DSkippy

Looks like Chrysler is chasing the economies of scale and finding new markets to chip away share in to increase total units sold. Hopefully they figure a way to be more profitable in the U.S. market.

[quote]Chrysler sets up new design team
Development groups created for five product lines plus expansion of global engineering tasks.
Eric Morath / The Detroit News

Chrysler LLC overhauled how it will engineer and design its future cars and trucks.

The Auburn Hills automaker announced Tuesday that it will align product development teams along five lines: Jeep, Truck, Car and Minivan, Future Midsize, and Street and Racing Technology, or SRT.

Chrysler will expand its engineering activities in targeted regions, including China, India, Eastern Europe and Mexico, as part of the company's effort to grow globally.



Such a move heightens fears among some Metro Detroit workers that their jobs could be outsourced, but Chrysler says that is not the case.

"It's important not to be insular, and bring outside perspective," Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli said after speaking at an Automotive News World Congress dinner on Tuesday. "There is a lot of great technology, a lot of great suppliers, a lot of great innovation," in emerging markets.

The automaker also will look to simplify its vehicles with the development of common processes and shared components as it expands engineering.

Chrysler product teams will be aligned along its brands. The Jeep team will focus on the SUV brand; the truck team is responsible for advancing the Dodge truck brand; and the car and minivan team develops Chrysler's full-size cars, the current midsize lineup and minivan products.

In addition, the future midsize product team focuses on Dodge Avenger-sized vehicles for worldwide markets; and SRT continues Chrysler's performance branding with products such as the Dodge Challenger SRT8.

The new divisions more closely line up development teams along the lines of what segment customers shop.

Previously, for example, teams were named "body-on-frame," which included trucks and SUVs, and "front-wheel drive," which included passenger cars.

The realignment does not mean Dodge will explicitly sell trucks or Chrysler would only sell cars, company officials said. Products could still be cross-branded. For example, the Dodge Nitro SUV is based on the Jeep Liberty platform and similar product development processes could continue.

Establishing a core competency within each development team is a smart move -- especially strengthening its midsized products, said Jim Hall, auto analyst with 2935 Analytics LLP.

"If you're going to be in the midsized area you have to make that a global product," he said.

One group Chrysler did not create was a global small vehicle team. Chrysler is reinforcing that it will only enter the subcompact segment as a partner with another automaker, such as China's Chery Automobile Co., Hall said.

Expanding engineering globally is a major shakeup for Chrysler, which has the majority of its development staff in Auburn Hills. It does have engineering staff in Mexico, but does not have such offices in China, India or Eastern Europe.

Only 11 percent of Chrysler's 2007 sales were outside North America, but the company says increasing that number is key to becoming profitable.

Chrysler officials say the intent of the realignment is to strengthen global engineering and not to move jobs outside the United States.

Still, outsourcing of work is "absolutely" a concern for unionized engineers at Chrysler headquarters, said Jeff Hagler, president of United Auto Workers Local 412, which represents designers and engineers. He said he hasn't been briefed on the details of the new alignment.

"I've asked for a meeting to discuss the futures of workers in the engineering facility," Hagler said. Late last year workers in his local were targeted for layoffs that were later rescinde

Justinec101

Well that sounds downright logical. You have to wonder why they weren't doing it like that in the first place.

RLSH700

I'm not sure if things are really going to change though. It sounds good but they seem to believe in following the mistakes of Daimler's management. Not building their own compact car except with the help of a bunch of low quality, non-selling models brands is precisely what got Chrysler in this fix. The Stratus and Sebring might not have been super success stories, but they didn't have the problem with selling that the current crop is having. They are using the next gen Mitsubishi Lancer platform to save some cash and the customers are not interested. This shouldn't be a surprise. Look at the history of Chrysler doing joint ventures and having success, with the exception of the Vision, that was what the Eagle was and it is long gone. Many models during the 80s to early 90s were re-badged and joint ventures and they were not selling that well. The saving money approach seems to lead to failure more often than not. The only success story I can think of has been with the LX cars and those cars received a ton of effort.

The idea that they will not get into the compact car market unless with a partner is ludicrous. That is the market where there is a lot of demand for cars right now. The only ones that will agree to such an idea are the ones that are not that successful. Think about which models are successful right now: the Corolla, the Civic, the 3, and the Lancer. Why would Toyota or Honda want to give their competition a chance to regain ground on them and possibly lose a few sales when they are already successful, besides the fact that GM tried selling the Corolla under the Prizm nameplate under Geo and Chevrolet and both were hardly success stories. Mazda is already with Ford as Ford keeps proving that it takes a whole lot more than doing business with the right companies to be successful (namely having someone who isn't blind who is designing the cars and someone who knows how to market products). With Chrysler already sharing the basic platform and engine design, how much more do they need, besides the fact that they did offer Mitsubishi's compact car program and it was not a success story for Chrysler. The talk about going together with Nissan on the Sentra would be a mistake as they would be joining them on a product that isn't that successful to begin with that would lead to selling their own version of a product that isn't that successful either.

They should make their OWN economy car as they did last time that WAS a success story until it grew out of date due to lack of effort to keep it competitive (outdated engine technology, inefficient transmission, outdated interior design, outdated styling, bad reputation earned from not making sure the engine was reliable, etc.). They should aim to match or beat the 38-40 mpg range (under the old standards) to keep up with Toyota and Honda, as well as offer a diesel to stand out while they can, on top of this they should make an SRT-4 the way an SRT-4 should be made with AWD to aim at the Lancer and WXR STi.

To understand what it takes for Chrysler to succeed they need to look at their successful models for effort inspiration.
LX car: they made an offering that was not only competitive in their price range but desirable enough to draw people away from models costing up to double the asking price. They did this by offering a very powerful, yet half way decent fuel efficiency and very affordable price for what it is. The exterior was pleasing to the different audiences and the interior although not as fun as the LH cars was still decent.
Minivans: Chrysler has stayed on top of this segment by knowing their audiences and playing the best game of catch up and taking it a step further. When the competition offered electric sliding doors on both sides they offered it and a power rear hatch. When the competition offered fold-flat seating in the rear, they offered two rows that would actually fold into the floor. They always are very de

DSkippy

Yeah, dude, they really fouled up the Sebring. I was looking at one of the old school convertibles on the way home this evening. That thing was attractive. Boy, they botched that one bad(ly).