Dodge/Ram "Ridgline"?

[TrainTrac]

Looks like Dodge/Ram might soon be making/selling their own version of a Ridgline:

Windsor plant will pick up lifestyle truck, reports say



May 18, 2011



Tony Van Alphen



Chrysler Canada will start building a lifestyle pickup truck at its giant assembly plant in Windsor, Ont., in the fall of 2013, industry insiders say.



Both AutomotiveCompass, a leading U.S.-based industry research firm, and Chrysler suppliers revealed Tuesday the automaker has decided to proceed with production of a niche vehicle called the TR Ram Life Style Truck, that year to help keep the plant humming on three shifts.



It (the vehicle) is an insurance policy that the plant will continue on three shifts at full capacity, said Doug Shepard, editor of AutomotiveCompasss weekly report tracking current and future global auto production.



The addition of the vehicle would probably not lead to any significant increase in jobs but would help secure the future of the existing workforce of about 4,450.



Chrysler would not comment on any new models coming to Windsor.



As a matter of corporate policy, we dont discuss future product, said LouAnn Gosselin, head of communications at Chrysler Canada.



Ken Lewenza, president of the Canadian Auto Workers, said he has not heard of any talk about producing a lifestyle pickup in Windsor.



I dont remember any discussion about allocating a pickup truck to Windsor, said Lewenza about talks of such a vehicle in recent rounds of contract negotiations.



But last week sources said Chrysler briefed major suppliers privately about its future production plans, including the new vehicle, in the design dome at the companys world headquarters in Auburn Hills, Mich.



Insiders say Chrysler is projecting annual demand of between 15,000 and 20,000 vehicles for the pickup. The model will compete against Hondas Ridgeline truck.



At last weeks meeting, Chrysler management also told suppliers that the vehicle would come off the companys minivan platform or underbody.



The Windsor plant, the biggest minivan operation in the world, currently assembles the Dodge Caravan, Chrysler Town & Country and Volkswagen Routan models. Plant output jumped last year by 62 per cent to 312,125 vehicles in a sharp rebound from the 2009 recession.



Chrysler is building the Routan under contract with Volkswagen until 2014. After that, its future in Windsor is uncertain.



Shepard said AutomotiveCompass had also received other Chrysler documents that disclose the identity of the vehicle, production location and timing for a launch.



It definitely points to Windsor as the plant location, he noted.



Chrysler initially revealed its long-term model plans for its entire lineup through 2015 at a media presentation in Auburn Hills in late 2009.



In that launch cadence, the company showed a vague image of a vehicle called lifestyle truck for 2013.



It did not disclose any other details including a production site.

 

[josh ryan 3]

i like that

 

[Rick Kent]

Ford should come out with something like this. :boohoo: It looks nicer than a Ridgeline, IMO.



2 items that caught my attention. VW is having their mini van built by Chrysler, note to self, don't buy a VW Routan.



And this:

It (the vehicle) is an insurance policy that the plant will continue on three shifts at full capacity, said Doug Shepard, editor of AutomotiveCompasss weekly report tracking current and future global auto production.



The addition of the vehicle would probably not lead to any significant increase in jobs but would help secure the future of the existing workforce of about 4,450.

I don't see anyone saying anything about demand for this type truck. Building it to save jobs and hoping there is a market?

 

[Gavin Allan]

That's not a truck. Looks like an Avenger without a trunk lid installed.



:throwup:

 

[H D]

:throwup:

 

[Jerry Gerner 2]

All that is is the Dodge Durango with the back window section taken off. ATleast the Ridgeline has a bigger "bed", I'd really like to see the measurements for the "bed" in this thing, it makes our ST beds look huge.



:bwahaha:nline::rofl:



Offroaders have been doing this to SUV's since they came out and they call these designs "All New", I call B.S..



:smack::btddhorse::smack::cheeky:

 

[TrainTrac]

Bear in mind that the picture in the article is not of the actual vehicle, nor even a prototype. It's merely someone's photochopped speculation of what this rumored vehicle might look like.



And I also caught the same point mentioned by fkent484:

I don't see anyone saying anything about demand for this type truck. Building it to save jobs and hoping there is a market?

If this is the case, then it would seem that Chrysler has learned nothing from past mistakes that resulted in bankruptcy. Building a vehicle to save jobs without any regard for profitability? Sounds like something right out of Atlas Shrugged.



But then again, recall that in Chrysler's recent bankruptcy, the UAW got ~65% of the company.:banghead:

 

[Tyler Fields]

Funny how as soon as Ford get outta the whole SUT business Chrysler gives it a try. Didnt Ford quit making the Sport Trac because they said the market was shrinking?

 

[Mike Corn]

Yes the market is shrinking but is it really invisible? The Colorado and the ranger are toast. The tacoma is the same size as the previous generation tundra. The dakota is really big too.



The problem was these "midsize" trucks were not getting hardly any better gas mileage and costs were very similar to their full size counterparts.



Once everyone abandons ship, the first manufacturer to off a fuel efficient midsize truck like we saw in the 80s and 90s will rule the market. I dont see whats wrong with taking the focus/escape chassis and making a unibody sport trac out of it with a 2.0 Ecoboost and RWD. That should be good for high 20's MPG. Heck even the new 3.7 TI-VCT should pull in 30MPG like the mustang.

 

[Kevin Lang]

The problem was these "midsize" trucks were not getting hardly any better gas mileage and costs were very similar to their full size counterparts.

The new F150 gets better gas mileage than either the Gen 1 ST or the Gen 2 ST according to FuelEconomy.gov. That site doesn't have an EcoBoost engine option--are its figures only for the non-ecoboost fuel economy, or are they just not labeling the EcoBoost option yet?

Anyhow (All 6cylinder models):

2011 F150 4wd Automatic: 15c/21hwy. Combined: 17

2010 ST 4wd Automatic: 13c/19hwy. Combined: 15

2002 ST 4wd Automatic: 13c/18hwy. Combined: 15

(The site doesn't provide an easy mechanism for linking to its information.)



Anyhow, if the rather gargantuan F150 can get MPG which is appreciably better than the ST, the ST could have delivered much better MPG. I wonder what the F150 will really get on the highway, as the EPA estimates are always very conservative (ironic lol); my ST will easily get 21 mpg on the highway, yet is only rated 18 by the EPA.

unibody sport trac out of it with a 2.0 Ecoboost and RWD.

That idea doesn't appeal to me. A unibody truck is a truck in name only. At least RWD would make it better than the Ridgeline. Can a dual-turbocharged 2.0L engine really power an ST? That's the same model that they put in compact sedans, right? Even with unibody construction, the ST will be much heavier than those sedans. To be an ST, this hypothetical new car would have to have at least the same power--the ability to haul 5 people, 1200 lbs in the bed, and tow 5300/5500 lbs. Color me skeptical, but I don't see the engine powering a compact sedan being able to do that.



If Ford did offer a RWD/4WD truck with at least all of the capabilities of the Gen 1 ST, and it was able to have 30 mpg while still having power and acceleration, and it didn't look completely ridiculous (subjective), I'd buy one right now. I really just don't need an F150, it's too big for my needs. In the current world, I'm better served by purchasing the ecoboost Focus for my Daily Driver, and saving my current ST for my quite-frequent needs for a truck.



Why can't there be an ecoboosted RWD car? RWD is a more sound platform, and it's much more fun for me to drive.



I hope the resulting vehicle is higher off of the ground than this photoshop "predicts", as that thing has the maximum ground clearance of a sedan.

 

[Kevin Lang]

If this is the case, then it would seem that Chrysler has learned nothing from past mistakes that resulted in bankruptcy. Building a vehicle to save jobs without any regard for profitability? Sounds like something right out of Atlas Shrugged.

One of the subtle implications in Atlas Shrugged is that companies which have their founder's name in/as the company's name are capitalistic and wholesome, whereas companies which did not, and instead featured some synonym for "union", were anti-capitalistic and corrupt. Those companies couldn't compete and had to beg, and then corrupt, the government to stay in existence, as their products were pure crap.



On that, I submit that Chrysler should change its name to something like "Amalgamated Auto manufacturer"



Reminds me of that old adage: "What's good for GM is good for America". Too bad that what was good for GM & America was for GM to have to face real, inexorable bankruptcy head-on, as we didn't get that.

 

[Shaun Tucker]

I was going to post this when I first saw it a couple days ago too.



But then I stopped and re-read the article and realized that none of the actual facts are verified and, as TrainTrac already stated, the image of the truck is not even a prototype. It is actually someone's photochop, and a decent one at that.



Having said that, I was impressed with the looks of the truck. I've always liked the way Dodge trucks look, but have never really been impressed with the internal components or the handling characteristics of other Dodge vehicles.



Mind you, I grew up in the '80s/early '90's.

 

[Shaun Tucker]

I was going to post this when I first saw it a couple days ago too.



But then I stopped and re-read the article and realized that none of the actual facts are verified and, as TrainTrac already stated, the image of the truck is not even a prototype. It is actually someone's photochop, and a decent one at that.



Having said that, I was impressed with the looks of the truck. I've always liked the way Dodge trucks look, but have never really been impressed with the internal components or the handling characteristics of other Dodge vehicles.



Mind you, I grew up in the '80s/early '90's.

 

[Kevin Lang]

Though you're lucky enough to get all the Ford smaller-than-F150 trucks that don't make it to the USA, aren't you? :grin::cry:



The new F150 can carry more cargo, tow heavier loads, provide more interior room, and provide a higher ride than the ST. It's also much too large for my needs and capacities.



However, it gets much better MPG than my 2002 ST, and Ford offers nothing else with a truck bed. (Neither is anyone else, afaik, unless its one of those "imports" that is closer to a Ranger--which didn't match my needs--than a ST. Not sure of the MPG of those.)



There's everything wrong with this. :banghead::banghead::boohoo:

 

[ray moyer]

other companys building stuff that looks like our ST but ford doesnt want to continue them...



wish we could get some FPV/FPR stuff in the states