Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Can Chrysler Turn It Around in Bankruptcy?
464 messages, Last post on Oct 02, 2009 at 2:05 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: myershift (Oct 16, 2008 12:18 pm) 
|
|
|
|
|
"I hate sounding stupid,but..." You ask a logical question. Here's my understanding of "cab forward": It's a term, although not necessarily a concept applied by Chrysler Corp. to the design of its all-new '93 Chrysler Concord, Eagle Vision, and Dodge Intrepid front wheel drive large cars. In contrast to a relatively long hood and short rear deck design, or a normal length hood and rear deck, the cab forward design attempted to maximize passenger space, especially, and also trunk space, by featuring a relatively short hood and a steeply sloping windshield. I believe another feature of this design was to make track wider, relative to the width of the car. Chrysler's cab forward '93 cars were notably larger and, arguably sleeker than previous ground breaking FWD designs, such as the first and second generation ('87-'91 and '92-'95) Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable I think the use of the cab forward term had as much to do with marketing as with configuration, because one could argue that the Honda Accords and Civics of the mid-late '80s and early '90s featured similar design language, but Honda didn't employ the cab forward term to their styling. For all the many quality issues that plagued the domestic models of the '80s and '90s, many featured innovative styling (eg. GM's '85 large bodies, Ford's '83 T-bird and '87 Taurus, and Chrysler's Cab Forward and '95 "Cloud Cars" [Chrysler Cirrus and Dodge Stratus]).
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Oct 18, 2008 6:18 am) boomchek, "Mystery car pix...." #18463, 27 Sep 2008 12:54 pm |
|
|
|
|
I would add that I believe that "cab forward" was an attempt by Chrysler to transform itself from a manufacturer of stodgy K-cars and K-derivatives to a styling leader. After all, it had tried this three times before; in the '30s with the Airflow, in '55 with its "Forward Look" cars, and in '57, with its dramatically new fin-themed cars. Remember, the '93 cab forward, and '95 cloud cars and Neon were conceived when Lee Iacocca and Bob Lutz managed the company, and these guys were not averse to risk. Ahh, if only the quality and reliability of Chrysler's cab forward cars was as good as the styling...
|
|
|
|
|
Chrysler is laying off 25% of its salaried workforce by the end of the year? That's not far off. Maybe pretty soon the whole company will just disappear - POOF! On the bright side, I guess they have all the bidders they want in the sale of the Viper program.
|
|
My Jeep Liberty just had a major engine problem. This does not appear to be isolated to only Jeeps engines. My Jeep had 82K miles. Dealership stated valve seat came loose putting a hole in the piston. This has been reported in ALLDATA reports recently yet the word is not getting out to the general public. A reliable friend of mine said carbon built up can't cause the resulting damage and there is a major manufacture flaw in the material they used. The resulting hole in the piston is a defect in the metal. There appears to be a trend here and the manufacturer is not saying anthing including a recall notice. Has anybody else had any Jeep engiines vakve replaced or major engine repairs. We only discovered this by demanding to see and take photos of the resulting problems and it was evident it was a manufacturer defect.
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Oct 24, 2008 5:01 pm) Finding partners or trying to figure out how to run the company more cost effectively would be logical steps if this were 2006, but it is too late now. My hunch is that we'll know a lot more by the North American International Auto Show. |
|
|
Replying to: krecker (Oct 26, 2008 5:32 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Oct 18, 2008 6:56 am) I was always impressed with the amount of legroom that the Neon had in it. However, the first-gen model was on a 104" wheelbase, and 105" for the second. Just for comparison, some midsized cars were in range of that. The Chevy Celebrity was 104.9". The "small" Ford LTD/Mercury Grand Marquis was 105.6". And Mopar's own Dodge Dynasty/Chrysler New Yorker was only 104.3". The older Dodge 600/Chrysler E-class/New Yorker/Plymouth Caravelle, also a fairly roomy car, was only 103.3"! I think the first Ford Taurus was around 106". Similarly, the Dodge Stratus/Chrysler Sebring/et al sedans were decently roomy. I think their wheelbase was around 108". My old 1980 Malibu, with a 108.1" wheelbase, was about as roomy inside, and it was a coupe. The sedan was a bit roomier. My 2000 Intrepid's wheelbase is 113". That car replaced a 1989 Gran Fury I had, a box on wheels if ever there was one. The Gran Fury dated back to the 1976 Volare, wasn't exactly the ultimate in space efficiency (decent for 1976, but NOT 1989!), and rode a 112.7" wheelbase, yet I swear it was roomier inside than the Intrepid. Maybe a little tighter in the back, but it more than made up for it up front! The only thing I really hated about that Gran Fury was the steering wheel location. Too close to my chest. And it had an airbag, so I'd hate to think of some little old 5'2" lady driving one and getting into an accident! It's kinda funny how Chrysler has a knack for making cars that look nice and futuristic but fall apart, or are somewhat conservative and stodgy but last forever. Too bad they couldn't strike a balance somewhere!
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Can Chrysler Turn It Around in Bankruptcy?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
