Buh-bye Chrysler
12/27/07, 05:01 AM
#21
Closet American
Thread Starter
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Daimler dumped them after they plundered Chrysler's cash reserves. Chrysler was a profitable company when Daimer bought them, what do you think made the aquisition so attractive? Which financial reports do you read? Kerkorian saw right through this "merger", and publicly stated that Daimler was going to do this to Chrysler.
So, after spending their cash reserves, creating utter disharmony, and seeing the bottom fall out of the profitable truck/SUV sales, Daimler cut and ran.
So, after spending their cash reserves, creating utter disharmony, and seeing the bottom fall out of the profitable truck/SUV sales, Daimler cut and ran.
The only truly successful Chryslers (from a critical as well as sales standpoint) after the merger were based on Mercedes' chassis. The Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger, and Dodge Magnum were all based on a Mercedes E-class. During the merger years, Chrysler may have sold plenty of neons, caravans, and Intrepids, but none captured the imagination of the car-buying public, as well as the automotive press, like the Mercedes-based sedans. And prior to the 300/Charger/Magnum, the Chrysler side of the company was losing money.
The more recent Chryslers, such as the Dodge Caliber and Jeep Compass, have nothing to do with Daimler engineering. No major (or minor, for that matter) mechanical parts are shared with any Mercedes cars; thus, the responsibility for declining quality in recent Chrysler products lies squarely with its own engineering division.
There's no doubt that the Daimler-Chrysler merger was poorly executed, mismanaged, and ultimately harmful to both parties. And while many Chrysler products got better, many Mercedes products became worse; their reputation was tarnished through the merger; and their share prices fell.
A waiting list of what? Rental fleets? Try again.Your bias against all things Chrysler seems to have obscured the fact that their troubles have more to do with operating costs, (i.e. union), poor management from Daimler, and the misplaced product emphasis that Ford and GM also are suffering from. The disparity of American car companies isn't unique to any one of them in particular - it's a systemic problem. They all have some lack luster designs, and some that do very well.
12/29/07, 06:47 AM
#22
Bullitt Member
Join Date: October 5, 2006
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[
Honestly, why carry on a discussion that you know so little about. You paint a very altrusistic picture for Daimler when in fact their conduct was nothing of the kind. At the time of the "merger" (actuality it was a takeover), Chrysler was profitable, and had substantial cash reserves. Daimler's publicly stated primary motive was to get into the profitable light truck market. Daimler's interest in being a part of Chrysler begins and ends around truck / SUV sales, and the status of liquid assests.
.
While the LX uses E-class (a steel version not aluminum) suspension, transmission, and IRS, the chassis is unique to the LX. Your last statement regarding this model was that is was not selling well, but now it's a success? Moreover, the LX cars were designed prior to the "merger". You can thank Tom Gale and Trevor Creed of Chrysler for the resurgence of RWD V8 sedans. All Daimer did was share some componants. Here again you fail to mention other successful models such as the Ram truck, Caravan, etc.
.
Please qualify "declining quality" other than just being your opinion. Moreover, some of their powertrains such as the 2.4 World Engine in the Caliber, which you frequently malign are joint projects with companies like Mitsubishi and Hyundai. Even if your statement regarding quality were accurate, how would this fall "squarely on Chrysler engineers"?
To further correct you, the mandate for the Caliber's design is on record as being a Daimler mandate. They dicatated the the Neon replacement be a utility based design with European appeal, and not a small sedan, and that it would serve as a platform for other models i.e. the Compass to provide economy of scale. Like them or not, the Caliber as I have already stated is surpassing sales expectations abroad, and having to add shifts to the Belvidere facilty to meet production demands.
There's no doubt that the Daimler-Chrysler merger was poorly executed, mismanaged, and ultimately harmful to both parties. And while many Chrysler products got better, many Mercedes products became worse; their reputation was tarnished through the merger; and their share prices fell.
A waiting list of what? Rental fleets? Try again.
True story. Demand for the remodeled Sebring convertible has been strong. Even if rental fleets are a significant chunk of sales, as is the case with our Mustangs, why begrudge them?
Go back in my posts and read them again. Google is your friend.
[/quote]
Thank you. I've found yours to be misinformed, and vague, perhaps "woeful" is a better description?
It's been a pleasure watching you try to defend the statement "woeful pruduct lineup", and then subsequently circumventing your own point by acknowledging that Chrysler has some worthy product. You confuse your opinion and uninformed declararions with substance and objectivity.
Back to the point. Chrysler has some successful cornerstone models to build upon. Nardelli drives different models routinely and immediately meets with the product engineer with his observations. He has mandated that interior quality be improved accross the board, and is not encumbered by reporting to a board of directors to effect change.
Nardelli's ability is suspect to me, but Cerberus has a reputation for turning companies around and selling them, or scraping them. Clearly their intentions are the former, and they have made big moves to reduce operating costs already. Moreover, they have added and retained some key management.
I would add this. Cerberus is a privately held company, unlike GM and Ford. That status makes their financial picture less volitile. All things being equal that gives them some advantages.
So bottom line. Don't hold your breath for a "buh-bye". It will take some time to undo the mess Daimler left behind though.
Your innacurate declaration of "woeful product lineup" was almost as unqualified as Nardelli's bone-headed statement.
quote=Hollywood_North GT;1074172]Do WHAT to Chrysler, exactly? Mercedes took a HUGE gamble that ultimately didn't pay off.
Honestly, why carry on a discussion that you know so little about. You paint a very altrusistic picture for Daimler when in fact their conduct was nothing of the kind. At the time of the "merger" (actuality it was a takeover), Chrysler was profitable, and had substantial cash reserves. Daimler's publicly stated primary motive was to get into the profitable light truck market. Daimler's interest in being a part of Chrysler begins and ends around truck / SUV sales, and the status of liquid assests.
The only truly successful Chryslers (from a critical as well as sales standpoint) after the merger were based on Mercedes' chassis. The Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger, and Dodge Magnum were all based on a Mercedes E-class. During the merger years, Chrysler may have sold plenty of neons, caravans, and Intrepids, but none captured the imagination of the car-buying public, as well as the automotive press, like the Mercedes-based sedans. And prior to the 300/Charger/Magnum, the Chrysler side of the company was losing money
While the LX uses E-class (a steel version not aluminum) suspension, transmission, and IRS, the chassis is unique to the LX. Your last statement regarding this model was that is was not selling well, but now it's a success? Moreover, the LX cars were designed prior to the "merger". You can thank Tom Gale and Trevor Creed of Chrysler for the resurgence of RWD V8 sedans. All Daimer did was share some componants. Here again you fail to mention other successful models such as the Ram truck, Caravan, etc.
The more recent Chryslers, such as the Dodge Caliber and Jeep Compass, have nothing to do with Daimler engineering. No major (or minor, for that matter) mechanical parts are shared with any Mercedes cars; thus, the responsibility for declining quality in recent Chrysler products lies squarely with its own engineering division
Please qualify "declining quality" other than just being your opinion. Moreover, some of their powertrains such as the 2.4 World Engine in the Caliber, which you frequently malign are joint projects with companies like Mitsubishi and Hyundai. Even if your statement regarding quality were accurate, how would this fall "squarely on Chrysler engineers"?
To further correct you, the mandate for the Caliber's design is on record as being a Daimler mandate. They dicatated the the Neon replacement be a utility based design with European appeal, and not a small sedan, and that it would serve as a platform for other models i.e. the Compass to provide economy of scale. Like them or not, the Caliber as I have already stated is surpassing sales expectations abroad, and having to add shifts to the Belvidere facilty to meet production demands.
There's no doubt that the Daimler-Chrysler merger was poorly executed, mismanaged, and ultimately harmful to both parties. And while many Chrysler products got better, many Mercedes products became worse; their reputation was tarnished through the merger; and their share prices fell.
A waiting list of what? Rental fleets? Try again.
Care to show me those "facts" again?
Finally a salient observation on your part.
Thank you. I've found yours to be misinformed, and vague, perhaps "woeful" is a better description?
It's been a pleasure watching you try to defend the statement "woeful pruduct lineup", and then subsequently circumventing your own point by acknowledging that Chrysler has some worthy product. You confuse your opinion and uninformed declararions with substance and objectivity.
Back to the point. Chrysler has some successful cornerstone models to build upon. Nardelli drives different models routinely and immediately meets with the product engineer with his observations. He has mandated that interior quality be improved accross the board, and is not encumbered by reporting to a board of directors to effect change.
Nardelli's ability is suspect to me, but Cerberus has a reputation for turning companies around and selling them, or scraping them. Clearly their intentions are the former, and they have made big moves to reduce operating costs already. Moreover, they have added and retained some key management.
I would add this. Cerberus is a privately held company, unlike GM and Ford. That status makes their financial picture less volitile. All things being equal that gives them some advantages.
So bottom line. Don't hold your breath for a "buh-bye". It will take some time to undo the mess Daimler left behind though.
Your innacurate declaration of "woeful product lineup" was almost as unqualified as Nardelli's bone-headed statement.
12/29/07, 09:04 AM
#23
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
This was the story my manager used to tell all of the customers when he didn't want to order a car that didn't sell on the lot.He figured if they really wanted one they would pay full sticker for it on an order and he wouldn't be stuck with a rock on his lot that he couldn't sell.
The two local dealers near me each have 3 or 4 in stock.
12/29/07, 01:03 PM
#24
Bullitt Member
Join Date: October 5, 2006
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was the story my manager used to tell all of the customers when he didn't want to order a car that didn't sell on the lot.He figured if they really wanted one they would pay full sticker for it on an order and he wouldn't be stuck with a rock on his lot that he couldn't sell.
The two local dealers near me each have 3 or 4 in stock.
Considering that the Sebring convertible has traded top honors with the Mustang convertible as best selling convertible over the last few years I don't see your point. Particularly since the comment was made to me in late August hot on the heels of the release of the redesigned Sebring convertible, which has actually gotten some very decent reviews. Moreover, Sebring sales are up over last year.
The fact that your dealers have some in stock could mean at least in part that its WINTER. In any case, my point was that Sebring sales were up, and demand for the new convertible was high. That's all verified by the sales figures.
Nobody likes to do their homework I guess.
12/29/07, 03:58 PM
#25
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Okay, let me put this in perspective then. My dealer and personal friend lied to me because they couldn't sell the new '08 Sebring convertible? Come on now.
Considering that the Sebring convertible has traded top honors with the Mustang convertible as best selling convertible over the last few years I don't see your point. Particularly since the comment was made to me in late August hot on the heels of the release of the redesigned Sebring convertible, which has actually gotten some very decent reviews. Moreover, Sebring sales are up over last year.
The fact that your dealers have some in stock could mean at least in part that its WINTER. In any case, my point was that Sebring sales were up, and demand for the new convertible was high. That's all verified by the sales figures.
Nobody likes to do their homework I guess.
Considering that the Sebring convertible has traded top honors with the Mustang convertible as best selling convertible over the last few years I don't see your point. Particularly since the comment was made to me in late August hot on the heels of the release of the redesigned Sebring convertible, which has actually gotten some very decent reviews. Moreover, Sebring sales are up over last year.
The fact that your dealers have some in stock could mean at least in part that its WINTER. In any case, my point was that Sebring sales were up, and demand for the new convertible was high. That's all verified by the sales figures.
Nobody likes to do their homework I guess.
I took the trouble to check local stock to verify your claim.
So now, assuming that winter could be a factor I picked a random dealer in Florida to check stock.
They had 8 in stock.
Your dealer and personal friend (if they are one in the same) has one tiny dealership or is perhaps not telling you the whole story.
He obviously could trade from another dealer's stock if you really wanted one.
Your point about sales being up is useless.
Sales have dropped for the Sebring vert and Mustangs have gone up since 2005. Sebring outsold the Mustang for only a year or two.
Sorry, that's my take on it. Of course I haven't seen a Chrysler I liked since the 70's and you own one you bought from your buddy.
12/29/07, 04:51 PM
#27
Bullitt Member
Join Date: October 5, 2006
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You do your homework your way, I'll do it mine.
I took the trouble to check local stock to verify your claim.
So now, assuming that winter could be a factor I picked a random dealer in Florida to check stock.
They had 8 in stock.
Your dealer and personal friend (if they are one in the same) has one tiny dealership or is perhaps not telling you the whole story.
He obviously could trade from another dealer's stock if you really wanted one.
Your point about sales being up is useless.
Sales have dropped for the Sebring vert and Mustangs have gone up since 2005. Sebring outsold the Mustang for only a year or two.
Sorry, that's my take on it. Of course I haven't seen a Chrysler I liked since the 70's and you own one you bought from your buddy.
I took the trouble to check local stock to verify your claim.
So now, assuming that winter could be a factor I picked a random dealer in Florida to check stock.
They had 8 in stock.
Your dealer and personal friend (if they are one in the same) has one tiny dealership or is perhaps not telling you the whole story.
He obviously could trade from another dealer's stock if you really wanted one.
Your point about sales being up is useless.
Sales have dropped for the Sebring vert and Mustangs have gone up since 2005. Sebring outsold the Mustang for only a year or two.
Sorry, that's my take on it. Of course I haven't seen a Chrysler I liked since the 70's and you own one you bought from your buddy.
My "useless" point
was that sales were up as it was relevant to the discussion. I get the idea that the fact you have not "seen a Chrysler you have liked since the 70's" is the real rub to my point. By the way, the sales person I bought the car from is hardly a "buddy" You make it sound like I was trying to do him a favor.I appreciate the fact that you went to the effort to check dealers in Florida. It's irrelevant to what I was told in late August, it's winter, and perhaps initial demand was a big factor. Hard to say, but facts are facts, and the sales of that model are up from a year ago, which was my point.
The only interest I have in the topic is that I would like to see another resurgance from Chrysler. Pardon me for rooting for the good guys and not Honda or Toyota, and seeking information beyond "opinions". They do have some successful models to build around, and some encouraging sales data in the realm of car sales. That was my point - period. Some of you take it as an afront to go buy one. On the contrary, drive whatever you like, but I find it interesting that some have such a level of disdain for an American auto maker, that they actuall refute fact based points as "useless"
This has gone beyond anything resembling an objective discussion on Chrysler's future, and is on the cusp of being a Chrysler hate fest. I am no fan boy of Chrysler, I obvioulsy own a Ford as well, and A Honda Accord. Perhaps a new " I hate Chrysler" thread would be more appropriate. No need to cloak that opinion in a sidebar discussion.
12/29/07, 05:01 PM
#28
Closet American
Thread Starter
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
While the LX uses E-class (a steel version not aluminum) suspension, transmission, and IRS, the chassis is unique to the LX. Your last statement regarding this model was that is was not selling well, but now it's a success? Moreover, the LX cars were designed prior to the "merger". You can thank Tom Gale and Trevor Creed of Chrysler for the resurgence of RWD V8 sedans. All Daimer did was share some componants. Here again you fail to mention other successful models such as the Ram truck, Caravan, etc.
Please qualify "declining quality" other than just being your opinion. Moreover, some of their powertrains such as the 2.4 World Engine in the Caliber, which you frequently malign are joint projects with companies like Mitsubishi and Hyundai. Even if your statement regarding quality were accurate, how would this fall "squarely on Chrysler engineers"?
To further correct you, the mandate for the Caliber's design is on record as being a Daimler mandate. They dicatated the the Neon replacement be a utility based design with European appeal, and not a small sedan, and that it would serve as a platform for other models i.e. the Compass to provide economy of scale. Like them or not, the Caliber as I have already stated is surpassing sales expectations abroad, and having to add shifts to the Belvidere facilty to meet production demands.
There's no doubt that the Daimler-Chrysler merger was poorly executed, mismanaged, and ultimately harmful to both parties. And while many Chrysler products got better, many Mercedes products became worse; their reputation was tarnished through the merger; and their share prices fell.
True story. Demand for the remodeled Sebring convertible has been strong. Even if rental fleets are a significant chunk of sales, as is the case with our Mustangs, why begrudge them?
Go back in my posts and read them again. Google is your friend.
Thank you. I've found yours to be misinformed, and vague, perhaps "woeful" is a better description?
It's been a pleasure watching you try to defend the statement "woeful pruduct lineup", and then subsequently circumventing your own point by acknowledging that Chrysler has some worthy product. You confuse your opinion and uninformed declararions with substance and objectivity.
Back to the point. Chrysler has some successful cornerstone models to build upon. Nardelli drives different models routinely and immediately meets with the product engineer with his observations. He has mandated that interior quality be improved accross the board, and is not encumbered by reporting to a board of directors to effect change.
Nardelli's ability is suspect to me, but Cerberus has a reputation for turning companies around and selling them, or scraping them. Clearly their intentions are the former, and they have made big moves to reduce operating costs already. Moreover, they have added and retained some key management.
I would add this. Cerberus is a privately held company, unlike GM and Ford. That status makes their financial picture less volitile. All things being equal that gives them some advantages.
So bottom line. Don't hold your breath for a "buh-bye". It will take some time to undo the mess Daimler left behind though.
Your innacurate declaration of "woeful product lineup" was almost as unqualified as Nardelli's bone-headed statement.
Personally, I don't have a dog in this hunt. Chrysler has had some solid products recently, but no cohesive vision for the future. You may believe that the merger with Daimler was a one-sided corporate raid, but that doesn't exactly tell both sides of the picture, now does it? And I suspect you know better.
During the merger years, Daimler hoped to gain access to the lower mid-range market, which was a massive miscalculation for them (just like the C230), which pulled down their reputation and quality. People weren't prepared to accept a "budget" Mercedes. Mercedes quality reputation suffered immeasurably during the "Chrysler years." They're only just now starting to get it back. How do you attach a value to that?!
Daimler hoped to gain market share down-market, Chrysler hoped to move up-market through technology sharing. It didn't work out that way and it was never going to, because it was never a merger of equals. In point of fact, Chrysler gained far more technologically from Daimler than the other way around - as if Chrysler could teach anything to Daimler about engineering and quality.
It was like Timex merging with Rolex.
By the way, I suggest you brush up on how to use the quote function here.
Either way, I don't wish to embarrass you again, so I'm out of this conversation.
12/29/07, 05:40 PM
#29
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Just for the record, I don't hate Chrysler. I was a loyal customer back before the K-car.
I was an Oldsmobile fan after that (look where that got me).
If the salesman is not your buddy, he may not have told you the whole truth about getting a car.
I have seen guys in the car business lie through their teeth to their friends, let alone a customer.
I don't want to flame you. I just don't think Chrysler has the stuff to survive another 10 years.
I was an Oldsmobile fan after that (look where that got me).
If the salesman is not your buddy, he may not have told you the whole truth about getting a car.
I have seen guys in the car business lie through their teeth to their friends, let alone a customer.
I don't want to flame you. I just don't think Chrysler has the stuff to survive another 10 years.
12/29/07, 07:05 PM
#30
Bullitt Member
Join Date: October 5, 2006
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to live in your fantasy world where Chrysler's saviour is Cerberus, that's your prerogative, but frankly, your facts are as skewed as your opinion. And that's just the way
Hollywood why lie?
I never said Cerberus was the savior. Moreover, the only main opinion I expressed was formed from Chrysler's published sales data. That being that there were successful models in the line up, and that their struggles were indicative of some the same problems GM and Ford are having. These are not my facts, they are Chrysler's. Take issue with them. All I did was look up their August 2007 sales figures, and Google the top selling cars.
It is my OPINION that Daimler essentially abandoned Chrysler and added to their disparity. You want to disagree, fine. Would anyone argue now in retrospect that this was a good "merger"?
You have wind socked from "woeful product line up" to the little gem below of actually now admitting they have some "solid products recently".
Personally, I don't have a dog in this hunt. Chrysler has had some solid products recently, but no cohesive vision for the future. You may believe that the merger with Daimler was a one-sided corporate raid, but that doesn't exactly tell both sides of the picture, now does it? And I suspect you know better.
During the merger years, Daimler hoped to gain access to the lower mid-range market, which was a massive miscalculation for them (just like the C230), which pulled down their reputation and quality. People weren't prepared to accept a "budget" Mercedes. Mercedes quality reputation suffered immeasurably during the "Chrysler years." They're only just now starting to get it back. How do you attach a value to that?!
Daimler hoped to gain market share down-market, Chrysler hoped to move up-market through technology sharing. It didn't work out that way and it was never going to, because it was never a merger of equals. In point of fact, Chrysler gained far more technologically from Daimler than the other way around - as if Chrysler could teach anything to Daimler about engineering and quality.
It was like Timex merging with Rolex.
By the way, I suggest you brush up on how to use the quote function here.
Either way, I don't wish to embarrass you again, so I'm out of this conversation.
12/29/07, 07:19 PM
#31
Closet American
Thread Starter
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It doesn't, unless you call surviving being bought out by a Chinese company. Chrysler's stupid idea of getting into bed with Chery to build 'B'-Class cars is another example of their "nail in the coffin" strategy.
This dog is dead already.
When's the funeral?
This dog is dead already.
When's the funeral?
12/30/07, 02:16 PM
#32
Bullitt Member
Join Date: October 5, 2006
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesn't, unless you call surviving being bought out by a Chinese company. Chrysler's stupid idea of getting into bed with Chery to build 'B'-Class cars is another example of their "nail in the coffin" strategy.
This dog is dead already.
When's the funeral?
This dog is dead already.
When's the funeral?
People said that in the 80's when things were much, much worse for Chrysler, and they were in a steady sales decline.
With sales up notably (9%) in the Chrysler car division I would say there is a case for some optomism. The chickens are coming home to roost in the American auto industry, unions, operating costs, a reluctance to embrace and compete in the less profitable small car market, etc, real and perceived diaparity in quality, etc.
I'd like to borrow your crystal ball so I can make my fortunes. You seem to have ALL the answers when it comes to the future of this particular business.
I certainly don't and I doubt other more qualified business people do either, but hey....whatever, more power to you Nostradamus.
12/30/07, 05:19 PM
#33
Team Mustang Source
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jim010
2010-2014 Mustang
29
10/12/15 08:33 PM