Edmunds CarPool

Chrysler has new V6 engines on the way but they wont be here until 2009 or so. There is nothing anyone can do about that but wait. As for modern trannies they have some but they arent widespread enough. Everything RWD has a 5 speed I believe. They have a FWD 6 speed but its only on the top trims of the Sebring and Avenger and Pacifica. We do have to give them credit for having 6 speeds out before Honda or Nissan/Infiniti.
 
I think everyone agrees they need better looking cars inside and out and less small SUVs.

Karl, I agree with your list but would add to it Improved Dealer Customer Service. The last Chrysler we owned, a Town & Country, was a very nice family vehicle but needed to be in at the dealership a lot for reliability issues. We moved a few times while I owned this car so we tried several different dealers, both on the east and west coast, and they were all horrendous - poorly done repair work, improper diagnosis, and a "I could care less" attitude. I could go on for pages with dealership service horror stories with this car in the 5 years we owned it. I have a Ford SUV that isn't much better in regards to reliability but at least the dealer tries, and always treats us fairly. I swore I would never buy another Chrysler product after the experience with their dealers with the Town & Country.

this is one company i dont know what i would do with as a whole.
jeep would be cut back to 3 cars again. maybe 4.
i'd keep the liberty. wrangler, and grand chreeke.
the grand would be the one that needs the most updating.
 
dodge would keep cars and trucks.
 
chrslyer would be the upscale brand. and i agree with karl, a real upscale, not differenet badges.
 
but they just need good products. which right now. they dont have.

I feel bad for chrysler.. at least ford makes decent producs somewhere else in the world (Australia and Europe) and GM has european side too.. but chrysler? its pretty much done. The only thing they are good at is big cars, and well that was before. because the Aspen is big as hell, but it isnt really that attractive.
 
hmm they should do what nissan did, create a great car design and then follow up with good interior quialty materials, add more style to their cars, and they will sell.

Good points but 1487 is right about the six speeds trannies. Nissan and Honda don't have ANY even in their premier Infiniti and Acura brands. Hondas don't even give you manumatic controls on their 5 spds so at least the Avenger gives you Autostick control with 3.5L/6sp combo.

The new Grand Cherokee with the 3.0 CDI is pretty nice. Very quiet and refined- but they killed the Liberty CDI just when this one was coming out.. Random?

chavis10 - the civic si has a 6sp. and the accord coupe

+1 Karl! You listed all my issues with Chrysler.
 
Guys, I'm not sure not having a 6-spd transmission is a big deal, as long as the ratios are well spaced and suited to the car.....except for marketing and image. Infinity's 5-spd auto is said to be one of the best in the business. The Mazda 3's 5-spd manual shifts way better than the MS3's 6-spd manual.

It is not always the number of speeds that is significant, but the quality of the transmission.
 
I have a JGC (wife's). The five speed transmission is subpar. Compared to our Tahoe's four speed and our Honda five speed(Odyssey) it is pathetic. Although it offers the option to shift you have to practically have to mail in a notice in order for it to be effective.
 
That is not to mention the fact that the V6 is also subpar.
 
So while Honda and Nissan don't offer a 6 speed, I would take their 5 over Chrysler's 6 anyday.

Karl, all sounds promising but as you mention is a "private company" and their banks or borrowing institutions are having problems to find buyers for their debt. They can cut and restructure and all cost money. I hope to see results or we are going to see Chrysler been put on the sale block again. Time is the enemy for Cerberus.

Chavis10: "Hondas don't even give you manumatic controls on their 5 spds"
 
Actually, the Honda Fit 5 spd automatic has paddle shifters. Though why its only on the Fit I don't know.

Merge Dodge and Jeep under the Jeep label. What's the point of having two companies producing vehicles on the same platform (truck-based). Move crossovers to Chrysler, and have the new Jeep division solely focused on truck-based development.
 
Chrysler isn't an upscale brand, whatever it may once have been intended for. The 300 is a good vehicle, but they need more.

I just hope that those new 'Phoenix' V6 engines are worth the wait. Chrysler can't afford to have people waiting until 2009 for a V6 that isn't class-leading.

Well thought out post, Karl - sounds like an effective road map to me.
 
Paragraph 4 "Respect the Brands" is dead on how I feel (and 5 too.....Big 3....give us small diesels!!) .

"Good points but 1487 is right about the six speeds trannies. Nissan and Honda don't have ANY even in their premier Infiniti and Acura brands."
 
But Nissan and Honda also don't have any absolute-crap CVT trannies that suck the life out of even good engines (not to mention the thrashy four-cylinders in the Caliber, Compass, etc.). As noted by many others, having extra gears is great, but having a tranny that simply shifts well is still the most important job for a transmission. Chrsyler's six-speed tranny works okay, but the small engine transmissions (which make up the bulk of potential sales, don't foget) are simply atrocious.

I agree with ya, Karl!

When I first heard the rumors of how Cerberus wants to transform each brand under Chrysler (ie. Dodge sells only trucks), I totally disagreed. I still don't agree with doing that 100%, but this is the way I see it:
 
Jeep needs to regain its niche status. Kill the Compass. Everyone knows that. The Liberty (as much as I don't really like it) should probably stay just as a base model that offers women and families a cheaper small Ute. They need to get back to their roots with the brand, too. The Patriot replacing the Cherokee is a joke. Bring back a true off-roader (heck bring back the Cherokee!!!) that's cheap and extremely easy to modify. Keep the GC, just make it more rugged. Wrangler is fine the way it is.
 
The following I see going one of two ways: either do as Cerberus wants to and Make Dodge solely trucks (which I don't think will be successful unless they market them towards GMC) and move Chrysler down to a mainstream brand (rather than "luxury")... or, make Chrysler into the true luxury brand they deserve to be and keep Dodge as the mainstream brand.
 
The former scenario would take Chrysler out of the luxury market, but considering they haven't offered true luxury products in at least two decades, there's no loss. I could see them introducing another nameplate in the future as the true luxury line of Chrysler LLC. As for Dodge offering only trucks, they need to be targeting GMC as the "premium" truck company. There are so many people buying Rams right now just for status. I say capitalize on that... if they choose to go this route.
 
The latter scenario would seem more conceivable. Just make Chrysler true luxury. Make more RWD vehicles. Get rid of the huge SUV's. Introduce new styling cues that can be used throughout the line in order to give the name a new face. And like Karl said, for Pete's sake, upgrade your interior quality! Get away from poor badge-engineering. It's cheap and transparent. Stop it.
 
Dodge should probably stay as the mainstream car company they are. People have arguments against this, but I'll use it anyways: how can you badge a Viper under Chrysler here in the US of A? Or a Charger, or a Challenger... The fact is that you can't. It'd be a marketing nightmare trying to get the average consumer to recognize that the Charger they were looking at buying the other year is now a Chrysler... but it's still the same thing. Image is everything. You can't discount it.
 
I agree with big350ben. The Phoenix V6's better be good. No one is going to want to wait two years for it to come out. And if it's subpar (which, for some reason, I have a feeling it could be) Chrysler is doomed. I hope there were lessons learned from the current batch of V6 engines...

What if they kept dodge for trucks, brought back plymouth for mainstream cars and for their muscle models, and then attempted to make Chrysler into a true premium, luxury brand? Too much work?...probably.
 
Nah, I think I agree with flicmod, I think it doesn't make sense to leave dodge with only trucks. They do need those cars that fit their image.

You raise a good idea, crowb. Plymouth could be successful as the mainstream brand. I think the only glaring problem with that is that it cost Chrysler how much money (?) to get rid of the nameplate all those years ago? I have a feeling it'd take forever to recoup the costs of bringing it back. May do more harm than good.
 
Or maybe Daimler took the brunt of that monetary loss for killing Plymouth..... ?

That's good point about the money and time and brand recognition lost with the elimination of plymouth a few years ago...still if you're current management, maybe you think "Well it cost a lot of money, but it wasn't OUR money. So we are out nothing but lost time and direction."
 
I dunno...when I think about this Chrysler situation too much it just makes me pissed. They are just so out of whack that I can't see how they'll get it straight.
 
And more than anything the interiors are awful....I could forgive any amount of marketing mishaps and brand stumblings if they just had a few more interiors that were pleasant to be around.

opfreak- I was referring to 6spd automatics- not manuals.
  
crowb- I stand corrected, the Fit does have manumatic controls but that's because it straight from Europe unlike the other Honda products meant for the US. Hondas designed for the US don't though
  
To the rest- this "it's quality over quantity" seems to be just an excuse. So let's be clear, are you people saying the 6spd in the Avenger is inferior to Accord's (and previous generation VQ Nissans with 5spd autos)? Your arguments only stand up if this is the case.
  
The best automatic powertrain (in terms of synergy between engine and transmision) I've ever experienced was a FWD STS ('98-03 4.6L V8 with 4L80-E 4 spd automatic). I never felt the transmission, at all. It felt like the car was powered by hydraulics but 4 spds are only 4 spds no matter how well it shifts. The bottom line is that Honda and Nissan have been leap frogged with regards to the automatic transmission and that is just a fact.
  
Karl, weren't you the same one calling GM's four speeds "archiac" or some other similar adjective in previous entries? (pls correct me if I'm wrong) Every 4spd equipped car I've sampled from them had excellent shift quality yet people harped on them for only having 4 ratios. We can't have it both ways.

#2- Chrysler's four banger is probably here to stay for a while since it's basically a brand new "world" engine. There may be no remedy to this issue unless they just add sound deadening. Isn't this engine shared with Mitsu Lancer?

chavis,
 
The Chrysler "World" engine is, indeed, shared with Mitsu.
 
Chrysler obviously recognized that it's latest batch of V6's were sub-par and in need of refinement. Hence the upcoming Phoenix series. I see no reason they wouldn't do the same with their four cylinders.

Yeah but I think the 4 cyl was just introduced in the Caliber as brand new. The 3.5L V6 has been around since the 300M and Intrepid of the late '90s.
 
I'm assuming Chrysler and Mitsu use different cylinder heads but I can't imagine that would make a huge difference difference in NVH. I could be wrong

My correction. The 3.5 was first introduced in 1993. For some reason, I thought they were a lot newer than that. I apologize.
 
Mitsu could tune their World engine differently as well?
 
Here's an interesting link about the World engine:
 
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/world-engine.html
 
Seems as though Hyundai had a hand in it, too. From what that site says, each manufacturer tweaks things like manifolds and valve timing to suit their own purposes. That leaves a lot of room for error on each manufacturers part. It's very possible that Mitsu and Hyundai have engines that run a lot better than Chrysler does.

"Actually, the Honda Fit 5 spd automatic has paddle shifters. Though why its only on the Fit I don't know."
 
That seems to be a trend with Honda. They introduce certain cool features in lower-end models and assume the target market would not want them in higher-end models. An example is the premium sound in the Civic Si and '08 Accord EX-L. The system in the Si outputs a very healthy 350 W. The one in the Accord? A ridiculous 270 W! The Accord's system just can't handle heavy bass.
 
Anyway, I just don't see the point of paddle shifters. Call me old fashioned but I don't see the thrill in shifting on the steering wheel....... It just feels to me like I'm playing a game on Nintendo and not driving a real car. I know, I know, not having to take your hand off the wheel to shift has potential safety benefits, but still.......

Is it fair to include Nissan in the transmission issue? Instead of putting in a 6 spd auto, they went with a CVT. I don't know much about it, but the long term altima's CVT gets good reviews from the editors. I guess you could say that Nissan is doing their part to bring better transmissions to the table, at least they threw in something different (Yes, I know CVTs have been around forever, but Nissan has really taken center stage with them and made them mainstream now).
 
As for Honda....maybe they spent all the R&D money on the FCX? hehe...
 
The point might be moot in 5 years anyway. There was that report on Straightline a while back that said a lot of manufacturers are about to get into the dual clutch gear box game. That could be interesting.

"That leaves a lot of room for error on each manufacturers part. It's very possible that Mitsu and Hyundai have engines that run a lot better than Chrysler does."
 
BINGO! There are two elements here -- engine architecture and engine tuning. The architecture between all these companys' engines is almost identical, but the tuning is not, and some of them got it better (Mitsubishi) than others (Chrysler). Not surprising. Remember, the Lancer/Outlander spring from the same platform as the Caliber/Compass. But not exactly the same final execution, correct?
 
"Karl, weren't you the same one calling GM's four speeds "archiac" or some other similar adjective in previous entries?"
 
In today's world four-speed autos are old-tech. But I have far more patience with them if they at least shift properly (which GM's older four-speeds did). But when all of the competition has five-speeds the four-speed autos simply don't look modern (no matter how well they work -- and it's not like the Honda or Toyota five-speeds don't ALSO work quite well -- and benefit in terms of MPG).

Well behaved four speed autos are perfectly fine in high torque low revving installations (GM pushrods). Four bangers desperately need more ratios though the trend is to introduce 5/6/7/8 spd autos in larger more potent engines. This has always baffled me.
 
My first '05 Mazda3 had the worst transmission I've ever experienced. Not only did the four wide ratios suck (because the 2.3 makes 0 torque at low revs) but it's shift quality was laughable. Coming from driving a Olds Intrigue with a 3800 V6 and 4spd hyrdamatic- it was clear that all transmissions are not created equally. My '07 has a well performing 5spd auto and the difference is night and day.
 
From an engineering standpoint- it's hard to believe that engine tuning can be soley responsible for such ridiculous NVH. NVH would seem to stem from fundamental design flaws, prodution variances and loose tolerances rather than air flow management or adjustable parameters such as valve/ignition timing which in my book define "tuning." I haven't sampled these new engines so I can't comment first hand on how they operate but if Mitsu can make it a smooth operator perhaps the two companies need to talk...

Chavis, I've also questioned the wisdom of installing transmissions with fewer gears on cars with less powerful engines, usually 4-cylinder engines. You'd think it would be the other way round. Examples:
 
Mazda 3: The 2.0 has a 4-spd auto but the 2.3 has the 5-spd auto!
Soon-to-be-released Toyota Sequoia: 4.7 has 5spd whereas 5.7 has 6-spd!
Camry: 4-cyl has 5-spd and 6-cyl has 6-spd. Same with Mazda 6.
 
It just doesn't make sense. The less powerful engines need the most gear ratios and not the other way round.
 
Of course, manufacturers assume that buyers of less powerful engines wouldn't want to spend extra on the transmission with more gears. But that's nonsense. Firstly, I'm pretty sure the difference in price between the 4-spd and 5-spd is not much....and neither is that between the 5-spd and the 6-spd. Secondly, the savings in fuel economy offered by the transmission with the higher number of speeds will eventually pay for the increase in cost!

I would like to see Plymouth brought back as a low cost car. Something that truely takes on the low cost commuter cars. Dodge has None! You can add performance to Plymouth later. Jeep needs to ax the Compass for sure. The Patriot is OK. For now. But Jeep Should get back to just 3 models. Wrangler (Unimited is part of this model), The Grand Cherokee, and a Liberty/Cherokee based on the original dimensions of the 80's - 90's Cherokee. As for Transmissions I would like to see the 727 Tourqueflight return. Just the way it was would be fine. I know its 3 speeds right? But I have had several 727's near the end of their host vehicle lifespans still shifting smoothly. But since I know this cant happen I will be very grateful for a SMG Gear Box instead. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE about the interiors. The trucks are fine. But man the cars need some work. If Chrysler Brand wants to head to near or luxury status then it needs a good interior. Just my take. Thanks.

The 727 Torqueflight was one of the best automatics ever made. Super strong, super positive shifts, and easy to mod for even BETTER responsiveness and MORE positive shifts. My older brother modified the 727 in my GTX so I never had to touch the shifter in the car. It would drop into second when I needed a little acceleration and kick down to first when I needed a lot (as long as I was going under 30) -- all based on throttle position. And when it upshifted to second there was a genuine slingshot effect forward. No "banging" or "bumping" just crisp forward thrust.
 
With the 440c.i./7.2-liter displacement three gears is plenty in my GTX and Challenger R/T, but would obviously never work in the modern world (for competitive reasons if nothing else).

Karl I run a 727 in my mud drag truck. I'm in a smallblock class running of all things a 318. You're right though. No one would consider antique 3 speeds for purchase these days. Too bad.

Wow, lots of good/bad stuff in here! Too many things for me to attempt quoting anymore. Here are my numbered thoughts:
 
1. Jeeps should be Jeeps, I think we all agree with that.
 
2. Dodge should continue making cars, trucks, minivans, and crossovers if they don't suck.
 
3. Brace yourselves, Chrysler should simply be put out of its misery. Now this is coming from a guy who hasn't been alive as long as most on here, other than flic and 1487, but I don't think I could ever see Chrysler as a worthwhile brand of car to buy, let alone a "premium" brand.
 
4. Plymouth... I don't feel as strongly about this, but I think it's best to leave Plymouth dead. At my age, I only remember the ugly end of life Plymouth, stripped down, black grilled Dodges. I think of the Plymouth Voyager.
 
5. I agree with blackadder, brett, and chavis regarding transmissions. 4 gears is OK in rare circumstances, 5 is great, and 6 is usually overkill. I'm talking automatics here. And yes, more gears with the larger displacement engine doesn't make much sense.
 
6. I am a huge fan of the future of dual-clutch transmissions however, and think Chrysler would be wise to one-up GM and Ford by getting themselves some good ones. I will also say that a 6-speed dual-clutch is NOT overkill. That is not a double standard. Torque converters in conventional automatic transmissions allow for generous slippage at very low speeds, and moderate slippage at most any speed, yet offer lock-up (1:1) at highway cruising speeds. This is something a clutch doesn't offer and allows for a conventional automatic to get away with less gears as the slippage allows for somewhat of a CVT effect. The fluid driven nature of an automatic is also why they can't put power down as efficiently as a manual. I am surprised there aren't any manufactures trying to get into a dual-clutch niche. Through economy of scale a car company could offer only a dual-clutch transmission and satisfy 95% of the market while keeping the price reasonable. Buyers would get the ease of a conventional automatic, the performance and responsiveness of a manual, and the control of a manual if they desire to take control.

bbechtel16, I agree with all you've said except for point 6. To the average person, there's no difference between a conventional automatic and a dual-clutch transmission. Both are automatic, both offer "control" by allowing the driver to manually select gears, both have can have paddle shifters on the steering wheel (another useless feature)........and only a serious enthusiast can tell the difference between the responsiveness of a well-designed conventional auto and a dual-clutch.
 
Many high performance cars don't have dual-clutch transmissions (e.g., Mercedes, Infinity, Lexus, Acura), showing that their importance may be over-rated. Don't get me wrong: it'd be nice for Chrysler to develop a good one but if they don't they wouldn't lose much.
 
I would rather have Chrysler develop good manual transmissions and good conventional auto transmissions. Both have a strong fan base that finds them useful. Dual-clutch transmissions are just all hype.

I am going to add Manufacturer Makeover - GM and Ford to the mix. While they are clearly not in the same boat as Chrysler and GM is hopefuly on the road back to having a viable product line, when I look at what car companies are out there, I think that the domestics on the U.S. side of the world have too many nameplates. It's great fun to have a Pontiac G8 and a Chevrolet Impala and a GMC Acadia and a Buick Enclave and a Saturn Relay and a Buick Terraza or whatever it was called, or a Mercury Sable or a Ford Taurus and while we're at it a F-150 and a Lincoln Mark LT. With Chrysler you have the Town and Country and the Grand Caravan and the Aspen and the Durango the Compass and the Caliber, the Charger and the 300 (although arguably different enough), but then you come to the Avenger and Sebring. At least the Wrangler and the PT Cruiser are unique in design. Although the PT is based off the old Neon platform. When you look at it all, most of these vehicle are essentially badge engineered copies of one form or another.
  
Now GM is making some really good vehicles now. Ford is trying and has a good car in the Taurus and the Fusion is also a good player. But across model lines there essentially too many types of the same vehicle running around. It has been like that for decades. I still don't understand how GM has been able to sell both the Sierra and the Silverado since the dawn of time when they have always been essentially the same truck with different badges.
  
When I look at Toyota and Honda and even Nissan, you don't see them having 3, 4 or 5 different companies putting their badge on essentially the same car. You don't see Scion rebading Corolla as XA's and you don't see Honda rebading Pilots as MDX's. Granted the MDX and the Pilot share the same platform (nothing wrong with that, but at least the two vehicles are different enough to have totally different driving dynamics and functionality.)
  
Toyota has Toyota, Scion and Lexus. Honda has Honda and Acura. Nissan has Infinity and Nissan. Very slim in the number of actual brands of cars within a total autogroup, yet they manage to sell and produce vehicles across the entire spectrum from basic economy cars to full on top of the line luxury.
  
So to wrap up my post and hopefully make my point, I don't think Chrysler should slim down to just Chrylser and Dodge, but they should at least eliminate the twin of any badge engineered vehicle. Dodge should sell trucks of course, but also the performance cars like the Charger and soon to be Challenger. Dodge should be the mainstream brand like Chevrolet is to GM. In addition to the trucks and performance cars, make a good crossover to compete with GM's Lamda platform vehilces and a good Caravan truely capable of competing with the Oddyssey. Chrysler (and this is going to be the hardest) should become more like between Buick and Lexus and move upscale and that would mean improving the interiors and the fit and finish. Chrysler can produce an SUV or car similar to ones Dodge has, even use the same platform, but make it different enough that when I look at it, it doesn't look like you just swapped badges. Even as different as the 300 and Charger are, I would like to see them go a little bit further. Make them as different as the Lancer and Caliber. But not as bad as the Caliber.
  
Jeep should do Jeeps of course and stick to that format. No knock off wanna be's like the Compass. Stick to the basics like Hummer and only have a few vehicles that are truely off road capable. And if you absolutley can't badge a economy car as a Dodge, then bring back the Plymouth nameplate for economy cars, but then you are muddying the waters again with too many name plates. If Chevy can produce the Aveo and not have to call it a Geo, then Dodge can produce a back to basics car like the Neon once was.

Okay, semi on topic: they just announced a base price of $38K for the new Challenger (still a year away). So much for a Mustang fighter. I surely hope GM doesn't go this route for the Camaro. I thought pony cars were for the average guy, not the rich collectors...

the reason why there are so many brands is that 30 years ago the big three had only them selves as opponents and facing themselves, they couldn't make a sport edition of a car that was already luxurious.
they made brands to make customers know that buying a dodge was buying a platform that was tuned to perform and chrysler is a platform tuned for luxury cruises and so on
now import brands are taking the place of these brands
oldsmobil fell into acura saturn and the likes
nissan could be the replacement of plymouth
and if mercury was to die, it could be any LE trim of a toyota
brand image was invented here ( with european japanese cars selling as an acura or infiniti)
 
as for chrysler LLC,
 
chrysler should be selling mid luxury model but not as chromed out cars leave it for inside, but surely as bullet proof zero noise interiors that makes you feel like you are going to the office and should make standard what any brand sell as an XLE EX or SE (SEL IN FORD AND LT IN CHEVY )trim
 
Dodge should take down pontiac(sporty cars), Mazda(sporty Crossovers) GMC (What ever is still a truck and is made to tow or belongs in the street)
 
Jeep should take on Hummer and Land rover only( maybe the FJ CRUISER) and have an eye on SUBARU ( make a forester/tribeca offroad crossover

first of all more speeds is generally seen as a good thing in today's market. I am the first one to agree that a smooth shifting tranny is the first priority but lets not start making excuses because Chrysler makes a 6 speed and Hyundai/Honda/Infiniti do not. Give credit where it's due. I havent driven a Sebring with the 6 speed but I haven't read of any abnormally poor shift quality in any reviews. As for CVTs, thats another issue on Chryslers smaller vehicles. CVTs havent gotten good reviews for the most part and Chrysler's are no exception.
 
The 2.4L engine I used by Hyundai, Mitsu and Chrysler as far as can remember. while there are some difference between the applications I doubt Chrysler intentionally made their version less refined just for the heck of it. Maybe there is less sound deadening or maybe the CVT just makes the engine rev more. Bottom line is the engine is the same more or less in all the vehicles, regardless of manufacturer. I also doubt a brand new clean sheet 4 cylinder would be amongst the least refined in class. I think the fact that a Chrysler is being reviewed impacts how the engine is criticized. I've noticed similar trends when reading about Ford's 3.5L V6 in the CX-9 vs Ford applications. The press acts like it a totally different engine in each of those vehicles.
 
Chrysler is addressing the V6 engine issue, they have decent V8s and a new four cylinder. They need to worry about design more than anything else. It also should be noted that Chrysler will be mass producing DSGs by 2009 or so and that is significant. GM, Honda and Toyota have made no similar commitments.

If correct, a Challenger at $38k
will be DOA.

Agreed. If that's really the starting price (even if it's a V8 version with performance/luxury features) Chrysler has already killed this model.

Engines between manufacturers can absolutely "feel" completely different to the consumer. The level of refinement can be altered based on the intake design, PCM/ECU programming, the exhaust system design, accessory drives, balance shafts, engine mounts - the list goes on. Different layers of these factors can be shared but just because the engine itself is essentially the same has almost no bearing on the final perception to the consumer. It's not that Chrysler "intentionally" makes the engine less refined, but the development work and/or money they spend on these non-core powertrain components can differ based on their budgets and internal benchmarks.
 
And the Hemi V8 is a technically unsophisticated engine with loose tolerances. I was privy to an engineering tear-down of the 5.7 recently and it was actually laughable how crudely banged together that lump of iron is.
 
I think a 6-speed is a competitive advantage in a mid-size sedan, but by no means a requirement yet. On a luxury-class car I would expect 6 cogs or more. Given the choice between a rev-matched quick-shifting 5-speed and a less well-engineered 6-speed, I agree with the other posters and would take the 5 any day.

Dodge: Should be similar to the Chevy brand in execition, low price and overall vehicle lineup.
 
Chrysler: Should be a premium vehicle car line similar to VW in execution and build quality. Badge engineering will NOT WORK here. Chrysler has to realize that a chrome grill doesnt make a premium car.

"bbechtel16, I agree with all you've said except for point 6. To the average person, there's no difference between a conventional automatic and a dual-clutch transmission. Both are automatic, both offer "control" by allowing the driver to manually select gears, both have can have paddle shifters on the steering wheel (another useless feature)........and only a serious enthusiast can tell the difference between the responsiveness of a well-designed conventional auto and a dual-clutch.
  
Many high performance cars don't have dual-clutch transmissions (e.g., Mercedes, Infinity, Lexus, Acura), showing that their importance may be over-rated. Don't get me wrong: it'd be nice for Chrysler to develop a good one but if they don't they wouldn't lose much.
  
I would rather have Chrysler develop good manual transmissions and good conventional auto transmissions. Both have a strong fan base that finds them useful. Dual-clutch transmissions are just all hype."
 
I disagree that dual-clutch transmissions are just all hype, but I agree that most consumers wouldn't know the difference, at least today. That point is rather evident when I try to explain the dual-clutch advantage to a non car geek.
 
The other issue is driveability issues noted in reviews of vehicles sporting dual-clutch transmissions. BMW comes to mind. I think once those issues are sorted out and the marketing departments figure out how to explain to consumers that they've been lying to them about these manu-matic toys while getting them to trust them on dual-clutch systems, they will take off.

Pricing for the 2008 SRT Challenger is indeed $38k +GGT. Chrysler is making about 5000 limited production of them. All are SRT-8.
  
Pricing for the 2009 Challenger has yet to be announced. Production for this vehicle will start in July and will include a V6 and the smaller 5.7 HEMI as well as the 6.1 HEMI.

Good post Editor Karl, but I'm not sure I buy this:
 
"The original Viper, the Prowler, the1994 Ram and the PT Cruiser were all triumphs of design. The 2005 Chrysler 300 and Dodge Magnum were the last remnants of that design greatness, and while the 2008 Challenger looks great you can't really call it an innovative appearance..."
 
All of these cars are rubbish compared to the Cadillac CTS, Audi A3, and frankly the rest of the competition. The Prowler was so self-consciously retro it's embarrassing. The Viper is a rolling phallus -- it should have a MIDLIFE CRISIS decal down the side. The Magnum is sort of a ludicrous high-waisted station wagon. The PT Cruiser feels like a lot of marketing glommed on to a wretched little plastic trap of a car, and the 300 already looks dated. And the Crossfire was absolutely juvenile.
 
I've had a couple of Jeeps and got rid of them because the powertrain was coarse, as you noted, and the interior quality was appalling. Fuel economy rivaled some Ferraris and acceleration rivaled some diesels. Now every Jeep except the Wrangler looks identical -- three boxes, different lengths.
 
Maybe Chrysler could hire someone with some taste.

You can have an opinion about the styling of the Viper, Prowler, PT Cruiser and Chrysler 300/Magnum, but you can't have an opinion about their effect on the market and Chrysler's image -- because those are facts.
 
The idea of turning a wild concept car like the Viper or Prowler into a full production car was unheard of 15 years ago. The Viper and Prowler forced people to stop and pay attention to Chrysler's product, even if they otherwise didn't know or care about the company. The PT Cruiser was a huge sales success that also brought people into Chrysler showrooms in droves. And the 300/Magnum were rear-wheel drive, sub-$30,000 vehicles with available V8s and capable handling (and styling that showed the best-selling Accord and Camry to be the painfully "safe" family sedans they are). AND, with the exception of the Prowler, all of these vehicles were basically good vehicles underneath those "rule-breaking" shells (the Prowler's drivetrain could never cash the checks its exterior wrote). The Viper offered exotic car performance for far less money. The PT Cruiser offered a highly space-efficient cabin inside a small package. The 300/Charger/Magnum were roomy and powerful (and the SRT models are full-fledged performance bargains when stacked up against the closest offerings from Europe). And of course the 1994 Ram finally gave the Ford and GM truck guys something to worry about, both for its striking exterior design and class-leading specifications in terms of power, towing, etc.
 
None of the vehicles to roll from a Chrysler showroom in the past three years can make any of these claims. The styling is pedestrian at best, the interiors are insulting, and most of the drivetrains are painfully unrefined (and fuel IN-efficient).
 
So I'll say it again -- those earlier models were all triumphs of design.

"If correct, a Challenger at $38k
will be DOA."
 
Isnt that the SRT model? Please tell me you are aware there will two other models with weaker engines. $38k isnt the starting price for the base model Challenger and this is quite obvious to anyone who can read a press release.

"...they just announced a base price of $38K for the new Challenger (still a year away). So much for a Mustang fighter."
 
My comment was in response to mirth's post, quoted above. This is quite obvious to anyone who can read a full thread of comments.