosse & Lucerne.

Mitsubishi has dropped the Diamante.

Mazda has dropped Millenia.

Ford only sells the Crown Victoria to Fleets.

Kia's Amanti & Hyundai's Azura really don't balance that out.

Still, back on interiors... it's sad that a 12 year old Oldsmobile Aurora has higher quality interior materials than a 2007 Chrysler 300.

[Intrepidation]

What's sad is that the interiors in the mid-90s very actually rather good for their time.

I know certain people like to fondle themselves over the gauche 'tortoiseshell' steering wheel on the 300, but the overall layout and material quality is below today's average.

Throw some more shine on the LHS at top and its more luxurious than the current 300. Just because the outside of the car is blocky doesn't mean the inside needs to be as well.

Using a $h!ty interior photo of the 300 is a great way to get your point across (sarcasm). Personally, I like the design of the 300M better, but the detailing of the 300C more (metallic trim, chrome accents, neat interior colors). There is nothing wrong with the 300C's interior. The LX cars have pretty good interiors in both build and materials quality. The Caliber VS Neon would probably be a better comparison...because the Neon had better materials.

[Intrepidation]

We're talking late 90's, not early 90's... you know, when Chrysler was rolling in money and profitable. Actually, the mid/large sedan market has shrunk since then... not grown.

GM has eliminated: Eighty-Eight, Aurora, Intrigue, Bonneville, LeSabre, Park Avenue, Regal, & Century replacing them all with just the LaCrosse & Lucerne.

Mitsubishi has dropped the Diamante.

Mazda has dropped Millenia.

Ford only sells the Crown Victoria to Fleets.

Kia's Amanti & Hyundai's Azura really don't balance that out.

Still, back on interiors... it's sad that a 12 year old Oldsmobile Aurora has higher quality interior materials than a 2007 Chrysler 300.

I sorta poked around a junked Aurora today. The dash materials felt nice, but the assembly quality was horrible. No, you can't blame it on being in a junkyard because aside from the busted windshield and a popped up hood, it was in very nice shape...too bad, I'd like it...it was black too.

[VenSeattle]

I sorta poked around a junked Aurora today. The dash materials felt nice, but the assembly quality was horrible. No, you can't blame it on being in a junkyard because aside from the busted windshield and a popped up hood, it was in very nice shape...too bad, I'd like it...it was black too.

Yes you can. It was old. Used. Worn. Weathered. Junked. Even if it's still in good shape, it's between 7-12 years old. That’s a lot of time for the interior to slowly come apart. Auroras were solid vehicles and the interior materials were higher in quality than the current 300 - which was my point. Figure it sad that you even considered it as an appropriate comparison.

[Intrepidation]

Yes you can. It was old. Used. Worn. Weathered. Junked. Even if it's still in good shape, it's between 7-12 years old. That’s a lot of time for the interior to slowly come apart. Auroras were solid vehicles and the interior materials were higher in quality than the current 300 - which was my point. Figure it sad that you even considered it as an appropriate comparison.

Actually, it wasn't an "appropriate comparison" smartass. I was basically noting that the materials felt very nice, as a side note from the "300C is t3h sux" discussion.. I mean c'mon, Chrysler could line the interior with velvet, suede, leather, baby's ass, more wood than a forest and more metal than a steel factory and some people would still bitch at it. The Aurora interior comment is, as I said, a side note for this discussion, I saw one today and I felt like posting about it. Anyway, if you wanna go into "boo hoo, it's an old car so it's OK for it to fall apart" Well that `93 Prizm I stole parts off had it's interior panels still solidly attached to it...you know...and economy car VS an luxury car? A wrecked one no less...that had been sitting in the yard longer than the Aurora.

FYI, I love the Aurora...first or 2nd gen.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Dodgefan

[BrewSwillis]

Dude, what the hell are you talking about? You think whether an interior is round or blocky has anything to do with the quality of the interior?

While most of Chrysler's interiors aren't aesthetically pleasing to my eyes, I don't complain about the design, at least not very often. I complain about the materials. Quality = quality of materials and build quality. Quality has nothing to do with design. You could have the highest quality interior and the ugliest interior of all time in the same car.

Dude, there is something wrong with you. Overall interior quality can, and does, include design. I was saying that an interior being curvy and round, doesn't automatically make it better than a blockier one. You are strictly equating the word "quality" with a material's properties, and that's fine....but I was using it in the more broad sense of describing it's overall "goodness", or quality, if you may. I own a 2005 300 Touring, and have owned many Chryslers in the past. The actual material quality is very good on my 300. However, the same can't be said of the interior materials quality of many other current Chrysler vehicles, of which many have an abundance of "hard plastic". The only areas on my 300 Touring that I would like to see an improvement, would be to have more different materials or more contrast on the door panels, and maybe another contrasting material incorporated into the passenger side front dashboard. All of the surfaces above the knees, on the 300, are "soft touch" materials.

I made it a point to check out many manufacturers interiors when I was at the auto show last year (January 2006). The 300's interior materials quality certainly wasn't any worse then the interiors of the current Chevy/Buick/Pontiac's, Ford's, and even the new Camry (which had lots of hard plastic). I am, however, not much of an interior snob, and prefer to value a car on it's exterior design, and mechanicals. I can't stand all the arguing that goes on in this place about "hard plastic", on any manufacturers vehicles. Even if the 300 Touring had a worse interior, I still may have bought it based on it being RWD, and having a 250 HP V6. On what other new vehicle can I get those two attributes for $27K?

[Intrepidation]

Dude, there is something wrong with you. Overall interior quality can, and does, include design. I was saying that an interior being curvy and round, doesn't automatically make it better than a blockier one. You are strictly equating the word "quality" with a material's properties, and that's fine....but I was using it in the more broad sense of describing it's overall "goodness", or quality, if you may. I own a 2005 300 Touring, and have owned many Chryslers in the past. The actual material quality is very good on my 300. However, the same can't be said of the interior materials quality of many other current Chrysler vehicles, of which many have an abundance of "hard plastic". The only areas on my 300 Touring that I would like to see an improvement, would be to have more different materials or more contrast on the door panels, and maybe another contrasting material incorporated into the passenger side front dashboard. All of the surfaces above the knees, on the 300, are "soft touch" materials.

I made it a point to check out many manufacturers interiors when I was at the auto show last year (January 2006). The 300's interior materials quality certainly wasn't any worse then the interiors of the current Chevy/Buick/Pontiac's, Ford's, and even the new Camry (which had lots of hard plastic). I am, however, not much of an interior snob, and prefer to value a car on it's exterior design, and mechanicals. I can't stand all the arguing that goes on in this place about "hard plastic", on any manufacturers vehicles. Even if the 300 Touring had a worse interior, I still may have bought it based on it being RWD, and having a 250 HP V6. On what other new vehicle can I get those two attributes for $27K?

It's a bummer you didn't get the 5-speed with that V6 man. I'm not sure why people are knocking the LX cars' interiors...they're quite nice. (actually I know why because D1S 1 4 GM S1T3 AND CHRYSLER ALWAYS IS T3H SUXZORS). the 300, Magnum, and Charger have better materials than the stuff in the Impala, for example...yet no one ever bitched about the Impala's sea of hard plastic that is shamed by the Monte Carlo's interior.

I would have to say, I'm with you. I don't demand interiors be made of ass-rubbingly soft materials on every surface of the interior. I can live with hard plastic as long as there is soft stuff where it matters...I'm not using the dash as a pillow...so it's not mandatory that it be soft...it's a nice bonus. Chrysler products sure as hell could use nicer interiors, and improvements are welcome. But if the car handles good, has good power, features and looks good, and has at least a nice interior design, I'll let it slide.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Dodgefan

[BrewSwillis]

Auroras were solid vehicles and the interior materials were higher in quality than the current 300 - which was my point.

Well, an Aurora was priced at about $35K, in 2000....which would equate to how much now?? A current (seven years later) 300C (with almost 100 more horsepower) only costs $35K. The Aurora's interior was made of higher quality materials than even GM is using today (save for maybe Cadillac). The Aurora was an expensive car meant to compete with expensive European makes:

There's a large group of great near-luxury imports in the same price range as the Aurora, like the Lexus ES 300, the BMW 3 Series, the Audi A4, and the Infiniti I30.

That same Aurora would easily cost over $40K today. It's really an apples to oranges comparison.

[FAPTurbo]

It'll be funny, because around 2010, Dodge will likely be bringing in Chery's or brought them in already, and I'll bet money that the Chery's will have better interiors.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Captainbooyah

[Flybrian]

I sorta poked around a junked Aurora today. The dash materials felt nice, but the assembly quality was horrible. No, you can't blame it on being in a junkyard because aside from the busted windshield and a popped up hood, it was in very nice shape...too bad, I'd like it...it was black too.

Judging assembly quality on a junkyard specimen is impossible. I'll give you a hint as to why panels were loose - wear and tear. The car you're looking at is 13 years-old with God knows how many miles on it. My '96 looks worse inside today than when I bought it three years ago. I broke a fan louver, cracked the decorative gearshift shield, loosened a console panel that won't tighten again, and my girlfriend broke one cupholder with her ass. Is that poor assembly quality? No. Its wear and tear.

[BrewSwillis]

and my girlfriend broke one cupholder with her ass. Is that poor assembly quality?

No, I think it's a big ass??

Don't tell her I said that!

[Intrepidation]

Judging assembly quality on a junkyard specimen is impossible. I'll give you a hint as to why panels were loose - wear and tear. The car you're looking at is 13 years-old with God knows how many miles on it. My '96 looks worse inside today than when I bought it three years ago. I broke a fan louver, cracked the decorative gearshift shield, loosened a console panel that won't tighten again, and my girlfriend broke one cupholder with her ass. Is that poor assembly quality? No. Its wear and tear.

Yeah I know that's where an tear. I can tell the difference...by the way how the hell did she break it with her ass?!

Wanna know something funny? The leather still felt great. That's good stuff in there.

[Ravenfreak13]

Chrysler was doing well until after the pacifica in my opinion. Their products(except for the 2nd gen cloud cars) were pretty well assembled and quality was good. To me Chrysler was best between 98-00. The cars had the most modern and sleek exteriors of the time and the interiors were well made.

Also, pricing was so much better. The "midsized" cloud cars ranged from $14-21k while most others started at around $19k. Stupid benz had to ruin everything.

[VenSeattle]

Actually, it wasn't an "appropriate comparison" smartass. I was basically noting that the materials felt very nice, as a side note from the "300C is t3h sux" discussion.. I mean c'mon, Chrysler could line the interior with velvet, suede, leather, baby's ass, more wood than a forest and more metal than a steel factory and some people would still bitch at it. The Aurora interior comment is, as I said, a side note for this discussion, I saw one today and I felt like posting about it. Anyway, if you wanna go into "boo hoo, it's an old car so it's OK for it to fall apart" Well that `93 Prizm I stole parts off had it's interior panels still solidly attached to it...you know...and economy car VS an luxury car? A wrecked one no less...that had been sitting in the yard longer than the Aurora.

FYI, I love the Aurora...first or 2nd gen.

It would be a good start. Look how much credit GM has received just off the Aura and Outlook.

[VenSeattle]

Well, an Aurora was priced at about $35K, in 2000....which would equate to how much now?? A current (seven years later) 300C (with almost 100 more horsepower) only costs $35K. The Aurora's interior was made of higher quality materials than even GM is using today (save for maybe Cadillac).

The Aurora would be practically the same price as it was then. The DTS is still in production and hasn't increased in Price despite the interior/technology upgrades. Same with the Lucerne. It's actually less expensive than the Park Avenue.

The Aurora was an expensive car meant to compete with expensive European makes:

That same Aurora would easily cost over $40K today. It's really an apples to oranges comparison.

You're absolutely correct. The current 300 doesn't come close comparing to expensive European makes.

[gm4life]

Hey at least they are doing something about it.

[caddycruiser]

FINALLY...

And yes, to what was said above, I also agree that the Chrysler products from the late 90's and early 00's were the most impressive. Maybe not mechanically in all areas, but the level of exterior styling and interior materials were actually quite high and well done--and certainly better than the crap they're spewing for the most part right now. Compare a '00-04 Grand Cherokee inside to that of a tupperware bin '05+; the leather, suede, chrome, and terrific lines inside and out of a '01-07 Town & Country to a new '08; etc., etc.

Of course, since we won't SEE any of the real improvements until 2011, it's going to be an even longer few years. Hopefully, in the meantime, they can at least work on some of their worst bits and pieces and styling details just to carry on a little more strongly, but we'll see. I still think they must have focused everything on the LX cars--mainly the 300--and then let the rest just go all to hell without keeping check on much of anything else, but maybe they can start to turn something around...even this late in the game.

[PrimeGTP]

2011?? I'd worry about being in business by then, not whether or not my interiors were nice..

[regfootball]

Nice A5. thx

[Cadavillac]

I'm not understanding the "let's bash Chrysler's interior quality" mentality so many share here when there are fewer GMNA vehicles with better-than-Chrysler quality than I have fingers on my right hand.

Let's not act like GM has been awash in class-act interiors for decades now... GM ain't that far ahead of Chrysler. As far as that goes, our spare vehicle—a 1995 Grand Cherokee Laredo 4.0L 4x4—has fewer squeaks and rattles than either my brother's 2004 Sierra or my 2001 Town Car. And the Jeep has 225,000 on the clock.

[AxelTheRed]

I'm not understanding the "let's bash Chrysler's interior quality" mentality so many share here when there are fewer GMNA vehicles with better-than-Chrysler quality than I have fingers on my right hand.

This whole forum has been on a Chrysler bashing streak for months now.