Chrysler wasn't even getting the short end of the stick in this. This whole rebadge nonsense was the final nail in the coffin for Lancia. Lancia was pretty much shut down before the only properly co-developed product (the 2nd gen Chrysler 200 and its stillborn Flavia sibling) could see the light of the day.
What? Dodge has two cars, two SUV’s, a minivan, and an entire truck and commercial van line. So what you do, now this is brilliant, is kill the current Caravan, then make a less equipped Pacifica with a Dodge badge. Boom, new Grand Caravan that doesn’t suck. Then revamp the Journey, put a Chrysler badge on it, call it the Newport, then rebadge the Durango as the new Aspen. Then what you do with the Italian cars is put a different body and interior in them, then build them in Kentucky. Y’all need to learn how to badge engineer. There are tons of ingredients FCA can use to build a full menu of cars and they aren’t taking advantage of it.
FCA has only 5 passenger cars under Dodge nameplate (not counting rebadges for Mexico/China etc). A ton of rebadges won't boost sales because that would just be in-house rivalry. (If x people/year buy a model as a Chrysler and you make a Dodge version of it, you wouldnt be selling 2x cars in total - you'd be still selling x, but now split between brands). And rebadging Italian cars is a very bad idea. I'd try to break through with new compact and midsize cars based on Fiat Compact platform, let's say Shadow and Spirit (they like resurrecting old nameplates, so why not). They would be marketed in Europe as well.
That's what Dodge and Chrysler have been doing for ages though. And it worked. Barely. Plain rebadges won't cut it, I agree. A little bit of customization for each brand is needed. I doubt they would. Both Chrysler and Dodge have withdrawn from all european markets. I doubt FCA can afford to try to reestablish either of them, especially with the negative stigma both marques still carry over here. The Dodge Journey was never a sales hit. It just gained traction when it was rebadged as a FIAT (and given an interior instead of cardboard fittings). Aggressive pricing and a better known brand worked. That's the strategy they should pursue in my opinion: shared products where it makes sense (I can totally see them bringing the Tipo-based Dodge Neon in North America) and shared platforms to cut costs.
Which is why they would put them into different pricing brackets (which I believed I mentioned earlier, funny that) to avoid potential in-house branding rivalry. That’s why GM is able to get away with having three different versions of the Suburban under the Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac badge, despite them being exactly the same underneath. Creating these vehicles within the pricing brackets brings in coustomers who would otherwise buy from other brands. Luxury SUV buyers now have the choice of an Aspen instead of a Durango/Grand Cherokee, luxury GT buyers can have a 300D instead of a Challenger, and luxury sports sedan buyers can have a funky Italian designed Imperial with American details instead of a horrendous in every way Ghibli. FCA doesn’t have these pricing brackets currently, and it’s why they have the issues they do. You can equip a Charger to be just as nice as a 300C for the same price, or even cheaper. It simply shouldn’t be that way. They need a Ford/Lincoln approach to things. You can equip a Taurus nice, but an MKZ has even more for not much more. The world doesn’t really want compacts anymore, so introducing yet another into the market would be a wasted effort. If anything, it’s be in Chrysler’s best interest to create a badge-exclusive crossover.
I'm not sure which world you speak for exactly. Maybe in the US, less so elsewhere. Probably a good part of why US brands struggled so much over here, their small cars were just crappy badge jobs and the market for full size vehicles is much smaller here. And people who are buying full size vehicles are generally buying something European, because the cheap ones are more fashionable than US brands could offer, and Chrysler couldn't really compete with BMW/Mercedes etc over here in terms of brand appeal. Of course Korean car brands are doing incredibly well because they made their own cars, and made them to a good solid build quality for a low price. Then put 5 and 7 year warranties on them when everyone else only offered 3 year warranties.
Copy paste grille shape.... so original.... /s Seriously, Hyundai can barely even design SUVs anymore.
Well of course the grille shape is the same. That's like claiming BMW can't design cars any more because they keep putting kidney shaped grilles on them.
Atleast with BMW, that style actually worked. Hyundai, on the other hand looks like an interpretation of mentality into SUVs, although the 2019 Tucson is the only tolerable design for me.
The crossover market is absolutely massive over here (for reasons I can't explain, only a few are even mildly tolerable). Just in my extended family alone, I can think of 5 or 6. That's why I ended with that I did. The only way Chrysler would regain market as a badge would be a badge-exclusive crossover in the states. Hell, even my whored-up Dodge Journey idea holds even a small amount of water because of how the automotive market currently is here.
With emission and fuel consumption regulations becoming tighter and tighter with every year, compacts have no place in the market? If something is going to become obsolete soon, then it is V8-powered faux-offroad mall crawlers that you'd spawn in large numbers. And again, rebadging horrendous in every way Ghibli would result in a horrendous in every way Imperial minus the Italian lore.
