I think this is good news, if they don't screw it up. Even if it goes FWD, I don't think that would be a bad thing in a volume-selling midsize sedan. If they keep the styling of the concept, and make a half-decent interior, they will have a winner on their hands in the midsize segment, finally.
Outstanding news! Based on everything I've heard out of Auburn Hills it really sounds like Fiat is attacking Chrysler's product deficiencies quickly and logically. The 200C was a gorgeous concept, love to see a RWD premium mid-size entry to take Chrysler up market after Mercedes kicked them down into the ditch.
They MUST stick with RWD. That was the whole concept behind Daimler's effort to re-energize the brand and platforms almost 10 years ago--bring American iron back to its heyday. Switching to FWD would alienate a lot of people, even if it can be successfully done (by Acura, at least).
@abgwin: Absolutely--the ultimate net result was negative, but they were the ones who came in and said "WTF? What does it mean to be an iconic American brand?" and took it from there, resulting in 300C and Magnum on some hand-me-down E-class parts. It's not all bad.
Remember what Chrysler had in the late 90s? Not exactly noteworthy.
@Ash78: hmm, late 90s Mopar included Viper, Intrepid, 300M, industry-leading minivans. Even the first-gen Stratus was a great looking car.
Compared to same vintage Buick Century or Ford Taurus, Chrysler was doing pretty well in my opinion.
It's probably just me, but these new Lamborghinis just don't do anything for me. The original, awesome Lamborghinis such as the Miura, Countach, and Diablo were awesome spectacles of RWD sports car engineering that would just as happily kill their drivers as lap a track. They were also known to start only when it suited them, randomly quit when it suited them, and spontaneously combust at will.
Sure, they were dangerous cars. But that is what made them so cool and so interesting. It took a real man to so much as open the doors of these cars, let alone drive and master them. They were the Hemingway of sports cars. Pure, visceral, testosterone-filled exercises in existentialism.
And then they "refined" Lamborghini with the introduction of the Murcielago and Gallardo, and then VW went one step further in increasing production costs so that every wannabe Hollywood douche and Kim Kardashian could have one.
And now they release the Balboni (terrible name, btw), and potentially this, and market them as being sports cars that are "exclusive", "wild", and "dangerous"?
There is nothing especially exclusive about them. There may only be 250 of them to begin with, but that will change as soon as they start selling, at which point they will be built in even bigger volumes, to the detriment of those who initially bought them. "Wild" and "dangerous"? Sorry kids, but it takes more than a pretty face to dance and capture the imagination of pubescent boys.
What happened, Lamborghini?
You've turned into the Nordstroms of sports cars. You sell expensive stuff that you claim is wild (but isn't), and then have sale after sale, but only after you ridiculously jack up your prices, just as you release a car that is wild only compared to its much tamed contemporary brethren (but a total pushover compared to its illustrious predecessors).
@Mobius_1000_Club: Apparently it worked for a guy trying to sell a green Rover.
Besides, if I buy a Lamborghini, I want a Lamborghini. I want a car where the salesman advises me that there is a 67% chance the car won't start right away, a 58% chance that it will randomly stop running, a 32% chance that the car will try to kill me, and an 18% chance it will randomly burn itself to the ground on any given day, but there is always 100% chance of awesomeness everyday of the week and twice on Sundays.
Dammit, I want a Lamborghini
These new, post-VW ownership Lambos just don't offer that.
@pauljones: What happened to Lamborghini was a family of purists got bought out by a giant multi-national corporation who have to answer to shareholders. Every decision is tempered by that all consuming need to constantly bolster the bottom line.
Gone are the days when you could make an insane sports car in your tractor shop and bring it to market with every dime invested in making it a better car. Now it's all about safety and regulations and appealing to as wide an audience as possible rather than going after the niche enthusiasts.
Dammit pauljones! I was in a great mood before coming across your comment. Now I just want to take over the world so I can save Lambo from themselves.
@pauljones: The car you are looking for is a Koenigsegg. Or maybe a Caparo T1. A Pagani Zonda F ZR Prosciutto di Parma might also work.
Lamborghini is just far too buttoned-down these days. The company that gave the finger to Ferrari, stole BMW's money, went 180 mph on 60 Minutes, told Gandini to shove it, eschewed slushboxes (mostly), and made the Jota no longer exists.
@brandegee: Amen. Lamborghini is dead. Practicality killed it.
I think that because car making is no longer a blank instructional book that the engineers are going to write as they build their cars, but rather a book that's now filled and tells them how to do exactly what to make what component behave in exactly what way, and all for a certain price, and lasts a certain number of years. Sure it's imperfect, but it's, for all intents and purposes to us enthusiasts, too close to perfect. An engineer can no longer do something world-breaking with a car. It is no longer an art, but an exact science. And science is no fun.
What's more, it is only logical to make a car better than the one before it. And now, after decades of hooning and honing, the car is so competent, it's become painfully boring. No longer can one be excited driving down a country road, no longer does one need to stay awake and concentrated to drive to the shops, no longer is driving beyond the speed limit a death sentence to the driver and every single passenger.
It's over. Cars simply cannot be both competitive and exciting without being overwhelming (unless you are Michael Schumacher). Let's all build scramjet-powered ekranoplanes until that becomes boring.
Same ugly grille, less traveling-sales-rep body (but more Fit). Zero rear/side visibility. Oh, shit.
Since all of these, statistically, are sold in Massachusetts, where drivers don't signal before merging... she won't be able to see me, and I won't be able to see her, until she's totalled her brand new car, and she's at fault.
Something else to look forward to. (I say "she" because last I knew, men didn't drive these little crossover-things unless they were over 60.)
I'm a sixteen year old looking to get a new CR-V as my first car, and I want to modify it. I have no money, so I can only buy performance parts. I'm thinking some stickers, and a flying buttress. I saw an article on Jalopnik about front wings- do you think I should put one on my CR-V. Also, because it is a 4x4, how would a thirty inch lift and 44" Super Swampers look? Do you think they will interfere with my performance parts? (You know, the stickers and the flying buttresses)
This looks like it was copied straight from a Hot Wheels video game. If I had mad drawing skills, could I just pull a car sketch out of my butt, slap the name of a popular car model on it, and send it in to a car mag as an "insider" design? Does anybody check this stuff out?
Concept illustrations always exaggerate the details. If you believe this picture represents the design direction for the actual vehicle, then we should expect to see some of these design elements incorporated into a more normal SUV shape.
Looks like an Acura, but isn't too bad. But what the hell is it with making cars bigger and bigger? What's wrong with the current size? Don't they have a Pilot to fit that role?
@MaWeiTao: I have a hypothesis: marketing departments conduct focus groups and surveys, and find that everyone wants a roomier car, when asked what they would like to see "improved" for the next model.
It turns out, however, that apparently almost nobody is buying the correct size car for their wants.
Except me. I do not wish my car was bigger.
It used to be that in the good old days, you'd buy (for example) a Chevy, and if you wanted to trade up to a bigger, more luxurious model, you'd get an Olds or a Buick, and from there you'd get a Cadillac. Nowadays, each brand seems to need to have everything from econoboxes to luxobarges, with wagons-on-stilts in between for idiots.
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
Remember what Chrysler had in the late 90s? Not exactly noteworthy.
08/11/09
Compared to same vintage Buick Century or Ford Taurus, Chrysler was doing pretty well in my opinion.
08/11/09
08/11/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
Sure, they were dangerous cars. But that is what made them so cool and so interesting. It took a real man to so much as open the doors of these cars, let alone drive and master them. They were the Hemingway of sports cars. Pure, visceral, testosterone-filled exercises in existentialism.
And then they "refined" Lamborghini with the introduction of the Murcielago and Gallardo, and then VW went one step further in increasing production costs so that every wannabe Hollywood douche and Kim Kardashian could have one.
And now they release the Balboni (terrible name, btw), and potentially this, and market them as being sports cars that are "exclusive", "wild", and "dangerous"?
There is nothing especially exclusive about them. There may only be 250 of them to begin with, but that will change as soon as they start selling, at which point they will be built in even bigger volumes, to the detriment of those who initially bought them. "Wild" and "dangerous"? Sorry kids, but it takes more than a pretty face to dance and capture the imagination of pubescent boys.
What happened, Lamborghini?
You've turned into the Nordstroms of sports cars. You sell expensive stuff that you claim is wild (but isn't), and then have sale after sale, but only after you ridiculously jack up your prices, just as you release a car that is wild only compared to its much tamed contemporary brethren (but a total pushover compared to its illustrious predecessors).
07/15/09
But then again, nor are burning cars.
Or maybe it's the Audi/German-ness that make their cars, well, better cars, but worse supercars.
07/15/09
Besides, if I buy a Lamborghini, I want a Lamborghini. I want a car where the salesman advises me that there is a 67% chance the car won't start right away, a 58% chance that it will randomly stop running, a 32% chance that the car will try to kill me, and an 18% chance it will randomly burn itself to the ground on any given day, but there is always 100% chance of awesomeness everyday of the week and twice on Sundays.
Dammit, I want a Lamborghini
These new, post-VW ownership Lambos just don't offer that.
07/15/09
Gone are the days when you could make an insane sports car in your tractor shop and bring it to market with every dime invested in making it a better car. Now it's all about safety and regulations and appealing to as wide an audience as possible rather than going after the niche enthusiasts.
Dammit pauljones! I was in a great mood before coming across your comment. Now I just want to take over the world so I can save Lambo from themselves.
07/15/09
Lamborghini is just far too buttoned-down these days. The company that gave the finger to Ferrari, stole BMW's money, went 180 mph on 60 Minutes, told Gandini to shove it, eschewed slushboxes (mostly), and made the Jota no longer exists.
07/15/09
I think that because car making is no longer a blank instructional book that the engineers are going to write as they build their cars, but rather a book that's now filled and tells them how to do exactly what to make what component behave in exactly what way, and all for a certain price, and lasts a certain number of years. Sure it's imperfect, but it's, for all intents and purposes to us enthusiasts, too close to perfect. An engineer can no longer do something world-breaking with a car. It is no longer an art, but an exact science. And science is no fun.
What's more, it is only logical to make a car better than the one before it. And now, after decades of hooning and honing, the car is so competent, it's become painfully boring. No longer can one be excited driving down a country road, no longer does one need to stay awake and concentrated to drive to the shops, no longer is driving beyond the speed limit a death sentence to the driver and every single passenger.
It's over. Cars simply cannot be both competitive and exciting without being overwhelming (unless you are Michael Schumacher). Let's all build scramjet-powered ekranoplanes until that becomes boring.
Amen.
06/23/09
Since all of these, statistically, are sold in Massachusetts, where drivers don't signal before merging... she won't be able to see me, and I won't be able to see her, until she's totalled her brand new car, and she's at fault.
Something else to look forward to. (I say "she" because last I knew, men didn't drive these little crossover-things unless they were over 60.)
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
I saw an article on Jalopnik about front wings- do you think I should put one on my CR-V.
Also, because it is a 4x4, how would a thirty inch lift and 44" Super Swampers look? Do you think they will interfere with my performance parts? (You know, the stickers and the flying buttresses)
06/23/09
Copied directly from Chevrolet Orlando design concept.
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
It turns out, however, that apparently almost nobody is buying the correct size car for their wants.
Except me. I do not wish my car was bigger.
It used to be that in the good old days, you'd buy (for example) a Chevy, and if you wanted to trade up to a bigger, more luxurious model, you'd get an Olds or a Buick, and from there you'd get a Cadillac. Nowadays, each brand seems to need to have everything from econoboxes to luxobarges, with wagons-on-stilts in between for idiots.