Group: rec.autos.makers.chrysler
Dodge, Plymouth, Jeep, Eagle, etc info/talk.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
TOM WALSH: Chrysler gears up to use criticism to solve shortcomings (Detroit Free Press)
TOM WALSH: Chrysler gears up to use criticism to solve shortcomings (Detroit Free Press)
http :// www .ng2000,com /fw.php?tp=chrysler
06/08/2008: Chrysler's biggest business challenge, Chrysler Chairman and CEO Robert Nardelli wrote last week, is to understand why many potential customers don't consider buying Chrysler, Dodge or Jeep brand vehicles. And then do something about it.
http :// www .ng2000,com /fw.php?tp=chrysler
06/08/2008: Chrysler's biggest business challenge, Chrysler Chairman and CEO Robert Nardelli wrote last week, is to understand why many potential customers don't consider buying Chrysler, Dodge or Jeep brand vehicles. And then do something about it.
Re: TOM WALSH: Chrysler gears up to use criticism to solve shortcomings (Detroit Free Press)
admin@ng2000,com wrote:
> http :// www .ng2000,com /fw.php?tp=chrysler
>
> 06/08/2008: Chrysler's biggest business challenge, Chrysler Chairman and CEO Robert Nardelli wrote last week, is to understand why many potential customers don't consider buying Chrysler, Dodge or Jeep brand vehicles. And then do something about it.
They've been accepting self-nominations for their "Customer Advisory
Board" starting I think in mid-March.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
admin@ng2000,com wrote:
> http :// www .ng2000,com /fw.php?tp=chrysler
>
> 06/08/2008: Chrysler's biggest business challenge, Chrysler Chairman and CEO Robert Nardelli wrote last week, is to understand why many potential customers don't consider buying Chrysler, Dodge or Jeep brand vehicles. And then do something about it.
They've been accepting self-nominations for their "Customer Advisory
Board" starting I think in mid-March.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
Re: TOM WALSH: Chrysler gears up to use criticism to solve shortcomings (Detroit Free Press)
heres the full monty that was on the web site
CEO tells workers to analyze complaints
BY TOM WALSH . FREE PRESS COLUMNIST . June 8, 2008
At around 7 a.m. last Wednesday, Chrysler LLC Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer Robert Nardelli fired off an e-mail to all company employees.
Chrysler's biggest business challenge, he wrote, is to understand why many
potential customers don't consider buying Chrysler, Dodge or Jeep brand
vehicles.
And then do something about it.
Nardelli wants no whining about Chrysler products not getting a fair shake
from Consumer Reports magazine or the latest J.D. Power and Associates
report on vehicle quality.
Rather, he wrote, instead of putting defenses up, Chrysler workers should
seek to understand the harshest critics of the company. And then get to work
on solving the shortcomings cited by those critics.
Interestingly, Nardelli's e-mail was sent about five hours before the 2008
J.D. Power Initial Quality Study results were released at a lunchtime
briefing in Detroit.
Nardelli and his top lieutenants already knew what the Power study showed --
that Chrysler cars and trucks had far more quality defects than the industry
average -- but most Chrysler employees and the general public didn't know
the bad news, yet.
His message was preemptive in a way, preparing the troops to hear some bad
news.
Nardelli wasn't scolding or berating people for the bleak results -- Jeep
ranked dead last among 36 brands -- nor did he try to soften the blow with
lame excuses. He could have exempted himself from blame, for example, by
saying the vehicles in this quality study were built and purchased before
Cerberus Capital Management, which bought 80% of Chrysler from
DaimlerChrysler AG last August, was able to make improvements.
Instead, he hammered home points that he has been repeating since taking the
helm at Chrysler 10 months ago:
. Don't hesitate to confront problems.
. Everything is about pleasing the customer.
. Raise the standard defining excellent quality.
If this sounds like stuff straight out of the General Electric Co. playbook
from the era of legendary former GE chief executive Jack Welch, that's
probably no coincidence. Nardelli spent 29 years at GE before becoming CEO
of Home Depot in 2000. Welch, a major influence and mentor to Nardelli,
preached that a great leader must focus on articulating the organization's
strategy and values, and on developing more leaders at all levels.
Chrysler, it so happens, is planning to embark soon on intensive new
leadership training for its top 300 executives.
Will any of this make Chrysler a better automobile company? And even if
Nardelli is saying the right things as the professor of culture change, does
he have enough time? Or will Chrysler be engulfed by the sea change tossing
Detroit's automakers around as if they were toy boats?
Those are fair questions. Soaring gasoline prices, at a time when Chrysler's
bread-and-butter products are big trucks, powerful cars and family-hauler
vans, are hammering U.S. vehicle sales in general and Chrysler in
particular. Chrysler sales fell 24.3% in May and were 19.3% lower for the
first five months of 2008 than in 2007.
General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. stocks have been drubbed in recent
weeks by rocky economic news. And even though Chrysler is now owned by a
private-equity firm instead of being a publicly traded stock, you can be
sure its owners are just as nervous as GM and Ford stockholders.
I don't know if Nardelli and his management team will survive today's storms
and lead Chrysler to a new era of prosperity. Ten months isn't time enough
for even the most urgent and dynamic leadership team to overhaul an auto
company's vehicle lineup.
I do know it's smart for Nardelli to tell his folks in Auburn Hills to take
a candid look at what J.D. Power and Consumer Reports are saying about
Chrysler products. As he said in his e-mail Wednesday, those outsiders might
not tell the full story of what's going on at Chrysler, but they do shape
public perception about its products.
If Chrysler is to survive and prosper, the journey must begin with
unflinching candor about the way things are
admin@ng2000,com > wrote in message
news:191856185546822.Post@ithinknot,net ...
>
> http :// www .ng2000,com /fw.php?tp=chrysler
>
> 06/08/2008: Chrysler's biggest business challenge, Chrysler Chairman and
> CEO Robert Nardelli wrote last week, is to understand why many potential
> customers don't consider buying Chrysler, Dodge or Jeep brand vehicles.
> And then do something about it.
>
>
heres the full monty that was on the web site
CEO tells workers to analyze complaints
BY TOM WALSH . FREE PRESS COLUMNIST . June 8, 2008
At around 7 a.m. last Wednesday, Chrysler LLC Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer Robert Nardelli fired off an e-mail to all company employees.
Chrysler's biggest business challenge, he wrote, is to understand why many
potential customers don't consider buying Chrysler, Dodge or Jeep brand
vehicles.
And then do something about it.
Nardelli wants no whining about Chrysler products not getting a fair shake
from Consumer Reports magazine or the latest J.D. Power and Associates
report on vehicle quality.
Rather, he wrote, instead of putting defenses up, Chrysler workers should
seek to understand the harshest critics of the company. And then get to work
on solving the shortcomings cited by those critics.
Interestingly, Nardelli's e-mail was sent about five hours before the 2008
J.D. Power Initial Quality Study results were released at a lunchtime
briefing in Detroit.
Nardelli and his top lieutenants already knew what the Power study showed --
that Chrysler cars and trucks had far more quality defects than the industry
average -- but most Chrysler employees and the general public didn't know
the bad news, yet.
His message was preemptive in a way, preparing the troops to hear some bad
news.
Nardelli wasn't scolding or berating people for the bleak results -- Jeep
ranked dead last among 36 brands -- nor did he try to soften the blow with
lame excuses. He could have exempted himself from blame, for example, by
saying the vehicles in this quality study were built and purchased before
Cerberus Capital Management, which bought 80% of Chrysler from
DaimlerChrysler AG last August, was able to make improvements.
Instead, he hammered home points that he has been repeating since taking the
helm at Chrysler 10 months ago:
. Don't hesitate to confront problems.
. Everything is about pleasing the customer.
. Raise the standard defining excellent quality.
If this sounds like stuff straight out of the General Electric Co. playbook
from the era of legendary former GE chief executive Jack Welch, that's
probably no coincidence. Nardelli spent 29 years at GE before becoming CEO
of Home Depot in 2000. Welch, a major influence and mentor to Nardelli,
preached that a great leader must focus on articulating the organization's
strategy and values, and on developing more leaders at all levels.
Chrysler, it so happens, is planning to embark soon on intensive new
leadership training for its top 300 executives.
Will any of this make Chrysler a better automobile company? And even if
Nardelli is saying the right things as the professor of culture change, does
he have enough time? Or will Chrysler be engulfed by the sea change tossing
Detroit's automakers around as if they were toy boats?
Those are fair questions. Soaring gasoline prices, at a time when Chrysler's
bread-and-butter products are big trucks, powerful cars and family-hauler
vans, are hammering U.S. vehicle sales in general and Chrysler in
particular. Chrysler sales fell 24.3% in May and were 19.3% lower for the
first five months of 2008 than in 2007.
General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. stocks have been drubbed in recent
weeks by rocky economic news. And even though Chrysler is now owned by a
private-equity firm instead of being a publicly traded stock, you can be
sure its owners are just as nervous as GM and Ford stockholders.
I don't know if Nardelli and his management team will survive today's storms
and lead Chrysler to a new era of prosperity. Ten months isn't time enough
for even the most urgent and dynamic leadership team to overhaul an auto
company's vehicle lineup.
I do know it's smart for Nardelli to tell his folks in Auburn Hills to take
a candid look at what J.D. Power and Consumer Reports are saying about
Chrysler products. As he said in his e-mail Wednesday, those outsiders might
not tell the full story of what's going on at Chrysler, but they do shape
public perception about its products.
If Chrysler is to survive and prosper, the journey must begin with
unflinching candor about the way things are
admin@ng2000,com > wrote in message
news:191856185546822.Post@ithinknot,net ...
>
> http :// www .ng2000,com /fw.php?tp=chrysler
>
> 06/08/2008: Chrysler's biggest business challenge, Chrysler Chairman and
> CEO Robert Nardelli wrote last week, is to understand why many potential
> customers don't consider buying Chrysler, Dodge or Jeep brand vehicles.
> And then do something about it.
>
>
Re: TOM WALSH: Chrysler gears up to use criticism to solve shortcomings (Detroit Free Press)
"rob" <me @_home.org> wrote in message
news:484c7e3a$0$4251$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
>
> I do know it's smart for Nardelli to tell his folks in Auburn Hills to
take
> a candid look at what J.D. Power and Consumer Reports are saying about
> Chrysler products. As he said in his e-mail Wednesday, those outsiders
might
> not tell the full story of what's going on at Chrysler, but they do shape
> public perception about its products.
>
Unfortunately this is just more marketing gobbdlygook.
What people want nowaday is a new car that costs $50 and gets 50Mpg and
is the size of a Hummer.
Whatever automakers can get closest to this ideal will win the game.
Ted
"rob" <me @_home.org> wrote in message
news:484c7e3a$0$4251$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
>
> I do know it's smart for Nardelli to tell his folks in Auburn Hills to
take
> a candid look at what J.D. Power and Consumer Reports are saying about
> Chrysler products. As he said in his e-mail Wednesday, those outsiders
might
> not tell the full story of what's going on at Chrysler, but they do shape
> public perception about its products.
>
Unfortunately this is just more marketing gobbdlygook.
What people want nowaday is a new car that costs $50 and gets 50Mpg and
is the size of a Hummer.
Whatever automakers can get closest to this ideal will win the game.
Ted
Re: TOM WALSH: Chrysler gears up to use criticism to solve shortcomings (Detroit Free Press)
rob wrote:
> Nardelli wasn't scolding or berating people for the bleak results -- Jeep
> ranked dead last among 36 brands --
Jeep *SHOULD* be the easiest fix of the whole company, because it was
the most easily screwed-up by bad decisions.
Shit-can "Barbie's Lil SUV" the Liberty, and design a REAL replacement
for the XJ Cherokee. My God, the XJ sold 2.8 MILLION copies during its
run, and was cancelled during a well-above-average sales year for the
model!!! How STUPID was that? The only think I can figure is that
Daimler was actively TRYING to ruin the brand. And offer a common-rail
Turbodiesel while you're at it. Or resurrect the 4.0, the chinese
probably have a full set of design drawings and the tooling anyway :-p
Shit-can the Compass and Patriot (and the POS Caliber over at Dodge
while you're at it) and come up with a viable "compact" Jeep platform.
Re-badged FWD junk has NO business bearing the Jeep nameplate anyway. A
Scaled-down XJ-like or Wrangler-like platform- take your pick.
DON'T shit-can the Commander as they either did or plan to do, instead
downsize its basic design into the next-generation Grand Cherokee. Offer
a common-rail turbodiesel and hybrid drivetrains.
The 4-door Wrangler was a good idea and a big seller, judging by how
many I see. So don't screw it up. Offer more efficient drivetrains (CRD
or Hybrid) as options.
rob wrote:
> Nardelli wasn't scolding or berating people for the bleak results -- Jeep
> ranked dead last among 36 brands --
Jeep *SHOULD* be the easiest fix of the whole company, because it was
the most easily screwed-up by bad decisions.
Shit-can "Barbie's Lil SUV" the Liberty, and design a REAL replacement
for the XJ Cherokee. My God, the XJ sold 2.8 MILLION copies during its
run, and was cancelled during a well-above-average sales year for the
model!!! How STUPID was that? The only think I can figure is that
Daimler was actively TRYING to ruin the brand. And offer a common-rail
Turbodiesel while you're at it. Or resurrect the 4.0, the chinese
probably have a full set of design drawings and the tooling anyway :-p
Shit-can the Compass and Patriot (and the POS Caliber over at Dodge
while you're at it) and come up with a viable "compact" Jeep platform.
Re-badged FWD junk has NO business bearing the Jeep nameplate anyway. A
Scaled-down XJ-like or Wrangler-like platform- take your pick.
DON'T shit-can the Commander as they either did or plan to do, instead
downsize its basic design into the next-generation Grand Cherokee. Offer
a common-rail turbodiesel and hybrid drivetrains.
The 4-door Wrangler was a good idea and a big seller, judging by how
many I see. So don't screw it up. Offer more efficient drivetrains (CRD
or Hybrid) as options.
Re: TOM WALSH: Chrysler gears up to use criticism to solve shortcomings (Detroit Free Press)
around here the liberty is the only thing selling. the college is leasing
them like crazy too.
they cant seem to GIVE AWAY the compass.
"Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:Gb-dnYoJP-wdosXVnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@texas,net ...
> rob wrote:
>
>> Nardelli wasn't scolding or berating people for the bleak results -- Jeep
>> ranked dead last among 36 brands --
>
>
> Jeep *SHOULD* be the easiest fix of the whole company, because it was the
> most easily screwed-up by bad decisions.
>
> Shit-can "Barbie's Lil SUV" the Liberty, and design a REAL replacement for
> the XJ Cherokee. My God, the XJ sold 2.8 MILLION copies during its run,
> and was cancelled during a well-above-average sales year for the model!!!
> How STUPID was that? The only think I can figure is that Daimler was
> actively TRYING to ruin the brand. And offer a common-rail Turbodiesel
> while you're at it. Or resurrect the 4.0, the chinese probably have a full
> set of design drawings and the tooling anyway :-p
>
>
> Shit-can the Compass and Patriot (and the POS Caliber over at Dodge while
> you're at it) and come up with a viable "compact" Jeep platform. Re-badged
> FWD junk has NO business bearing the Jeep nameplate anyway. A Scaled-down
> XJ-like or Wrangler-like platform- take your pick.
>
> DON'T shit-can the Commander as they either did or plan to do, instead
> downsize its basic design into the next-generation Grand Cherokee. Offer a
> common-rail turbodiesel and hybrid drivetrains.
>
> The 4-door Wrangler was a good idea and a big seller, judging by how many
> I see. So don't screw it up. Offer more efficient drivetrains (CRD or
> Hybrid) as options.
around here the liberty is the only thing selling. the college is leasing
them like crazy too.
they cant seem to GIVE AWAY the compass.
"Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:Gb-dnYoJP-wdosXVnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@texas,net ...
> rob wrote:
>
>> Nardelli wasn't scolding or berating people for the bleak results -- Jeep
>> ranked dead last among 36 brands --
>
>
> Jeep *SHOULD* be the easiest fix of the whole company, because it was the
> most easily screwed-up by bad decisions.
>
> Shit-can "Barbie's Lil SUV" the Liberty, and design a REAL replacement for
> the XJ Cherokee. My God, the XJ sold 2.8 MILLION copies during its run,
> and was cancelled during a well-above-average sales year for the model!!!
> How STUPID was that? The only think I can figure is that Daimler was
> actively TRYING to ruin the brand. And offer a common-rail Turbodiesel
> while you're at it. Or resurrect the 4.0, the chinese probably have a full
> set of design drawings and the tooling anyway :-p
>
>
> Shit-can the Compass and Patriot (and the POS Caliber over at Dodge while
> you're at it) and come up with a viable "compact" Jeep platform. Re-badged
> FWD junk has NO business bearing the Jeep nameplate anyway. A Scaled-down
> XJ-like or Wrangler-like platform- take your pick.
>
> DON'T shit-can the Commander as they either did or plan to do, instead
> downsize its basic design into the next-generation Grand Cherokee. Offer a
> common-rail turbodiesel and hybrid drivetrains.
>
> The 4-door Wrangler was a good idea and a big seller, judging by how many
> I see. So don't screw it up. Offer more efficient drivetrains (CRD or
> Hybrid) as options.
Re: TOM WALSH: Chrysler gears up to use criticism to solve shortcomings (Detroit Free Press)
On Jun 17, 6:49 pm, Steve <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
> rob wrote:
> > Nardelli wasn't scolding or berating people for the bleak results -- Jeep
> > ranked dead last among 36 brands --
>
> Jeep *SHOULD* be the easiest fix of the whole company, because it was
> the most easily screwed-up by bad decisions.
>
> Shit-can "Barbie's Lil SUV" the Liberty, and design a REAL replacement
> for the XJ Cherokee. My God, the XJ sold 2.8 MILLION copies during its
> run, and was cancelled during a well-above-average sales year for the
> model!!! How STUPID was that? The only think I can figure is that
> Daimler was actively TRYING to ruin the brand. And offer a common-rail
> Turbodiesel while you're at it. Or resurrect the 4.0, the chinese
> probably have a full set of design drawings and the tooling anyway :-p
>
> Shit-can the Compass and Patriot (and the POS Caliber over at Dodge
> while you're at it) and come up with a viable "compact" Jeep platform.
> Re-badged FWD junk has NO business bearing the Jeep nameplate anyway. A
> Scaled-down XJ-like or Wrangler-like platform- take your pick.
>
> DON'T shit-can the Commander as they either did or plan to do, instead
> downsize its basic design into the next-generation Grand Cherokee. Offer
> a common-rail turbodiesel and hybrid drivetrains.
Supposedly the next gen GC will offer a 3rd sear version, making the
Commander unnecessary. Considering the third seat is useless anyway
(except it's great for blocking rear visibility), no great loss.
>
> The 4-door Wrangler was a good idea and a big seller, judging by how
> many I see. So don't screw it up. Offer more efficient drivetrains (CRD
> or Hybrid) as options.
Hybrids don't seem to make sense off-road. Why not leave Jeep as the
true off-road SUVs and let Dodge and Chrysler offer the cross-overs?
Now that Chrysler and Nissan are building vehicles for each other (and
you may hate this), the Pathfinder/Xterra platform would make a good
starting point for that XJ replacement you mention.
On Jun 17, 6:49 pm, Steve <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
> rob wrote:
> > Nardelli wasn't scolding or berating people for the bleak results -- Jeep
> > ranked dead last among 36 brands --
>
> Jeep *SHOULD* be the easiest fix of the whole company, because it was
> the most easily screwed-up by bad decisions.
>
> Shit-can "Barbie's Lil SUV" the Liberty, and design a REAL replacement
> for the XJ Cherokee. My God, the XJ sold 2.8 MILLION copies during its
> run, and was cancelled during a well-above-average sales year for the
> model!!! How STUPID was that? The only think I can figure is that
> Daimler was actively TRYING to ruin the brand. And offer a common-rail
> Turbodiesel while you're at it. Or resurrect the 4.0, the chinese
> probably have a full set of design drawings and the tooling anyway :-p
>
> Shit-can the Compass and Patriot (and the POS Caliber over at Dodge
> while you're at it) and come up with a viable "compact" Jeep platform.
> Re-badged FWD junk has NO business bearing the Jeep nameplate anyway. A
> Scaled-down XJ-like or Wrangler-like platform- take your pick.
>
> DON'T shit-can the Commander as they either did or plan to do, instead
> downsize its basic design into the next-generation Grand Cherokee. Offer
> a common-rail turbodiesel and hybrid drivetrains.
Supposedly the next gen GC will offer a 3rd sear version, making the
Commander unnecessary. Considering the third seat is useless anyway
(except it's great for blocking rear visibility), no great loss.
>
> The 4-door Wrangler was a good idea and a big seller, judging by how
> many I see. So don't screw it up. Offer more efficient drivetrains (CRD
> or Hybrid) as options.
Hybrids don't seem to make sense off-road. Why not leave Jeep as the
true off-road SUVs and let Dodge and Chrysler offer the cross-overs?
Now that Chrysler and Nissan are building vehicles for each other (and
you may hate this), the Pathfinder/Xterra platform would make a good
starting point for that XJ replacement you mention.
Re: TOM WALSH: Chrysler gears up to use criticism to solve shortcomings (Detroit Free Press)
Lloyd wrote:
> Hybrids don't seem to make sense off-road.
The fact that electric motors can produce 100% torque at zero RPM
would be *outstanding* offroad. The energy-recovery part might not
extract as much payback as it would on-highway, but I would think that
the capabilities of electric-assisted drive would be a big boon offroad
and that would marry-up nicely with the benefits of energy-recovery when
its used on-road. The practical reality is that not many people are
going to buy a dedicated off-road vehicle brand new. They're going to
use it for daily driving as well. If there were really a market for a
true dedicated offroad, the Wrangler wouldn't be as fancy as it
currently is.
> Now that Chrysler and Nissan are building vehicles for each other (and
> you may hate this), the Pathfinder/Xterra platform would make a good
> starting point for that XJ replacement you mention.
I'm not a big fan of the Xterra platform (body-on-frame, too top-heavy,
too HEAVY period) as an XJ replacement. But it does have some benefits
over the Liberty. Is the Pathfinder now a shared platform? It used to
be distinctly different when the Xterra came out, but I confess I don't
follow Nissan much.
Lloyd wrote:
> Hybrids don't seem to make sense off-road.
The fact that electric motors can produce 100% torque at zero RPM
would be *outstanding* offroad. The energy-recovery part might not
extract as much payback as it would on-highway, but I would think that
the capabilities of electric-assisted drive would be a big boon offroad
and that would marry-up nicely with the benefits of energy-recovery when
its used on-road. The practical reality is that not many people are
going to buy a dedicated off-road vehicle brand new. They're going to
use it for daily driving as well. If there were really a market for a
true dedicated offroad, the Wrangler wouldn't be as fancy as it
currently is.
> Now that Chrysler and Nissan are building vehicles for each other (and
> you may hate this), the Pathfinder/Xterra platform would make a good
> starting point for that XJ replacement you mention.
I'm not a big fan of the Xterra platform (body-on-frame, too top-heavy,
too HEAVY period) as an XJ replacement. But it does have some benefits
over the Liberty. Is the Pathfinder now a shared platform? It used to
be distinctly different when the Xterra came out, but I confess I don't
follow Nissan much.
Re: TOM WALSH: Chrysler gears up to use criticism to solve shortcomings (Detroit Free Press)
On Jun 18, 3:36 pm, Steve <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
> Lloyd wrote:
> > Hybrids don't seem to make sense off-road.
>
> The fact that electric motors can produce 100% torque at zero RPM
> would be *outstanding* offroad.
Except the batteries only recharge at cruising speeds, when they're
not being used for propulsion. They'd quickly go out off road.
>The energy-recovery part might not
> extract as much payback as it would on-highway, but I would think that
> the capabilities of electric-assisted drive would be a big boon offroad
> and that would marry-up nicely with the benefits of energy-recovery when
> its used on-road. The practical reality is that not many people are
> going to buy a dedicated off-road vehicle brand new. They're going to
> use it for daily driving as well. If there were really a market for a
> true dedicated offroad, the Wrangler wouldn't be as fancy as it
> currently is.
>
> > Now that Chrysler and Nissan are building vehicles for each other (and
> > you may hate this), the Pathfinder/Xterra platform would make a good
> > starting point for that XJ replacement you mention.
>
> I'm not a big fan of the Xterra platform (body-on-frame, too top-heavy,
> too HEAVY period) as an XJ replacement. But it does have some benefits
> over the Liberty. Is the Pathfinder now a shared platform? It used to
> be distinctly different when the Xterra came out, but I confess I don't
> follow Nissan much.
A base AWD Xterra is only 180 lb heavier than a base Liberty AWD,
according to Edmund's.
I believe their share a platform, and with the Frontier pickup, but
it's obviously versatile (the Pathfinder has IRS and a third seat, for
example, while the Xterra and Frontier have live rear axle).
On Jun 18, 3:36 pm, Steve <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
> Lloyd wrote:
> > Hybrids don't seem to make sense off-road.
>
> The fact that electric motors can produce 100% torque at zero RPM
> would be *outstanding* offroad.
Except the batteries only recharge at cruising speeds, when they're
not being used for propulsion. They'd quickly go out off road.
>The energy-recovery part might not
> extract as much payback as it would on-highway, but I would think that
> the capabilities of electric-assisted drive would be a big boon offroad
> and that would marry-up nicely with the benefits of energy-recovery when
> its used on-road. The practical reality is that not many people are
> going to buy a dedicated off-road vehicle brand new. They're going to
> use it for daily driving as well. If there were really a market for a
> true dedicated offroad, the Wrangler wouldn't be as fancy as it
> currently is.
>
> > Now that Chrysler and Nissan are building vehicles for each other (and
> > you may hate this), the Pathfinder/Xterra platform would make a good
> > starting point for that XJ replacement you mention.
>
> I'm not a big fan of the Xterra platform (body-on-frame, too top-heavy,
> too HEAVY period) as an XJ replacement. But it does have some benefits
> over the Liberty. Is the Pathfinder now a shared platform? It used to
> be distinctly different when the Xterra came out, but I confess I don't
> follow Nissan much.
A base AWD Xterra is only 180 lb heavier than a base Liberty AWD,
according to Edmund's.
I believe their share a platform, and with the Frontier pickup, but
it's obviously versatile (the Pathfinder has IRS and a third seat, for
example, while the Xterra and Frontier have live rear axle).
Re: TOM WALSH: Chrysler gears up to use criticism to solve shortcomings (Detroit Free Press)
Lloyd wrote:
> On Jun 18, 3:36 pm, Steve <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>> Lloyd wrote:
>>> Hybrids don't seem to make sense off-road.
>> The fact that electric motors can produce 100% torque at zero RPM
>> would be *outstanding* offroad.
>
> Except the batteries only recharge at cruising speeds, when they're
> not being used for propulsion. They'd quickly go out off road.
No. Whether or not the batteries recharge at crusing speed or not is
ENTIRELY dependent on the design of the hybrid system. Some hybrids can
charge sitting still at a traffic light if necessary. There's no reason
not to build an SUV that could act like a diesel-electric locomotive
when offroad- engine runs constant RPM, charges the batteries and/or
provides power to the motors (and direct mechanical power) as needed.
The basic architecture of the Toyota HSD would, in fact, allow exactly
that kind of operation.
>>> Now that Chrysler and Nissan are building vehicles for each other (and
>>> you may hate this), the Pathfinder/Xterra platform would make a good
>>> starting point for that XJ replacement you mention.
>> I'm not a big fan of the Xterra platform (body-on-frame, too top-heavy,
>> too HEAVY period) as an XJ replacement. But it does have some benefits
>> over the Liberty. Is the Pathfinder now a shared platform? It used to
>> be distinctly different when the Xterra came out, but I confess I don't
>> follow Nissan much.
>
> A base AWD Xterra is only 180 lb heavier than a base Liberty AWD,
> according to Edmund's.
Precisely. A pig. The Liberty was *not* a good XJ replacement. Too much
cush and not enough Jeep.
>
> I believe their share a platform, and with the Frontier pickup, but
> it's obviously versatile (the Pathfinder has IRS and a third seat, for
> example, while the Xterra and Frontier have live rear axle).
The Ford Mustang has been sold with both IRS and live axle in the same
model. Its not a big deal, since the suspension components are separate
from the chassis itself.
Lloyd wrote:
> On Jun 18, 3:36 pm, Steve <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>> Lloyd wrote:
>>> Hybrids don't seem to make sense off-road.
>> The fact that electric motors can produce 100% torque at zero RPM
>> would be *outstanding* offroad.
>
> Except the batteries only recharge at cruising speeds, when they're
> not being used for propulsion. They'd quickly go out off road.
No. Whether or not the batteries recharge at crusing speed or not is
ENTIRELY dependent on the design of the hybrid system. Some hybrids can
charge sitting still at a traffic light if necessary. There's no reason
not to build an SUV that could act like a diesel-electric locomotive
when offroad- engine runs constant RPM, charges the batteries and/or
provides power to the motors (and direct mechanical power) as needed.
The basic architecture of the Toyota HSD would, in fact, allow exactly
that kind of operation.
>>> Now that Chrysler and Nissan are building vehicles for each other (and
>>> you may hate this), the Pathfinder/Xterra platform would make a good
>>> starting point for that XJ replacement you mention.
>> I'm not a big fan of the Xterra platform (body-on-frame, too top-heavy,
>> too HEAVY period) as an XJ replacement. But it does have some benefits
>> over the Liberty. Is the Pathfinder now a shared platform? It used to
>> be distinctly different when the Xterra came out, but I confess I don't
>> follow Nissan much.
>
> A base AWD Xterra is only 180 lb heavier than a base Liberty AWD,
> according to Edmund's.
Precisely. A pig. The Liberty was *not* a good XJ replacement. Too much
cush and not enough Jeep.
>
> I believe their share a platform, and with the Frontier pickup, but
> it's obviously versatile (the Pathfinder has IRS and a third seat, for
> example, while the Xterra and Frontier have live rear axle).
The Ford Mustang has been sold with both IRS and live axle in the same
model. Its not a big deal, since the suspension components are separate
from the chassis itself.
Re: TOM WALSH: Chrysler gears up to use criticism to solve shortcomings (Detroit Free Press)
Lloyd <lparker@emory.edu> writes:
> On Jun 18, 3:36 pm, Steve <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>> Lloyd wrote:
>> > Hybrids don't seem to make sense off-road.
>>
>> The fact that electric motors can produce 100% torque at zero RPM
>> would be *outstanding* offroad.
>
> Except the batteries only recharge at cruising speeds, when they're
> not being used for propulsion. They'd quickly go out off road.
I find it hard to imagine that current hybrids have such a naive
charging algorithm -- they'd be going dead in LA traffic every day.
Even if they do, I imagine it would be changed for off-road
applications.
Lloyd <lparker@emory.edu> writes:
> On Jun 18, 3:36 pm, Steve <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>> Lloyd wrote:
>> > Hybrids don't seem to make sense off-road.
>>
>> The fact that electric motors can produce 100% torque at zero RPM
>> would be *outstanding* offroad.
>
> Except the batteries only recharge at cruising speeds, when they're
> not being used for propulsion. They'd quickly go out off road.
I find it hard to imagine that current hybrids have such a naive
charging algorithm -- they'd be going dead in LA traffic every day.
Even if they do, I imagine it would be changed for off-road
applications.
Re: TOM WALSH: Chrysler gears up to use criticism to solve shortcomings (Detroit Free Press)
Most hybrid vehicles recharge the batteries by way of regenerative braking,
making use of the electric motor as a generator to recharge the batteries
and slow down the vehicle instead of using the brakes and wasting the energy
to generate heat. Hybrid cars are most efficient and economical in city stop
and go driving, the gas engine hardly ever runs, batteries stay charged and
brakes last forever.
Most hybrid vehicles recharge the batteries by way of regenerative braking,
making use of the electric motor as a generator to recharge the batteries
and slow down the vehicle instead of using the brakes and wasting the energy
to generate heat. Hybrid cars are most efficient and economical in city stop
and go driving, the gas engine hardly ever runs, batteries stay charged and
brakes last forever.
Re: TOM WALSH: Chrysler gears up to use criticism to solve shortcomings (Detroit Free Press)
"Road Runner" <cfrancis36@cogeco.nospam.ca> writes:
> Most hybrid vehicles recharge the batteries by way of regenerative braking,
> making use of the electric motor as a generator to recharge the batteries
> and slow down the vehicle instead of using the brakes and wasting the energy
> to generate heat. Hybrid cars are most efficient and economical in city stop
> and go driving, the gas engine hardly ever runs, batteries stay charged and
> brakes last forever.
And the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed, apparently.
"Road Runner" <cfrancis36@cogeco.nospam.ca> writes:
> Most hybrid vehicles recharge the batteries by way of regenerative braking,
> making use of the electric motor as a generator to recharge the batteries
> and slow down the vehicle instead of using the brakes and wasting the energy
> to generate heat. Hybrid cars are most efficient and economical in city stop
> and go driving, the gas engine hardly ever runs, batteries stay charged and
> brakes last forever.
And the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed, apparently.
Re: TOM WALSH: Chrysler gears up to use criticism to solve shortcomings (Detroit Free Press)
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> "Road Runner" <cfrancis36@cogeco.nospam.ca> writes:
>
>> Most hybrid vehicles recharge the batteries by way of regenerative braking,
>> making use of the electric motor as a generator to recharge the batteries
>> and slow down the vehicle instead of using the brakes and wasting the energy
>> to generate heat. Hybrid cars are most efficient and economical in city stop
>> and go driving, the gas engine hardly ever runs, batteries stay charged and
>> brakes last forever.
>
> And the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed, apparently.
You undoubtedly are referring to the unavoidable percentage losses every
time energy is shuttled from one form to another, Joe. The proponents
would argue that recovering 25, or 40%, or whatever the number is, of
otherwise wasted energy is better than throwing it all away as heat into
the brakes.
But I share some of your skepticism, and have stated on this ng before
that I can't help but feel that if you take the same under-powered
gasoline engine they use in the hybrid and put it in the same car
without all the controls complexity and added weight of batteries and
motor/generators that you wouldn't achieve similar mpg simply because
that gasoline motor is small and optimized for efficiency. The only
"extra" you would then get out of the batteries and motor/generators (in
spite of their added mass) is acceleration levels when needed that that
underpowered gasoline engine can't provide on its own.
IOW (with the exception of the acceleration issue) the batteries and
motor/generators are possibly nothing but smoke and mirrors - someone
should do an experiment and strip all that excess baggage (mass and
complexity) out and see how the car does for mpg with nothing but the
same gasoline engine powering it.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> "Road Runner" <cfrancis36@cogeco.nospam.ca> writes:
>
>> Most hybrid vehicles recharge the batteries by way of regenerative braking,
>> making use of the electric motor as a generator to recharge the batteries
>> and slow down the vehicle instead of using the brakes and wasting the energy
>> to generate heat. Hybrid cars are most efficient and economical in city stop
>> and go driving, the gas engine hardly ever runs, batteries stay charged and
>> brakes last forever.
>
> And the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed, apparently.
You undoubtedly are referring to the unavoidable percentage losses every
time energy is shuttled from one form to another, Joe. The proponents
would argue that recovering 25, or 40%, or whatever the number is, of
otherwise wasted energy is better than throwing it all away as heat into
the brakes.
But I share some of your skepticism, and have stated on this ng before
that I can't help but feel that if you take the same under-powered
gasoline engine they use in the hybrid and put it in the same car
without all the controls complexity and added weight of batteries and
motor/generators that you wouldn't achieve similar mpg simply because
that gasoline motor is small and optimized for efficiency. The only
"extra" you would then get out of the batteries and motor/generators (in
spite of their added mass) is acceleration levels when needed that that
underpowered gasoline engine can't provide on its own.
IOW (with the exception of the acceleration issue) the batteries and
motor/generators are possibly nothing but smoke and mirrors - someone
should do an experiment and strip all that excess baggage (mass and
complexity) out and see how the car does for mpg with nothing but the
same gasoline engine powering it.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
Re: TOM WALSH: Chrysler gears up to use criticism to solve shortcomings (Detroit Free Press)
"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez,net > wrote in message
news:6c73cnF3ev8lfU1@mid.individual,net ...
> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> > "Road Runner" <cfrancis36@cogeco.nospam.ca> writes:
> >
> >> Most hybrid vehicles recharge the batteries by way of regenerative
braking,
> >> making use of the electric motor as a generator to recharge the
batteries
> >> and slow down the vehicle instead of using the brakes and wasting the
energy
> >> to generate heat. Hybrid cars are most efficient and economical in city
stop
> >> and go driving, the gas engine hardly ever runs, batteries stay charged
and
> >> brakes last forever.
> >
> > And the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed, apparently.
>
> You undoubtedly are referring to the unavoidable percentage losses every
> time energy is shuttled from one form to another, Joe. The proponents
> would argue that recovering 25, or 40%, or whatever the number is, of
> otherwise wasted energy is better than throwing it all away as heat into
> the brakes.
>
> But I share some of your skepticism, and have stated on this ng before
> that I can't help but feel that if you take the same under-powered
> gasoline engine they use in the hybrid and put it in the same car
> without all the controls complexity and added weight of batteries and
> motor/generators that you wouldn't achieve similar mpg simply because
> that gasoline motor is small and optimized for efficiency. The only
> "extra" you would then get out of the batteries and motor/generators (in
> spite of their added mass) is acceleration levels when needed that that
> underpowered gasoline engine can't provide on its own.
>
> IOW (with the exception of the acceleration issue) the batteries and
> motor/generators are possibly nothing but smoke and mirrors - someone
> should do an experiment and strip all that excess baggage (mass and
> complexity) out and see how the car does for mpg with nothing but the
> same gasoline engine powering it.
>
Bill, there's 2 tricks here that comprise the primary smoke and
mirrors:
1) IF the ICE is designed as a constant speed engine (most hybrid
designs are not) then a LOT of efficiency can be picked up from the
use of tuned intake and exhaust runners and headers. For that matter
they really ought to pull the old 2-stroke designs out of the closet
since when those engines are run at their tuned RPM they are -very-
efficient and non-polluting. Generators, also, are much more efficient
when run at a constant rpm.
The gains at running the ICE at a constant RPM outweigh the conversion
losses.
2) City driving is almost always 35Mph or under, thus wind resistance
is almost negligible. Imagine for a moment if the EPA ran it's MPG tests
at 30Mph instead of 55 or 60Mph. It would add at least 10 mpg to
every vehicle out there probably much more.
There are hypermilers who have worked out really impressive MPG gains
in city driving with regular cars by using the engine as a brake whenever
possible and hardly touching their regular brakes.
Of course, if all city drivers did the kind of driving that a city-running
hypermiler did, cities would be hopelessly gridlocked.
Ted
"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez,net > wrote in message
news:6c73cnF3ev8lfU1@mid.individual,net ...
> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> > "Road Runner" <cfrancis36@cogeco.nospam.ca> writes:
> >
> >> Most hybrid vehicles recharge the batteries by way of regenerative
braking,
> >> making use of the electric motor as a generator to recharge the
batteries
> >> and slow down the vehicle instead of using the brakes and wasting the
energy
> >> to generate heat. Hybrid cars are most efficient and economical in city
stop
> >> and go driving, the gas engine hardly ever runs, batteries stay charged
and
> >> brakes last forever.
> >
> > And the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed, apparently.
>
> You undoubtedly are referring to the unavoidable percentage losses every
> time energy is shuttled from one form to another, Joe. The proponents
> would argue that recovering 25, or 40%, or whatever the number is, of
> otherwise wasted energy is better than throwing it all away as heat into
> the brakes.
>
> But I share some of your skepticism, and have stated on this ng before
> that I can't help but feel that if you take the same under-powered
> gasoline engine they use in the hybrid and put it in the same car
> without all the controls complexity and added weight of batteries and
> motor/generators that you wouldn't achieve similar mpg simply because
> that gasoline motor is small and optimized for efficiency. The only
> "extra" you would then get out of the batteries and motor/generators (in
> spite of their added mass) is acceleration levels when needed that that
> underpowered gasoline engine can't provide on its own.
>
> IOW (with the exception of the acceleration issue) the batteries and
> motor/generators are possibly nothing but smoke and mirrors - someone
> should do an experiment and strip all that excess baggage (mass and
> complexity) out and see how the car does for mpg with nothing but the
> same gasoline engine powering it.
>
Bill, there's 2 tricks here that comprise the primary smoke and
mirrors:
1) IF the ICE is designed as a constant speed engine (most hybrid
designs are not) then a LOT of efficiency can be picked up from the
use of tuned intake and exhaust runners and headers. For that matter
they really ought to pull the old 2-stroke designs out of the closet
since when those engines are run at their tuned RPM they are -very-
efficient and non-polluting. Generators, also, are much more efficient
when run at a constant rpm.
The gains at running the ICE at a constant RPM outweigh the conversion
losses.
2) City driving is almost always 35Mph or under, thus wind resistance
is almost negligible. Imagine for a moment if the EPA ran it's MPG tests
at 30Mph instead of 55 or 60Mph. It would add at least 10 mpg to
every vehicle out there probably much more.
There are hypermilers who have worked out really impressive MPG gains
in city driving with regular cars by using the engine as a brake whenever
possible and hardly touching their regular brakes.
Of course, if all city drivers did the kind of driving that a city-running
hypermiler did, cities would be hopelessly gridlocked.
Ted
