Originally Posted by seth
Probably get flamed, but I think you are all missing the point of the article. The fact is very few people can afford the current fuel costs that present themselves everyday. If I was running Chrysler I would have killed any halo car and establish myself as the provider of quality, design, fun and high mileage.
The fact is as I was once told by a very, very senior marketing executive at P&G, my customer is an avg family of 4 that makes 48k. That is the target audience for Chrysler as well. They need to sell cars that people can drive for high mileage that look good.
Whether you think a car company should build fuel efficient cars has nothing to do with your political leanings and it gets a little tiring of every time someone makes a suggestion that gee, maybe we shouldn't be building 13mpg cars when we lose 2b a year.
Now with that said, I am one of those lefty, don't think we should drill offshore, card carrying aclu members. I also own a srt-10 and have two chally's on order. Don't confuse smart business with anything else.
The only thing factual about this article is that Chrysler could not have foreseen the dramatic increase in gas prices. The author is engaging in pure speculation that "Nardelli and company" likely regret going forward with the Challenger. The decision to move from concept to production was based on very strong and positive consumer response. Early sales indicate that the interest is still high. No, Chrysler will not survive based solely on sales of the Challenger, but neither will Mercedes on sales of the SL55, S500 and S600 or BMW on sales of its 6 and 7 series. Nonetheless all of these cars are viewed as an important mix of their respective product lines.
Chrysler will make good money on the SRT, but will rely on the R/T and increasingly the SE for volume. I predict the full Challenger line will be one of the largest selling car lines Chrysler/Dodge has had in a long time. And, as one other poster said, the Challenger will undoubtedly increase customer traffic at dealerships where they can see cars that they had not previously considered, i.e. smart business.
The two next to last sentences in your post pretty much sum up the characteristics of the far left. They are hypocritical, arrogant and have the view that "we know what's best for all you common people." Hypocritical: We shouldn't drill additional offshore or ANWR oil reserves, thus insuring continuing high and increasing fuel prices, but it's OK if I own a SRT-10 and have two Chally's on order; Of course you think this is OK because obviously you can both afford the cars and the gas to go in them. But, heaven forbid if the U.S. does anything to cut fuel prices so a larger segment of the population can also enjoy these cars. Arrogant: the left knows what's best for all you people; there should be no additional drilling and gas prices should continue to increase so you will be forced into "green," non-descript, econo-boxes...of course the left is just looking out for all you unsophisticated commoners.
I agree that additional off-shore drilling and ANWR drilling will not end the dependence of the U.S. on foreign source oil, but it will reduce the dependency. As for the left's argument that "it will take ten years to realize any benefit from additional drilling," that's just silly. If you wait another year from now it will be eleven years, then fifteen, then twenty and ultimately never. That's smart, let's never use those oil reserves or wait until we find ourselves in a crisis.
In addition to my belief that the U.S. should engage in as much oil exploration and production as possible, I also believe that efforts to develop alternative energy sources such as solar, wind, hybrid, flex-fuel and bio-diesel should be accelerated.
With all of this said, I am right of center, believe the government should stop adopting policies that restrict the ability of all persons to make decisions for themselves, despise the ACLU and have a Challenger SRT on order.
