smk4565

Electric cars needing to reduce vehicle height to improve range is all that will save us from crossover SUV everything.

I don't like SUVs either. But if you ask most car companies what they see as a good product mix, they would rather have 8 SUVs and 0 cars than 5 SUVs and 3 cars.

Get them now before the $7500 tax credit goes away in January. The Alabama battery plant really only needs to serve demand for EQE SUV and EQS SUV. That's all they are making there although it would make sense to make their lower end cars there so consumers can get the tax credit on them, because the $80,000 price cap is going to disqualify EQS and maybe all EQE trims. They actually need to build the A-C class vehicles in Alabama, build the EQB there for example, it starts at $56,000, get the tax credit to $48,500 and then all of a sudden that looks like a good deal.

Once the inflation reduction act passed, it seems like the flood gates opened on these companies bringing battery production to North America. In addition to that Volkswagen and Mercedes have a deal with Canada to mine lithium and battery materials there. This is great news because we should be making this stuff in North America, not having to rely on China, who is currently making about 70% of EV batteries.

Crossover coupe! In 2030, all vehicles will be crossover coupes.

Sure, but Chrysler got the LX cars and the WK Grand Cherokee (thus Durango, Commander) from Mercedes, plus the Crossfire, plus they sold Sprinters for a little bit. Outside of the Ram pickup and Wrangler, I don't know how many platforms Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep Ram have come up with in the past 25 years. Almost every product has been a hand me down from another car company. A google search says the Giorgio platform cost $1.07 billion dollars. Mercedes spent $1 billion on the W212 E-class refresh. The Giorgio platform didn't take all the money out of the company, they should have had at least a $5 billion annual R&D budget. FCA spent many billions on product. Although they do have very little to show for it because the cars it produced weren't as good as BMW's. They may have nothing to show for the Tonale and Hornet.

Alfa Romeo got 2 products on the same platform, which is now used for Jeep's #1 selling product. That didn't starve CDJR of product. The Alfa 4C was around before the merger as were the other cars you mentioned. Jeep got the Renegade, a replacement for that awful gen 1 Compass, the Cherokee, Dodge got the Dart, Chrysler the 200, Ram the Promaster and Promaster City. Fiat gave CDJR 7 new products.

If CDJR was so profitable, why was it that Fiat bought them and not the other way around? It was Fiat and Marchionne that bought CDJR. And it was Peugeot (PSA) who bought FCA. IF CDJR was such a powerhouse, they wouldn't have been taking over by a struggling company that was later taken over.

Stellantis didn't "steal money from American nameplates" Stellantis owns all these brands. Stellantis is a Netherlands based company trading on the French and Italian stock exchanges. Stellantis gives these brands a budget, pays the employees, etc. And Stellantis could wipe out half their brands without a single person losing their job, because they don't have Dodge employees, or Fiat employees, or Opel employees, they have Stellantis employees. And we already know Stellantis gave all these brands a budget and time to see which ones stick and which won't be needed. As Tesla takes more and more market share around the world, I predict a major reorganization (similar to GM 2008 minus the bankruptcy) happens at Stellantis. A lot of these brands will go away and they'll have a value brand, a luxury brand, an off road brand (Jeep) and a performance brand. This might be a 4 brand company in 2030.

Probably all true as far as parts go.

All of those concepts are ugly and what is with the flying buttress C-pillar on the Audi and the Cadillacs, looks chunky and heavy. As far as the active sphere goes, Audi definitely needs more crossover copes for active lifestyle people, I suggest they do a QC1, QC2, QC3, QC4, QC5, QC6, QC7, QC8, and QC9 so they can have 9 Q-coupe versions of their current Q suv's. This way they can have 18 SUVs each 3 inches and $3,000 different in price.

None of those cars listed can be considered reliable. Car and Driver did a long term test on the Guilia Quadrafolio and it was a maintenance nightmare. 2400 miles before the first break down, the rear diff needed replaced at 10,000 miles and it took 31 days to get one and that is before covid supply chain mess was a thing. In 14 months they had the car it spend 80 days out of commission, that's ridiculous. Every time a new Alfa comes out, they makes this "oh we fixed the reliability, it isn't like the old days" statement. Alfa also said they were going to sell 250,000 cars a year globally and they hit like 123,000 in 2019 and have dropped since. Now they say they'll sell 300,000 a year within 4-5 years. This is the biggest empty promise brand ever. I assume Dodge Hornet buyers will need to get to work, not sure what they'll do then their car breaks down and they have to wait 1 month to get parts from Italy. And I have seen worse with collision repairs, not uncommon to wait 6+ months for something like fenders or tailgates on a Jeep Renegade in the past year.

They said the Guilia was going to be reliable and not like Alfa's of the past, and it wasn't, likewise with the Stelvio, likewise with every Maserati currently on sale. I don't believe him for a second, and if they want to put their money where their mouth is, offer a better warranty than Hyundai or on these. They couldn't make a Guilia with a 2 liter turbo 4 reliable, which I think every car company on earth has a 2 liter turbo 4, that is like the most basic and common engine out there. Now they are going to go to a high boost 1.3 liter with an electric drivetrain mixed in, when they have zero history of hybrid powertrains, compared to Toyota who has 25 years of doing it. I don't trust it.

Ford was just ordered in court to pay $1.7 billion in damages for a F250 roof that collapse and killed the occupants. And Ford will appeal, and they’ll still F-series trucks, just like Toyota will keep selling. Toyota was the #1 selling brand in the USA and the world, the Corolla is the best selling car in the world with 1.15 million last year. They must be doing something right. And it isn’t like the Corolla is luxurious or sporty (save for the GR 300 hp version that wasn’t on sale last year). But they are reliable, they last, they are cheap to maintain and that’s what sells.

Exactly. All day long they are people that will pay near $20k for a 15-25 year old Land Cruiser and it’s Lexus twin. It’s not my cup of tea, but the cult following exists.

Probably make it a crossover coupe version of the Blazer EV. It can share parts with the Acura ZDX that's coming back, because yay, crossover coupes.

More power than a Model S Plaid? Or the 1200 hp Lucid? Horsepower doesn't really matter anymore, everything is fast, you can get a Kia that does 0-60 in 3.4 seconds for like $70k.

So I assume they will have to change this to a sedan for production, or do sedan and coupe versions, unless they have a different sedan coming later and the Charger is a coupe only for lower volume as they ramp up EV production. They don't mention power, range, battery size or anything, so I am guessing this is a good bit away from production still, maybe late 2024 as a 2025 model.

GM interiors may look good new, but in 5-10 years the leather will crack, their seat bolster foam gets squashed, the button get rubbed away so you can't tell what it is, etc. This is also my observation on current 10 year old GM interiors, so cars of the early 2010s, but the interiors are on those cars don't hold up, the resale value on them sucks, the rust proofing, the paint quality, doesn't hold up. Now maybe 2022 GM cars have fixed all the quality, but we won't know for 10 years. I agree the Lexus LX interior doesn't look good. But when it's 20 years old it will still be on the road and being sold on Bring a Trailer for $25k despite having 250,000 miles on it, vs a 20 year old Escalade or Grand Wagoner will be rusting in a junk yard. Toyota interiors I don't think are the best, but I think they are above average overall. My original point was they kill it on the reliability and resale and cost of ownership metrics, and that keeps buyers coming back. I think the Hornet interior is fine for the segment, I don't like the all black, but what they have there is on par for the segment.

I would agree on the new Canyon/Colorado vs the current Tacoma since the Tacoma is as ancient as the 4Runner, but they have a new one next year so we'll see what happens. The Tundra Capstone has the same leather from the Lexus LS, that's the best truck interior. I don't think Toyota/Lexus interiors are class leading by any means, but their cars are well built and hold up over time and the Rav4 has a better interior than an Escape or Equinox the Highlander is better than an Explorer/Traverse. Although I think Hyundai/Kia do a better interior than Toyota. The Enclave/Acadia/Traverse are bottom feeders of the 3 row SUV segment.

I just don't get how financially viable it is to have these brands with low volume, niche products like Dodge and Chrysler. The Charger/300/Challenger are dead after this year, the Durango if it isn't, will be dead soon (although they could do a Grand Cherokee clone for a new one). The 2024 Chrysler lineup is the Pacifica and the 2024 Dodge lineup is Hornet and maybe Durango. And the Charger EV and Airflow probably arrive in 2025. Doesn't seem like enough volume to justify either of those brands. Especially since over at Jeep they will fill any market segment they can. Toyota's interiors in general are better than GM, Ford or Stellantis in the same segment, with the exception being the 4Runner vs whatever you want to compare it to since that thing is so dated. And that isn't what they are selling on, it is the cost of ownership, dependability and resale value that sells them. A 10 year old Rav4 sells for about the same as a 10 year old Cadillac or Lincoln that probably cost twice as much when new. Look at prices of a 10 year old Dodge/Chrysler, they are just about worthless because of how they fall apart.

Toyota/Lexus are still the gold standard of cost of ownership and resale value in the eye of the consumer.

CX-30 I was thinking of. They have that in a turbo, and CX-50 I assume has a turbo. Mazda's product planning is stupid, just make more versions of the same SUVs, and try to pass it off as new product when that CX-5 has been on the market like 6 years with no change. Surprised that Hyundai doesn't have the 2.5 turbo in the Tucson since it is in the Santa Fe, but that is an easy add, and they have the Kona N. There is some performance small SUV's out there, but not a lot of volume out of them.

Going for sport should help the Hornet stand out. The GLA and X1 are in the low 6's 0-60 but also cost more. The Escape 2.0 turbo and the CX-3 Turbo and CX-5 Turbo would probably be in the ballpark of the Hornet. Just depends on how many buyers of small SUVs rank performance as their top attribute they are shopping for.

But will the Hornet get compared with the premium brands or the RAV4, CX-5 and Equinox that will be bigger and roomier perhaps for the same money. I don't think a car buyer is going to look at a GLA, a Q3 and a Dodge Hornet. Maybe Dodge against Ford and Chevy. The Equinox even after the refresh still seems boring and dated, the Escape is nothing good, CX-5 or RAV4 seem to be the better options and the Tucson seems pretty good.