Late to this thread, and I understand your argument, but think it's wrong on two levels. First, Toyota indeed has very good quality, no arguing that, but "quality" in it's proper definition is not what the end user sees. After all, a design that fails early, but very predictably so, meets the criteria for "high quality". Quality simply means very tight control of your processes, and very low variation.
What the customer sees, and misinterprets as quality is Toyota's fault tolerance. They have a long legacy of designing vehicles that do not fail, even under the most adverse conditions of end-user negligence. Don't change your fluids on schedule? No problem... Toyota has left enough performance margin on the table to allow for it. It's really a marketing decision, more than a matter of quality, always favoring reliability over the factors which can work against it.
Second, like Toyota, Dodge also has a company ethos, and that has always been high performance to cost ratio. And because every design is a compromise, the things caught in the wake of this are indeed fault tolerance and manufacturing consistency. I am almost certain you can ignore oil change warnings longer on a Toyota Corolla than you could ever do with a Challenger Hellcat or a Trackhawk. And no one has ever admired Dodge for their consistent panel gaps or wonderfully-expensive paint work... they put those tightly-fisted dollars into pushing more horsepower out of their big supercharged Hemi engines.
So, come back around to a comparison between Toyota and Dodge, and I think there's really none to be made here. These two companies are serving almost completely-opposing markets, one looking for the uber-vanilla thing that can be ignored to a fault, and the other willing to sacrifice much in terms of performance or image. If Dodge were to try to become Toyota, it would be almost certain death for them, losing their own customers while their name prevents them from ever acquiring many of Toyota's former customers.
