Special Car, auto, cars, vehicles

Hah. Serves Bob Nardelli right.

Chrysler Chairman Nardelli told Lebeau (good on him for the scoop, by the way) that plans for one of those electrics/extended-range electrics to make Main Street by 2010 should prove that Mopar does, indeed, have new product coming and that it's relevant, 21st-century product at that. Not just retro Paleolithic Dodge Challengers. This is the message that mainstream media are culling from Chrysler's announcement -- that Detroit's number-three will live past the death of the internal-combustion engine.

"I didn't think they were a player," Jim Hossack of AutoPacific told the Los Angeles Times. "I'm impressed. This suggests a lot of bravado." It also suggests, though I haven't heard anyone else suggest it yet, that proof of relevant future product will help Cerberus, the three-headed private equity firm from hell, get its much-needed infusion of private equity to bolster Chrysler. And indeed, news of the electric-car program was followed with news that Daimler is ready to sell its remaining 19.9% of Chrysler to Cerberus. Meanwhile, Chrysler is trying to return to its roots as the engineer's car company, the innovator. Think of the Lotus-Dodge Tesla-fighter as makeup for Chrysler's backing down and turning what was supposed to be its production turbine car into the conventional '66 Dodge Charger.

And it suggests that Chrysler wants the investment world (which consists mostly of China and India these days) to know that it will be a viable car company in 2011, '12, and beyond. A worthy investment for someone from the economic power formerly known as the Third World. Someone, call Phil Lebeau and tell him I've got an investment tip.

What? No mention of the Chrysler Sebring and Dodge Avenger?

Nardelli's canned press statement almost sounds like "left to pursue other interests"-type spin. "We thank him for his contributions to the company and wish him well in his retirement." Rumors out of Auburn Hills for months have intimated that ex-design chief Tom Gale has been lurking about the Chrysler design studio, breathing down Creed's neck. Cerberus long ago acknowledged Gale as a consultant to Chrysler's new owners. And, of course, Gale's son is credited with the exterior design of the production Dodge Challenger.

To set the record straight, it must be said that we in automotive punditry give too much design credit to one man or woman, when in fact a whole group of designers contribute to the success or failure of any given car or truck. Creed's job was to pick the winning design of a model and sell it to management. He got the top job at Chrysler after DaimlerChrysler had approved the 300 under Gale's design leadership. The first cars approved on Creed's watch were the Dodge Magnum, Chrysler 300C Touring (for the European market), and Dodge Charger. Englishman Creed certainly brought a European sensibility to Chrysler and wanted to sell Americans on the idea that a hatchback or wagon could be more elegant than a sedan.

It's also common knowledge that Creed did not get along with Freeman Thomas, the forward-thinking, if somewhat eccentric designer, who penned the Dodge Super 8 rear-drive sedan concept that lead to the 300/Magnum/Charger and who quickly left for Ford after Creed replaced Gale.

Ralph Gilles, 38, another of the many fathers of the 300's design, takes over for Creed. It's a good move, even if Gilles also has been in on Chrysler's recent design disasters, including January's disappointing Detroit show concepts. During his tenure as design chief, Creed has been more a politician than anything else, and it's possible Gilles will fill those same shoes.

Gilles understands the criticism of Chrysler's recent efforts and doesn't take it personally. He said at a Chrysler concept drive a year ago that I could expect to be pleasantly surprised with the '09 Dodge Ram, and he was right (of course, you can't make a hatchback out of a pickup). Four months later, that truck was by far the highlight of Chrysler's Detroit show stand. Let's hope it represents the shape of things to come and that this latest personnel change means a new renaissance for Chrysler design.

The last three specials to be introduced at the Woodward Dream Cruise were "Street Cruisers" designed to commemorate various hallowed byways, like Route 66 (2006), Pacific Coast Highway (2007), and Sunset Boulevard (2008). But this year's model is simply dubbed the Dream Cruiser Series 5, picking up the numbering scheme that left off in 2005.

Unique paint schemes are a hallmark of these specials, and the Series 5 is resplendent in two-tone Midnight White Pearl Coat (the brightest white ever offered on the PT), with a Brilliant Black Crystal Pearl roof panel and rear spoiler. The blackout top serves to visually widen and lower the car's stance and looks sharp with the deep-tint rear windows. Body-color foglamp sockets and chromed accent moldings, handles, badging, and exhaust tip further decorate the Series 5.

The most impressive feature, however, is the chromed billet aluminum grillework in front, which Chrysler VP Larry Lyons describes as "the industry's most substantial grille." The main radiator grille and those below the bumper start out as flat, 3/8-in.-thick aluminum, from which the diamond-pattern holes are machined before being bent to shape and chromed. It feels as strong as any grille this side of a Viking range.

The Pastel Slate Gray interior is accented with Brilliant Black dash panels and black "Momentum" fabric seats. This new material has the slightly shiny look of ballistic nylon or a wetsuit, and its seams are embossed, not sewn, for greater design flexibility. There are numerous chrome accents, plus special floormats and doorsill plates.

Production of an anticipated run of 1750 cars begins in October, with pricing at $22,700 for the naturally aspirated 150-hp, 2.4L, and $23,980 for the turbo, which produces 180 hp on regular gas. Relative to a Touring-level PT Cruiser, that's a $2245 more for the base engine, $1620 more comparing turbos.

In case you were wondering about the previous customs, the 2009 Chrysler PT Dream Cruiser Series 5 joins the Flames, Woodie, PT Dream Cruiser Series 1, 2, 3 and 4, PT Turbo and Chrome Accents models, the Chrysler PT Cruiser Convertible, the refreshed 2006 Chrysler PT Cruiser, the Chrysler PT Street Cruiser Route 66, Street Cruiser Pacific Coast Highway Edition and Street Cruiser Sunset Boulevard Editions.

The timing made me wonder what was underneath the story; has Chrysler China chairman Phil Murtaugh signed some sort of deal to sell off part or all of the automaker? The answer (so far) is an emphatic "no."

Still, you also have to wonder how Murtaugh chose to do business with Great Wall, Chrysler's third Chinese partner. Its second was Chery, the company that's supposed to build its A1 minicar for sale as a Dodge in emerging countries, although the original promise seemed to be that Chery would build small Chryslers, maybe even the Dodge Hornet, for the world. But the Chery deal has been a headache for Chrysler from the start and has suffered many delays. What's more, what Chery is building for Chrysler is the export version of its QQ3, the car that General Motors says is too close a copy of its own Chinese-built Chevrolet Spark (itself based on GM-owned Daewoo's Matiz).

Great Wall's products don't look that much better, although it builds engines under license from Mitsubishi (the Pentastar and Diamond-star, together again?) for use in its Hover crossover ("Unlimited Almightiness & Freedom"), based on the Outlander, and Hover tt ("Fashionable and Personal"), a stretch-limo Hover/Outlander (pictured) powered by a Mitsu 2.4L four and featuring a 15-in. LED TV and "anti-dizzy interior mirror." The Great Wall Gwperi ("Enjoy Delicate Life"), on the other hand, doesn't appear to have any official connection to Renault, although it looks like that maker's Modus.

So prima facie, it's hard to imagine what Chrysler could get out of this deal other than a chance to sell its cars in Great Wall dealerships. After all, Chery still is its manufacturer in China, right? Beijing Automotive Industry Holding Company has been building Jeeps in China since the AMC days (making it Chrysler's first deal there), but Jeeps haven't caught on like Buicks. Maybe V-6 Chrysler 300s or even Sebrings can compete with Buick Park Avenues and Centurys (LaCrosse) there. Chrysler desperately needs to become global and right now, the path to globalism is easier to find in developing countries than in Europe.

What's more, the manufacturing deal with Chery is going nowhere fast. It turns out that, yes, Chery is rebadging its A1 for export as the Dodge Breeze, but Chrysler will limit sale of that car to South American markets, the Web site chinacarnews.com reported last week. The Chery hookup happened under DaimlerChrysler, long before Murtaugh joined Chrysler. The South American Dodge Breeze looks like a quick way to conclude the deal, and its new partnership with Great Wall looks like Murtaugh sees more to that company than Hovers and Gwperis.

The Jeep Toledo South plant needs just 13.57 employee-hours to assemble a vehicle, a significant margin over the second-place Oshawa, Ontario, Chevy Impala/Monte Carlo plant (15.18 hours) and third-place Oshawa Pontiac Grand Prix/Buick LaCrosse plant (16.17 hours). Belvidere, Illinois, was fourth, needing 17.09 hours to assemble Dodge Caliber/Jeep Compass/Patriot, and GM's CAMI plant in Ontario was fifth. It needs 17.59 hours to assemble a Chevy Equinox, Pontiac Torrent, or Suzuki XL-7. Note that Nissan, which for several years had the most efficient plants in North America, and Honda, declined to participate in this year's study, though Harbour extrapolated estimates from available information. Hyundai was added to the list for the first time.

When Harbour adds up all the man-hours it takes to build a car or truck, including stamping, assembly, engine and transmission manufacture, Hyundai was seventh of seven majors, at 35.1 hours per vehicle in North America. Ford Motor Company was sixth, at 33.88 hours, a 3.7-percent improvement over last year, Nissan was fifth, at an estimated 32.96 hours, or 8.8 percent more time than the previous year, and GM was fourth, at 32.29 hours, a 0.2-percent improvement. Honda was third, at 31.33 hours, a 2.3-percent improvement.

Chrysler was 7.7-percent more efficient than the previous year and Toyota got 1.5-percent less efficient, to tie at 30.37 hours, average, to make a new vehicle in North America. Harbour got Chrysler's numbers late last year, before it was taken private. Chrysler and Dodge divisions were not much better with quality, according to the J.D. Power study. Chrysler was 29th, with 142 problems per 100, and Dodge was 28th, with 141. Toyota was fifth, with 104.

You can learn much about an automaker's profitability by looking at its capacity utilization. Chrysler's factories run from 46 percent of capacity to 126 percent of capacity, with an overall rate of 88 percent. Key to an automaker's efficiency is plant flexibility, which allows an automaker to fill that 46-percent plant's truck capacity with small cars, for instance, and also saving from paying costly overtime to run third shifts and weekends on a 126-percent-capacity compact car plant.

Ford averages 84 percent, with a range of 47- to 129-percent. GM averages 88 percent, with a 44- to 147-percent range. Honda runs from 62- to 100-percent and averages 97 percent. Nissan runs from 72- to 92-percent, averaging 80 percent.

And Toyota's range is 92- to 107-percent, with its plants running at an astonishing 100-percent overall capacity. You can't get more cost-efficient than that.

For the most part, though, Harbour sees better times ahead for North American production, for American and foreign-brand cars.

"We've seen more improvement in the last five years than in the previous 15," Harbour says. His company now is part of Munich-based Oliver Wyman and has branched out with surveys of automotive plants in Europe and South America. The surprise here is what Harbour calls the "bright story": Fiat.

He's also bullish on how the Detroit Three will do with the bloody, brutal shift from big trucks and SUVs to small cars. GM, Ford, and Chrysler always have struggled to make any money on small cars, while Toyota and other Asian automakers excel at it.

Harbour's forecast for labor cost per vehicle is as optimistic about the Detroit Three as Harbour is about Italy's Fiat. Calculate Motown's efficiency and productivity gains along with labor costs that last year's United Auto Worker contracts will save, and Toyota, Nissan and Honda go from a $606 per-vehicle advantage over GM, Ford, and Chrysler in 2007 to just $97 by 2011. That's the best news you'll read about the domestic auto industry for the next three years.

To buy a copy of The Harbour Report, click here.

Other than the 300, the Chrysler brand's current lineup and resources aren't so deep. Let's revew: Crossfire -- on its way out. Pacifica -- following the Crossfire out the door (too bad, because the updated, 4.0-liter Pacifica was finally a well done piece, just as crossovers are hitting stride). PT Cruiser -- cool, but aged (worth replacing or not?). Sebring sedan -- DOA, except at rental lots. Aspen -- chrome-plated Dodge (although Ford and GM use the same strategy for creating the Navigator and Escalade). Sebring convertible -- okay, this one has a niche and a following. Ditto the Town & Country minivan. But still, not a roster on which to build a future

Now, look at Mazda. The Mazda3 is leader in its category. The new Mazda6 also looks like a top-level player. Mazda has not one, but two, fresh, great looking, sporty driving crossovers; the CX-7 for the two-row market, and the CX-9 -- our 2008 Sport/Utility of the Year -- for the three-row crowd. Let's not forget two significant sports cars, the MX-5 Miata and the RX-8, both of which have carved out their own niches and have loyal followings. Sure, there's a little semi-dead wood in there, such as the Tribute and the Ford Ranger-based B3000. I can't believe the Mazda5 is moving any big meters, either. But Mazda wouldn't stock or support any of them if they didn't sell in some quantity, making money for the company and its dealers.

Everyone knows Mazda is joined at the hip with Ford. But the Mazda folks know when to leverage this connection (the current-gen Mazda6 shares much with the Fusion/Milan/MKZ, and Mazda gets the B3000 and Tribute directly from Ford) and when to do its own thing (the sports cars, CX-7 chassis architecture). The brand brings sporty, interesting products to market, taking advantage of economies of global platform opportunities when they make sense, without resorting to cookie-cutters (other than the few low-volume, low-risk products I mentioned above). It's also important to note that Mazda makes a profit, another key to long-term happiness in business.

Chrysler needs to do the same kinds of things. Keep the 300, Sebring convertible, and Town & Country as the hearts of the brand. Then do an Accord-Sonata-Malibu class high-volume sedan that has expressive design (how about something that doesn't look like a platypus this time...), world class quality, and at least one green powertrain. Do up a world-class crossover. Then take another crack at the Crossfire, but get the execution right for the American market.

The next round of Chryslers need to deliver consistent quality, be great to drive, and convey strong sporty/elegant/American brand messages. Mazda doesn't try to play in every automotive segment, nor does it need to. Chrysler doesn't, either, because it has Dodge and Jeep to fill in brand-appropriate blanks.

Mazda's formula is working. A similar one could work for Chrysler. What do you think?

Say what?

Yep. Valiant Charger. As some of you know, I grew up in Australia, where GM, Ford, and Chrysler all made cars in the 1960s and '70s. When the musclecar war erupted here in the States, a second front opened Down Under, with hot Holdens, Falcons, and Valiants duking it out for bragging rights.

1971 was a vintage year for Aussie muscle. You could buy a Holden Monaro coupe powered by the immortal Chevy 350 small-block. The Ford Falcon GTHO Phase Three had a 351 Cleveland under the hood, complete with shaker (Torino GT base and Mustang scoop), Mustang decklid wing, and optional 15-in. alloy wheels. It would run 142 mph, making it one of the fastest four-doors in the world at the time.

Chrysler was a little late to the musclecar party, and its Valiant Charger was a unique take on the genre. The Charger was built on a shorter wheelbase than the regular Valiant sedan, and the hi-po R/T versions only had a straight-six under the hood, albeit an Australian developed 4.3L straight-six (I think the basic architecture came from a Dodge truck design) with hemispherical combustion chambers. But its aggressive styling, particularly the coupe sail panels and distinctive Kamm-tail made it the looker of the bunch.

There were R/Ts and there were R/Ts. As in Detroit, you had to play the option game. The regular R/T Chargers had a single four-barrel. But if you ticked the box marked E37 or E38 on your order form, you got the Six Pack engine, which featured three monster 45 DCOE sidedraft Weber carburetors bolted to the intake ports. There were other changes: forged alloy rods, bigger valves, trick headers, higher compression ratio, baffled oil pan, and a wilder cam.

The E38 was the race-face version. Compression ratio was 10:1, the rods were shot-peened, and the valve overlap was a rumpety-rump 48 degrees. In E38 guise the big hemi six made 280 hp at 5000 rpm and 318 lb-ft of torque at 3700 rpm. It also came with the Competition Package, which included alloy wheels, limited slip diff, and a giant fuel tank with fillers on each sail panel.

My R/T was an E37. It had a milder cam (30 degrees of valve overlap) and a lower compression ratio (9.7:1). Output was 248 hp at 4800 rpm, with 306 lb-ft of torque at 3400 rpm. I also missed out on the Competition Package goodies: My car had styled steel wheels, a smaller gas tank with a single filler at the rear (straight out of the Chrysler U.S. parts pin), and a standard diff. I didn't mind too much. It was still a pretty cool ride for a 19-year-old.

I had come out of a year in military college at the end of 1976 and was looking to trade up from my 1968 Mini. I had a steady job (at a company that made steel tubing, of all things), and I was living at home. So I had money in my pocket and a desire to buy something fast. My uncle worked at Chrysler's Australian factory in Adelaide, and my dad -- a mechanic -- has always liked the way the early Valiants seemed a cut above their Holden and Ford counterparts. So naturally I was drawn to a Charger.

Dad and I must have checked out a dozen tatty, hard-driven Charger R/Ts -- including some E38s -- before we found this immaculate fire-orange E37. It belonged to a Greek guy who'd been given it as a wedding present by his father-in-law. Judging by the look of his wife, he earned it. The car had done just 35,000 miles. I ponied up $3500 and drove it away.

This car had never been driven hard in its life. I thought I'd blown it up later that night when I looked in the rearview mirror and saw clouds of smoke from the dual exhaust. It was only years of soft carbon accumulation burning off. Dad had never even seen a Weber carburetor until we got this thing home, and they had a horrendous reputation for being difficult to tune among shade-tree mechanics. Fortunately, the car came complete with a Six Pack engine manual that showed exactly how to tune these famous Italian carbs. Once he figured them out, Dad found the Webers straightforward to work on; the Charger ran like a sweetheart the whole time I had it.

I owned the Charger for a year, and loved it. It was loud and it was fast, even though it only had a three-speed stick shift (the 300-hp E49 Charger, launched in 1972, finally got the four-speed the car deserved). I put in stiffer shocks and a beefier front stabilizer bar and put a second bar on the rear axle. The stock steering wheel was changed for a smaller-diameter sports item.

I sold the Charger to buy a Mitsubishi Lancer. The gas mileage -- 9 mpg around town and 13 mpg on a good day -- meant I was spending a sizeable portion of my income on gas. And I was becoming interested in the idea of driving sideways down dirt tracks in a rally car. I can't remember how much I sold it for, but I do remember wondering whether I'd done the right thing.

I only ever saw it once after that, parked on a side street. The rear quarter panel had argued with a tree -- and lost. (Yep, the old girl sure oversteered when you gave her a bootful.) My once treasured Charger looked beat up and unloved, and it broke my heart. More than once over the years, as Australian musclecars have become more collectible, I've wished I'd never sold it. At least I still have the Six Pack manual.

So that's my one that got away. What's yours?