Talk:Eagle (automobile)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cars Portal This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Was the Eagle only available in the United States or in all of North America? --LeoTheLion 1 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

It was available in Canada (the Premier and Vision were built in Canada), that much I can tell you. As for the rest of North America I don't know. I doubt it. -- 93JC

yes, The Eagle was more of an American-Canada exclusive, with its small marketplace and meager productline accountung fot its failure. - Karrmann

[edit] Reasons for its discontinuance

Please provide a source for changing the wording that the "Eagle brand was a flop for Chrysler" -- this is blatant POV. Moreover, the word "failure" is also not supported in automobile industry sources. The Eagle line of automobiles ran from 1987 to 1998. That is eleven years of "flop" and failure? The Eagle was not even close to the failure of the Edsel in just three years. The requirements for a neutral point of view call for stating the facts. It is possible to describe the efforts to merge the Chrysler and Jeep brands as one sales unit and thus the Eagle brand could be retired. This is similar to the decisions managers made to retire the Oldsmobile and Plymouth brands. It was not because the brands were "flops" or failures, but markets and competition are dynamic. CZmarlin 01:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would call the Eagle division a failure. Was it as collossal of a failure as the Edsel? No. Edsel was a particularly collossal failure, though. But despite the fact that the Edsel came on the scene almost 50 years ago, it's still remembered. The fact that Eagle passed from the automotive scene 10 years ago, isn't, really.

Eagle sales never, in 11 seasons, broke the six-figure mark on an annual basis. I remember conducting a survey about 13 years ago, about automotive brands with favorable images. Most of the people I asked had no idea that Eagle was even a brand. And this was in 1994, the year after Eagle hit its sales peak!

There was never any clear brand strategy, either. The division comprised vehicle designs from 4 different companies (AMC, Renault, Chrysler, and Mitsubishi) on 3 continents in both mainstream and various scattershot segments and small niches of the market. And, with the exception of two of Eagle's products (the Eagle wagon and Medallion), all of them were badge-engineered efforts offered alongside their counterparts in the same American or Canadian market, some (e.g. Summit) shared among four separate brands! And the two aforementioned models that weren't were initially branded something else...then hastily re-branded after the takeover.

AMC, in its final, dark 11 seasons, sold more than twice the amount of cars Eagle did in its 11-season life. So did Plymouth, DeSoto, and Oldsmobile. And so many of the newer mass-produced brands of vehicles that were offered on the American market during and around the Eagle division's run (Acura, Infiniti, Suzuki, Lexus, Saturn, Kia, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, etc.)have managed to find their niche, grow, and/or survive with consistenly higher sales totals than Eagle posted. The only other major upstarts to fail in Eagle's lifetime were Merkur, Sterling, and Geo. And Geo, despite being offered over the same timeframe (1989-97) and fielding a similarly hodgepodge range of vehicles built by three different companies (Isuzu, Suzuki, and Toyota), and offered also in those companies' American showrooms, consistently posted at least double Eagle's totals, despite the fact that their products were in a smaller range of the market (i.e. subcompacts and compacts only). The Metro alone outsold the Eagle division for a few years!

While I agree that calling the Eagle a failure without providing substantive information to back up that claim is POV writing, his claim that Eagle was a failure can be substantiated. Eagle didn't have to fall as hard and fast and expensively as Edsel did to still be a failure. Edsel was a huge flop. But Eagle's failure may be even more profound, as most people don't even remember the brand less than 10 years after its demise. Rhettro76 17:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no denying that the Eagle brand faced severe competition not only in the marketplace, but also in the executive suites within the Chrysler Corporation, as well as on the sales floor and in the service emphasis among the Jeep-Eagle dealers. That is why subsections describe in greater detail the reasons for the Eagle's discontinuance: 1) badge engineering, 2) competitive marketplace, 3) inadequate marketing, and 4) the success of Jeep.

However, there is also no denying that Chrysler made a significant amount of money selling the Eagle vehicles. Although the total sales were small in comparison with other popular makes -- and even when compared with similar stable-mates in the Chrysler lineup -- the incremental sales that were achieved by the Eagles, produced additional revenue that was significantly higher than the costs incurred in the "badge engineering". One other thing to keep in mind is that many Jeep outlets could have easily dualed with another non-Chrysler brand, and in fact many dealers did so. Thus, supplying Eagle automobiles to the former AMC dealers -- that were traditional single-line outlets -- kept many sales within the company. Using the incremental (additional) sales measure, the revenue gained from Eagle cars would not have been classified as "a failure" by Chrysler accountants. On the contrary, Chrysler was able to achieve these sales with hardly any marketing support and without any new or expensive designs. In the end, once the decision was made to consolidate the retail distribution system to two structures (Dodge and Chrysler/Jeep), the continuation of the Eagle brand was superfluous. This was the same situation under which Plymouth was also retired.

The case of the Edsel is well known because it is in many business history books. However, there have been many failures since the Edsel that have not captured the minds of the public. The case of the Geo is interesting considering the massive marketing support General Motors lavished on this brand. It was supposed to bring the best small cars from around the world. Thus, the Metro, Spectrum, Tracker and Prizm! However, one has to calculate the huge investment to acquire and produce these cars -- including a completely new factory in a joint venture with Toyota. Ford was so desperate to market the Merkur, that it offered customers a guaranteed buyback that was tied to the used car value of Mercedes cars. If the cost of such an expensive marketing campaign is added to the investment that was incurred in "Federalizing" the European cars not used by anyone else, then it is clear that Ford did not make any money on this brand. The Mercur can be classified as a failure or flop. On the other hand, the incremental cost of producing and Eagle version of existing cars and selling then through an extra marketing channel would have been almost zero. This would NOT make the Eagle a "flop" for the corporation ....

CZmarlin 03:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Chrysler's Eagle logo.gif

Image:Chrysler's Eagle logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Chrysler's Eagle logo.gif

Image:Chrysler's Eagle logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)