John D. Harmon wrote:

Have you noticed that the former ChryCo vehicles are advertised as "a product of DaimlerChrysler," but the M-B's are "a product of Mercedes-Benz of North America"? Also, DC is NOT giving employee discounts on M-B's. Guess they don't want too much riff-raff driving Benzes. This whole thing is not going over well here in Detroit. We recognize this "merger" for what it is-a takeover.

Henry Preston wrote:

Chrysler is changing just like you and I. We don't look the same as we did twenty years ago. Neither does Chrysler. I suppect the boys at Daimler will keep dodge trucks and Jeep. Everything else may go by the wayside. Daimler was attracted to the buy because of the excellent engineering of the Jeep. The boys in Germany will do what it takes to keep the stock up. That will be the driving force.

Ed wrote:

In response from an editorial from an employee, I think that the DCX management is being shortsighted in not keeping the Chrysler employees in the loop. The most recent figures show that Chrysler is contributing more than half the profits with 1/3 the employees. They would be foolish to second class the golden egg. It would seem this would give Stallkamp a lot of leverage.

M. Willis Bell wrote:

In spite of all of the postering that the merger was a "merger of equals", I believe that the marginally greater percentage of Daimler than Chrysler (for whatever reason) will surely result in German dominance of the organization for no other reason than "they can".

What I consider to be the "typically Teutonic Ego" is based on a perceived superiority and will need to be gently shown that there is another way to do something that might be better for the organization. Much of the German reputation for superiority in engineering and product has gained over a period of time and is generally an accurate perception. That as typically been their "competitive edge".

But such superiority has come at the expense of what I perceive to be an evolutionary engnieering process which can be slow, deliberate, and "plodding". Therefore, when the new product is introduced, it is already somewhat dated.

>From talking to associates who had been in the Mercedes parts and service area of dealerships for many years, they concur on the items of engineering greatness and a certain arrogance in this respect. Irregardless of what changes might need to be made, they are the ones to decide when they are made. For example, I understand that all Mercedes air conditioning systems did not get enough cooling capacity to really handle the southwestern US summer heat until the early 1990s. American vehicles were capable of this in the early 1960s!

And then there were the press reports from Germany seriously questioning why Daimler would even think about merging with such an "inferior" manufacturer such as Chrysler. And the related comments that they perceived Chrysler to be a maker of boxy and unappealing automobiles. Item 1 -- if the last Chrysler product they remember is the K-car, they are definitely behind times! And what of the cars from GM and Ford of the late 1970s and early 1980s? Item 2 -- just what do they consider Mercedes Benz automobiles to be??

If the Daimler people will put their egos in their pockets and listen to what the Chrysler people have to tell them (and also look at their impressive track record!), good things can happen from the "merger". But if they do not do this, the innumerable great things that Chrysler has accomplished will end up in the dumpster over the next few years (not to mention the loss of the people who helped put them there as the competition takes advantage of the situation).

From the early days of the Chrysler Corporation, it has been one of the engineering leaders and innovators of the American automotive industry. And when Chrysler leads, everyone else follows! While there have been some ups and downs, Ford and GM typically follow suit soon after Chrysler's up cycles (and their products design and orientation reflect this). GM, being the reactionary organization it is, is usually the first to follow Chrysler's leads in product and features--their current products are living proof of this, but with a GM flavor.

Before the Neon, all American small cars had been loss leaders. GM and Ford typically leaned on their Japanese partners to help in this matter with vehicles whose nameplates were changed. Chrysler did a totally North American vehicle that made money and sold well. They did it by engineering labor hours out of the assembly process with efficient design strategies, innovation in engineering and design processes, and the resultant shorter gestation periods.

While Chrysler is the undisputed leader in cupholder design, this is only one of many areas of "user friendliness" that Chrysler seriously upstages the competition. These are things that you do not notice until you see them. For example, the Chrysler product's fog lamp switch is typically on the same switch as the headlamps. The "exciting" Pontiac Bonneville had the fog lamp switch on the overhead console. The new Pontiac GrandAm's trip odometer reset button on the inside of the speedometer pod of the instrument panel where you have to reach through the steering wheel to use it. I could list more, but you get the idea.

As always, the current Chrysler products are typically designed and engineered to a greater level than GM desires to pay for and Ford seems capable of obtaining. Similar in concept to German vehicles and oher European vehicles. In that respect, Chrysler and Daimler can be considered "equals". Both companies have long stood on excellent engineering foundations.

But I believe that if you look at all of the engineering innovations made in this century, a disproportionate number will have their roots with the Chrysler Corporation than in any other single manufacturer. Many will be for things which happened when Mr. Chrysler ran the company and many will be in more recent times, but the trend is definitely there and continues to present times.

Unless the Daimler people fully understand what great things they got with Chrysler (other than light duty trucks and profitable economy cars) and build an organization with great synergy, everybody will lose (although they will probably never admit it).

It has been reported that it would be several years before any German-influenced designs would appear from DC in the North American market due to what was already in the supply line. What happens later is fully open to discussion. Although I will not hold my breath, I hope the current greatness will continue and be worthy of the Chrysler nameplate.

While it is inevitable that the Daimler people will put their mark on the Chrysler organization, they need to have the good sense to not mess with success irregardless of if they understand or appreciate its workings.

In the meantime, we all can reflect on the Chrysler Corporation that was and the great things it accomplished in its somewhat short history. And the memorable vehicles it produced, many of which we love, cherish, and own. Many times, great memories of the past provide comfort as we travel toward an uncertain future. I hope the trip is a good one.

[later]

It's now Sunday pm. I just went to Ed Wallace's Inside Automotive web site (www.insideautomotive.com). Click on the news icon and check out the account of Schremp's reaction about the exodus of people from the "late" Chrysler Corp to Ford and GM. That confirms many of my suspicions and those of the your "name withheld" author.

Apparently much of the old "superior race" orientation is much more alive and well in Germany than anyone would want to admit! The Germans seem to have the same mentality about the "merger" as many US corporations did regarding Junk Bonds of past decades. We all know what FederalMogul did to Carter Carburetor.

It was also reported on the Edmund's Automotive site that the earlier ownership split was definitely more German than it was originally due to S&P investors selling their Chrysler stock and more Germans buying it.

Andrew Renth wrote:

I must say I feel sorry for the people at Chrysler today. They are going to have to follow German rules. What makes me so mad and irritated is that Chrysler did not have to go through with this merger or takeover (as it really is). Why did Robert Eaton have to make Chrysler and the rest of the American auto industry look inferior. While the United States has 2 companies (Ford and GM), Germany has 4 (DaimlerChrysler, Volkswagon-Audi, Porsche, and BMW).