View Poll Results: What do you think about your Crossfire?
Voters: 74. You may not vote on this poll
Poll: Chrysler, Mercedes, or Karmann?
Re: Poll: Chrysler, Mercedes, or Karmann?
I think it is interesting how people perceive their SRT6.
If Caddy puts a Corvette engine in their car it is a Caddy; if Ford jams a whole lot of Ford parts into a Jaguar it is still a Jag; if Boeing aircraft have PW or Rolls Royce engines and controls in their aircraft they are Boeings; if ship manufacturers have everything in the ship from somewhere else, the product is still the name of the hull manufacturer.
Now, when Daimler/Chrysler builds the SRT6 it is seen as a AMG Mercedes; ah, no, it's a Chrysler; no, it really is a Karman; no, it's a ...?
To me, it's just a SRT6 - a damn fine car!
If Caddy puts a Corvette engine in their car it is a Caddy; if Ford jams a whole lot of Ford parts into a Jaguar it is still a Jag; if Boeing aircraft have PW or Rolls Royce engines and controls in their aircraft they are Boeings; if ship manufacturers have everything in the ship from somewhere else, the product is still the name of the hull manufacturer.
Now, when Daimler/Chrysler builds the SRT6 it is seen as a AMG Mercedes; ah, no, it's a Chrysler; no, it really is a Karman; no, it's a ...?
To me, it's just a SRT6 - a damn fine car!
Re: Poll: Chrysler, Mercedes, or Karmann?
Originally Posted by crossbowme
I think it is interesting how people perceive their SRT6.
If Caddy puts a Corvette engine in their car it is a Caddy; if Ford jams a whole lot of Ford parts into a Jaguar it is still a Jag; if Boeing aircraft have PW or Rolls Royce engines and controls in their aircraft they are Boeings; if ship manufacturers have everything in the ship from somewhere else, the product is still the name of the hull manufacturer.
Now, when Daimler/Chrysler builds the SRT6 it is seen as a AMG Mercedes; ah, no, it's a Chrysler; no, it really is a Karman; no, it's a ...?
To me, it's just a SRT6 - a damn fine car!
If Caddy puts a Corvette engine in their car it is a Caddy; if Ford jams a whole lot of Ford parts into a Jaguar it is still a Jag; if Boeing aircraft have PW or Rolls Royce engines and controls in their aircraft they are Boeings; if ship manufacturers have everything in the ship from somewhere else, the product is still the name of the hull manufacturer.
Now, when Daimler/Chrysler builds the SRT6 it is seen as a AMG Mercedes; ah, no, it's a Chrysler; no, it really is a Karman; no, it's a ...?
To me, it's just a SRT6 - a damn fine car!
Re: Poll: Chrysler, Mercedes, or Karmann?
I dunno. Maybe it's my cynicism towards marketing, but if I saw a Jaguar with mostly Ford parts, I'd call it a Ford not a Jag. I call 'em as I see 'em. I hate when companies try to sell you a turd wrapped in gold. It is insulting and dishonest. It can be argued that consumers are generally uninformed and stupid, but I am neither.
For example, I don't bother to differentiate between Saturn, Chevy, Buick, Oldsmobile, or Cadillac. GM has blurred the lines between them. All they do is produce the same vehicle (at the same plant and with the same parts) with different option packages and plastic details. They may as well give up the whole brand identity and just refer to each "make" such as Cadillac as an option package or trim level on the base model GM.
Ford has done the same thing with Mercury and Lincoln. Nissan and Infiniti. Toyota and Lexus. The list goes on.
The problem is actually with these company's marketing machines. They work so hard to develop brand identity that they end up alienating whole segments of the marketplace. For example: the Ford truck commercials that try to make you think that everyone who has a Ford truck is a hard working, blue collar, tough guy - Marlboro man look alike. Well, gee, I bet that image doesn't go over that well in say San Francisco, or Redmond WA, or downtown Manhattan. But I'm sure there are people in all of those places that like trucks, and would probably drive a Ford, but don't want to be associated with that image.
Image is half of what killed the Camaro. It got the image of being driven by young punks with slicked back hair and gold necklaces. Too many people didn't want that association, so they bought a Mustang, or a 350z, or whatever lower-priced sports car they could find.
So how do the big companies combat the images that they created themselves? They wrap up the same product in a different wrapper and push it to the masses as something else. Well, it's not something else. It's the same old thing. A rose by any other name...
Back to the Crossfire: the situation here is a bit different than in a lot of other cases. Chrysler and Mercedes merged - more on paper than in actuality - and shared technology, platforms and designs. Mercedes was redesigning the SLK, but they had a storehouse of left over parts and motors. None of which was going to be used in the new SLK. So they turned to Chrysler and said why don't we use this stuff up and rebrand the old SLK as a Chrysler - you'll save a bundle on development costs and we'll get rid of excess parts inventory - it's a win-win. Give the car a new skin and we'll throw in some parts from the C class we have lying around, and voila a Crossfire is born. Chrysler had next to nothing to do with it. Sure they used the design for the body from their concept car, but that's about all Chrysler had to do with the car. This isn't a matter of "Hey, let's not design a new transmission for the 300C, why not just use a Mercedes tranny?" This is "Hey lets use 80% of this car and make a new one out of it." In most cases when that is done, they call it a new generation of the same model. (Like the C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, and C6 Corvettes) But they couldn't do that this time, because Mercedes was redesigning the SLK and continuing with it.
OK, this post is way too long, and I'm rambling/ranting. I'm putting my soap box away now.
For example, I don't bother to differentiate between Saturn, Chevy, Buick, Oldsmobile, or Cadillac. GM has blurred the lines between them. All they do is produce the same vehicle (at the same plant and with the same parts) with different option packages and plastic details. They may as well give up the whole brand identity and just refer to each "make" such as Cadillac as an option package or trim level on the base model GM.
Ford has done the same thing with Mercury and Lincoln. Nissan and Infiniti. Toyota and Lexus. The list goes on.
The problem is actually with these company's marketing machines. They work so hard to develop brand identity that they end up alienating whole segments of the marketplace. For example: the Ford truck commercials that try to make you think that everyone who has a Ford truck is a hard working, blue collar, tough guy - Marlboro man look alike. Well, gee, I bet that image doesn't go over that well in say San Francisco, or Redmond WA, or downtown Manhattan. But I'm sure there are people in all of those places that like trucks, and would probably drive a Ford, but don't want to be associated with that image.
Image is half of what killed the Camaro. It got the image of being driven by young punks with slicked back hair and gold necklaces. Too many people didn't want that association, so they bought a Mustang, or a 350z, or whatever lower-priced sports car they could find.
So how do the big companies combat the images that they created themselves? They wrap up the same product in a different wrapper and push it to the masses as something else. Well, it's not something else. It's the same old thing. A rose by any other name...
Back to the Crossfire: the situation here is a bit different than in a lot of other cases. Chrysler and Mercedes merged - more on paper than in actuality - and shared technology, platforms and designs. Mercedes was redesigning the SLK, but they had a storehouse of left over parts and motors. None of which was going to be used in the new SLK. So they turned to Chrysler and said why don't we use this stuff up and rebrand the old SLK as a Chrysler - you'll save a bundle on development costs and we'll get rid of excess parts inventory - it's a win-win. Give the car a new skin and we'll throw in some parts from the C class we have lying around, and voila a Crossfire is born. Chrysler had next to nothing to do with it. Sure they used the design for the body from their concept car, but that's about all Chrysler had to do with the car. This isn't a matter of "Hey, let's not design a new transmission for the 300C, why not just use a Mercedes tranny?" This is "Hey lets use 80% of this car and make a new one out of it." In most cases when that is done, they call it a new generation of the same model. (Like the C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, and C6 Corvettes) But they couldn't do that this time, because Mercedes was redesigning the SLK and continuing with it.
OK, this post is way too long, and I'm rambling/ranting. I'm putting my soap box away now.
Re: Poll: Chrysler, Mercedes, or Karmann?
I posted this elsewhere but it has some bearing on this discussion (design).
http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/03/news...ion=2008010404
http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/03/news...ion=2008010404