WomanOnWheels.ca

Highlights from 100 years of Chrysler's cars

Chrysler as a company is only 99 years old, but its cars span a century, and I've rounded up the most interesting models from each decade. Check them out in my story at Driving.ca.

In Review: 2023 Chrysler 300C

It's the end of an era - the Chrysler 300 is leaving, but it has one last hurrah with a 485-horsepower 300C version. Find out more in my review at Driving.ca.

Ralph Gilles: A lifetime achievement award for design

Ralph Gilles has been a designer at Chrysler/Stellantis his entire career, and had a hand in such iconic designs as the Viper, Chrysler 300, Dodge Challenger and Jeep Grand Cherokee, and now he's receiving a lifetime achievement award for his work. Find out more in my story at Driving.ca.

In Review: 2021 Chevrolet Trailblazer

Like the Blazer, the Trailblazer is back -- and like the Blazer, shares nothing with the truck-based sport-ute that used to carry the name. Find out what it's all about in my review at AutoTRADER.ca.

Ten auto innovations that flopped

Automakers are always trying new things, and while many of them turn out to be hits, there are a few that make it to market but then don't make it in the market. How about retractable steering wheels, heartbeat sensors, or in-car record players? Find out more in my story at the National Post (Driving.ca).

In Review: 2020 Chrysler 300

It's been around a long time, but Chrysler's big sedan still impresses. Find out more in my "Quick Spin" review at the National Post (Driving.ca).

First Drive: 2020 Chrysler Voyager

The Voyager was originally a Plymouth minivan, but the name is coming back, and it's going to be a base level on the Chrysler Pacifica to replace the aging Dodge Grand Caravan. I took one for a quick spin: find out more in my story at the National Post (Driving.ca).

In Review: 2019 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid

Unique among minivans, the Pacifica is a plug-in hybrid, meaning that after you plug it in, you get about 50 kilometres of electric-only driving before it reverts to conventional hybrid operation. So why bother just to go 50 klicks on battery? Find out in my review at AutoTrader.ca.

Buying an accessible vehicle? Here are some of your options...

While you can get almost anything converted to at least some sort of accessibility, getting the right vehicle for your needs can require expert advice and, in most cases, a fair chunk of change. None of the mainstream automakers convert vehicles themselves, but some offer rebates if you have it done. And there's even one that's purpose-built for wheelchair passengers -- find out more in my story at AutoTRADER.ca.

In review: 2017 Chrysler Pacifica Plug-In Hybrid

It's not often people will ignore a Tesla to check out a minivan, but when I plugged in my Pacifica Hybrid, that's what they did. Find out more about this electrified people-mover in my review at the National Post.

Walter Chrysler: Engineer, financier, automaker

At one time the president of Buick, Walter Chrysler had a knack for fixing companies in trouble. After he'd saved a couple, he put his own name on one and started building his own models. Find out more on how the company started in my "Rearview Mirror" column at the National Post.

In review: 2015 Chrysler 200

It's still not the best midsize car on the market, but the Chrysler 200 has made enormous strides from what it used to be. Find out more in my review over at the Toronto Star.

First Drive: 2015 Chrysler 300

I'm not yet sold on the front-end styling, and rear visibility could be better, but just about everything else on the 2015 version of the 300 works really well - and that's mostly because the automaker didn't change too much of it. Find out more in my story over at the Toronto Star.

Ralph Gilles: Designer, enthusiast, car nut

I had the opportunity to speak with Ralph Gilles, vice-president of design at Chrysler and the man responsible for some of the coolest cars from that company in recent years. Read all about it in my Toronto Star story by clicking here.

In review: 2012 Chrysler 300S

No, it didn't have the Hemi, but that was certainly no hardship; I'd take this smooth-talking V6 any day of the week. Other than an awful gearshift lever, the Chrysler 300 is one very nice ride. Read my thoughts on it in the Toronto Star by clicking here.

Chrysler wants to shake up workers ...

Chrysler Group CEO Sergio Marchionne - who came to the company when Fiat took the reins - is not happy with unionized auto workers.

Speaking at the Detroit Auto Show, Marchionne said that the current union system of hourly wage increases isn't going to cut it, and instead, he wants a system of profit-sharing.

A Toronto Star story reports that Marchionne said the cost of building vehicles in Canada must fall to meet what workers are paid in the United States. "The Canadian system needs to be as competitive as the American side," Marchionne said, and added that it is difficult for him to explain to American workers why Canadian employees are paid more money.

Fair enough. So I have a question for you, Mr. Marchionne. As a Canadian consumer, how do you explain that I can buy a Canadian-built Chrysler 300 on the U.S. side of the border for $28,170, but in Canada it starts at $32,995? Why does a U.S.-built Ram 1500 cost $21,475 in the United States, but it's $26,770 in Canada? If it's difficult to explain accounting to the workers, how about some information for the buyers?

Chrysler: Not entirely imported from Detroit ...

I finally got around to watching the Chrysler 200 Super Bowl ad, the one featuring Eminem. You can find it on YouTube by clicking here.

Chrysler has presented some really good ads in the last little while, and this one's a winner, especially the brilliant tag line, Imported from Detroit.

But why, I wondered, was the rap star tooling around in a Chrysler 200? Sure, it's a nice car, but wouldn't it make more sense to put him in a Chrysler 300? After all, it's the rap star car of choice, with that big Hemi V8 under the hood, and those chopped-top windows, and that slinky profile that would have looked so good under those neon lights.

And then I realized where it's made - in a plant not that far from where I live. Somehow, Imported from Canada just wouldn't have the same ring for the fans now, would it?

Why are there so many auto brands? And should you buy one that's gone?

Ever wonder why there are so many auto brands, especially among the domestics? And if one has been discontinued, should you buy a used one anyway? I have a look at it in a Toronto Star story that you can find by clicking here. (Sorry about the pdf; it never ran online.)

Chrysler by the numbers...

The task: in late January, I will be going on an event to drive and assess the Chrysler 200, Chrysler 300 and Fiat 500.

My New Year's resolution: I promise I won't title the article Chrysler's Days Are Numbered.

A blast from the past ...

Now here's a blast from the past. Many centuries ago, when I was working at a car dealership, one of the cleanup guys gave me a jacket with this crest on it. It still does duty as work-chore apparel.

You could probably date the jacket simply by the fact that it was made in Canada. But car fans will know right away what each of these nameplates has in common.

Those who forget history ...

Chrysler has a new ad campaign, "Coming Home," meant to tell customers that it has emerged from bankruptcy and has a "healthy product plan," according to the company.

The ad shows a variety of Chrysler Group products, starting with a 1930s Airflow. It's considered a "classic" automobile today, but obviously someone didn't do enough homework. Back in 1934, the all-new Airflow was soundly rejected by buyers, and was actually the company's first sales flop.

Don't Dodge it, Ram it ...

So Chrysler is splitting the Brothers Dodge into two divisions: one for Dodge, which will cover cars, and one for Ram, which will sell trucks.

Hmmm.

So where are the smart horseplayers putting their money? Will the new division give the company a chance to spread out in the U.S., where multi-brand dealers are the norm? It could give dealers who sell brands like Honda, Hyundai, Kia and Suzuki -- which either don't carry work trucks, or don't carry pickup trucks at all -- the opportunity to have a full-size pickup on the lot, without also having to take cars that would compete with the stuff already on the showroom floor.

On the other hand, Chrysler has some real winners -- its Hemi engines, its awesome rear-wheel architecture, its trucks and of course the hard-core Jeeps -- and some that could fade away without too many tears shed, like Sebring and Avenger. Would the smart money hedge its bets on the possibility that a certain Italian automaker is thinking about what it could spin or sell off, and how much easier it would now be? Time will certainly tell.

In the news: Viper lives

Chrysler has announced a change of plans for the Viper. The brand was for sale, its sole Conner Avenue assembly location destined to be shuttered this coming December. Today, the company has announced that production will continue and that it's no longer wooing suitors to buy the marque.

I'll stand off to the side, so I don't get hit by the debris. Come Monday morning, every environmentalist in North America will be flinging mud.

My take on it? Chrysler's done the right thing.

Here's a fact: North Americans think the Detroit Three (and more specifically, the two that got government funding) should solely build small, fuel-efficient cars and hybrids. The problem is that they want someone else to buy them. Go look at the top ten best-selling cars in the U.S. Only one is a compact (the Prius, which really doesn't count), and none are subcompacts. President Obama and the EPA can force GM and Chrysler to build the cars that look good on recycled paper, but they can't force people to buy them.

No matter how much an automaker tries to break the mold, people have perceptions of companies that are very hard to break. In the public's eye, Volvo is the (only) safety car; Toyota is the hybrid maker; Saturn's the feel-good-hug (and still has plastic panels, according to many); Chev and Ford are truck builders; and only yuppies buy BMWs. And that really means that, no matter how many hybrids or small reliable cars the American manufacturers produce, they're never going to catch the Japanese in sales with those vehicles. So they've got to make their money where they can.

Fact: when people complain about inefficient gas guzzlers, they point to vehicles like the Suburban and Expedition. They never mention Ferrari or Lamborghini, and there's a reason for that. Those models aren't even on the environmental map. They're rare and they don't get driven much. I'm guessing the average Prius drinks more fuel in a year than the average Gallardo. And that's the type of company the Viper keeps. Sure, it gets 17 miles to the gallon. And how many times have you seen one idling in commuter traffic, six days a week, taking one person to the office?

On the other hand, how many do you see unsold on dealer lots? Dodge has built about 25,000 of them in 17 years, and has sold every one of them. And each one of the approximately 1,500 units it turns out each year probably earns the automaker as much profit as a week's production of minivans. It's profit that helps keep an auto company afloat, and will help guarantee that it will be able to meet its government obligations.

Chrysler made a decision that's going to be unpopular with the letter-writers and the opinion columnists. But it's made the decision that's going to ultimately be the correct one. You can build all the cars you want. The smart money's on building the cars people want to buy.

Fiat and Chrysler: Blame Canada?

In the news: Fiat chief Sergio Marchionne said that he's not sure if a deal will go through to merge with Chrysler -- not unless the unions make some substantial cuts to labor costs, and most notably, Canadian unions. Chrysler's U.S. chiefs have already taken swipes at the CAW, and now Italy is doing it, as well.

And the inner conspiracy theorist in me says: is there more to this than just the cost of labor?

Keep this in mind: Barack Obama has said he will free up $6 billion for Chrysler, but only if a deal with Fiat is cemented by April 30, 2009. Marchionne has said he won't ask the government for an extension if it doesn't happen by then.

Now, I like Chryslers as much as anybody; I've got three in my driveway, one of them a 2008 model. But I still think that if any of the Detroit Three are going to fold in this crisis, this is the one that'll go down, with the buzzards left picking out prime pieces like Jeep, Hemi and Caravan.

And I really don't think Fiat cares that much about selling its technology to Chrysler, not in the big picture. Fiat wants distribution, and it will only get that by moving in with an established automaker that already has a dealership network in place. I doubt it matters which one. But it will make a difference if the American car-buying public sees Fiat as the foreigner that took down Chrysler. They might not be buying the cars, but it's still an American company, and there's that matter of pride (and jobs, of course).

So here's my theory. Fiat wants into the U.S., and Chrysler's the one most willing to talk. If Fiat decides the deal isn't in its favor, Chrysler doesn't get its $6 billion, and that will pretty much be the beginning of the end. Blaming U.S. auto workers won't earn Fiat many friends among American buyers, either. But if it blames Canadians -- if Canadian auto workers were the reason the deal failed and Chrysler came down -- then Fiat will still have a fighting chance to hook up with someone else and bring its cars over. It wasn't their fault. And all those Americans who lost their direct or indirect jobs when Chrysler folds will look to the north, and lay the blame as well.

Chrysler and Fiat? Bring it on!

  So Fiat and Chrysler are now housemates. Bring it on, I say. Anything to get Chrysler building smaller, better vehicles, and this little Italian gem into North American driveways.

I must admit, I'm a sucker for cute little round cars, and this is one of the cutest and roundest. I saw quite a few Fiat 500s when I was on vacation in Germany last summer, and I'm smitten.

When the Internet first made its way into everyday homes -- and yes, I'm old enough to remember that -- the big deal was that we'd become a "global village." Part of that is understanding that other places in the world have some great ideas, and adopting them just makes all of us stronger. Let's bring over this Fiat design, and build it in North American factories. Think globally, act locally. It isn't just a pipe dream anymore.

Hang on ... the government's making SENSE?

In the wake of the Detroit Three zipping over to Washington to plead a case for a bailout (and I still can't believe anyone pulling down a salary as a spin doctor didn't foresee the private-jet fiasco), Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have sent them a letter outlining what they'll need to do in order for their request to be considered.

Much to my shock, the government's demands make sense. Mark that one on the calendar; people will be talking about that for centuries to come.

Among the things the automakers need to do:

- Provide forthright, documented assessment of the current operating cash position, short-term needs, and how they'll meet long-term needs;

- Provide varying estimates of the terms of the loan, tied in with assumptions of current, improved or worse sales rates;

- Report and share information with any government mechanisms designed to safeguard the loans;

- Ensure the taxpayers get paid back first;

- Address health care payments and pension obligations;

- And my favorite, bar the payment of dividends and excessive executive compensation, including bonsues and golden parachutes by companies receiving taxpayer assistance.

The only other question: why the hell didn't the auto execs fly into Washington with such a plan already tucked under their arms? I think we've all applied for loans, whether through credit cards or the bank, and we pretty much know what the loans officer is going to ask us. I've never run a multi-billion-dollar company and know I can't. But sometimes it scares me when I realize just how out-of-touch these folks on the upper floors can be.

So should the government bail out the Detroit Three?

Yes.

Okay, so you want more than that. Yes, I think it's necessary, because of what North America would look like without them -- and I don't just mean directly. I live in a GM town -- one where the automaker has closed an on-site subsidiary and a truck plant so far. It's tough enough for outlying businesses just when the plants close down for two weeks each year on summer holidays. You should see it when a plant closes for good.

When people think about auto companies, they think about men and women bolting parts together on the line. They don't think about how much further that goes. The feeder plants that make the parts, and all the people they employ. The company that supplies the cafeteria, and the company that provides them with the bread and beans and bagels. The companies that make the shipping containers, the work gloves, the bathroom tissue, the companies that deliver it, the companies that take it away. It's almost impossible to comprehend the amount of material in an auto plant that isn't even related to the cars, and all of that comes from somewhere.

Certainly you can say that the Detroit Three helped bring this on themselves, but that doesn't make things any better. You can castigate a welfare mother for birthing a new baby, but that doesn't change the fact that mother and baby need to eat to stay alive. The three automakers should have become leaner and meaner 25 years ago, but they didn't. That was then, but we have to fix it now.

Don't think they aren't trying; for the most part, these three are turning out the best and the most fuel-efficient vehicles they've ever made, but it takes time. I'm very tired of opening the paper each day and seeing yet another letter to the editor where someone says, "GM needs to immediately start making the Volt/microcars/cars that run on coffee." Quite simply, you do not convert auto production in a day, or a week, or a month, or in many months. The cars coming off the line right now were designed and engineered years ago. Flexible manufacturing helps immensely, but the reality is that an all-new vehicle needs to be tooled, dies must be made, parts must be sourced, the supply chain must be adjusted, people must be trained, advertising must be focused, dealers must be prepared, and that's just the big stuff. I've talked to designers. It takes weeks just to come up with a door panel that can be readily produced in bulk, doesn't hit on the power switches, and fits the outside door that someone else designed. And that's just one part in a car that has thousands of them.

GM, Ford and Chrysler get it; don't think for a moment that they don't. They know what they've done wrong, and what the Japanese and Koreans have done right. But while they've been focusing their operations to bring us better and more fuel-efficient vehicles in the shortest timeframe possible, the goalposts moved.

There must be bailout money, and it's got to be freed up now, before it's too late. Automakers operate on something called economy of scale. If vehicle production drops below a certain number, the company can't survive. It's happened before; we now only know names like Studebaker, Kaiser, Pierce-Arrow and Packard because of antique-car shows. It could very easily happen again, and it could very easily happen very soon.

Put strings on the bailout. Tell Mulally, Wagner and Nardelli that they'll get their operating cash, but they'll draw no more than a manager's salary until the books are in the black again. That's tough love to someone hauling down $20 million a year, but look on the bright side: do you want to be the hero who saved the ship, or the rat who went down with it? Then, when the strings are in place, open the purse, and open it wide.

Can we afford to do it? We can't afford not to do it. Go rent Michael Moore's Roger and Me. Take a good look at the scenes of Flint. I mean a really long, good hard look at those scenes. Now think about what it would be like to live like that in your neighborhood. And if you think it wouldn't happen that way, then believe me: you're just not giving it enough thought.

The Volt: Look what it started

  Just a couple of weeks ago, General Motors unveiled the production model of the Chevrolet Volt, and now the floodgates have opened.

One of the three electric prototype models that Chrysler unveiled recently is an extended-range, meaning that, like the Volt, it runs on plug-in battery power and when that runs out, it goes to a gasoline engine that makes more electricity, rather than running the wheels itself. And at the Paris Motor Show today, Volvo announced that it will also have a similar vehicle, scheduled for production after 2012, which will run on battery power and then on gasoline to generate electricity.

So I wonder: did everyone have the same idea at the same time, or did automakers see the Volt concept unveiled in 2007, run to the drawing board, and then wait for the production model to be presented before making their own announcements? It sure seems odd that others are coming out with similar cars so quickly -- and very heartening, too.

Chrysler TC: Oh, lord, what we used to think was luxury!

 In 1986, Chrysler unveiled a new vehicle at the Los Angeles Auto Show: the TC. It was the result of a friendship between Chrysler chief Lee Iacocca and Maserati's Alejandro de Tomaso. The cars were a joint project of the two automakers, and made in Italy.

Among its many problems were a too-long development time and a hefty price tag (this one was displayed with its sticker, showing that it cost $35,550 in 1990 dollars). It was also meant to come out before the LeBaron convertible, which would have given buyers the impression that the LeBaron was descended from the prestigious TC. But because it took so long to get the TC to market, the LeBaron hit the showrooms first, and the opposite happened: many people thought the TC was a gussied-up K-Car. Only about 7,300 were made over its three-year lifespan.

Still, it was the epitome of luxury for its day, and I suppose that's why I got such a kick out of the interior. It was the end of the 1980s, after all, with all the wretched excess that the decade embodied. If this doesn't make you shudder, I can't possibly imagine what will.

Cruise nights at Chrysler!

We slipped over the border last night into Michigan, to the Walter P. Chrysler Museum in Auburn Hills. Throughout the summer, the museum's parking lot is the site of a series of six cruise nights, each with a special theme. Since last night's was Dodge Challenger night, we took the beast over to get in on the fun.

It really was quite a blast, with the front lot stuffed with all manner of cars -- every make is welcome -- in every configuration, from bone-stock to widely customized. There were also some very neat oddballs, including two Chrysler-Maserati TCs (perhaps the only two that were ever actually sold?) and these two cute little Metropolitans.

The cruise nights have wrapped up for the summer, but the museum is still worth a trip -- it contains a wealth of history, including all kinds of concept cars (there's even a Turbine), racing legends and some examples from the company's earliest days.

But the highlight of the evening wasn't even a car -- at least, not a full-size one. The big "O" sculpture outside the museum is actually made up of rings of channel steel, and on the far side, the end comes down to the base. And there was a little boy who looked up at the sculpture, looked down at his Hot Wheels car, looked up at the sculpture ... and then reached up as far as he could, set the toy on this ready-made track, and let it go ...

What you say ... and what you don't ...

  In the news today: the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) crash-tested the Dodge Grand Caravan.

Here's what was on the IIHS' website: Front and side crash test ratings are GOOD but rear protection is MARGINAL.

Here's what was in the press release that Chrysler (U.S.) made available to the media: The all-new 2008 Chrysler Town & Country and Dodge Grand Caravan earned "good" ratings, the highest ratings available from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), in both frontal offset and side crashworthiness tests.

And save for an enthusiastic quote from the minivan department's vice-president, and an assurance that Chrysler's concerned about safety, that's it.

Rear protection crash tests determine whether seat and head restraints have been properly designed to minimize the risk of neck injury in a crash. It still isn't high on a lot of automakers' lists: the Grand Caravan finished mid-pack, behind the top "Good"-rated Hyundai Entourage, Kia Sedona and Honda Odyssey, but ahead of the "Poor"-rated Toyota Sienna, Nissan Quest and Chevrolet Uplander.

But while the rating itself is important, the real story here is what Chrysler said ... or rather, what it didn't say. "Error of omission", I call it, and I think it's just as newsworthy.

How about giving us what we really want?

I noticed a press release from Chrysler yesterday. In the US, the company is launching a campaign with the tag line of If you can dream it, we can build it.

Let's see what the release says people are dreaming about:

As a chassis rolls out of the plant and down the road, all kinds of people in all kinds of places start adding what they want on a vehicle including MyGig™ with navigation, dual DVD system and Swivel ‘n Go™ seating system.

Now, maybe there are a few people who are dreaming about twin movie screens and minivan seats that face backwards. But I suspect that even more people want things that are even simpler. Things like better interiors, with more care spent on fit-and-finish, and less cheap-looking plastic. Better fuel economy, especially in excessively thirsty vehicles like the Dakota and Durango. Less-expensive versions of utility machines, such as pickup trucks. And possibly most important of all, a good-quality, inexpensive subcompact that can compete with vehicles like the Toyota Yaris and Chevrolet Aveo -- a segment Chrysler has promised us (with a Chinese-built car) but has yet to enter.

I want to see Chrysler do well, because a strong, mostly-domestic automaker is good for our economy. But strong companies start with strong foundations. It's fine to have the odd gimmick, but only when it's added on to a well-built, good-looking, fuel-efficient, realistically-priced vehicle with a reputation for bulletproof quality and reliability. That's my dream, Chrysler. Now build it.

Chrysler's leaving California

Chrysler has announced that it's closing its Pacifica Advance Product Design Center in Carlsbad, California and will consolidate the Advance Design function at its headquarters in Auburn Hills, Michigan.

Now, news from the automakers is usually made available to journalists on media-specific Web sites during business hours, with lots of quotes that we can use to beef up the story, and photos if they're available. This little tidbit came as a very low-key email, and with the same terse message posted not on Chrysler's media Web site, but on a blog that it reserves as a chattier version for the press. No quotes, no photos, not even an attribution -- just "by Editor". And it arrived late on a Friday night.

Methinks they don't want us to say too much about it.

The email said that the function will be consolidated with Michigan, but the last paragraph reads, These changes set the stage for Chrysler's future global growth efforts, which also include our intent to establish global expertise in design, engineering and sourcing through centers of excellence. These actions will help the Company meet its long-term globlization goals.

Translation: we're going to find a place that'll make the cars for cheap.

It's not new, of course. GM's been doing it for a long time -- you want to get a deer in the headlights look, go up to half the people driving Chevrolet Aveos (bonus points if they've got a "Buy Domestic" license plate frame) and ask them if they know their cars are built in Korea. Rather tellingly, GM built three new subcompact concepts and had the public vote on which one it should build. One was designed in the U.S. The winner, announced at last year's Los Angeles Auto Show, was designed in India. Hmmm. I wonder where the actual car will be built, and if that has any bearing on how that particular design was chosen.

Y'know, in the grand scheme of things, I do have a bit of a handle on how corporations work. Even if I don't like it, I understand why companies move production offshore, whether it's cars or clothes or call centres.

I just wish everyone would be honest, instead of coating it all in bafflegab. Come clean with us: it costs too much money to design a car in California, so we're closing that office and we'll be contracting the work overseas. Will the public like it? Of course not. But I think John Q. Public would have more respect for a company that tells him up front what it's doing, instead of sneaking out the back door in the middle of the night.