There are other things in the photos too.. in behind the challenger, there looks to be a mockup in 1:1 of a hatchback.
not this photo of course, there are more photos in this series.
wouldn't be the first time chrysler has put photos out with upcoming stuff in full view.
One time at the chrysler museum there was a preproduction sketch of a small car (believe it was the demon).. one of the engineers questioned the staff as to why this unreleased drawing was on the floor.. needless to say it quickly disappeared.
I'll believe it when i see a real version. That's still a rendering as far as I can tell. You know, Im pretty good in AutoCad and Solidworks as well. Therefore I say "SHOW IT TO ME CHRSYLER" Let me have to put my foot in my mouth, Show me your not dead yet
@djthekidd: It was real, and it actually made it to some cars. I swear I recall seeing one about 15 years ago, but I seem to remember the owner was exceedingly proud of it, so I got the impression there were very few of them that actually got installed in cars.
@Deartháir celebrates Anti-Pants Day: Having worked very closely as a consultant with Daimler senior management in the past, I can tell you GasGuzzler's version of reality is much more accurate than yours.
@Ben Wojdyla: Yes, yes, I'm aware of that, it was an obligatory Chrysler cheap-shot.
In Daimler's defense, I think their strategy was a valid long-term approach. The major flaw was that it was a terrible short-term strategy for making Chrysler a valid series of brands. Over the course of 20+ years, that strategy would probably have worked extremely well for creating, in Chrysler, a series of affordable, economical luxury cars. In essence, it's exactly what Volkswagen has been doing since, what 1980? And they've ramped it up exponentially as they've acquired more brands. Technology starts in Bugatti, moves to Bentley or Lamborghini, then to Audi, then to Volkswagen, then to Seat, then to Skoda, then to Latin America and/or China, then to Ford. (Obligatory cheap-shot again.)
I think the major issue was exactly that cognitive dissonance. Chrysler, when Daimler took over, needed a real injection of life, and they needed it then and there. Daimler was insisting on a long-term strategy that wasn't helping in the short-term. So, instead of fixing the problem, they asked for trust that all would be better in 20 years. Chrysler just didn't HAVE 20 years to wait.
@Deartháir celebrates Anti-Pants Day: Nice try, but no matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney! Daimler Benz ripped off Chrysler's car designers in this merger of equals. The strategy was purely divide and conquer and rip off some more!
@Dollarbill4 - Now with 50% more Jay Cutler: No argument here. Again, just because I take cheapshots at the Domestics doesn't mean I'm actually saying the Germans are great and the Domestics are crap. But set aside your latent bitterness for a second, and look at it from the perspective of building a valid competitor to Volkswagen, using a similar approach. In that strategy, R&D goes to the highest-end brands, and then trickles down to all other brands. Using their approach, it would be Maybach -> Mercedes -> Chrysler -> Dodge. So simply put, it's not "ripping off" the designers, it's reallocating them where they belong.
As I said, the problem is that there was no short-term strategy to make Chrysler viable until the full strategy could be implemented.
05/11/09
05/11/09
Shocking!
05/11/09
05/11/09
*(nod to OldeEnglishD)
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
not this photo of course, there are more photos in this series.
wouldn't be the first time chrysler has put photos out with upcoming stuff in full view.
One time at the chrysler museum there was a preproduction sketch of a small car (believe it was the demon).. one of the engineers questioned the staff as to why this unreleased drawing was on the floor.. needless to say it quickly disappeared.
05/11/09
Where might that be?
05/11/09
[www.autoblog.com]
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
04/08/09
04/08/09
They finally go away from the daimler corporate switch gear that never worked well.
Radio controls on back of steering wheel
Cruise Control on front of steering wheel - not the stupid poney pecker at 1
04/08/09
Also, what is this pony pecker at 11 of which you speak? (Braces for NSFW responses).
04/08/09
04/08/09
04/08/09
04/08/09
04/08/09
04/08/09
04/08/09
[www.imperialclub.com]
04/08/09
04/08/09
04/08/09
"NOW! With LARGER touchscreen! And look! More soft surfaces! And a bigger steering wheel!"
04/08/09
Looks hot, it's amazing what happens when you don't have a bunch of Germans telling you your brand isn't allowed to build nice cars.
04/08/09
/Fixed that for ya.
04/08/09
04/08/09
In Daimler's defense, I think their strategy was a valid long-term approach. The major flaw was that it was a terrible short-term strategy for making Chrysler a valid series of brands. Over the course of 20+ years, that strategy would probably have worked extremely well for creating, in Chrysler, a series of affordable, economical luxury cars. In essence, it's exactly what Volkswagen has been doing since, what 1980? And they've ramped it up exponentially as they've acquired more brands. Technology starts in Bugatti, moves to Bentley or Lamborghini, then to Audi, then to Volkswagen, then to Seat, then to Skoda, then to Latin America and/or China, then to Ford. (Obligatory cheap-shot again.)
I think the major issue was exactly that cognitive dissonance. Chrysler, when Daimler took over, needed a real injection of life, and they needed it then and there. Daimler was insisting on a long-term strategy that wasn't helping in the short-term. So, instead of fixing the problem, they asked for trust that all would be better in 20 years. Chrysler just didn't HAVE 20 years to wait.
04/08/09
04/08/09
As I said, the problem is that there was no short-term strategy to make Chrysler viable until the full strategy could be implemented.
04/08/09
02/26/09
02/26/09