Chrysler News: What To Expect From Chrysler's Upcoming CUV

[William Maley]

Motor Trend had the chance to speak with Chrysler president and CEO Al Gardner about the upcoming crossover for the brand. Announced in Fiat Chrysler Automobile's five-year plan, the new crossover will be coming out in 2016. Gardner explained that the new crossover would be going head to head with such models as the Chevrolet Traverse and Toyota Highlander.

As for the new crossover itself, Gardner said it would use a front-wheel drive platform, with the option of all-wheel drive and a V6 engine. Gardner also talked about the need to build more models off of existing platform to help maximize their investment. This leads Motor Trend to speculate that the new crossover will utilize the platform from the new minivans.

Source: Motor Trend

William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at [email protected] or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

View full article

[G. David Felt]

Mazda made money on their Micro-Minivans, So a version that is also part CUV AWD tends to make sense and I could see those wanting a small or mid size CUV with minivan space buying into this.

 

CUV/Minivan crossovers are the 21st century version of Station wagons.

[smk4565]

Sounds like the return of the Pacifica.

[ocnblu]

...and we all know how long that lasted...

[FAPTurbo]

A redux of the Pacifica would be amazing. The vehicle was ahead of its time. I saw one a week ago and it's incredible how contemporary its appearance is. 

 

It was hobbled by a bad launch and bad engines/4-speed transmissions. It didn't help that it came out at a time when people were demanding more powerful engines.

 

With ChryCo's new powertrains and a couple design nip-tuck's, I wouldn't be surprised if a new Pacific were to sell better than its pre-recessionary model. 

[A Horse With No Name]

Fap nailed it, boys.

[smk4565]

I drove a Pacifica a couple times, when they got the 4.0 V6 and 6-speed it was better than the earlier models, but with the Pentastar V6 and a 9 speed automatic then it would be even better.  The outside look was good, the formula of 2 rows of bucket seats and a 3rd row bench for 2 made it comfortable to seat 6, I always liked that adults could sit in the second row and it wasn't like a cramped bench seat. 

[A Horse With No Name]

I drove a Pacifica a couple times, when they got the 4.0 V6 and 6-speed it was better than the earlier models, but with the Pentastar V6 and a 9 speed automatic then it would be even better.  The outside look was good, the formula of 2 rows of bucket seats and a 3rd row bench for 2 made it comfortable to seat 6, I always liked that adults could sit in the second row and it wasn't like a cramped bench seat. 

 

 

I am perhaps the harshest critic of Chrysler on this forum, and I will gladly admit the Pacifica had some merit.

...and you all know how much it pains me to agree with SMK.

[ocnblu]

We worked on enough of them to know that they were junk.

[A Horse With No Name]

Do you really think so?

[ocnblu]

Well yeah, I also think the new Explorer is kind of an heir to the fat ass, slightly jacked minivan masquerading as a quasi-SUV look that the Pacifica pioneered.  Look at one from the back next time you're in traffic, a wide load, fat ass lumberer.  The Lambdas escape this connotation, imo, because they seem to not squat so low.

[smk4565]

The build quality may not have been great, but most Chryslers have lousy reliability and build quality also.  The idea of the Pacifica, a sort of mid-size SUV that drove like a car with 2 rows of captains chairs and a folding 3rd row was good, the execution could have been better.

[G. David Felt]

The build quality may not have been great, but most Chryslers have lousy reliability and build quality also.  The idea of the Pacifica, a sort of mid-size SUV that drove like a car with 2 rows of captains chairs and a folding 3rd row was good, the execution could have been better.

I agree with you here, and the earlier statement that the Pacifica was ahead of it's time and hurt by a poor marketing/sales execution and poor powertrain line up.

[A Horse With No Name]

The build quality may not have been great, but most Chryslers have lousy reliability and build quality also.  The idea of the Pacifica, a sort of mid-size SUV that drove like a car with 2 rows of captains chairs and a folding 3rd row was good, the execution could have been better.

 

 

Quoted for truth!

 

The build quality may not have been great, but most Chryslers have lousy reliability and build quality also.  The idea of the Pacifica, a sort of mid-size SUV that drove like a car with 2 rows of captains chairs and a folding 3rd row was good, the execution could have been better.

I agree with you hear, and the earlier statement that the Pacifica was ahead of it's time and hurt by a poor marketing/sales execution and poor powertrain line up.

 

 

 

Also quoted for truth.  thank you both for making nice, clear, rational and reality based quotes.  it is what I love about C and G.

[Drew Dowdell]

Sounds like the return of the Pacifica.

 

Which wouldn't be a bad thing really.  I would like to see them use that name again. 

[Drew Dowdell]

The Pacifica was a great concept hobbled by DCX-Typical execution.

 

Given what FCA is doing with the Grand Cherokee and Durango right now (I'm driving a GC-Limited this week) I think they could finally get the execution part right.

 

 

And think... they could really rock the crossover world with a Stow-n-go option in a crossover instead of a mini-van.

[G. David Felt]

The Pacifica was a great concept hobbled by DCX-Typical execution.

 

Given what FCA is doing with the Grand Cherokee and Durango right now (I'm driving a GC-Limited this week) I think they could finally get the execution part right.

 

 

And think... they could really rock the crossover world with a Stow-n-go option in a crossover instead of a mini-van.

Love that concept Drew of the Stow-n-Go option in a crossover. GM should do that in their crossover line.

[A Horse With No Name]

Chrysler has done plenty of great things that have been let down by execution. I am trying to take 2 QuickZ's encouragement to give chryco a fair shot to heart.

Let's raise a symbolic mug of your favorite micro brew in a toast in the hope that Chrysler keeps improving.

[2QuickZ's]

Chrysler has done plenty of great things that have been let down by execution. I am trying to take 2 QuickZ's encouragement to give chryco a fair shot to heart.

Let's raise a symbolic mug of your favorite micro brew in a toast in the hope that Chrysler keeps improving.

 

How did I get drug into this? lol

 

I love my '12 Charger R/T.  My GM retiree Dad and my Mom both love his '12 T&C and her '14 Durango.  I think Chrysler has come a loooong way since Fiat entered the picture. Do they still have a ways to go?  Absolutely.  You can't change everything overnight but I get more and more encouraged with each new vehicle they put out.

 

I used to get frustrated because of how quickly Hyundai and Kia were able to turn around their quality reputation while for the Big 3, it is taking much, much longer to for perception to catch up with reality.  It finally dawned on me that the reason was probably quite simple:  When Hyundai and Kia were making abysmal quality vehicles, they only had what, 0.5% market share?  When the Big 3 were doing it in the '70's and '80's, they probably had up to 80% of the market.  It takes much longer to forget when you have personally been burned (sometimes multiple times) than when you simply read about other people having quality issues with a brand you've never owned.

 

Either way I am going to continue to cheer for all of the Big 3.  Even the one that has been foreign owned for quite a while now.