Hello everyone,,
Maybe this is in the wrong spot, but Id just like some feedback on an idea Ive had for some time.

Between working at a car dealership and having rented cars, Ive done seat time in a bunch of different midsize sedans and econoboxes. Theres not one shred of real, substantial difference in any of them. I think Chrysler, GM, and Ford are wasting a grip of money, spending billions each for different tooling and development and coming up with basically the same thing. A taurus, malibu, and stratus are the SAME FREAKING CAR. They drive the same, handle the same, basically look the same. Theyre transportation devices, not real cars. Why not pool resources and build one thing, figure out among all 3 makers who has the best engine, transmission, etc and put the best, most reliable and efficient pieces in one standardized bodyshell. Dont bother giving it a name or tons of options. Call one the Chrysler 2008, GM 2008, etc. Have one base model with the most basic of equipment and one upgraged one with power everything, nicer interior, sunroof, etc. The same car could be bought from all 3 makers' dealers with the only variations being the colors offered by each maker and the badging from one of the big 3. Do this for all sedans, minivans and crossover SUVS. People who buy these types of cars cars are doing so from the same perspective: "Its a tool, I need it to get from point A to point B, so who cares what it looks like or how it drives?" These types of vehicles are appliances more than cars. So why not treat them that way, and make it work to our advantage? Some entire nameplates like Buick or Mercury could have their entire lineup done this way. It'd save money and their target markets wouldnt know the difference.

Another thing is, the Big 3 should make a deal with the Feds that they can regulate and set the standards for safety, mpg, emissions, etc all they want on these generic 'transportation device' class of vehicles. This will be the majority of whats sold, since they're bought as basic transportation and its all according to need. Additionally, I also think there should be another class of drivers license. Anyone can get a standard license for transportation devices since these would be the cars that have all the idiot proofing such as ABS, stability control, etc.

With the whole hybrid/electric thing it makes even more sense since the buyers of these are even LESS into cars than those who drive standard sedans. So why not make one universal thing? GM and Chrysler are already doing a joint thing with the hybrid systems on the SUVs. So why not go full monty with it?

The idea behind this is that the costs of shared tooling and development would plummet, quality would skyrocket and people with your perspective would be happy. You could beat the camry at its own game and for thousands less money. People who want to buy american would do so and once they found that quality was superior to toyota theyd stick around.
openweb.vip/whatsapp-web/ https://19216801.onl/ routerlogin.uno/
On the other hand, performance cars, offroad vehicles, pickups, sports cars, etc would be considered recreational vehicles much like ATVs and motorcycles which have little or no government regulations watering them down or holding them back. These would be the cars and trucks that would be developed individually by the 3 automakers. These are the vehicles that inspire people to want to be automotive engineers and designers. So why not deregulate them, strip them down to only whats needed for performance, handling and style in the case of cars, and for trucks and 4x4s decide whats a work truck and outfit it to do its job unhampered, offroaders like Wranglers could be stripped down and built for pure offroad performance and durability. The idea is, it would raise the bar for what makes a car a REAL car. Whether they were performance cars, or offroad vehicles, theyd become the epitome of what that vehicle is supposed to be since it would cater purely to the enthusiast. In Chrysler's case, so much R&D money would be saved by the joint venture on basic cars plenty would be freed up towards developing the Challenger, Viper, Ram and Wrangler into the very best they can possibly be. GM and Ford could develop their 'excitement cars' and introduce new ones and it'd be like the 60's muscle car wars all over again and something equivalent for fans of the Wrangler, bronco, Hummer, etc.

Of course, no restrictions on there use would ever be allowed and you'd have to make sure that was chiseled in stone and guaranteed never to change. But you'd have to apply for a different class of license and pass a test showing you can handle a 300 hp muscle car or offroad vehicle. If you could do that, you'd obviously be a more skilled driver and it might qualify you for a break on your insurance premiums. The idea here is, emissions, mpg, etc are negligible since they arent generally everyday transportation and people who buy them do so for specific reasons that demand top notch performance and durability. Also, whens the last time you saw a bone stock Jeep or mustang? These are typical 'gearhead rides' and people like myself who own them want to trick them out and squeeze all we can from them. Government regulations just get in the way of all that and theres no real reason for it. So, without all the federal crap holding them back the prices here drop also, quality rises and the enthusiasts are happy as well..

 

It's called 'competition'. If we only had one product to choose from, then there would be no competitive pricing, therefore, the various manufacturers could charge whatever they wanted, and the consumer would be the one left holding the bag. Same goes for electrics. Sure, most of the folks that buy only want what essentially amounts to a transportation appliance.... the badge on the front, (or rear, or side, whatever) really doesn't matter overmuch. There is no brand loyalty, they go to whoever has what they want, for the best price.

The government already regulates safety features, emissions, and fuel economy..... Of course, they keep increasing the numbers for fuel economy, and then turn around and think we should be put more alcohol in our gasoline. The two goals are mutually exclusive. If the government REALLY wanted to do something for the environment, they would do away with the alcohol mandate altogether. EVERYONE would instantly get better gas mileage, and their cars would last longer, with fewer issues. A win for everyone, except the farmers....... So, now we know which lobby has more power, don't we?

 

Sounds like a plan that Bob Eaton would have loved and the desperate "need to save money on developing products" while the company was making so much money it was coming out of their ears (by previously NOT following this strategy) is why the merger with Dumbler happened to begin with. This all sounds good in theory, but the problem is it never seems to work out this way. The mergers and buyouts of competitors that the former big three got into were following this line of logic and what happened, the products got worse not better because they become pinch pennies and massive egos get involved.

The problem to a large degree is that the Big Three need to quit obsessing about how to make things cheaper and short term profit maximization and discounts but instead focus instead on building cars better than everyone else to earn a higher price and not obsess over volume sales. There is too much of the mindset of "if you built it to last, people won't have a reason to buy the new one" which is why they are where they are because Toyota and Honda back in the day did the opposite and look where they are right now. I don't believe for one minute the Big Three do not have the capability to build things correctly on their own, the issue is they don't want to make the sacrifices it would take to get to that point.

During the Chrysler and Mitsubishi years, there were some good models with the DSM coupes and the Stealth/3000GT, the problem (similar to the Supra/Z4) the Chrysler was limited to just slapping their badge on the car.
The Stealth was all Mitsubishi, not one bit of it was Dodge other than the awesome styling. I can understand that Chrysler couldn't have offered much in 91 other than the 3.3L for the base engine (and yes, I would have preferred that) but by 1993 why not offer the 3.5L V6 and a turboed version? It makes it Dodge in name only and nothing else. Having made the investment into force air inducing the 3.5L could have been spread to other models like the LH cars, LX cars, the Prowler, and possibly more. Because they didn't, Mitsubishi gained at the cost of the Daytona and Dodge didn't get a true coupe of their own using one of there own engines (other than the Neon 2.0 from 95-00) until 2008 (15 years later).
The first gen Talon/Laser was all Mitsubishi. Yes, the 2nd Gen Talon had the Neon I4 in the 95-98 years and Chrysler might have supplied the auto, but honestly, neither of those were Chrysler's proudest powertrain offerings), At least by the 2nd gen Stratus/Sebring Coupes, they should have at least offered the 3.5L as an option but instead they were stuck using the far less powerful 3.0L Mitsubishi and Mitsubishi's less powerful 2.4L SOHC compared to Chryslers more powerful (and now fixed) 2.4L DOHC. The result of these were, Mitsubishi gained while Chrysler lost.

The Mercedes years were even worse. Nothing Chrysler made was allowed to be used in Mercedes nor any public admissions to using ideas gained from Chrysler (sharing platforms between models). Chrysler had to use Mercedes's overpriced garbage no matter how inferior to the stuff Chrysler had been building. Look no further than the Crossfire. Chrysler's lighter weight and cheaper to build 250 hp V6 3.5L was not allowed, they had to keep using Mercedes underpowered 215 hp 3.2L V6. There are many other examples but I think we all know about them.

The last gen Avenger and Sebring are another example of this, aside from finally offering the 3.5L (and later the 3.6L), optional AWD, and the 6-speed automatic, what did these Mitsubishi Lancer based cars do better than the Chrysler engineered Cloud cars? Smaller interior, smaller exterior, cheaper interior, less impressive suspension. When Chrysler spent the money to do it right, the Cloud cars won award after award, the cost cutting approach resulted in the Avenger/Sebring being universally panned by critics.

The World Engine I4 was also born from this mindset and although I will concede it is reliable, it hasn't been remotely competitive in fuel efficiency, acceleration, or refinement vs. the Pentastar V6 has been awarded numerous times by Wards and has proven to be fuel efficient, powerful given its simplicity, and decent on refinement.

The other problem I find in this is how exactly do you decide who makes the best of what. Which I4 is the best? Which V6 is the best? Which transmission is the best (obviously not the ZF 9 speed). In my opinion, the Pentastar is the best V6 but what if either the internal waterpump Ford Cyclone engine is cheaper to build? Or GM's timing chain stretching, oil chugging, but more powerful 3.6L is the way they want to go? Or if they go with the one I like, will GM and Ford fans feel turned off by it if they had bad luck with a previous Chrysler engine (such as the 2.7L V6) The problem is they often go with the cheapest, dumbest design (which would most likely end up being a GM product and after years of first hand experience and witnessing family and friend's experiences, I will buy a Toyota before I ever by a standard car from GM as they are too much trouble and cheaply made).

Even within the companies they seem to do the dumbest thing possible in using their worst engines in as many models as possible and under using their best engines. Just like why did Chrysler insist to keep user the 2.7L instead of their own 3.3L OHV, or 3.2L/3.5L SOHC engines. I have trouble believing that a slightly smaller engine with 4 cams is cheaper to build than either a single cam OHV or an engine that has 1 per bank. Even then, after the lawsuits and bad reviews, there was no confusion by 2002 which engines were more vs. less reliable and they choose that reliability was not their number one priority. Why did Ford keep using the stupid headgasket busting Essex 3.8 V6 instead of enlarging the more reliable 3.0 Vulcan, for that matter why did they not bore and stroke the 3.0L Duratec to the 3.5L and 3.7L instead of developing the Cyclone V6 with its stupid internal waterpump on the FWD versions (don't get me wrong, RWD versions with external waterpump are awesome engines) when power for displacement numbers were similar. And GM...why did they kill the 3800 and invest in the mediocre 60 degree Chevy V6s, and why still can't they make a reliable OHC V6 to this day???

Fiat has done a better job with allowing a true blend where we are not just getting blantant Fiats with Chrysler badging as we did with Mitsubishi and Mercedes since they at least adapt Chrysler's engines and transmissions, offer a few Fiat supplied options where they make sense, and go together on buying transmissions on the ZF units for better (ZF 8) or worse (ZF 9). Even then, this hasn't worked out so great (Dart & 200).

Toyota is making a big mistake by letting this mindset take control of them with having BMW build the car for them given how extremely unreliable BMWs tend to be. This is another prime example of why this doesn't work. If it did work, Toyota should supply the engine and electronics with BMW supplying the transmission (since it is the loved ZF 8) and the platform. But they didn't, they just slapped their name on it just like they did with the Toyota 86. The irony about all of this is I don't really like Toyota and don't think they are AS great as people make them out to be but when Toyota finally makes a model that I fall in love with the looks, like the Stealth, it's all a lie and comes from a brand my family and friends have been burned by one too many times.

If it were to develop a platform together, I could see this but after this, you need to make them as different as possible, different styling, different powertrains, different interior, or you just recreated 80s GM.

Also, if the farm lobby was as strong as some think they are, I guarantee DEF on farming equipment (if not trucks) would have been long gone years ago. Much bigger problem than ethanol on reliability, fuel efficiency, and not to mention COST.

 

I can see lots of ways for the car companies to make better products and keep on the crest of technology. However, in ALL the companies you have entrenched people who want to protect their jobs and justify their paychecks and they will hang out the "Not Invented Here" sign. The rare person like Lee Iacocca can make a BIG difference but they are exactly that, rare.

 

bring back the older cars as they were, even if you have to put modern powertrains in them..... I hate newer cars, imported brands even more so.... I am so freaking sick n tired of seeing the roads polluted with Toyota, Honduh, Kia, Nissan, Hyundai, etc... this is still the USA. why do we have to support them, "over there"?
this is why my newest-ever owned, is a 2001. have a Durango now that year,that my wife drives. used to have a square body Cherokee that year. I work on cars and trucks for a living, and hate the new $#!t.... that's why I'm happier than a pig in slop that I found a solid 1985 1/2 ton pickup....even with its inline 6, instead of a V8...….. and still own a '78 Plymouth Sport Fury.
I looked at a 2018 Dodge truck and said "no way".... Im tired of how fast they rot out for what they cost.... the 96 Dakota 4wd I drive 70 miles a day round trip for work, has less rust on it than the 2011 F250 that I had on the lift a few hours ago.... for what they cost why aren't at least brake and fuel lines made of stainless? and rocker panels (at a minimum) on the body?
back when basecoat/clearcoat 1st became popular, notice how many had the clearcoat baked off from the UV, but the sheet metal was fine underneath? Metal protection has gone for the worst....

 

I put a LOT of thought into it before I bought a late model car. I've owned over 300 vehicles so far in my life that I put plates on and drove. Thr vast majority have been Mopars ranging from a 1948 Chrysler Windsor to a 2003 Ram 1500. My CX-5 is the best I could find with late model architecture. The GF is visiting her daughter so her car is at my house. 4 freaking hours to change a burned out headlight!!!! Granted, she doesn't see to well and some of that was dealing with a bent fender. Still, taking the front off a car is NOT good design philosophy.




Only one was burned out but I'n not going back next week to replace the other one.

 

Consider that your typical toyota has more american content in it than most chryslers........ They are actually built here right in the US, while most dodge trucks are built in mexico, or canada. Chrysler/Dodge is now owned by Fiat, an Italian company....... so technically, they are no a 'foreign' auto maker. GM and Ford are still owned by americans, for the most part......

Welcome to the global economy.

 

another reason I prefer older vehicles.
and I don't count cars "assembled in" the USA (like Toyota and Honduh) with parts made elsewhere, an "American" car.
"assembled in" and 'MADE IN" are not the same thing.

 

That's what the "80% american content" means. 80% of the parts to assemble the car, were produced right here in the states.

I agree with you though. I like the older cars better, simply because they don't have more computers than the space shuttle. When even the friggin' WINDOWS are controlled by a computer, things have gone way to far. Multiple layers of complexity, give a host of new failure points. This complexity also makes them difficult to troubleshoot, and fix. Not to mention radically increasing cost......

 

fca uses three different electrical platforms (tipm based, proxsi , I forget the third) within their own brand.how would they combine with 2 other companies? Pick one platform and use if for the entire product line.