Alright, there is a point I want to make to everyone and I hope that by some chance GM might notice this post. There was a link that was posted from autotrader.com that develops a lot of what is wrong with the mentality of what makes a successful model and what does not.
Earlier this week we published a Battle Royale between General Motors and Chrysler in order to determine in a fun way which vehicles from each automaker that compete directly in the marketplace would survive if the two merged. Out of 12 matchups, GM vehicles won eight and Chrysler four. A new report by consulting firm Grant Thornton LLP largely confirms that our experiment was spot on. The report says that if a GM/Chrysler merger happens, only the Dodge Ram, Chrysler and Dodge minivans and a few Jeep models will survive. We had the Ram and Wrangler as survivors on our list, though perhaps we were too generous giving the dated Dodge Dakota and slow-selling Jeep Patriot stays of execution. Either way, the point is that Chrysler's model lineup across all three brands would largely be wiped out if a merger with GM happens, as well as the plants that build those models and the workers who do the building.
What is wrong with this way of thinking is it assumes that customers view cars from the same perspective as these people in the press. The press view the G8 as being superior to the Charger because it was faster, got better fuel economy, and in the version they compared the price favored the G8. The result, the older Charger is outselling the G8 by a huge margin. Why is a "inferior" car winning this competition? There are many factors that could be considered. One is brand image. Dodge after having a line of SRT models has become associated with performance and this car is one of the leaders in that image despite the fact that models such as the Viper are actually faster. For Pontiac, this is pretty much the highest output model they have in their line-up, and after the demise of the Firebird and failure of the GTO, Pontiacs performance image has become like Plymouth's in its last years. Confused and weak. Another possible reason, people might prefer the way the Charger feels on the road. The G8 from what I have read is better when it comes to performance based on its tuning, but the majority of customers might prefer the softer Charger. The Charger also features AWD which the G8 doesn't have yet and although I'm sure it isn't account for all the higher sales; however, it might be the thing bringing people into the dealership in the first place whether or not they ultimately get it.
The Challenger and Camaro although similar do NOT appeal to the same customers. The Camaro is a smaller car that like the older Camaro is likely to appeal to the type of people who judge a car purely by performance numbers. The Challenger appeals to people like myself WHO ARE IN THE MAJORITY, who care more about how the car looks, how the car rides, how much room the car has to offer, and view acceleration times and magazine reviews as a benefit and not a requirement. People like this are willing to pay more for cars like this.
Use the Chrysler minivans as another example. Ironic how GM is after that despite the fact that Chrysler hasn't won a minivan comparison in a long time. Despite loosing for a long time, Chrysler outsold their competition because minivan owners do not weight acceleration times and other aspects the press cares about as highly as the intangible factors that the Chrysler minivans have that the competition's offerings lack.
Also, just because they did not win the competition does NOT mean they are not competitive. I would challenge you to see a rematch between a Charger and G8 now that the Hemi has had an update in power and fuel economy and see what the outcome is there. There are models in Chrysler's line-up that are not worth keeping and should be replaced because they are not competitive. The Avenger & Sebring have too much wrong with them that would have to be fixed that it would be more cost effective to simply transplant the G6 and Aura to Dodge and Chrysler.
Let's look at history also as an example. Back before the merger, Chrysler introduced the Stratus/Breeze/Cirrus to replace the Spirit/Acclaim/LeBaron. The press particularly Car and Driver loved these new cars listing the Stratus on the Top Ten list; however, it undersold the Spirit/Acclaim/LeBaron. The reason are claimed to be pricing, which was most likely a factor, but this does not explain why these people moved on to other manufacturers that were priced similarly to the Stratus. There were intangible things that these cars lacked that made these customers leave. Also the press liked the Contour over the old Tempo originally and it was a total disaster. In some comparisons, the Bonneville was favored to the LH cars due to acceleration times and fuel economy; however, the Bonneville ended its time as a failure. Again another example what press considers a success isn't always a success. Just look at a few of the MT car of the year away winners:
2002 Ford Thunderbird (total failure)
1997 Chevrolet Malibu (admit it, it did not help your image and did not sell nearly as well as your Impala that received no award)
1993 Ford Probe GT
1982 AMC/Renault Alliance (dissolved in 1987)
1976 Dodge Aspen/Plymouth Volare (just about killed Chrysler)
1971 Chevrolet Vega (you know that it was junk)
1960 Chevrolet Corvair (I don't have to explain this one)
Ending point: just because the press likes it doesn't mean that it will be successful. Don't judge a car by the OPINIONS of flawed human beings. Let the customers be the ultimate judge as they are the whos who truly are the ones to cater to.