What will happen to the 300 now that Chrysler doesn't have the E-Class to base it on?

I guess it wouldn't be politically correct to say to kill off all of the models.....

But in all honesty, the very ugly and unreliable Sebring really has to go.

They can start off with the pointless Aspen, then move to the atrocious looking Compass, Charger, Sebring, Avenger, and Caliber. That would be a good start. I'm sure I forgot something.

"Chrysler has admitted that too many of their models overlap..."

It's taken them this long to realize this? Kill off the whole brand. We won't miss it, I promise.

The dakota too?
Wow, chrysler really screwed the pooch with that model. That was the first mid-sized pickup and they just let that die.
What a shame.
Maybe its for the better? Can they produce a reliable, decent looking, daily driver? Probably not.

I don't think those are very good predictions, the Dakota isn't going anywhere...this is the first year of a restyle. The Jeep Commander will be around a while, considering it's really the only top-end SUV they have.

I can believe the Pacifica, Sebring, and Aspen will likely go.

I agree ws.

Also, I think the Pacifica is just a shame. I liked the idea of the vehicle from the get go, but it is just a pile of steamy junk. Horrible reliability. They had a good idea and just couldn't resist junking it up.

1. Build a GOOD small car, not the plastic junk that is Caliber. Offer with a stellar diesel.

2. Drop a diesel in the new Wrangler Unlimited and watch sales soar - only reason I do not own one now is the pathetic powertrain.

I liked the Pacifica, drove a company rental for a year. Never had any issue with it, but the trasmission was very slow changing. Could certainly use a v8, like the Mercedes R class (which looks much worse by comparison). Chrysler somehow manage to miss something in the process, and killed an excellent car. In this case, they should have updated the model sooner, as soon as this crossover thing took over. Only now GM is trying to copy the concept with the Acadia, etc., I wonder if that will work: a heavier, not much bigger car, 5 years late?

This is Chrysler's chance to show us that it can engineer a good car.

Before I get to the models they should kill, let me start by saying that they need to completely start from scratch. Don't use any previous engine architecture or parts, do not just lengthen a platform or add new shocks, start from scratch. It'd be expensive, but when you have junk, adding polish will just make it polished junk.
Ok, kill off Dodge as a consumer cars brand. Just produce commercial grade trucks and such at Dodge, and continue offering its trucks to farmers and construction businesses and the like.

Tom L over at the cars.com blog said it best: Chrysler is not a luxury brand anymore. Toyota and Honda are now offering wood trims on their interiors, and leather seats standard. 8 years ago in 1999 or 2000 that is what would of been in a Lexus or Acura, but today those touches make it into non-luxury cars.

What makes a luxury car today is technology. Look at Lexus: that is the car you go to for carbon fiber trim and body work, high-tech engines and cutting edge entertainment systems.

Chrysler, however, is still building luxury cars based on wood and leather. Hence, they are not a luxury car anymore, they are the same as non-luxury vehicles.

And I do not know any young people sans rednecks in hillbilly ville that still consider it a Luxury automaker. And the primary reason those rednecks still consider Chrysler a Luxury car? The storied past: Notre Dame has a storied past too, and like Chrysler, they aren't winning anything (as a Notre Dame fan, that saddens me).

So lets recap: kill off ALL of Dodge except its commercial vehicles, and move Chrysler down-market where it can compete against Toyota, Honda and Hyundai.

Next, to Jeep. Move it to tackle Land Rover, by making the Grand Cherokee more fuel efficient and eliminating the Commander. Build a new SUV to tackle the LR2: scrap the Compass.

Chrysler need to bleed these four models: the Sebring, Aspen, 300, and Crossfire. Refresh the Pacifica vigorously.
Replace the Sebring with something that has an all new name and all new platform: if it handles any worse than the Toyota Camry or Ford Fusion, don't release it just start over.
The Aspen was a mistake in the first place: General Motors and Ford already have enough big, thirsty V8 SUVs for the market. Instead make a sleek, well-riding SUV that competes against the Mercedes GL-Class. Do not make a GL-Class competitor, but rather something that has its ride and feel but is priced and equipped more like a Toyota. That would be a winning car.

The 300 gets two words: start over. Thats the theme of this post by the way. New platform with FWD standard to take on the Avalon and AWD as an option. V6 standard, not V8. V8 is a no no. And for crying out loud, try a new design curve: the retro look only lasted so long.

As to the Crossfire, its a car without a market. Inline 4 power in a car that heavy with those looks? Where was this supposed to go again? Whose driveway does it look good in?
Instead, make the Dodge Demon concept into it. Offer a powerful I4 to start (something up there with the Civic SI engine) then turbo-charge with AWD to make it compete against WRX STi. Thats right: make the Demon into a Hatchback. The thing is, the Demon is really a niche car: its kind of like the Pontiac Solstice where only those who can afford a weekend road-car will buy it.

But the new generation of car buyers, Gen Y, would rather have a hatch with a sun roof than a Convertible. They do not live in far-flung suburbs so much as urban environments, and would rather have a sport hatch that is both fun to drive and has some utility to it (you can put say that 40" LCD that you just bought into the back of it) than a Convertible that they can only drive when the sun is out AND have to own a SUV. The hatch accomplishes to things for Gen Y: fun and utility. You do not need a SUV and Convertible to have those if you have a hatch.

It should not compete against the WRX in its non-performance trim though. Instead, target the Volvo C30 as a hatch to compete with standard (make this new Chrysler a little bigger though), and then the performance version needs to tackle the STi.

@Allen:
Excellent post. With the exception of the 300 and minivans, Chrysler need to start from scratch. DC ended its longstanding relationship w/ Mitsubishi for engine and chassis sharing, instead focusing on its own misguided path. With Mercedes out of the picture, Chrysler should reopen the possibility of discussions w/ Mitsu or another company for small car development. (It is amazing that the new Mitsu. Lancer is based on the same architecture as the Caliber/Compass and yet it is much more refined vehicle). The Dodge Dakota invented the mid-size catagory and it lanquishes on lots now. Chrysler was at the forefront of styling, and its new models are following the design by committee of GM in the late 80's-early 90's. Enough of large SUV's, we have enough to chose from already. The Jeep brand should continue be unadulterated. An earlier post suggested diesel power in the Wrangler. I wholeheartly agree. Chrysler needs to focus on quality cars/trucks and forget the upscale market.

I think trucks are out of the picture altogether, again at least for the residential market. If Dodge moved toward only commercial sales it would gain some mystique. I remember when a NASCAR team came to a local superstore once (it was a grand opening) and a Ford F-550 commercial truck was towing the trailer. Its interior was a little custom looking: LCD screens and such and it to was a show car of sorts. Still, it had a certain "this is what pro's use" aura to it, and people were as impressed with the towing truck as the NASCAR itself.

Diesel power in the Wrangler is a good idea. But I do not think anyone is getting it: Chrysler as a group of brands is broken. It targets no one, it has nothing to its name. I know from experience, I work in an enviroment where young, fresh out of college people talk around me about buying cars every 4 months, that the only people buying Chrysler vehicles right now are those that buy out of legacy (the very few that there are) or those who buy a Pacifica for their families. And they are a very small number indeed, maybe one in two dozen will even mention a Chrysler vehicle.

Lifelong powertrain warranties sound more gimmicky, people are wondering either whats in the fine print or even if they will keep the car that long (most won't). The 300 was great when 50 Cent put 24" wheels on it and put it in a music video, but now it already looks old, really old, and its truck-like gas mileage does not help any at all. Not to mention, everyone knows its based on a platform Mercedes dropped in the early 2000s: they've had a new E class platform since before the 300 was launched and they are about to get another one.

Thats something people do not understand about Gen Y: they get educated about products. While it seems anyone Gen X or older will annoy me or a salesperson at a Consumer Electronics store with questions that just seem like givens, Gen Y will use Wikipedia, Edmunds, Cars.com and surf the blogs for reporting on a car before they buy it. They don't take marketing statements at their word or even partly. Only a select few are dumb enough to just buy based on advertising.

Chrysler needs a total image makeover. In this enviroment, to do that they need a total design and engineering make-over too.

Allen is bang on pretty much every point. I'm a fresh engineering grad, and I do believe that my generation is more savvy when making purchases. Having the internet to research about products means, I won't buy something that isn't good quality. I want to get the most bang for my buck and most of my friends are the same way. I had a friend by a Pontiac Vibe because its nearly the same vehicle as the Toyota Matrix for quite a bit less.

As for vehicles, I do hope Chrystler's all-star management can turn crap into something better than crap because thats basically what Chrystler has right now. There's no doubt Chyrstler's design team is good at make striking vehicles but thats all they have. They don't have a single good engine, platform or any other trump card. I hear people complaining about Ford being in financial trouble but I see Ford making strides to improve itself. Chrystler on the other hand is simple pushing out cars that are nothing more than good looking pieces of unreliable junk.

Another friend of mine is considering purchasing a minivan to haul around his young kids. He's looked at the Odyssey, Sienna and Caravan. While checking the specs he's determined the Caravan has nothing going for it at all besides the gimmicky lifetime warranty and swiveling seats. You can't expect to sell a vehicle based on gimmicks because there are only so many stupid people who will buy a car solely based on swivel or fold n go seats. You have to come out with an impressive package good powertrain, amenities, safety and luxury.

Good luck Chrystler! You're gonna need it!

@Curtis:

In reference to minivans, I have a 2000 Honda Odyssey w/ well over 115k trouble free miles. I have had friends with similiar year Chrysler minivans (and lower mileage) and they complain about replacing transmissions, broken automatic doors, etc.

I like to look of Chrysler minivans, but one look at a vehicle forums site (either Edmunds or another) confirms the lack of quality in these vehicles.

Chrysler has be adrift in senseless, bland, and non-competative model lines for years. Both GM and Ford have a direction to right their respective companies. I just hope Chrysler follows suit.

Great posts all around, I think that you all have noticed the holes. My wife and I both drive Dodge vans, my 95 runs better than her 00 which means we won't be buying them again on grounds of reliability.

But maybe we could move down to a less family orientated car... hhhmmm I wouldn't know where to go with a Dodge-Chrysler. There doesn't seem to be anything in that bracket. Definitely not a Caliber... eewwww.

Okay my next Dodge / Chrysler will be a Honda / Toyota.

I'm on my second Dakota. The mid size truck segment isn't served very well by GM or the Japanese. I consider the Ranger and Colorado to still be too close to "compact".... That Dakota has been the right size for me, with decent mileage when compared to full size offerings.

I just looked a an 08 Dakota today. Honestly, they are charging a full size truck price for it, and that is indeed part of the problem. A diesel offering in the Dakota would trul y set it apart from the competition and make it a strong fleet seller.

I hope they keep the Dakota, so I have a choice. I just hope they can get the design, power train, and pricing right in the future.