Who has been making the decisions at Dodge?

[6 2 Carl]

With the introduction of the new dually megacab, I have been really questioning the thought process behind the decision making at Dodge. What and who is making them do the things they have been doing? Is it the marketing department? Engineering department? Or the bean counters? My guess it the bean counters that makes the final call on most decisions.



I really get the feeling that Dodge sees us as a bunch of idiots. They make changes to our vehicles and hype them up to be “improvements” when they are actually making them worse. The new transmission, plastic intercoolers, redesigned cupholders and now the dually megacab are good examples of poor “improvements”.



There are several major flaws with the new megacab dually. The biggest one is the 10,500# GVW. The quad cab dually has a GVW of 12,200# so why does the megacab lose 1700# of payload?



Secondly, why doesn’t Dodge offer a true long box dually? It can’t cost that much to produce. There is clearly a market for it. People are willing to give up maneuverability for an 8’ box.



Thirdly, why doesn’t Dodge offer a quad cab short box dually? They may not sell a lot of these trucks, but it wouldn’t cost them anything to offer it now that they developed the short box flares.



Fourthly, who designed the flares? I like the look of the small flares, but they could have done a better job integrating them with the lines of the box.



I wish I had a management job with Dodge. I could do a much better job. I would build a great truck for everyone.



Carl

 

[jsimpson]

Both beancounters and engineers make suggestions - management makes decisions.

 

[rbattelle]

With the introduction of the new dually megacab, I have been really questioning the thought process behind the decision making at Dodge. What and who is making them do the things they have been doing? Is it the marketing department? Engineering department? Or the bean counters? My guess it the bean counters that makes the final call on most decisions.

Well, Ridenour is the current COO for Chrysler group. He's got a reputation for "easy spending", and took the COO position on 1 Sep 05. Prior to that, he was the vice chief of design and quality (since 2003), so it's quite likely that he had a significant hand in the MegaCab design approval.



To question whether the marketing, engineering, or accounting departments are doing the design work shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the business practices that lead to the fielding of a new system. Certainly it's a blend of all three, but in today's marketplace (created primarily by the combination of 0% APR, large rebate mentality, employee pricing schemes, high healthcare costs, and high raw materials costs), accounting must play a heavy hand. Nevertheless, I still place primary responsibility for any new design on the engineering department.

I really get the feeling that Dodge sees us as a bunch of idiots. They make changes to our vehicles and hype them up to be “improvements” when they are actually making them worse. The new transmission, plastic intercoolers, redesigned cupholders and now the dually megacab are good examples of poor “improvements”.

What evidence is there that the G56 is a garbage transmission? I think it's too early to make that call. And the plastic intercooler ends have been replaced, as far as I know. Clearly that was a mistake on Dodge's part. How do you define "improvement"? From a shareholder perspective, almost anything that reduces operating, labor, tooling, or manufacturing costs over a previous design is an "improvement". From a consumer perspective it's more mixed: some want lower priced vehicles, others want more capability, others want more power, others want more durability. How do you suggest balancing these conflicting requirements? Universal satisfaction is a fallacy.

There are several major flaws with the new megacab dually. The biggest one is the 10,500# GVW. The quad cab dually has a GVW of 12,200# so why does the megacab lose 1700# of payload?

I do not know for sure, but I suspect it's a combination of front axle weight rating, bending rigidity in the frame, and brakes. The 4-door cab is very heavy, and moves the CG of the vehicle forward. Since the frame rails are very long on the 160" wheebase, shear loading on the frame (which I believe has the same cross section as a standard-sized cab model) was too much to allow a 12200 lb rating. Since the brakes are unchanged from a normal model but weight has gone way up, they couldn't offer the same GVW and guarantee good panic-stops or brake life, especially when towing. Movement of the CG places additional load on an already near-capacity front axle.



What are the other major flaws?

Secondly, why doesn’t Dodge offer a true long box dually? It can’t cost that much to produce. There is clearly a market for it. People are willing to give up maneuverability for an 8’ box.

Probably because the resultant product would be so long as to be rather impractical, and it would be extremely expensive to manufacture an entirely new frame for a relatively low-volume vehicle. The new wheelbase (which would have to be something on the order of 180") would require longer brake lines, driveshaft, and fuel lines (and probably some other things I'm forgetting). All of that would be highly specialized components; tooling alone would be a massive new investment on a product whose popularity with the public hasn't even been established yet. I haven't seen any market research indicating the potential size of the market for such a vehicle.

Thirdly, why doesn’t Dodge offer a quad cab short box dually? They may not sell a lot of these trucks, but it wouldn’t cost them anything to offer it now that they developed the short box flares.

A good question. They may do it now, unless there's some vehicle dynamics constraint we're not aware of.

Fourthly, who designed the flares? I like the look of the small flares, but they could have done a better job integrating them with the lines of the box.

The person most directly responsible is probably buried in the design department somewhere. Ridenour may have been in a position to approve the design, depending on when it was presented relative to his move up to COO.

I wish I had a management job with Dodge. I could do a much better job. I would build a great truck for everyone.

Then why not apply for a job with them? If your automotive management background is solid enough for you to believe you'd make a great product line manager, there's nothing stopping you from seeking such employment. I hope you have an impressive resume... very impressive. I'd love to hear how you'll build a truck that everyone would think is great!



-Ryan

 

[Tomeygun]

There are several major flaws with the new megacab dually. The biggest one is the 10,500# GVW. The quad cab dually has a GVW of 12,200# so why does the megacab lose 1700# of payload?

Carl

-------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM DODGE DEALER TOWING GUIDE:

2006 Quad Cab 4x2 Dually

With 4. 1 Axle Ratio You Can Tow 15850 lbs

Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) = 11500 lbs

Payload = 4513 lbs

Curb Weight = 6987 lbs

Curb Weight Front/Rear = 4005 / 2983 lbs

GAWR Front/Rear = 4750 / 9350 lbs

Gross Combination Weight Rating (GCWR) = 23000 lbs

--------------------------------------------------------------------



Heck, thats the same GCWR, and only 250lbs less on the max trailer weight - With those stats I think/hope the mega cab dually will hold its own in the market

 

[LesStallings]

Marketing for the masses. If it sells (in large numbers), they will build it.



What idiot thought of putting 4 doors on a pickup?? Ridiculous!



Everyone knows pickup trucks have 2 doors, roll-up windows, rubber mat flooring, etc.



And whatever happened to the six banger with three speed on the column?? My Granddaddy is rolling over in his grave.....

 

[67guzzler]

I dunno. I've owned about 15 different vehicles in the last 15 years, mostly 2 at a time. Frankly, I get bored easily. I've had a BMW 7, PT Cruiser, F250 Supercab Diesel, Chevy Suburban, Mitsubishi Galant, VW TDI Jetta, Ford Escort, 1996, 1997 2004. 5 CTD Ram's, etc... . A range of vehicles.



I think the DiamlerChryslers right now are up there in quality and design. In comparing these vehicles to the current offerings at "DODGE" I have to say that these "DODGE" trucks are pretty darn well engineered. I think that basically DiamlerChrysler is pretty conservative with systems and features while being bold with styling. They tend to engineer vehicles that don't necessarily have the MOST creature creature comforts or don't have the MOST configurations. They seem to limit the variables, try to target for the masses, refine their production methods and then build cars and trucks.



They've been unafraid to take chances with styling but they don't want to be inefficient with too many options and configurations. They seem to think that if they make vehicles with less variances in configurations, they can make them less expensively and more reliable. The truth is, in the 80's and early 90's I wouldn't own Chrysler automobile. Finally I gave in and bought the the "New Dodge Truck" because it looked "cool" and you could get a tracter engine in it. The rest of their models were junk I reasoned.



But then I learned a lesson -- The quality on those two trucks (other than paint on my 1996) was incredible. They just didn't have anything wrong with them. I put 48k miles on each of them in the 18 months I owned them. This was still during the time where the resale of all the Chrysler products were in a 3 decade slump and the only thing that was holding it's value were the trucks.



After owning a few other vehicles and based upon my great experience with the 96 & 97 Ram's I purchased a brand new 2002 PT Cruiser Touring Edition w/5 speed because it looked "cool" to me and could carry my great dane. Slow as crap. Handled like it was topheavy. But zero, I mean ZERO defects. Quiet w/no squeeks or rattles. Tight as a drum. Ran perfectly and was pretty darn refined. Good value & very utilitarian. I never went back to the dealer after driving it off the lot. Never had 1 warranty claim.



So I guess what I'm trying to say is the DiamlerChrysler philosphy is to limit the options and configurations, bring new ideas to market that are pretty bold but very reliable, keep the prices slightly under those of the competition and stay as lean as possible.



I think that Ford and GM need to think about this philosophy. Right now their stocks are Junk status I believe. You can get the most configurations with them but I don't think their initial quality has been reliable -- even with all the rewards that GM has been stoking about.



Sorry for the long-winded commentary. It just seems that DiamlerChrysler took a risk with the mega-cab and now we're all upset because of the disgusting fenders and 6' box, etc... . I understand that as I'm one of the ones who is whining about the integration of the fender flares.



But they could have kept just making the "club cab w/4 doors" and then nobody would be the wiser. I think the initial project was limited to useing the platform of the longbed quadcab and simply shifting the space from the bed and extending the cab. Certainly good thought especially when you consider how many quad cab short beds that are out there. Now you can add more space to the interior for people who don't need the 8' bed and still use an existing frame, etc... .



I do think it would be more expensive for them to make a MegaCab LongBox because they'd have to come up with a new frame, longer shafts, etc... Then they'd have to figure the costs and analyze the projected production numbers for those extreme-machines. Who knows -- maybe that's down the pike? This was a quick way to get 4 rear wheels under the truck for people who had to have that and yet give them limousine interior space. I think this was a good first step coming out with the Mega Cab -- except for the dually flares



P. S. My $85,000 BMW had a plastic radiator so the Plastic Intercooloer is probably a German idea.



P. P. S. Why are my posts always so long?

 

[rbattelle]

Excellent post, JGann. I agree with everything you said.



I really believe quality and innovation will continue to improve with Zetsche at the helm.



-Ryan

 

[Tomeygun]

And whatever happened to the six banger with three speed on the column?? My Granddaddy is rolling over in his grave.....

Ahhh... . Slant-six and three on the tree, good times, good times.

(thats how I learned to drive a stick... woah!)

P. P. S. Why are my posts always so long?

That is due to the smartness factor in your brain, Its like a bladder and if it not drained of the rich knowledge it acquires, it will explode -- Thank your long typing fingers, they just saved you life

 

[moparmarty]

Well said Ryan. Good job of keeping things in a sensible perspective. I wish my diatribes were as pontificant. (Is there such a word?)

 

[67guzzler]

Excellent post, JGann. I agree with everything you said.



I really believe quality and innovation will continue to improve with Zetsche at the helm.



-Ryan

Thanks Ryan. Nice of you to say. I posted it over in the MegaCab thread cause it's kinda relevant. I agree with you -- I think that DC as compared to the stagnant offerings of GM & Ford (other than the Mustang GT in Black which is HOT) is kicking butt. DC really has a handle on the pulse of the emotional buyer.

That is due to the smartness factor in your brain, Its like a bladder and if it not drained of the rich knowledge it acquires, it will explode -- Thank your long typing fingers, they just saved you life

:-laf HA HA HA HA! Where do you get this stuff? :-laf​

 

[LesStallings]

Ahhh... . Slant-six and three on the tree, good times, good times.

(thats how I learned to drive a stick... woah!)

That slant 6 is still chugging along, I bet - assuming there is some frame and body left and not rusted out! :-laf

 

[Cummins Cowboy]

I think there is a lot of stuff that we will just not understand, the big one to me is why in the late 90's they went ahead and made a true crew cab dakota, WTF?? the dakota has NEVER been a big seller, they spend all the money tooling up a dakota crew cab and leave out the big money maker, the ram. also to be honest the styling on the 3rd gens is not that great, I have gotten more used to it, but looking at my '02 I think sweet looking truck, not so on the 3rd gen, dont' get me wrong next summer I will be buying a new 3rd gen I just will not like the looks as well, take a look at the hood on the new dakota its the most edgy of any of the trucks out there, that is the direction they should have went on the 3rd gen, people want bold, powerful edgy, I think the roundy look has run its course, as if it was ever in style anyways. Also the headlights on the '06's look bad they teardrop too much into the fender, faddish styling that will run its course, also check out the cloth seats??? WTF, they look like something from the base ST model. also I don't like the way the grill drops below the top of the bumper line on the 3rd gen. other than that I think dodge is the best thing going. and will buy another, just a little confused on the direction they are going



oh yeah on edit: the G56 with 3:73's is the wrong gearing combo, and is really bothering me when I buy a new truck, even had thoughts of an auto heaven forbid, 3:55's would be a much better fit

 

[LDobie]

:-laf I hear what you all are saying, great thread going here. Great post to the gentleman talking about the C. G. with a Mega and Long Box. Great post by you Jay, as always, even though I've never owned anything but Chrysler products as has the family since about '94. To the dude who started this thread, sometimes I feel the same way, that I could make a whole hell of a lot better decisions on what should be built than some of these boneheads make, but we'll never be qualified or have that chance. And to the dude who questioned the re-tooling to make the Quad Dakotas, I see tons of them, they are probably the most popular configuration for the Daky's, I didn't buy one b/c they were almost as expensive as the half tonners, much more than the Club Cabs



Its evolution I guess, but damn do I miss my uncles' '99 24V's, simple, tough styling, loud and mean. Sure wish they had put the Dakota headlights on the Ram redesign for '06, which are much more square and "forward", not back in the fender. The quality seems to be continuously evolving, even though there is more and more plastic in the interior, less cloth and plushness.



When is the complete redesign for the Rams?? Might have to wait till then to buy one, unless of course there is a V8 diesel in a 1500 in '07 :-laf

 

[hammersley]

Well I love my Dodge BUT their Minivan that they perfected

is NO MATCH for the Honda! Honest - look at the two and then ask how could you buy the Chrysler????

 

[67guzzler]

That's so funny! My sister just bought a 2005 Dodge Grand Caravan with 8,000 miles from CarMax. She called me from her wireless phone at the store for last minute advice. She said they had the Honda (Odyssey ?) and she asked me "Why would anyone buy the Honda? It's nice but it has no soul. "



The first part of what she said is just about your exact words.....



I guess that's why there are so many choices. So many tastes!

 

[jlasich]

When is the complete redesign for the Rams?? Might have to wait till then to buy one, unless of course there is a V8 diesel in a 1500 in '07 :-laf

From the info I read on allpar.com, the all-new 1500 is due in 2009 and the 2500/3500 is due in 2010. I agree with you about the 1500 with that Cummins v-8. Since I'm no longer farming, I don't need a 3500 but I refuse to trade it for a gas engine.



BTW, great posts rbattelle and JGann.

 

[Tomeygun]

When is the complete redesign for the Rams?? Might have to wait till then to buy one, unless of course there is a V8 diesel in a 1500 in '07 :-laf

Consider the last full redesign, 1994-2002 (2003 new design)



But I expect about 7 years... . So 2010 should be ALL new. 2006 is about half way, and dodge always does a "slight refresh" about mid way through the life cycle

 

[surfbeetle]

Hopefully Dodge is just doing things in phases. Back in '94, you could only get a reg cab long bed diesel, then in '95, you could get a club cab with the longbed and diesel. If you wanted a club cab and short bed with the diesel, those weren't available at the time. Then as the model years progressed, you could get a shortbed diesel club cab and eventually the quadcab came around in '98. It's probably a matter of time before we see a megacab longbed. I would rather have them take their time and get it right.

 

[6 2 Carl]

I just spent over two hours trying a response to for this thread. It was getting way too long and starting to look like a novel. I was having a hard time converting my thought into words, and really wasn’t effectively getting anything across. So I gave up and deleted it all. Writing has never been my strong point. I only had to take one English class to get my mechanical engineering degree, and I had to take that class three times! Needless to say I am envious of the writing ability of some of the members of this forum.



All I will say is that I like my Dodge truck. Out of the big three it was the best truck for me. None of the problems listed in my original post are that serious of a problem. It’s just to bad that Dodge figured that is more profitable to sell fewer trucks to the people who are willing to compromise and accept these shortcomings, instead of investing the money to produce a truck that more people will buy.



I know I sure don’t like making compromises when buying a $40,000 truck.



Carl

 

[rbattelle]

I know I sure don’t like making compromises when buying a $40,000 truck.

C'mon Carl, you could buy a $250k Rolls Royce and still have to compromise on something. Perhaps the umbrella you'd really prefer is too large to fit in the umbrella holder in the door! :-laf



Everything in automobile life involves compromises.



-Ryan