It is August, 2001. Two years ago, in the middle of a rash of successes, the company sold itself to a new owner which regarded it with thinly veiled contempt. Mercedes quickly put Chrysler in its place, eliminating leaders that stood up for themselves, and taking power in every range of the business - even in areas where Chrysler was clearly superior. All press releases emphasized how much Chrysler was gaining from Mercedes, rarely the other way around. In the United States, all Chrysler labels and ads referred to DaimlerChrysler; few, if any, Mercedes ads and parts carried that name. Plymouth disappeared, since Daimler-Benz already owned chunks of Smart, Mitsubishi, and Hyundai.

Now, two Chrysler lines are being replaced by Mitsbushis, and two more are being re-engineered by Mercedes. The trend of making Chrysler a truck builder and car styling studio seems clear.

Following are the opinions of regular Allpar News & Rumors forum posters.

DB wrote: [edited]

Here is my case, with three examples, for doing everything legally possible to take back Chrysler Group and make it Chrysler Corporation again.

http://forbes.com/global/2001/0820/032.html

In her recent article titled The anti-Iacocca Robyn Meredith writes: "Schrempp and his lieutenants have moved from schadenfreude to sympathy for Chrysler's plight. They have signed off on Zetsche's forecast of losing up to $2.5 billion this year, even though Zetsche's American predecessor was fired after predicting the same loss. And Mercedes has stopped disdainfully balking at sharing electrical systems and other under-the-skin parts with down-market Chrysler."

I thought over the above quotation because something troubled me in there. It is the German word "schadenfreude" which refers to a feeling of comfort that one takes in somebody's misfortune, i.e. people at Daimler enjoying disintegration of Chrysler organization. Is it not strange to feel that way about a company that you have bought, that is your own and for which you are entirely responsible? How can you be creative and maintain Chrysler competitive in the un-American and medieval type of organization ?

http://detnews.com/2001/autos/0108/10/b02-264574.htm

There is this information by Susan Carney in The Detroit News on "Chrysler specialty vehicles team to nurture niche models, talent". She quotes Chrysler's COO Bernhard: "We want to be able to grow our own leaders." My question is: Who are "we" that Bernhard refers to in the above quote? Is this the German team which will re-do Chrysler so it will become more of an "American icon"? What can you do about that? Can we really afford to talk and complain only? Where is the way of action?

http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/features/2001/August/200108_preview_minicooper.xml

My hope and wish is that there is a better solution available, like for example consortium of American businessmen (not Kerkorian, who is too old and too eccentric) buying back Chrysler Group and forming again the Chrysler Corporation. There is a lot of good business sense in such a move. Just imaging all patriotic Americans rushing to buy an American-owned-again Chrysler car. America was always about doing something in the face of adversity (not just talking and complaining).

The choice is clearly ours.

Johnb300M wrote:

I just went through a majority of DCX's websites and its subsidiaries. I am actually very impressed with all the resources this transportation conglomerate has. I am actually proud to have Chrysler part of this family.

However, and this may seem redundant:

This family of automotive stardom cannot forget an integral part, a very important "sibling" in this family. And that sibling is Chrysler. I feel that once Schrempp and his Mercedes bias is gone from the company, then and only then can these companies work in unison and work together to ultimately conquer GM as the worlds best transportation company. But Schrempp's attitude is deteriorating the company, and his bias is filtering down. Why, I saw it on the DCX main page. 90 percent of the news headlines are all about Mercedes-Benz, only one headline mentioned Chrysler, and it was the PT Cruiser's assembly in Europe. Once the two sides of the company work together, share the limelight as well as parts, not just Mercedes parts to Chrysler parts, but put some Chrysler stuff in their cars. I seriously think that a Chrysler Engine with a Mercedes transmission would be a perfect match. Maybe some of Chrysler's design cues could drift across the ocean.

They're just a thought...

Rich Hutchinson wrote:

I agree, but that must be initiated by the Daimler side; they must extend the olive branch. Then the Chrysler folks must accept it. Only then will they have a prayer of actually working "together" in the true sense of the word.

I think partnering with someone *was* inevitable; but not Daimler necessarily. For someone so concerned about how he was perceived (a weakness to start with) Eaton sure seems to have egg on his very wealthy face. Especially after his quick bailout. This is why I don't resent the Germans (aside from Schrempp's lying ways) as much as the bumbling stumbling way Chrysler waltzed right into their arms; apparently buying the 'merger of equals' line. There's never a merger of *equals*; *someone* always takes the lead.

It sure wasn't going to be a pantywaist like Eaton.

Ah well. Bottom line now is three fold:

1. Create enticing product (this means cars too)

2. Improve and *sustain* higher quality

3. Improve and *sustain* product and customer support; this means the dealer network too. Find out the *real* reasons people parrot the 'Toyota and Honda rule' mantra. IMO it's not just the cars; it's the care after the sale.

Curtis Redgap

  I again apologize for not keeping up with events. I admit to feeling frustrated and thwarted by the Daimler incursion. The death of Plymouth is a sad commentary on the state of America's history, as well as the shape of the country's economic forecast.

   I checked in with ALLPAR last night and was surprised to see the web site for saving Chrysler. I wish them best efforts, and applaud your support. I hope it has success, despite individuals such as Mr. Cawthon's belief that such efforts are for naught. Money, unfortunately  is the only motivation that seem to power stock holders interests, and in the best James Holden concept, people need to "just get over it".

I can say that this stock holder voted no on the merger in '98, and against Schrempp always. While I do not hold as much stock, thanks to DCX's ratio, and that it may seem largely ceremonial in size, it dates back to 1930, thank you. I do not date that far, however, thanks to the journals of my Dad, I have a pretty good picture of what used to be, what should have been, and unfortunately, a prognostication of what is going to be. Not good for Chrysler.

Last week, a friend of mine handed me a copy of "Automobile".  The cover was slickly done, and in itself it is probably an excellent magazine. The major malfunction however, turned out to be the editorial staff. It is lead by none other than David E Davis. DED, as in dead not deed. Philosophically, I have disagreed with this man going way back to his "Car and Driver" stint as editor there. He is sort of like the nattering gadfly, which goes to a function for a purpose but seems to forget why.

In the March 2001 issue of "Automobile", DED makes mention of Chrysler and, as he characterizes him: (quote) "my old friend Robert Eaton". (unqoute) The column is ear marked as "Some clouds have a silver lining."    To me, this is perfect DED. Discoursing about hunting in the 10,000 places he shot things in. Rambling forth about the dogs, whether it was his dogs, friends dogs, other people's dogs, or dogs he has seen. And of course, natterbobbing about the great potent potables he was consumed in the ever increasing quanities he describes. It is the same, just as it was back in the early 1980s when he was supposed to be writing about cars and drivers for the aforementioned magazine. I dropped my subscription to C & D when after several letters to him trying to get an angle on just what magazine he was supposed to be writing for, DED made a veiled reference to "those people who question my editorial acumen", with the comment that "they" could take the proverbial one way trip to the underside of the dirt where it is perpetually hot. No problem. No C & D by cancellation of the subscription with no more renewals. Some months later, DED was sacked. I didn't find any particular satisfaction in that, except that the precepts for C & D changed for the better, and have remained a much better automotive authority since.

In the "Automobile" column (3/01)  DED, after describing Eaton as "his old friend", DED goes on to make Eaton look like a hero instead of the sneaky idiot that he truly is. Let me quote the part of the column:

    (Quote):  "It begins to look as though my old friend Robert Eaton may not have been as stupid in selling Chrysler to DaimlerBenz as the chattering classes would have us believe. Chrysler was in trouble before anybody with a German accent showed up in the lobby. There was at least an outside chance that former Chrysler chairman Eaton actually may have outsmarted the nice people from Stuttgart and made himself and the former Chrysler shareholders a lot more money than if he'd sat still with no merger or buyout in sight and waited for the impending bad news about Chrysler losses to come to light." (Unquote)

Make any conclusion you want, but this is DED in the truest sense of the words he puts down. Years after the stabbing in the back, the outright (and conclusively proved and admitted to) lies from Stuttgart to Auburn Hills, DED puts Eaton on the pedestal. What acrimony!

Eaton himself made the most money in the American side of the deal, walking away with 216 million dollars and change. Shareholders lost money with the exchange rate Deutschmarks to Dollars. And the big shots divided up 7.7 BILLION dollars.

Three weeks ago, Bob Lutz was interviewed in a TV auto magazine about his recent move to be the Product Development VIP at General Motors. Here was the man that could have made Chryler the greatest car company in America, having already put it in the position of the hottest automobile biz in the world! And DED's "old friend", went behind Mr. Lutz's back, preferring not to mention the impending doom of Chrysler to Mr. Lutz, Mr Gale, and a few other good car people who believed in the future of Chrysler as it was then. Lutz had concepts that were stunning as well as being production capable that would have brought customers into Chrysler showrooms in droves like shades of 1955 and 1957.

Yes, the question did come up to Mr. Lutz about Chrysler. It was like a mask dropped across his face. His comment was sorta like a "no comment." He was not divisive, however, he simply stated: "Can anyone believe that the present situation at Chrysler is going to save the company?" Conclusion: Badge engineering platforms from around the world, without a car of its own, will seal the doom of the Auburn Hills based car company.