GM and Chrysler SUVs: More of the Same?
With all eyes on ailing GM and Chrysler, their main debuts at the New York International Auto Show may have offered some hints about their futures. Chrysler president Jim Press spoke in New York of “the new Chrysler,” but amid the politicized tangle of shotgun mergers and bankruptcy speculation, both Chrysler and GM chose to unveil more SUVs. Both companies have long been criticized for their truck-heavy lineups, something that left them in the bottom tier of major automakers in Cars.com’s True Mileage Index. Are models like the Jeep Grand Cherokee and GMC Terrain going to help either company get moving in the right direction?
With the Terrain, the answer may be “yes.” Experts say it’s a relevant crossover that fits in with GM’s path toward viability, not to mention GM says it should hit 30 mpg on the highway. The Grand Cherokee garnered mixed reactions: Its quality is promising, but experts are split on whether it’s the type of vehicle that can rescue Chrysler – with or without the help of Italian automaker Fiat, with whom Chrysler is looking to merge. In addition, the Cherokee has some legacy hurdles to overcome: Past models have had dubious interior quality; its most recent incarnation got Marginal safety ratings from IIHS; and it gets gas mileage that, while typical for SUVs of it size, is low compared with similar two-row crossovers.
Chrysler says the Cherokee has gotten a good reception from Fiat: Chief designer Ralph Gilles said Fiat officials “love” the SUV, which is still a “pretty significant player,” he said. “You don’t walk away from this segment.”
Jeff Schuster, vehicle forecasting director at J.D. Power and Associates, agreed. The Grand Cherokee is “extremely important,” Schuster said. “It doesn’t address the gaps in the lineup — those still need to be taken care of. But this is certainly a piece of the puzzle, to make sure they get it right.”
IHS Global Insight auto analyst Tracy Handler said the Grand Cherokee is a step in the right direction, but it’s hardly a game-changer. Case in point: With its new V-6 engine, combined EPA mileage estimates for the Grand Cherokee are 18-19 mpg, depending on whether it’s two- or four-wheel drive. That’s 1 mpg better than the old Grand Cherokee and about even with the Ford Edge. The Nissan Murano (20 mpg) and V-6 Toyota Venza (21-22 mpg) fare better. Blame curb weight: The Grand Cherokee beats its peers in off-road and maximum towing capabilities, but it weighs some 500-1,200 pounds more, depending on the version you’re looking at.
“It’s still [the] old Chrysler,” Handler said. “It’s a small evolution of the Grand Cherokee. It’s not a quantum leap. I don’t think it’s enough of a difference.”
AutoPacific analyst Stephanie Brinley said the Grand Cherokee is a “strong evolution,” adding that it moves the bar for product improvement past the company’s latest major effort, the Dodge Ram. Because it’s based on the Mercedes-Benz M-Class, Brinley said the Grand Cherokee may be a candidate for the hybrid technology Chrysler developed several years ago with Mercedes, BMW and GM. A hybrid M-Class was introduced at the New York show.
Even if Chrysler goes under, Jeep may live to see another day, Handler said. The brand has its fans, and the Grand Cherokee and Wrangler could live on under a different owner.
Over at GM’s display, the Terrain received a comparatively better reception . Like its sister SUV, the Chevy Equinox, the Terrain is projected to get a combined city/highway EPA rating of 23-24 mpg with its four-cylinder engine. That compares well with the four-cylinder Toyota RAV4 (24 mpg), Nissan Rogue (23-24 mpg), Honda CR-V (22-23 mpg) and four-cylinder Ford Escape (21-24 mpg).
“By themselves, it’s difficult to have a single vehicle be a game-changer,” Schuster said. You have “pieces of a solution, and that’s what you really got here. The Terrain is one of those, certainly taking advantage of the growing interest in the crossover vehicle.”
The well-publicized troubles at GM and Chrysler could keep buyers away from both the Grand Cherokee and Terrain, though. If and when these problems clear, it may take time for consumers to drift back to the brands, Brinley said.
Still, Schuster said the Terrain and Grand Cherokee show that their companies are headed in the right direction – and given that vehicle development can take years, lineups usually evolve slowly.
“It’s probably not fair to say, ‘Should they have brought this car out, or a small car or another hybrid?’” Schuster said. “You have to compare to what they’re doing with their entire lineups and programs going forward, in addition to looking at individual models.”
SUV shoppers know what they’re getting in terms of gas mileage, however. Power and capability still matter, and shoppers are willing to compromise on fuel efficiency toward those ends, Brinley said.
"People want fuel economy, but they really don't want to give up power,” she said.
Mike Hanley contributed to this report.
Previous
Subscribe to our feed
Email us your tips!
The bottom line is neither company can produce a class leading car so they stick with trucks. It's no coincidence that these same two companies are on the verge of bankruptcy. Toyota and Honda run circles around them all day long.
Brian;
Well said. I like how how you offered zero evidence to support your dubious position. In the 90s Nissan and MAzda almost went bankrupt. Did that mean they made crappy cars? No. Both were rescused by foreign automakers and are far healthier today.
No one vehicle will save either of these companies. This entire premise of "why would they introduce these SUVS now?" is ridiculous. When you have new product you put it on display. Chrysler was not going to abandon a nearly fully developed JGC just because SOME Americans hate SUVs now. Where are all these people who want nothing but fuel efficient cars? Aren't 19mpg crossovers still selling? Aren't pickups still selling? Arent inefficient models from luxury automakers still selling? The point of a new model is to offer more than its predecessory and raise the bar. The Terrain has no GMC predecessor but it raises the bar over the Torrent significantly.
If I had a penny (not a nickle) for every domestic vs. import comment that has nothing to do with the post at hand I could buy myself that Infiniti G37 I'm testing right now.
Just why can't we have the Cruze now? What is GM thinking?
I'm glad to see American Car Companies making some changes in the right direction. Especially GM with it's new Terrain. It's MPG is very good and the styling will appeal to the GMC enthusiasts. I'm not to enthralled by the looks of the JGC but in agreement with Sheth if Chrysler has worked hard on the project why abondon it now. I feel they (Chrysler) needs to put it out there and hope it sticks. Former JGC owners may actually welome the new one esp since the new seems to adress some of pervious JGC interior quality problems.
That is probably true Dave, but if it were Shet that was paying, he would be in the hole $20,000.
OK, lets get this straight it takes how long to develop cars? Try +3 years, well before anyone knew of the fuel crisis, well before the credit crisis, and well before this recession. The simple facts are that vehicles launching next year were developed prior to current circumstances, try to get your head out of the sand and put some perspective in your stories!
There is still a market for SUV's, and they make money for the manufacturers (Toyota/Honda/Nissan all make big SUV's too, are they inept too?).
And BTW Toyota/Honda/Nissan are losing money in this vicious worldwide recession as well. So no, the domestics are far from perfect but they were selling and developing cars Americans wanted to buy!
In the middle of every difficulty lies opportunity – A. Einstein
Belly:
I cant even begin to pretend I understand what you are talking about. Since you cant even spell my name correctly I guess I shouldn't expect much from you.
Dave:
When you post stories questioning the intelligence of GM/Chrysler showing new vehicles that have been in development for 4 years you are bound to get domestic bashing. What would you expect? The premise of the article is to question the timing of these vehicles since they supposedly send the "wrong" message. I didn't know creating potentially profitable vehicles was the wrong message. Perhaps they should have rolled out some money losing subcompacts that would sell for about $14k before rebates.
OS,
This whole story is to tackle exactly what you're asking. We took the question to 3rd party analysts. We didn't answer it ourselves here.
I'm sure most readers have at least enough faith in our staff that we understand development time of new products. The problem is that Chrysler is still suffering from the Daimler marriage and poor product and engine planning.
Let's take the product out of the mix. Hoe do Ford and GM have the most efficient mid-size sedans on the market and Chrysler the least?
Dave:
I agree you didn't answer the question. I was just saying you shouldn't have been surprised at the reponse it elicited. I don't see the point of the question because I think it's presumptious to assume everyone was asking that question. To people with certain views of SUVs and of what constitutes environmental friendliness it is taboo to produce or sell SUVs in this era. The problem with that view is that Americans have not embraced it yet. Americans are turning away from 13mpg V8 SUVs but they have not abandoned the look, AWD capability or space of SUVS yet. Land Rover, Acura and Mercedes certainly felt it was appropriate to debut new or updated SUVs or SAVs or whatever you call them.
"Let's take the product out of the mix. Hoe do Ford and GM have the most efficient mid-size sedans on the market and Chrysler the least?"
Excellent question for Daimler. I doubt we will ever get an answer. Chrysler actually shares it's four cylinder engine architecture with Mitsu and Hyundai so my guess is the midsize sedans get mediocre mileage due to 4 speed auto. As for V6s, Chrysler didn't really invest in a modern one while under Daimler control. The Phoenix is the engine they need and its in the JGC. The new V6 is one more reason why the JGC is a very significant product for Chrysler.
If you look at the number of crossovers/trucks and SUV's that the imports have introduced in the last 2 years it out numbers their car entries. Toyota has 8 car models and 9 truck models and the latest products are all crossover SUV's and trucks.
Roar,
The Corolla and Matrix were all new for 2009. Prius comes out next month.
Ford has four cars, five suvs/crossovers (not incl F-150)
It's a common product mix for a full size manufacturer.
Its a common mix, but considering the media's portrayal of Toyota it is interesting that they have more trucks/SUVs/crossovers than cars in their lineup. According to the mainstream media Toyota sells nothing but hybrids and compacts.
"Both companies have long been criticized for their truck-heavy lineups, something that left them in the bottom tier of major automakers in Cars.com’s True Mileage Index. "
I meant to address this since its misleading. A car company can have better overall mileage by simply not offering certain vehicles. Honda is going to rank higher because they don't make V8s or real pickups. Honda is running ads claiming its the most efficient automaker in America. Toyota is now running ads claiming they are the most efficient FULL LINE automaker in America. Soon VW will be running ads claiming they are most efficient German automaker in America. Comparing mileage of similar vehicles is much more useful than full line comparisons.
Quick check and Toyota sells 8 cars, 8 suvs/trucks and 1 minivan.
Regardless, I think we all know the MSM doesn't really have a clue on how to report the industry and focuses on what will get viewers charged up. One of our missions is to make sure we present things as clearly as possible.
The big 3 japanese brands aren't in a great spot right now either. The only automakers seemingly doing very well right now are Subaru, Hyundai/Kia and Audi.
Dave,
Not to be the spoiler, but how do you guys define as trucks, SUV, and cars?
Because from what I see on Toyota's website (Not a fan of this brand), it has 7 cars (if counting Camry Hybrid separate, plus 1 please), 2 trucks, 3 crossovers (if counting the Highlander Hybrid as a different model, add 1 to the count too), and 4 SUV.
Could you please clarify that a little more?
Dave - Why is sheth out of his hole?
Forgot to add, 1 van.
"Regardless, I think we all know the MSM doesn't really have a clue on how to report the industry and focuses on what will get viewers charged up. "
Very true.
C,
I just looked briefly at their site. I guess they put "venza" as a car and it's pretty much a camry wagon. Either way you cut it I don't think it matters much in the end.
What the article fails to mention is that these vehicles are only part of their line up being introduced. The last autoshow debut showed off Chrysler 4 electric vehicles that are on their way, and GM the Volt. Do the anti GM/Chrysler folks want every introduction to be a 4 cylinder hybrid? Keep buying your Hondas and Toyotas, watch the big 3 go under, along with suppliers, and dealers in your communities and then see what that does to your local economies, taxes, & unemployement, and housing values. Think of the big picture here.
I like this one ,from Al:
"...It's[Terrain] MPG is very good and the styling will appeal to the GMC enthusiasts. I'm not to enthralled by the looks of the JGC..."
I think, if GMC enthusiasts are the same people who purchased Aztec, yes, this is a big improvement. But to look at this croc and say that looks of JGC not enthralling... this is too much.
I see General Motors still hasn't learned their lesson. They could have made an impact with a high quality game changing car but instead they roll out the same old same old. At least they're consistent in their lack of accomplishments. When will they come crawling back for another welfare payment? I'm glad Obama is forcing them into bankruptcy. Go riddance GM.
Ah, another imfamous Cars.com import vs. domestics brawl, I see.
Politics as usual...
I think its funny that about four years ago, all of you would not have any problem with these vehicles, most notably the JGC. The only reason that GM, Chrysler and, to an extent, Ford, are in trouble, is because they had invested so heavily in SUV's. This was smart though, as up until very recently, Americans bought up large SUV's like crazy. The public taste has changed drastically in only about a year, which is much to short for any automaker to just throw out new designs.
TommyBoy:
GMC doesn't even sell cars. Any new GMC product is going to be a truck or crossover. Common sense would dictate that GM is launching more than one vehicle this year. The CTS wagon, Camaro and Lacrosse are cars. You may beg to differ. Also, it amazes me that anti SUV people are ONLY concerned about the type of vehicle but not mileage. The Terrain gets the same mileage as the Mazda 6- which is a car. Are you against the Mazda 6 as well?
My local news is reporting that GMC and Pontiac will both be eliminated under the new GM realignment plan. I'm sure Terrain sales will go through the roof...or floor that is. GM is the dumbest car company in the world.
K9:
I would say the government is pretty stupid. Killing GMC is pointless and will increase the chances of GM not being profitable. The gov wants GM killed because it represents more trucks for GM and they (Obama and Auto Team) are insisting that GM needs a future based on small, efficient vehicles.
When the Terrain was being developed GM had no idea all of this would be going on. To say otherwise is pretty stupid.