The Sorry State of Affairs in Automobilia in the 1970s, 80s and 90s

[Avalanchez71]

Do you also think that the Uber/Lyft generation has anything to do with the decline of the puchase of the coupe?  They don't want to drive themselves.  They don't want to warm the planet.

[GCrites]

Some 2-door cars had doors that were just too long to make for a good daily. Anybody who has had a 2nd-4th gen Camaro or Firebird knows the long door struggle. Parked next to somebody? You're sliding out the back. Of course the '80s 2-door Caprices doors were even longer.

When I was little though, my folks always bought 2-doors to keep me from jumping out. At the same time, 4 doors can be annoying as well. So many doors and windows to keep track of. Ah crap, door #3s not closed all the way. Gotta get out and close it again. That's like this house I just bought -- despite being a little over 1000 sq. ft. it has FIVE entry doors. Gotta make sure every one's locked or say goodbye to your stuff. People steal everywhere now instead of just in crappy neighborhoods since there's so many heroin addicts.

[Max Rockatansky]

Some 2-door cars had doors that were just too long to make for a good daily. Anybody who has had a 2nd-4th gen Camaro or Firebird knows the long door struggle. Parked next to somebody? You're sliding out the back. Of course the '80s 2-door Caprices doors were even longer.

When I was little though, my folks always bought 2-doors to keep me from jumping out. At the same time, 4 doors can be annoying as well. So many doors and windows to keep track of. Ah crap, door #3s not closed all the way. Gotta get out and close it again. That's like this house I just bought -- despite being a little over 1000 sq. ft. it has FIVE entry doors. Gotta make sure every one's locked or say goodbye to your stuff. People steal everywhere now instead of just in crappy neighborhoods since there's so many heroin addicts.

Don't forget the 5th generation Camaro also, that thing had some huge doors...way too easy to ding IMO.  Put a nasty ding in mine at an air compressor one time, thankfully it was on the lip and it only chipped down to primer.

Do you also think that the Uber/Lyft generation has anything to do with the decline of the puchase of the coupe?  They don't want to drive themselves.  They don't want to warm the planet.

That's one of the things that vexes me most about the current college age generation..they don't want to drive.  Seems like all they are interested in is being everyone's Facebook friend and playing video games online.  I know mass transit and urban living are appealing to the age group also...yuck and yuck...at least for me.  I don't really run into to many of them that are into environmentalism or even politics....it's all about the socializing.  Oh well...guess that just means I'm old now.

[Max Rockatansky]

Right but how many people who bought those SUVs used them for the tow capacity that they came with?...it was very few.

How many people, in the past, bought mid-70s Ford Country Squires w/460s (or equivalent) that actually used them for towing capacity (those equipped w/the Class III tow package could pull up to 7000 lbs.)?  That type of question has existed for decades.

So basically the SUV became the style points vehicle over the Mini-Van somewhere in the late 90s.  Even the people who drove the Mini-Vans would largely ever come close to using the total gross weight capacity much less tow capability.  So when...rather why did this all change that a family needed a monster honking vehicle to toat the 2.3 kids around in?

Again, many minivans that existed lacked the brawn that the old station wagons and truck-based SUVs had.  In addition to towing ability there's payload; most FWD-based minivans could certainly hold stuff, but not all of them offered optional heavy-duty suspension packages if the cargo was not only bulky but heavy as well.  I know of one company that bought a fleet of FWD-based vans (instead of RWD-based vans)  and discovered that the weight of their equipment was cracking the rear axles.  Granted, one may not experience such in passenger vehicle applications.

Regarding the 2.3 kids... many of these vehicles were used as soccer mom carpools transporting other kids.  Granted, if that was the maximum usage of a vehicle; then sure a minivan or now CUV would suffice.  But how does one know, unless they know the owner/driver, that the vehicle isn't being used for other purposes (hauling and/or towing).  Case-and-point; back in the early 70s when my father had a 25-foot trimoran sailboat, his 8-passenger '69 Mercury Colony Park wagon w/the 390 V8 towed it w/ease... and there were a few occasions when all 8 seats (his was equipped w/the optional dual-facing rear seats) were indeed used when transporting friends & guests.  Note: when he sold the boat (due to financial reasons), he traded the wagon for a '74 Pinto Squire wagon.  Man, talk about a major change/shock. 

Bottom line & long story short; the main reason why many dumped minivans for SUVs was due to choice.  Especially for those large station wagon owners that felt like the automakers largely abandoned them.

Look at the CTS wagon that was out for a couple years on the last generation platform.  That was a great vehicle that offered a luxury buyer everything they could have wanted for cargo capacity but everyone hated it.  Even the Dodge Magnum as cool as it was suffered the fate of the Station Wagon stigma....and yes Chrysler going out of the way to not call it one was silly.

Those two wagons are poster childs of how not to design nor market wagons.  Both wagons lacked what previous station wagons had; visibility & capacity.

The Magnum wagon, despite its long 120" wheelbase, had only slightly more cargo capacity than a compact Ford Focus wagon (which still existed at the time & was cheaper) due to its narrow body and short (for its class) overall length.  Dodge marketers also IMHO get an "F" on how they advertised & marketed the wagon; which was largely non-existant.  Even their product-line brochures listed the Magnum wagon (in its first year) at the bottom of its lineup, despite being the newest vehicle in the line-up.  Such usually gets the proverbial front-page attention.

The Cadillac CTS wagon, IMHO, suffered similarly; but adding insult to injury had terrible visibility, one might as well be driving a panel vehicle.

As for the large coupe, I think that one was doomed when sedans in the same segment started to catch on.  There always seemed to be a high end luxury tinge to them in the heyday or a gimmick like suicide doors.

Okay, since you don't list your age in your profile (your choice); I'm going to assume based on your comments that you were either not alive during the 70s or been too young to remember.

During the 70s and into the mid 80s; the hottest selling vehicle type was the mid-size personal luxury coupe (Cutlass Supreme, Monte Carlo, Thunderbird, etc.).

Prior to the 1960s, most car companies only had one or two car lines and such car lines had various body styles and trim levels (that actually featured different model names).  By the end of the 60s; the number of car lines & sizes expanded and the first casualties of such diversification were the bare bones level full-sizes (Chevy Biscaynes/BelAirs, Ford Customs/Custom 500s) particularly the coupes (those continued for a few years in the Canadian market). 

When the earlier-mentioned mid-size personal luxury coupes dominated the market; the more standard mid-size coupes (like the Malibu & Granada coupes) fell out of favor saleswise and were dropped.

When the SUV market expanded (such had existed but were in smaller quantities & types) during the 90s; those mid-size coupes as well as sporty coupes like the Camaro & Firebird/TransAm took a sales hit and were eventually discontinued (the Camaro was revived after a 6-year absence).

Why did sedans survive when coupes took a hit?  Since sedans are perceived to have more utility than their coupe counterparts; many buyers stood by them.  For those w/small children; the now-standard rear door child locks means they don't have to buy a coupe (that has larger doors) to prevent their kids from accidentally unlocking and opening the rear door while the vehicle is in motion.

Actually I'm 40...that's not exactly too far off the mark of the 50 you got going on your profile.  So no I wasn't car buying age but I do remember cars like the Monte Carlo and others like it being a dime a dozen.  Yes I remember when child proof locking became a big selling point...but I don't believe that I actually ever heard of a single story where that happened.  Even the 6 years I spent as a highway patrolman I never once heard anyone even speak about a kid opening a car door and falling out...not even from the 20 year guys.  I'm not saying that it never happened anywhere but I do think that notion was borne out of a lot of 1980s parental paranoia.

It's funny how that all swung full circle once Ford put some development money into the 05 Mustang.  In my view the Firebird and Camaro died a slow death on F-body platform that was way too old running from 1993 to 2002.  Also the automakers got more realistic about sales volume with 50,000 to 80,000 being considered acceptable for the current Mustang, Challenger and Camaro. Back in the late 90s the trucks and SUVs were getting all the R&D money which you could completely tell.  Even people who hated American cars would at least look at a truck or SUV made by a domestic brand...  Hell they kind of became the luxury coupes or brawny vehicles of their time.  It's funny...I see so any people piss on the H2 and H3 nowadays and putting them on "worst ever" lists along with the likes of the Pinto, Pacer or Aztec.  People WANTED those H2 and H3...I remember people going nuts over the H2 as a status symbol vehicle. 

With the CTS pretty much every model had compromised visibility...it was part of the whole Art and Science thing that GM was going for.  The Magnum I'm with you on that...it wasn't all that much more roomy than most hatchbacks or worse.  I just don't get why they would bring that concept into production off of the concept car reaction and not market it?   The 300 and Charger got marketed to death....also the Challenger when it came back.  Out all of those LX cars the Magnum was probably the best bang for the buck since you could get it in any configuration the others had plus have a wagon style...at least have something unique.  Those Chargers that Chrysler brought out were awful looking...but thankfully have gotten better.

I'm with you on the utility aspect of the SUV and old school wagon versus the CUV/Mini-Van.  I just don't see too many people doing things that would require towing or hauling like they used to back in the 80s.   Hell I'm on a 3,600 mile road trip through 8 national parks and 5 monuments...the volume of people towing a boat or trailer isn't anywhere what I remember even 10 years back.  I've noticed a lot of rental RVs on this trip and the last couple though.

BTW...if I sound loopy and if I'm missing things it's because I'm exhausted from all this friggin driving.  I got one more 400 plus day to go before I loop things back to Denver to head on home.

[Stratuscaster]

As I recall, there was a brief moment in time during Daimler's occupation of Chrysler where the Dodge brand was going to be trucks, SUVs, and hatch/wagons - no sedans or coupes. Chrysler would get sedans & coupes. Jeep was Jeep.

Magnum was referred to as a Sports Tourer, because the term "station wagon" was still verboten in marketing speak as old and outdated. And as noted, it wasn't all that good as a wagon.

According to the guys that built them, they could have continued building Magnums alongside the 300/Charger and then-new Challenger - but top brass axed it after sales dropped upon the debut of the Charger.

[Max Rockatansky]

As I recall, there was a brief moment in time during Daimler's occupation of Chrysler where the Dodge brand was going to be trucks, SUVs, and hatch/wagons - no sedans or coupes. Chrysler would get sedans & coupes. Jeep was Jeep.

Magnum was referred to as a Sports Tourer, because the term "station wagon" was still verboten in marketing speak as old and outdated. And as noted, it wasn't all that good as a wagon.

According to the guys that built them, they could have continued building Magnums alongside the 300/Charger and then-new Challenger - but top brass axed it after sales dropped upon the debut of the Charger.

Kinda sorta happened when "Ram" became it's own thing.  I'm surprised the Durango and Journey stayed with the Dodge brand after Chrysler decides they wanted a GMC-like division.  I noticed that Chrysler is really trying to segment the brands with more or less unique vehicles....maybe that's how they are justifying four brands continuing to exist? 

Pretty much the Charger killed off the Magnum, it's pretty clear that more people prefer the sedan body over a wagon.  For what it's worth Chrysler really got their money's worth out of the LX platform, it's been on the market in one variation or another for over a decade now.  Not bad for an old Mercedes sourced platform....hell I just bought a Challenger last year.  And Chrysler's marketing team can call the Magnum anything they want..it was a wagon. 

[GCrites]

It's funny how that all swung full circle once Ford put some development money into the 05 Mustang.  In my view the Firebird and Camaro died a slow death on F-body platform that was way too old running from 1993 to 2002.  Also the automakers got more realistic about sales volume with 50,000 to 80,000 being considered acceptable for the current Mustang, Challenger and Camaro.

I agree that by the time the LS1 engines rolled out for '98 that the largely new-for-'82 4th gen platform was showing its age especially in the chassis stiffness department where you really want to add both inner and outer subframe connectors. But the even more ancient '79 design of the up through '04 SN95/New Edge Mustangs was way worse with its crappy roll centers and floppy 4-control arm rear end. Yet the SN95s crushed the 4th gens sales-wise and forced GM to tap out two years early despite a vastly superior engine and chassis on the 4th-gen. You still want to double up the subframe connectors on an SN95. Nowadays you see way more SN95s on the road than LT1 and early V6 4th gens which found themselves ground to death by the trailer park just like the 3rd gens ten years prior or locked up in the garage and turned into toys like the LS1 cars have been. Meanwhile you see 21-year-old girls driving 1996 SN95s in the snow every day chugging along forever like a Honda.

[SteveG1988]

1989-1993 vs 1994-1997.

Ergonomics took over in the 1990s big time.

[Truvelo]

Ergonomics took over in the 1990s big time.

I prefer the wood in the older model. It looks far nicer than acres of grey plastic. My last two cars had wooden trim.

[Max Rockatansky]

It's funny how that all swung full circle once Ford put some development money into the 05 Mustang.  In my view the Firebird and Camaro died a slow death on F-body platform that was way too old running from 1993 to 2002.  Also the automakers got more realistic about sales volume with 50,000 to 80,000 being considered acceptable for the current Mustang, Challenger and Camaro.

I agree that by the time the LS1 engines rolled out for '98 that the largely new-for-'82 4th gen platform was showing its age especially in the chassis stiffness department where you really want to add both inner and outer subframe connectors. But the even more ancient '79 design of the up through '04 SN95/New Edge Mustangs was way worse with its crappy roll centers and floppy 4-control arm rear end. Yet the SN95s crushed the 4th gens sales-wise and forced GM to tap out two years early despite a vastly superior engine and chassis on the 4th-gen. You still want to double up the subframe connectors on an SN95. Nowadays you see way more SN95s on the road than LT1 and early V6 4th gens which found themselves ground to death by the trailer park just like the 3rd gens ten years prior or locked up in the garage and turned into toys like the LS1 cars have been. Meanwhile you see 21-year-old girls driving 1996 SN95s in the snow every day chugging along forever like a Honda.

Even with the long in tooth 4th Gen F-body I'll never understand how the SN95 Mustang whooped it so badly.  About the only thing that I can think of was price.  That's why I ended up with 02 GT instead of a Camaro or Firebird, it was about 20% cheaper on the used market than an F-Body was.  Funny thing is that you're starting to see people collect those 4th Gen F-Bodies, I've seen a lot of nice examples at car shows.   The SN95 Mustangs are usually beat to hell unless they are a Boss 302, SVT Cobra or Bullit.

Ergonomics took over in the 1990s big time.

I prefer the wood in the older model. It looks far nicer than acres of grey plastic. My last two cars had wooden trim.

More often than not it was just "simulated" and looked fake as all hell since it had a high glossy sheen to it.  I would prefer real wood options but they wouldn't run cheap for sure.  Incidentally I would love to have a single room in my house all decked out in those fake wood panels everyone seemed to have in the 70s and 80s...hell I'd take the shag carpet too...but one room only, a retro man den.

[Stratuscaster]

Kinda sorta happened when "Ram" became it's own thing.  I'm surprised the Durango and Journey stayed with the Dodge brand after Chrysler decides they wanted a GMC-like division.  I noticed that Chrysler is really trying to segment the brands with more or less unique vehicles....maybe that's how they are justifying four brands continuing to exist? 

That was all Fiat's doing when they gained control of Chrysler. The general consensus was that the trucks were doing well enough to be their own line of business (like Jeep) - and that should the need to sell off or divest brands occur, it would be more valuable if the trucks were their own brand. Hence, RAM.

Under FCA, there are actually SEVEN brands: Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, RAM, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, and Maserati. (Some lump Ferrari in there, but that's been separated a bit today.)

In their last "5-year-plan", those brands finally got some direction as to what they would be. Dodge is the performance brand, Chrysler is the mainstream brand, RAM is trucks/commercial and Jeep is SUVs. There's obviously still a bit of overlap, and there are still some anomalies - the Grand Caravan and Journey aren't exactly paragons of performance, but they'll be dropped/replaced within the next 2 years. Chrysler only has 4 models today and one (the Town & Country) will go away soon, but more are to come to flesh out that line.

Fiat - in the US, anyway - is a very niche boutique brand like MINI is to BMW. Alfa will take on BMW, Mercedes, and Audi (and others), Maserati plays upstairs with Jaguar and Porsche and such.

Pretty much the Charger killed off the Magnum, it's pretty clear that more people prefer the sedan body over a wagon.  For what it's worth Chrysler really got their money's worth out of the LX platform, it's been on the market in one variation or another for over a decade now.  Not bad for an old Mercedes sourced platform....hell I just bought a Challenger last year.  And Chrysler's marketing team can call the Magnum anything they want..it was a wagon. 

Only bits and pieces were Mercedes-sourced - it certainly wasn't just a "last-gen rebodied E-Class" when they debuted, and they indeed have kept on improving upon it over that decade - to the point where many bits and pieces of the LX (300)/LY (Charger)/LC (Challenger) can be found underneath and inside the Maserati Ghibli & Quattroporte, as well as the upcoming Maserati Levante crossover. And that twin-turbo V6 Maserati uses that's built up by Ferrari? It uses a Chrysler Pentastar V6 block.

Wagons fell out of favor for minivans, trucks, and SUVs/CUVs. Then minivans suffered a similar fate to the point where they are almost considered a niche market today. Crossovers are now eating away at the sedan market share - tiny bites for now, but I expect it to grow.

[Max Rockatansky]

Kinda sorta happened when "Ram" became it's own thing.  I'm surprised the Durango and Journey stayed with the Dodge brand after Chrysler decides they wanted a GMC-like division.  I noticed that Chrysler is really trying to segment the brands with more or less unique vehicles....maybe that's how they are justifying four brands continuing to exist? 

That was all Fiat's doing when they gained control of Chrysler. The general consensus was that the trucks were doing well enough to be their own line of business (like Jeep) - and that should the need to sell off or divest brands occur, it would be more valuable if the trucks were their own brand. Hence, RAM.

Under FCA, there are actually SEVEN brands: Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, RAM, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, and Maserati. (Some lump Ferrari in there, but that's been separated a bit today.)

In their last "5-year-plan", those brands finally got some direction as to what they would be. Dodge is the performance brand, Chrysler is the mainstream brand, RAM is trucks/commercial and Jeep is SUVs. There's obviously still a bit of overlap, and there are still some anomalies - the Grand Caravan and Journey aren't exactly paragons of performance, but they'll be dropped/replaced within the next 2 years. Chrysler only has 4 models today and one (the Town & Country) will go away soon, but more are to come to flesh out that line.

Fiat - in the US, anyway - is a very niche boutique brand like MINI is to BMW. Alfa will take on BMW, Mercedes, and Audi (and others), Maserati plays upstairs with Jaguar and Porsche and such.

Pretty much the Charger killed off the Magnum, it's pretty clear that more people prefer the sedan body over a wagon.  For what it's worth Chrysler really got their money's worth out of the LX platform, it's been on the market in one variation or another for over a decade now.  Not bad for an old Mercedes sourced platform....hell I just bought a Challenger last year.  And Chrysler's marketing team can call the Magnum anything they want..it was a wagon. 

Only bits and pieces were Mercedes-sourced - it certainly wasn't just a "last-gen rebodied E-Class" when they debuted, and they indeed have kept on improving upon it over that decade - to the point where many bits and pieces of the LX (300)/LY (Charger)/LC (Challenger) can be found underneath and inside the Maserati Ghibli & Quattroporte, as well as the upcoming Maserati Levante crossover. And that twin-turbo V6 Maserati uses that's built up by Ferrari? It uses a Chrysler Pentastar V6 block.

Wagons fell out of favor for minivans, trucks, and SUVs/CUVs. Then minivans suffered a similar fate to the point where they are almost considered a niche market today. Crossovers are now eating away at the sedan market share - tiny bites for now, but I expect it to grow.

That's just plain amusing that Fiat would think of Dodge as anything other than a volume brand.  Granted I know the Viper, Challenger and Charger are part of the line up but you have some volume vehicles like the Dart still floating in there.  I just don't see the point of all these brands when Dodge and Ram did just fine as a single brand.  But that's just my thoughts as someone who recently bought a Chrysler product in a Challenger.  And yes I would agree that the LX platform has changed so much that it hardly resembles the E-Class that it came from anymore.  Hell the Hemi engines are actually some of the few iron block V8s you can still have...basically they are about as retro as it gets from American cars. 

It's just a damn shame with all these CUVs....I think they are boring as all hell and a limited compromise of various vehicle types.  Not that I'm in the market for any of them but it would be nice to have the option of a viable wagon or van if needed. The one good thing is that real SUVs have become niche again with models like the Tahoe, Wrangler, Suburban, ect.  I'm definitely interested in the current Wrangler once it hits the ten year mark, the 3.6 Pentastar would be a hell of option over an older CJ.

[SteveG1988]

Kinda sorta happened when "Ram" became it's own thing.  I'm surprised the Durango and Journey stayed with the Dodge brand after Chrysler decides they wanted a GMC-like division.  I noticed that Chrysler is really trying to segment the brands with more or less unique vehicles....maybe that's how they are justifying four brands continuing to exist? 

That was all Fiat's doing when they gained control of Chrysler. The general consensus was that the trucks were doing well enough to be their own line of business (like Jeep) - and that should the need to sell off or divest brands occur, it would be more valuable if the trucks were their own brand. Hence, RAM.

Under FCA, there are actually SEVEN brands: Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, RAM, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, and Maserati. (Some lump Ferrari in there, but that's been separated a bit today.)

In their last "5-year-plan", those brands finally got some direction as to what they would be. Dodge is the performance brand, Chrysler is the mainstream brand, RAM is trucks/commercial and Jeep is SUVs. There's obviously still a bit of overlap, and there are still some anomalies - the Grand Caravan and Journey aren't exactly paragons of performance, but they'll be dropped/replaced within the next 2 years. Chrysler only has 4 models today and one (the Town & Country) will go away soon, but more are to come to flesh out that line.

Fiat - in the US, anyway - is a very niche boutique brand like MINI is to BMW. Alfa will take on BMW, Mercedes, and Audi (and others), Maserati plays upstairs with Jaguar and Porsche and such.

Pretty much the Charger killed off the Magnum, it's pretty clear that more people prefer the sedan body over a wagon.  For what it's worth Chrysler really got their money's worth out of the LX platform, it's been on the market in one variation or another for over a decade now.  Not bad for an old Mercedes sourced platform....hell I just bought a Challenger last year.  And Chrysler's marketing team can call the Magnum anything they want..it was a wagon. 

Only bits and pieces were Mercedes-sourced - it certainly wasn't just a "last-gen rebodied E-Class" when they debuted, and they indeed have kept on improving upon it over that decade - to the point where many bits and pieces of the LX (300)/LY (Charger)/LC (Challenger) can be found underneath and inside the Maserati Ghibli & Quattroporte, as well as the upcoming Maserati Levante crossover. And that twin-turbo V6 Maserati uses that's built up by Ferrari? It uses a Chrysler Pentastar V6 block.

Wagons fell out of favor for minivans, trucks, and SUVs/CUVs. Then minivans suffered a similar fate to the point where they are almost considered a niche market today. Crossovers are now eating away at the sedan market share - tiny bites for now, but I expect it to grow.

That's just plain amusing that Fiat would think of Dodge as anything other than a volume brand.  Granted I know the Viper, Challenger and Charger are part of the line up but you have some volume vehicles like the Dart still floating in there.  I just don't see the point of all these brands when Dodge and Ram did just fine as a single brand.  But that's just my thoughts as someone who recently bought a Chrysler product in a Challenger.  And yes I would agree that the LX platform has changed so much that it hardly resembles the E-Class that it came from anymore.  Hell the Hemi engines are actually some of the few iron block V8s you can still have...basically they are about as retro as it gets from American cars. 

It's just a damn shame with all these CUVs....I think they are boring as all hell and a limited compromise of various vehicle types.  Not that I'm in the market for any of them but it would be nice to have the option of a viable wagon or van if needed. The one good thing is that real SUVs have become niche again with models like the Tahoe, Wrangler, Suburban, ect.  I'm definitely interested in the current Wrangler once it hits the ten year mark, the 3.6 Pentastar would be a hell of option over an older CJ.

My car has a Cast iron block V8, but it is SOHC, aluminum head, etc. Also i don't think that anyone uses iron block any more due to weight.

[Max Rockatansky]

Kinda sorta happened when "Ram" became it's own thing.  I'm surprised the Durango and Journey stayed with the Dodge brand after Chrysler decides they wanted a GMC-like division.  I noticed that Chrysler is really trying to segment the brands with more or less unique vehicles....maybe that's how they are justifying four brands continuing to exist? 

That was all Fiat's doing when they gained control of Chrysler. The general consensus was that the trucks were doing well enough to be their own line of business (like Jeep) - and that should the need to sell off or divest brands occur, it would be more valuable if the trucks were their own brand. Hence, RAM.

Under FCA, there are actually SEVEN brands: Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, RAM, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, and Maserati. (Some lump Ferrari in there, but that's been separated a bit today.)

In their last "5-year-plan", those brands finally got some direction as to what they would be. Dodge is the performance brand, Chrysler is the mainstream brand, RAM is trucks/commercial and Jeep is SUVs. There's obviously still a bit of overlap, and there are still some anomalies - the Grand Caravan and Journey aren't exactly paragons of performance, but they'll be dropped/replaced within the next 2 years. Chrysler only has 4 models today and one (the Town & Country) will go away soon, but more are to come to flesh out that line.

Fiat - in the US, anyway - is a very niche boutique brand like MINI is to BMW. Alfa will take on BMW, Mercedes, and Audi (and others), Maserati plays upstairs with Jaguar and Porsche and such.

Pretty much the Charger killed off the Magnum, it's pretty clear that more people prefer the sedan body over a wagon.  For what it's worth Chrysler really got their money's worth out of the LX platform, it's been on the market in one variation or another for over a decade now.  Not bad for an old Mercedes sourced platform....hell I just bought a Challenger last year.  And Chrysler's marketing team can call the Magnum anything they want..it was a wagon. 

Only bits and pieces were Mercedes-sourced - it certainly wasn't just a "last-gen rebodied E-Class" when they debuted, and they indeed have kept on improving upon it over that decade - to the point where many bits and pieces of the LX (300)/LY (Charger)/LC (Challenger) can be found underneath and inside the Maserati Ghibli & Quattroporte, as well as the upcoming Maserati Levante crossover. And that twin-turbo V6 Maserati uses that's built up by Ferrari? It uses a Chrysler Pentastar V6 block.

Wagons fell out of favor for minivans, trucks, and SUVs/CUVs. Then minivans suffered a similar fate to the point where they are almost considered a niche market today. Crossovers are now eating away at the sedan market share - tiny bites for now, but I expect it to grow.

That's just plain amusing that Fiat would think of Dodge as anything other than a volume brand.  Granted I know the Viper, Challenger and Charger are part of the line up but you have some volume vehicles like the Dart still floating in there.  I just don't see the point of all these brands when Dodge and Ram did just fine as a single brand.  But that's just my thoughts as someone who recently bought a Chrysler product in a Challenger.  And yes I would agree that the LX platform has changed so much that it hardly resembles the E-Class that it came from anymore.  Hell the Hemi engines are actually some of the few iron block V8s you can still have...basically they are about as retro as it gets from American cars. 

It's just a damn shame with all these CUVs....I think they are boring as all hell and a limited compromise of various vehicle types.  Not that I'm in the market for any of them but it would be nice to have the option of a viable wagon or van if needed. The one good thing is that real SUVs have become niche again with models like the Tahoe, Wrangler, Suburban, ect.  I'm definitely interested in the current Wrangler once it hits the ten year mark, the 3.6 Pentastar would be a hell of option over an older CJ.

My car has a Cast iron block V8, but it is SOHC, aluminum head, etc. Also i don't think that anyone uses iron block any more due to weight.

Actually my 2016 Challenger has a 6.4L/392 and it's an iron block.  Apparently all the modern hemi engines are all iron blocks, I didn't realize it until I was searching for a replacement for my 2011 Camaro.  Definitely doesn't help with the curb weight but probably makes that huge displacement a little bit easier.

[SteveG1988]

Kinda sorta happened when "Ram" became it's own thing.  I'm surprised the Durango and Journey stayed with the Dodge brand after Chrysler decides they wanted a GMC-like division.  I noticed that Chrysler is really trying to segment the brands with more or less unique vehicles....maybe that's how they are justifying four brands continuing to exist? 

That was all Fiat's doing when they gained control of Chrysler. The general consensus was that the trucks were doing well enough to be their own line of business (like Jeep) - and that should the need to sell off or divest brands occur, it would be more valuable if the trucks were their own brand. Hence, RAM.

Under FCA, there are actually SEVEN brands: Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, RAM, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, and Maserati. (Some lump Ferrari in there, but that's been separated a bit today.)

In their last "5-year-plan", those brands finally got some direction as to what they would be. Dodge is the performance brand, Chrysler is the mainstream brand, RAM is trucks/commercial and Jeep is SUVs. There's obviously still a bit of overlap, and there are still some anomalies - the Grand Caravan and Journey aren't exactly paragons of performance, but they'll be dropped/replaced within the next 2 years. Chrysler only has 4 models today and one (the Town & Country) will go away soon, but more are to come to flesh out that line.

Fiat - in the US, anyway - is a very niche boutique brand like MINI is to BMW. Alfa will take on BMW, Mercedes, and Audi (and others), Maserati plays upstairs with Jaguar and Porsche and such.

Pretty much the Charger killed off the Magnum, it's pretty clear that more people prefer the sedan body over a wagon.  For what it's worth Chrysler really got their money's worth out of the LX platform, it's been on the market in one variation or another for over a decade now.  Not bad for an old Mercedes sourced platform....hell I just bought a Challenger last year.  And Chrysler's marketing team can call the Magnum anything they want..it was a wagon. 

Only bits and pieces were Mercedes-sourced - it certainly wasn't just a "last-gen rebodied E-Class" when they debuted, and they indeed have kept on improving upon it over that decade - to the point where many bits and pieces of the LX (300)/LY (Charger)/LC (Challenger) can be found underneath and inside the Maserati Ghibli & Quattroporte, as well as the upcoming Maserati Levante crossover. And that twin-turbo V6 Maserati uses that's built up by Ferrari? It uses a Chrysler Pentastar V6 block.

Wagons fell out of favor for minivans, trucks, and SUVs/CUVs. Then minivans suffered a similar fate to the point where they are almost considered a niche market today. Crossovers are now eating away at the sedan market share - tiny bites for now, but I expect it to grow.

That's just plain amusing that Fiat would think of Dodge as anything other than a volume brand.  Granted I know the Viper, Challenger and Charger are part of the line up but you have some volume vehicles like the Dart still floating in there.  I just don't see the point of all these brands when Dodge and Ram did just fine as a single brand.  But that's just my thoughts as someone who recently bought a Chrysler product in a Challenger.  And yes I would agree that the LX platform has changed so much that it hardly resembles the E-Class that it came from anymore.  Hell the Hemi engines are actually some of the few iron block V8s you can still have...basically they are about as retro as it gets from American cars. 

It's just a damn shame with all these CUVs....I think they are boring as all hell and a limited compromise of various vehicle types.  Not that I'm in the market for any of them but it would be nice to have the option of a viable wagon or van if needed. The one good thing is that real SUVs have become niche again with models like the Tahoe, Wrangler, Suburban, ect.  I'm definitely interested in the current Wrangler once it hits the ten year mark, the 3.6 Pentastar would be a hell of option over an older CJ.

My car has a Cast iron block V8, but it is SOHC, aluminum head, etc. Also i don't think that anyone uses iron block any more due to weight.

Actually my 2016 Challenger has a 6.4L/392 and it's an iron block.  Apparently all the modern hemi engines are all iron blocks, I didn't realize it until I was searching for a replacement for my 2011 Camaro.  Definitely doesn't help with the curb weight but probably makes that huge displacement a little bit easier.

Maybe. I once won a bet with a co-worker, he was a mechanic at a trucking company and he was a ford guy. i brought up my car had a cast iron block and heads, he didn't believe me. I bet him 20 bucks i was right. We go out, pop the hood of my sable, and he put a magnet to the head..yup, cast iron. the good old underpowered but reliable vulcan v6.

[Max Rockatansky]

The cool thing is that Chrysler actually powder coated the 392s in Hemi Orange.   Not that it's easy to see with the engine shroud on top of block mind you.  That's one thing that I really wish that modern cars would do, I always preferred to see more of the actual engine when I open the hood.

[SteveG1988]

[Max Rockatansky]

The official car of asbestos, that had me literally in tears when he said that.    I like how the guy on the phone couldn't keep a straight face throughout that rant.  On the flip side I used to think the Volare was actually kind of good looking.

[SteveG1988]

[Max Rockatansky]

23hp at the wheels...no wonder it took 23.3 seconds at 59 MPH to get through the quarter mile and another 6.7 seconds to get that last 1 MPH for 60.

[Takumi]

THAT WAS A REAL FART, THIS IS A REAL CALL

[cpzilliacus]

Later on, President Obama signed on a CAFE mandate for cars & light trucks to average 54.5 mpg by 2025.  Needless to say, the only way to achieve such would be greater emphasis on hybrids & electrics.

And Diesels?

[cpzilliacus]

The official car of asbestos, that had me literally in tears when he said that.    I like how the guy on the phone couldn't keep a straight face throughout that rant.  On the flip side I used to think the Volare was actually kind of good looking.

I disagree regarding the Slant 6 engine.  Rock-solid, even though the  Aspen was a miserable car. 

In 1980, it became clear that nobody wanted the Aspens and Volares, and there were hundreds of them parked, unsold, on lots all around the D.C. area. 

Someone brilliant found a great market for all of those unsold Mopars - the District of Columbia's taxicab fleet. 

Because of mandated low fares (and until recently, a zone system instead of meters), and resulting low profits, D.C. taxicabs were nearly always retired rental cars or (more frequently, retired police cars with the odometers well into the 6 digits before starting their career as a D.C. cab), because that was all that drivers (usually owner/operators) could afford.  Well, the inventory of these cars were sold to D.C. taxicab operators, getting them off of Chrysler's books - four door sedans and station wagons (no 2 doors allowed). Through the 1980's, these Aspens and Volares were almost the "official" taxicab of D.C. in spite of the AC units never working (and back then, there was no legal D.C. requirement for cabs to have working AC - station wagons had a sort of "supplemental" AC - the rear hatch was always open on hot summer days except when the driver hit the jackpot and got a profitable and prized fare to IAD (Dulles) or BWI)).

[cpzilliacus]

23hp at the wheels...no wonder it took 23.3 seconds at 59 MPH to get through the quarter mile and another 6.7 seconds to get that last 1 MPH for 60.

23hp at the wheels...no wonder it took 23.3 seconds at 59 MPH to get through the quarter mile and another 6.7 seconds to get that last 1 MPH for 60.

"Right there with British Leyland?"  LOL!

Had a neighbor that had not one, but two (!) Chevettes.  She was an employee of the State of Maryland, and the state's fleet managers, being cheap but encouraged by the  General Assembly to purchase "American" cars, loved the Chevettes, the Pintos, the Escorts, the Vegas and (worst of all) the "American" Renault/AMC Alliance (the Alliances stranded friends of mine (who were state employees) late at night at evening meetings far from home, and getting the state's fleet management people to come and rescue them was nearly impossible).  This woman was issued a Chevette (or maybe a Pontiac T-1000, not really sure) and drove the one with state tags to her job and otherwise on state business (it had official "SG" tags). 

For some reason, her personal car was also a Chevette.  Not sure why, maybe she did not drive the state car enough during her duty hours, and needed an after-hours dose of misery with her personal Chevette.

[Max Rockatansky]

I had a grand mother who had one of those Chevettes for well over a decade.  She was CONVINCED that it was the greatest car ever...my parents couldn't dissuade her for years.  She hung onto the thing well into the 1990s when it was rusting and falling apart.  Considering that her and my Grandpa couldn't navigate to Lansing without getting lost it was a miracle they never ended up stranded or crashed in the winter in that thing.  I forget what they got after they were convinced to get the Chevette but I know their 97 Malibu was like some sort of unworldly future car by the time their driving days were winding down.