Topic: Used Vehicle Review: Dodge Caliber, 2007-2009

[Spec5]

Chrysler can build high quality cars,300,Charger,Challenger,Dodge Ram,Jeep Grand Cherokee,minivans,Journey..many new models are due this year, Mercedes really screwed Chrysler and they are now finally (hopefully) getting back,as they are improving the interior materials in their cars..It seems to be Chrysler's biggest draw back is the interior feel..Though they dont break or fall apart and Chrysler's are bullet proof reliable.. My small company drives 200,000 k in 4 years per vehicle and we are happy with our Chrysler products,oil,gas tires thats all we do !! The cars stand up well,no rattles,no squeeks ect...Even the people who drive them,if they do not personally own a Chrysler product,they are astounded by how reliable they are,and the interiors are not as bad as perceived,but yes need the feel /touch improvements as they are now doing.. ..I feel until they get new interiors,their image wont change..I here many new models will be out soon for the 2011 model year,personally I cant wait..

Chrysler was most profitable auto company before Mercedes ruined them..Also Chrysler's here sell very good,2nd best selling auto company,minus 2009 because a lack of inventory on lots and 6 month production shut down.

With absolutely NO knowledge of what the union(MB and Dodge/Chrysler) did to them I would disagree. In fact I would say that Mercedes probably helped float them along longer than they would have otherwise. Really, before the Magnum, 300 and Charger what did they have? The Intrepid which had pretty much worn out its welcome with the marjority of buyers (read: sales were starting to slow significatnly - why else would they dump it?) The 300, Charger (I think) and Magnum were all built using the old Mercedes platforms. Do you really think Chrysler/Dodge had it in them to build as good a platform as that Mercedes one?

Building quality vehicles?! Seriously? The fact that they've been dead last the last 2 years in CR quality reports tells me otherwise. Furthermore they were something like 35% WORSE than they were LAST YEAR! So not only are they dead last but they’re 35% worse than they were the prior year! Where you can find “high quality” in that is beyond me.

All this being said Dodge people are like Ford and GM people. You can’t tell them anything. Try to be a bit more subjective and do a little digging.

And what new models are they bringing to market this year other than what Fiat has to offer?  From what I’ve read they’re as you mentioned supposed to be fixing their interiors this year – no new product changes. They’re on life support until Fiat can save their a$$ which isn’t looking all that great either. In Europe Fiat is no import slayer. They have a little niche carved out for themselves with their small cars and that’s about it.

[Sival]

Most vehicles in Canada and the USA are bought as auto's so the fuel difference is pronounced.  How in your right mind can you say there's two vehicles, one's a slightly better deal and a much better vehicle, the other one is not as good of a vehicle (actually the worst in it's class to be honest) and is not as good of a vehicle, and then say the Caliber is not a bad deal?  The only way it could ever be considered a good deal is if it was cheaper than all competition, maybe start the price at $11,000 with 0% financing over 3 years.  Then you can say it's not a bad deal.

How can I say it's not a bad deal? Simple, there has never been so much equivalence between vehicles than there is now. The "worst car" nowadays is generally within spitting distance of the best car in the same segment, and with different criteria between different people mean that the ranking order changes very easily. The Caliber actually rates as a midsize car according to interior space in the Canadian and American categories. It's a versatile hatchback with a high seating position that people prefer generally speaking. And it's sold at very reasonable price points, a 2010 SE plus that is well-equipped (AC, power everything, speed control) sell at lower price point than what a stripper Civic DX manual (no AC, no power locks, no speed control, no split folding rear seats) would sell for (17 295$ vs 17 385$). Sure the Caliber is more thirsty and less sporty, but it's larger and more versatile, it can take more cargo and carry 4 adults in more comfort than the Civic. For people who can afford only one vehicle and who may use it sometimes as a family sedan and other times as a cargo-carrier, the Caliber may be better than the Civic, yet it's cheaper. If you want to compare to a similar vehicle, the Matrix is a similar versatile compact, but to have it equipped like the SE Plus, you must choose the convenience package and the total cost is 20 585$, more than 3 000$ more than the Caliber. Sure it gets better fuel economy, but 3 000$ buys a hell of a lot of gas, you'd probably need to drive the car 300 000 Km to have it be worth it, and the Matrix's engine is weaker.

BTW, the Caliber actually has a lower MSRP than similarly-equipped Elantra Tourings. To have an Elantra Touring similarly equipped to the Caliber SE Plus I mentionned, you'd have to opt for the GL model, which starts at 17 894$ with destination (includes 1000$ discount).

[Stan K.]

Here's my little Caliber story.

I started driving around 1999-00. Back then my family had a '92 Dodge Shadow, 4-door. I didn't get much used to it, because then I got my own car. However, I do remember that even what, 7 years from its release, the Shadow was a hit. It had plenty of space for the legs, even with clumsy-looking seats, and doors were light and easy-opening, so they didn't slam back at you and didn't hit others in narrow lots, you'd always get out and in easily. Back then I drove an automatic, I didn't really get used to it, but I remember it as being "okay".

Then in 2001, I got a manual Focus SE. This was my first car, and maybe because I just considered it so, but I was and still am overall satisfied with it. For the whole 8 years I've been driving the Focus, I never even had any weird or suspicious sound, noise or car behavior in general. The only thing that bugged me is that the manual had a bit of "roughness" on highways, but as far as I remember, that was about it.

Last year I got married, and me and my wife have opted for a new car, seeing as she wanted to drive but sold her previous one, and my Focus was already getting old. So we looked all over and went for a Dodge Caliber. Honestly, what attracted me in that car was two things: 1) it was a Dodge, and as I said, I've driven a Dodge before and 2) it had higher ground clearance than the Focus, and for me who lives up north where your every Winter is an ice age, well, that's what got me hooked. My wife, however, was over it for the price: around 22 000$ CAD, 4.61% which was a good deal in any way (my Focus had a 7.5%). So in short we went with the 2009 SXT with CVT.

That was merely in November 2009. Two weeks later, I had an slight accident on the road where I was going reverse and didn't see an object in the back window. I had to replace my left rear fender. As a result, every time the rear door now opens, it still squeaks, although the mechanics have checked everything. And it seems like the squeaking is coming from inside the door, rather than its jamb.

About a month later, I noticed changes in my transmission, esp. around 60-70 km/h, approx when you're about to switch to the last speed on a man. And if you wouldn't release the gas for like 2 seconds while the RPM goes down, there is now a roaring noise coming from the engine that doesn't stop. A week or so after that, the engine itself also started clicking, and upon showing that to a known mechanic, all he did was to shrug upon.

Finally, since February, squeaks in the interior started. First it was the right side of the dash, kinda cracking every time you'd accelerate from a stop. Then both front seats, then something in the back (still can't figure out what it is). In all, if you're driving around 50 km/h on a bumpy road, the car becomes one big rattle, to the point of being so unbearable you'd either have to open the window, or turn up the radio volume to even it out.

Sometimes I'm asking myself why did I go with the Caliber. Was it the price, the looks, or the whole feat package? Honestly, I really don't know. I kinda always wanted a crossover, and the only lesson I've learned from it is that REAL crossovers are the ONLY crossovers out there (so far), and maybe if we'd have opted for a Compass, it would've been better. But so far, I'm only disappointed with Dodge and strongly believe that if my next car wouldn't be a Japanese, I'd at least head back to Ford once again, who didn't offer much, but neither did it let me down so badly.

[Erik]

Chrysler can build high quality cars,300,Charger,Challenger,Dodge Ram,Jeep Grand Cherokee,minivans,Journey..many new models are due this year, Mercedes really screwed Chrysler and they are now finally (hopefully) getting back,as they are improving the interior materials in their cars..It seems to be Chrysler's biggest draw back is the interior feel..Though they dont break or fall apart and Chrysler's are bullet proof reliable.. My small company drives 200,000 k in 4 years per vehicle and we are happy with our Chrysler products,oil,gas tires thats all we do !! The cars stand up well,no rattles,no squeeks ect...Even the people who drive them,if they do not personally own a Chrysler product,they are astounded by how reliable they are,and the interiors are not as bad as perceived,but yes need the feel /touch improvements as they are now doing.. ..I feel until they get new interiors,their image wont change..I here many new models will be out soon for the 2011 model year,personally I cant wait..

Chrysler was most profitable auto company before Mercedes ruined them..Also Chrysler's here sell very good,2nd best selling auto company,minus 2009 because a lack of inventory on lots and 6 month production shut down.

With absolutely NO knowledge of what the union(MB and Dodge/Chrysler) did to them I would disagree. In fact I would say that Mercedes probably helped float them along longer than they would have otherwise. Really, before the Magnum, 300 and Charger what did they have? The Intrepid which had pretty much worn out its welcome with the marjority of buyers (read: sales were starting to slow significatnly - why else would they dump it?) The 300, Charger (I think) and Magnum were all built using the old Mercedes platforms. Do you really think Chrysler/Dodge had it in them to build as good a platform as that Mercedes one?

Building quality vehicles?! Seriously? The fact that they've been dead last the last 2 years in CR quality reports tells me otherwise. Furthermore they were something like 35% WORSE than they were LAST YEAR! So not only are they dead last but they’re 35% worse than they were the prior year! Where you can find “high quality” in that is beyond me.

All this being said Dodge people are like Ford and GM people. You can’t tell them anything. Try to be a bit more subjective and do a little digging.

And what new models are they bringing to market this year other than what Fiat has to offer?  From what I’ve read they’re as you mentioned supposed to be fixing their interiors this year – no new product changes. They’re on life support until Fiat can save their a$$ which isn’t looking all that great either. In Europe Fiat is no import slayer. They have a little niche carved out for themselves with their small cars and that’s about it.

Ok, but everything you are talking about occurred after Mercedes took them over.

 Chrysler was, at the time of the "merger of equals" in 1998 the most profitable car company in the world on a per vehicle basis. Chrysler was actually dynamic and quick on it's feet at that point. Insiders say it only took 2 years of Mercedes ownership to completely destroy the morale in the company.

[Mitlov]

To sum it all up...the Caliber was and is a "cheap" (relatively speaking) vehicle for the masses.....suppose it could be an "cheap" (there's that word again) alternative to a minivan.  

If you want a cheap minivan-alternative, get a Kia Rondo or a Mazda5.  A Caliber offers no more space than any other five-seat hatchback.

[Sival]

Chrysler can build high quality cars,300,Charger,Challenger,Dodge Ram,Jeep Grand Cherokee,minivans,Journey..many new models are due this year, Mercedes really screwed Chrysler and they are now finally (hopefully) getting back,as they are improving the interior materials in their cars..It seems to be Chrysler's biggest draw back is the interior feel..Though they dont break or fall apart and Chrysler's are bullet proof reliable.. My small company drives 200,000 k in 4 years per vehicle and we are happy with our Chrysler products,oil,gas tires thats all we do !! The cars stand up well,no rattles,no squeeks ect...Even the people who drive them,if they do not personally own a Chrysler product,they are astounded by how reliable they are,and the interiors are not as bad as perceived,but yes need the feel /touch improvements as they are now doing.. ..I feel until they get new interiors,their image wont change..I here many new models will be out soon for the 2011 model year,personally I cant wait..

Chrysler was most profitable auto company before Mercedes ruined them..Also Chrysler's here sell very good,2nd best selling auto company,minus 2009 because a lack of inventory on lots and 6 month production shut down.

With absolutely NO knowledge of what the union(MB and Dodge/Chrysler) did to them I would disagree. In fact I would say that Mercedes probably helped float them along longer than they would have otherwise. Really, before the Magnum, 300 and Charger what did they have? The Intrepid which had pretty much worn out its welcome with the marjority of buyers (read: sales were starting to slow significatnly - why else would they dump it?) The 300, Charger (I think) and Magnum were all built using the old Mercedes platforms. Do you really think Chrysler/Dodge had it in them to build as good a platform as that Mercedes one?

Building quality vehicles?! Seriously? The fact that they've been dead last the last 2 years in CR quality reports tells me otherwise. Furthermore they were something like 35% WORSE than they were LAST YEAR! So not only are they dead last but they’re 35% worse than they were the prior year! Where you can find “high quality” in that is beyond me.

All this being said Dodge people are like Ford and GM people. You can’t tell them anything. Try to be a bit more subjective and do a little digging.

And what new models are they bringing to market this year other than what Fiat has to offer?  From what I’ve read they’re as you mentioned supposed to be fixing their interiors this year – no new product changes. They’re on life support until Fiat can save their a$$ which isn’t looking all that great either. In Europe Fiat is no import slayer. They have a little niche carved out for themselves with their small cars and that’s about it.

Ok, but everything you are talking about occurred after Mercedes took them over.

 Chrysler was, at the time of the "merger of equals" in 1998 the most profitable car company in the world on a per vehicle basis. Chrysler was actually dynamic and quick on it's feet at that point. Insiders say it only took 2 years of Mercedes ownership to completely destroy the morale in the company.

To continue on what you were saying, Chrysler in the 90s had a lot of success. Their midsize cars, the cloud cars, appeared on many best top 10 lists in the 1990s, the large cars (Intrepid/Concorde) also were well reviewed, even in the early 2000s, the Intrepid was considered by many car mags as one of the, if not the, best large car on the market in its price segment. The 2002 Intrepid/Concorde was considered the Best Buy by Consumer Guide. Even the Neon had quite a bit of praise when first released, notably because it had good handling, a strong yet economical engine for the time (a variant of which would power the first generation of BMW's Mini) and good interior room for the segment. But it was plagued by a 3-speed automatic until the last years of its second generation and it had head gaskets problems in its first years that killed its reputation.

So in the 90s, in terms of quality (not reliability), Chrysler had very competitive cars in the compact, midsize and large car segments. It had problems with bad reliability though, due to ridiculous cost-savings attitudes.

Now, 12 years after the merger, the fact is that the midsize car now sold by Chrysler is only a small evolution from the cloud cars of the 90s. In terms of V6, Chrysler has no engine right now that they didn't have when Daimler bought it. The 4-cylinder engine is the same as that used by Hyundai and Mitsubishi, even when the competitive 4-cylinder engines of the 90s proved that Chrysler could design good 4-cylinder engines. Basically the only new engine that is made by Chrysler released during the merger with Daimler was the Hemi. That's a good engine... but all the engineering and late-stage development was done by 1998.

Basically, there has been no new engine design made by Chrysler under Daimler, if that isn't an indictment of Daimler's horrible administration of Chrysler, I don't know what is.

[Jaeger]

Ok, but everything you are talking about occurred after Mercedes took them over.

 Chrysler was, at the time of the "merger of equals" in 1998 the most profitable car company in the world on a per vehicle basis. Chrysler was actually dynamic and quick on it's feet at that point. Insiders say it only took 2 years of Mercedes ownership to completely destroy the morale in the company.

There's so much spin here, I'm getting dizzy.  So it's all Mercedes fault, is that it?  Chrysler is blameless.  They were terrific, then came Mercedes, then they were crap?  Now, with Mercedes gone, they's be great again?  Really??? Dude, please. 

Jaeger

[Sival]

Ok, but everything you are talking about occurred after Mercedes took them over.

 Chrysler was, at the time of the "merger of equals" in 1998 the most profitable car company in the world on a per vehicle basis. Chrysler was actually dynamic and quick on it's feet at that point. Insiders say it only took 2 years of Mercedes ownership to completely destroy the morale in the company.

There's so much spin here, I'm getting dizzy.  So it's all Mercedes fault, is that it?  Chrysler is blameless.  They were terrific, then came Mercedes, then they were crap?  Now, with Mercedes gone, they's be great again?  Really??? Dude, please. 

Jaeger

Not what is being said here, but there is no spin in saying that Chrysler was the most profitable car company back then, that much is factually true. Then after years of Mercedes and Cerberus, it almost died, claiming that Mercedes had nothing to do with it is untenable as an argument.

But I don't think Chrysler can come back to the success of the 90s, it's too late. The former Chrysler had created dynamic engineering teams to try and one-up the bigger companies. This led to their offerings in the compact, midsize and large segments to be considered competitive if not amongst the best of the time. But when Mercedes came in, those teams were disbanded, the engineering in Chrysler stalled to a near-halt. Mercedes didn't want to share most of its technology with a non-premium automaker (on the fear it would dilude the brand) and took all the money to develop its own technology. Chrysler was isolated from the technology of Mercedes and only received hand-me-downs. Apart from the platform of the 300/Charger and the lackluster Crossfire (basically a old Mercedes with a changed grill), what technology did Chrysler get from Mercedes? Engines? No. Transmissions? Only with the 300/Charger.

So claiming that Chrysler was dynamic and successful, and that Mercedes ruined them by stalling them for a decade, is very close to the facts and not much spin.

[PJungnitsch]

I was skeptical myself, but there is some convincing info coming out, especially at Allpar. Surprisingly a lot of the good stuff at Chrysler actually came from their takeover of AMC, and AMC engineers that had become very good at lean product development. Given an actual budget at Chrysler, they really flew.

Mercedes comes across as a stereotypical German 'our way or the highway' outfit, anyone who disagreed with their ideas got fired. Eventually Mercedes got rid of almost everyone in Chrysler small/med car development in favor of joint ventures with (IIRC) Mitsubishi and Hyundai. Then they got fighting with them, and Chrysler was left with some half developed platforms and not much of a team of their own left to finish them with.

[Jaeger]

Not what is being said here, but there is no spin in saying that Chrysler was the most profitable car company back then, that much is factually true. Then after years of Mercedes and Cerberus, it almost died, claiming that Mercedes had nothing to do with it is untenable as an argument.

But I don't think Chrysler can come back to the success of the 90s, it's too late. The former Chrysler had created dynamic engineering teams to try and one-up the bigger companies. This led to their offerings in the compact, midsize and large segments to be considered competitive if not amongst the best of the time. But when Mercedes came in, those teams were disbanded, the engineering in Chrysler stalled to a near-halt. Mercedes didn't want to share most of its technology with a non-premium automaker (on the fear it would dilude the brand) and took all the money to develop its own technology. Chrysler was isolated from the technology of Mercedes and only received hand-me-downs. Apart from the platform of the 300/Charger and the lackluster Crossfire (basically a old Mercedes with a changed grill), what technology did Chrysler get from Mercedes? Engines? No. Transmissions? Only with the 300/Charger.

So claiming that Chrysler was dynamic and successful, and that Mercedes ruined them by stalling them for a decade, is very close to the facts and not much spin.

I still see spin.  What do you say to the facts reproduced below:

Building quality vehicles?! Seriously? The fact that they've been dead last the last 2 years in CR quality reports tells me otherwise. Furthermore they were something like 35% WORSE than they were LAST YEAR! So not only are they dead last but they’re 35% worse than they were the prior year! Where you can find “high quality” in that is beyond me.

Jaeger

[Jaeger]

What a complete piece of crap!  Crystler doesn't have a sweet clue how to produce a decent vehicle.  I've drove a number of these crap boxs (through rental companies) and have never once been the least bit impressed.  What they need to do is scrap everything besided the Jeep Wrangler, Dodge Ram, Viper, Dodge Caravan and Challenger (don't like this one either but I know it's a decent seller).  I'm waiting for fiat to bring over the 500 which will at least look good and drive well, but the reliability will forever be a problem for them.  I never even considered taking any of their vehicles out for a test drive for our next vehicle as they are so poor quality I didn't even want to waste my time.  They make GM look like Honda.

Harsh, but not untrue.

Jaeger

[Sival]

Not what is being said here, but there is no spin in saying that Chrysler was the most profitable car company back then, that much is factually true. Then after years of Mercedes and Cerberus, it almost died, claiming that Mercedes had nothing to do with it is untenable as an argument.

But I don't think Chrysler can come back to the success of the 90s, it's too late. The former Chrysler had created dynamic engineering teams to try and one-up the bigger companies. This led to their offerings in the compact, midsize and large segments to be considered competitive if not amongst the best of the time. But when Mercedes came in, those teams were disbanded, the engineering in Chrysler stalled to a near-halt. Mercedes didn't want to share most of its technology with a non-premium automaker (on the fear it would dilude the brand) and took all the money to develop its own technology. Chrysler was isolated from the technology of Mercedes and only received hand-me-downs. Apart from the platform of the 300/Charger and the lackluster Crossfire (basically a old Mercedes with a changed grill), what technology did Chrysler get from Mercedes? Engines? No. Transmissions? Only with the 300/Charger.

So claiming that Chrysler was dynamic and successful, and that Mercedes ruined them by stalling them for a decade, is very close to the facts and not much spin.

I still see spin.  What do you say to the facts reproduced below:

Building quality vehicles?! Seriously? The fact that they've been dead last the last 2 years in CR quality reports tells me otherwise. Furthermore they were something like 35% WORSE than they were LAST YEAR! So not only are they dead last but they’re 35% worse than they were the prior year! Where you can find “high quality” in that is beyond me.

Jaeger

I'd hesitate to call Consumer Reports "facts" personally. There is enough methodological flaws in their surveys as to make me not consider much their reporting. For example, there has been cases of the same cars made in the same plant under two different brands where the two models were rated very differently. And Consumer Reports sends lawyers to threaten with judicial action those who point those discrepancies out (Allpar has been the target of this, they had to strip out the name of the models involved). I much prefer JD Power, personally, because it's a conventional study where they call people, so no self-selection bias.

Anyway, even if one accepts CR, this says nothing about my comments as it's only about reliability, plus, the change you mention includes no new model, but only models that were made under Mercedes and continued under Cerberus (who weren't much better). This says nothing at all about what Chrysler did in the 90s and how Mercedes thrashed it. The sad thing is that much of what Mercedes did cannot be undone. All the engineers lost, the creativity, the momentum, they're gone and they're not coming back. Chrysler has to start it anew with new people and new teams.

[Jaeger]

I'd hesitate to call Consumer Reports "facts" personally. There is enough methodological flaws in their surveys as to make me not consider much their reporting. For example, there has been cases of the same cars made in the same plant under two different brands where the two models were rated very differently. And Consumer Reports sends lawyers to threaten with judicial action those who point those discrepancies out (Allpar has been the target of this, they had to strip out the name of the models involved). I much prefer JD Power, personally, because it's a conventional study where they call people, so no self-selection bias.

Anyway, even if one accepts CR, this says nothing about my comments as it's only about reliability, plus, the change you mention includes no new model, but only models that were made under Mercedes and continued under Cerberus (who weren't much better). This says nothing at all about what Chrysler did in the 90s and how Mercedes thrashed it. The sad thing is that much of what Mercedes did cannot be undone. All the engineers lost, the creativity, the momentum, they're gone and they're not coming back. Chrysler has to start it anew with new people and new teams.

A lot more factual and verifiable than the whole Chrysler-was-great then got-wrecked-by-Mercedes conspiracy theory.  People always "prefer" results that are more favorable to their beloved brands.  Seems like just yesterday someone here was saying you can't rely on JD Power, CR is the way to go - because the former portrayed his brand slightly better than the latter.

"Only reliability"?  Seriously?  Tell that to disgruntled owners - "Don't worry about your POS cars, they were the product of a dynamic, successful, creative company!"

Jaeger

[Sival]

Why don't you go check the reviews from the 90s you can still find on the 'net? What matters is what contemporary car reviewers were saying of the Chrysler vehicles, and the hard-as-stone facts that they were the most profitable car company around at the time. That showcases how dynamic the company was, they made products that measured up to and beat the competition. Go see consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com and look at the reviews their cars got in the early 2000s versus their competition. In 2001, the Neon was "Recommended" and has a score of 47 versus an average of 42 for similar cars, and the Intrepid was a "Best Buy".

No one denies that they had reliability issues, some pretty serious, due to cost-saving measures, but their engineering and designing teams did great. Then Mercedes got in and everything halted for the company to the point that it almost died in 2008.

Here, I'll make it simple for you:

In the 90s, did Chrysler cars appear in top 10 best lists? Yes.
Were Chrysler cars recommended by car reviewers? Yes.
Was Chrysler profitable? Yes, very.

Zoom ahead to 2010.

Did Chrysler cars appear in top 10 best lists? No.
Are Chrysler cars recommended by car reviewers? No.
Is Chrysler profitable? No.

What happened between the 90s and now? Mercedes happened.

[Thinking Out Loud]

I forgot - why did the "merger of equals" take place?  As I recall, once the dust settled, Daimler bought Chrysler.  Why?  

[Jaeger]

Excuses for producing crappy cars are seemingly endless.

As quoted by Mitlov in another thread:

.

Worst owner satisfaction?  Noticing a trend here.

Ten vehicles with the lowest overall satisfaction ratings: Chevy Cobalt, Dodge Caliber, Pontiac G6, Chrysler Sebring, Saturn Vue Hybrid, Chevy Equinox, Pontiac Torrent (AWD), Pontiac Torrent (FWD), Dodge Nitro, and Chevy Colorado.

Looks like the whole "But they're a vibrant, dynamic company!" whine rings hollow with a few Chrysler owners, as well.  Go figure.

Jaeger

[Sival]

Excuses for producing crappy cars are seemingly endless.

As quoted by Mitlov in another thread:

.

Worst owner satisfaction?  Noticing a trend here.

Ten vehicles with the lowest overall satisfaction ratings: Chevy Cobalt, Dodge Caliber, Pontiac G6, Chrysler Sebring, Saturn Vue Hybrid, Chevy Equinox, Pontiac Torrent (AWD), Pontiac Torrent (FWD), Dodge Nitro, and Chevy Colorado.

Looks like the whole "But they're a vibrant, dynamic company!" whine rings hollow with a few Chrysler owners, as well.  Go figure.

Jaeger

You actually prove our point here, that you think otherwise is pretty funny and reveals how little you know. The Caliber was Mercedes' compact car for Chrysler, thought of with the world market to mind and using technology developed with other automakers. It has little in-house Chrysler technology in it. The platform is a modified Lancer platform by Mitsubishi, the engine is a design shared with Mitsubishi and Hyundai-KIA and the automatic transmission is sourced from a Nissan subsidiary.

I personally think it's not a bad car, especially given its low cost, but it didn't reach up to its potential and in today's market, you must do more than just not being bad to break through.

[PJungnitsch]

Such a disapppointing effort from Chrysler.  I remember being interested in them when they first came out, probably because it was another hatch on the market.

Then I sat in one at the car show and was completely turned off.   Such a brutal interior.

Me the same. I actually test drove one. A hatch with decent ground clearance is useful thing here, where so many roads are gravel, and I liked the exterior styling. But the interior! Cheap and nasty. And the CVT droned like paint mixer.

There was no way I was going to spend twenty grand on something that was cruder than my ancient pickup.

Cerberus has revised the interior and added sound insulation, so the 2011's are probably considerably better.

[Jaeger]

Such a disapppointing effort from Chrysler.  I remember being interested in them when they first came out, probably because it was another hatch on the market.

Then I sat in one at the car show and was completely turned off.   Such a brutal interior.

Me the same. I actually test drove one. A hatch with decent ground clearance is useful thing here, where so many roads are gravel, and I liked the exterior styling. But the interior! Cheap and nasty. And the CVT droned like paint mixer.

There was no way I was going to spend twenty grand on something that was cruder than my ancient pickup.

Cerberus has revised the interior and added sound insulation, so the 2011's are probably considerably better.

I's all Mercedes' fault.  After all, Mecedes is known for their brutal interiors and clearly infected Chrysler with the same bug.  Chryslers had terrific interiors until Mercedes got hold of them.  Of course, I couldn't really name one, but I never let the facts get in the way of a good rant.  And now that Mercedes is gone, they'll have terrific interiors again!  Yay Chrysler!

Jaeger

[Jaeger]

Sival, you have a fundamental inability to distinguish "facts" from speculation.  The fact that two events are concurrent does not prove a causal relationhip between them. The "facts" as you describe them are equally consistent with Mercedes buying into a company, discovering that all was not as rosy as it seemed, and pulling out before their good name was further tarnished by association.  Do I know that this was the case?  No, of course not.  But it seems more plausible than Mercedes investing the time, effort and dollars into a merger, then setting out to deliberately ruin its partner. I think Oliver Stone might even gag on that one.  That you so dogmatically assert "facts" to be true when you have absolutely NO support for them shows how very little you know.

In any event, the "I coulda bin a contendah!" moaning really amounts to nothing more than an extended and myopic stare into the rearview mirror, and a transparent attempt at revisionist history to cast blame for corporate misfortune anywhere but where it ultimtely rests.  Nobody forced Chrysler into that merger, bub.  They were grownups - and bear ultimate responsibility for their choices, their conduct and their product.  And the reality of today is that their product sucks.  Blaming someone else for that isn't going to move things forward one inch.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to blame the Germans, go ahead and vent your spleen.  With your every strained attempt to cast Chrysler as blameless victim, I am reminded of a line from Macbeth: "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Jaeger