Chrysler vs BMW: survival
BMW ran an ad that included: “The ability to say no to compromise is a rare thing these days. Many
companies would like to be able to say it, but so few have the autonomy to actually do it. As an independent company, BMW can say no.” BMW, in short, makes the Ultimate Driving Machine, and will not start producing poor-handling SUVs or economy cars to get a quick buck, unlike some other companies we can mention.
It is great companies like BMW, Honda, Toyota, that do not stray from their principles nor let somebody come in and change their operations or beliefs. That is why these companies are first rate auto companies – the finest and most successful in the world, while entities like Chrysler are second class citizens in the market place. Strong companies keep to their guiding priniciples and never let them out of sight, while the weak ones let the market walk all over them. The last example is perfect in describing today’s Chrysler – a weak entity that sold itself to the devil for protection and in doing so sold its soul, beliefs, and principles. How do you pronounce Daimlerchrysler? Daimler, the Chrysler is silent.
Chrysler can no longer claim itself as an independent company like Toyota, Honda, Porsche, Ford, and GM can. These are the first tier auto companies that rule the auto industry. The second tier are those that have to gain protection from a stronger (financially and mentally) entity. This fits Chrysler perfectly as it huddles to the security blanket of its Stuttgart masters.
Chrysler no longer has the ability to say anything about its future because now its future is guided in Stuttgart Germany. The German mindset is clearly on display on the new and upcoming Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep vehicles. That “Chrysler” look is gone and has been replaced with such strong German lines that even Hitler would approve. The Commander would probably fit perfectly in the German army. Gone are the swoopy, sleek lines of the original Viper or the cutesy look of the Neon. Instead we get box after box because that is what the Germans define “American” style as. Chrysler’s design philosophy has been thrown out the window.
Chrysler’s legendary engineering died when Walter P. Chrysler passed on. After that day, Chrysler engineering has had some bright spots and some not so bright spots. Today, I have to wonder if there is such a thing called Chrysler engineering because with all these parts coming from Stuttgart,
Nissan, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, Mercedes, VW, and others, one has to wonder what those Chrysler engineers do all day. They can’t seriously think they can take credit for the work done by others? So, another of Walter P. Chrysler’s beliefs is out the window.
And finally, the main point that EVERYBODY seems to miss – Walter P. Chrysler’s persistance in keeping his company going during so many threats and hard times. His deterimination kept the company from going under. In contrast, the current bunch doesn’t have a clue, yet they foolishly think
they are doing a grand service by keeping his legacy alive. Well, I guess if keeping the name hooked up to the Daimler life support system is the answer, then so be it!
The point of all this mumbo jumbo is to say that the saying provided up above is the correct way to run a company and keep it going. Chrysler was (and still is) incorrect in its belief of its current situation. BMW, Honda, and Toyota have survived and have flourished because they did not sell out their principles. Chrysler did, and they had every opportunity to succeed like Honda, Toyota, and BMW.
CG is starting another one of its famous declines with over-production showing its ugly face again, industry leading incentives, dropping profits, and increasing fleet sales showing that the world’s “hottest” company might just be full of hot air. But just keep trusting good old Stuttgart boy
Eberhardt and all will be fine. Just keep telling yourselves that. And when the time comes to chop another 20,000 off the Chrysler payroll, let them talk to their representatives in Germany.
Like Ben Franklin said, “Those that give up freedom for security shall receive neither”. It is only a matter of time when this statement comes true. CG got themselves into this mess, and I’m not about to help them out of it either. It is either sink or swim with Daimler. They will have done it to themselves.
At least one good thing came out of this, the good/hard working guy has surpassed the bad/ unethical guy in the auto industry. By this I mean Toyota’s movement into third place in the U.S. auto market. Through hard work, determination, focused quality, and giving people what they want, Toyota has grown from a little nothing in the 60s to the third largest automaker in the United States by just man-handling Chrysler last month. On the opposite side of the spectrum, Chrysler has shown us how to throw everything away just for the short-sighted goal of protection — of the next “big fad”. Funny how the smart, independent car companies didn’t fall for that old trick and felt keeping their company strong and independent was more important than what Wall Street said. Again, Chrysler showed its feeble mindset at the worst possible time.
I applaud companies like BMW, Honda, Toyota, Porsche, Hyundai, GM, and Ford for doing the right thing and battling the tough fight and surviving.
More to the point, there was a time that inside Chrysler, comprimise for less than the best was not even a thought process, let alone a means to an end. Any company that sacrifices it’s core values, sacrifices itself. The Damiler takeover did not “save” Chrysler despite what many would say that it did. In fact, Chrysler not only lost it’s momentem from the top of the hill in the mid 90′s, it lost much talent through mass defections, as well as billions of dollars while the parent company instilled “its” vision of what Chrysler should be. It still hasn’t found the way. Oh sure, by tagging names from the history of Chrysler to the Daimler vision of what constitutes an “American” car, there have been some bright spots. However, of as late, the lack of independence has begun to show a lot of inherent weakness. Most people don’t realize that the 300 is not really what the original car meant in any way to the indpendent, strong engineering Chrysler Corporation. Allowing Daimler to can Plymouth is untenable. Just unbelieveable that a company that revives a bunch of historical names, pasting them on cars that in no way resemble or come close to matching the originals, would junk the premier marque of the entire Chrysler Corporation without so much as a survey. By losing it’s original independent concepts, which Plymouth allowed them to achieve, the Chrysler Group is now not much more than a paper tiger, whereby a good strong recession, will knock them right over. Carl Breer, one of the legendary group of three musketeers as they called themselves, wrote a book about Chrysler Corporation’s legacy of execellence in engineering. Yet, throughout the book, I couldn’t help but note that it was almost as if Walter Chrysler was an after thought in all that was accomplished before Walter’s death. Yet, we know that if it wasn’t for his grim determination, fantastic marketing accumen, and independent thinking, Chrysler Corporation would never have survived. Breer was largely responsible for the introduction of the Chrysler & DeSoto Airflow models of 1934. As it turned out, it was not a commercial success. Breer doesn’t blame the style, he blames the lack of engineering acumen. The delayed production caused by failure after failure to get the production line running, caused vicious rumors generated by General Motors to set the car back. Yet, engineering wise, it set the base for all cars that were built, even yet today. That was the strength of the Corporation, even in the face of failure, reaching back to it’s independence, standing of it’s core values, rushing a conventional style to the market. Would Daimler react so quickly? They didn’t, and so far, haven’t really made that a plank that CG could survive on.
While I too wish Chrysler had remained “independent” like Ford, GM, Toyota, etc, I also recognize they make the best lineup of vehicles in the industry. Do GM, Ford, or Toyota make anything to compare to the Charger or Magnum? Do either one of them have the best selling small SUV like the Liberty? Are they famous for the reliable and powerful Cummins in their heavy duty pickups? Do they make any 425 hp cars for under $45,000? The answer is no to all of them.
I don’t follow that at all. In the face of $3.00 a gallon gasoline, who really wants a 425 hp gas guzzler, for 45K or for that matter 4 cents. The Liberty didn’t spring from the Daimler connection, either. Jeep was an independent company, acquired by Chrysler before the merger, and basically has been allowed to keep it’s heritage, which is the point here. How long do you rely on pick up trucks for profit while the rest of the models you have sort of look like they don’t match much else in the market. Where are the economical vehicles that can produce 40 miles or better, to the gallon. Right now, after allowing a huge build up of the vehicle “bank”, without taking positive action to rectify it, sales are sort of tepid. A recession, and CG is going to be in trouble, again. The heritage is that during the worst economic period in recorded history, the world wide recession of the 1930′s, Walter P. Chrysler made profits, expanded his corporation, while building honest value products that exceeded the expectations of the buyers. THAT is sorely lacking in the DCX mix. Something that Toyota, Honda, Ford, GM, are able to exude with confidence, whereby Toyota is positioning itself to bury CG because heritage is NOT putting names of respected older models on vehicles that do not fit the what the original car truly meant. So, yes, your statement is correct, the answer is NO to all of them, and unfortunately so much the worse for it.
Well, Toyota has a great 40 mpg small car, the Corolla, which is the best selling car in the world, and a very, very comfortable, if not especially fun, 268 hp mid-size, the best-selling car in America. They have not had ANY real failures in quality in my lifetime as far as I know, the worst car they’ve made as been merely average, so that’s something, too. Does Chrylse rhave anything to match the Yaris, Scion, Corolla, Camry, Lexus GS, Lexus ES, Lexus LS? Do they have a match for the Corvette, Suburban, Yukon, or Cobalt? Or for the Mustang? You don’t need to match every vehicle, that’s the point.
Toyota succeeds when they don’t compromise – when they stick to their roots of perfect appliance cars. They fail when they try to be motorheads and things they’re not – the MR2, Celica, and Lexus IS come to mind. The lesson is needed at Chrysler.
To paraphrase an engineer, they used to start with the beefiest parts they could make and work their way down without losing reliability… the mind set changed dramatically over the decades.
Look for a great feature in the coming weeks…not sure when.
In the past 40 years or so Chrysler has reinvented their auto line how many times? We start with RWD/BoF, then Kcars, then LH/LX, now we have RWD & FWD and at one time Lee Ioccocca wanted Chrysler to get out of the truck business altogether. BMW,Honda and Toyota have stayed with their basic platforme or so it seems. They have not had to to reinvest in all new platforms every 10-12 years, which should enable them to build a sizeable war chest to weather the economic storms that are enevible. Also Chrysler has always ticked me off because they build good engines but get satisfied with themselves and only make improvements if forced.Back in the bad old days of say the Fifth Avenue for example, I always wondered why they didn’t improve the aerodynamics of that car and stay in the RWD business with a improved and more powerful and efficient engine. I loved that car. Also whydo our vehicles get worse fuel milage than GM’s? My friend has a ’05 Chev. that gets 19.2mpg with a V8 and my ’03 V6 Dak gets 18mpg and i hear this all the time. It’s discouraging. I sometimes think it’s a miricle that Chyrsler has managed to stay in business through all the mess ups like Eaton.
I agree with Wayne, particularly about Eaton, which would have never happened it it weren’t for the ego of Iaccoca. And it is a miracle Chrysler survived him, while it went downhill fast under Eaton, eventually losing out to Daimler.
No CG doesn’t have to compete in every market. That is what finding markets is all about. However, when there was a definative area, Chrysler did it’s best when it stuck to what worked for it, without jumping all about. When you, Dave, described the Corolla, particularly being comfortable, without being particulaly fun, as well as staying within it’s boundries of what works for it, it almost sounds like the spot Plymouth used to be in. To the point, a company that does not comprimise, that sticks to what it does best, always succeeds, as the saying goes. There is nothing that does succed like success. CG hasn’t found it’s own identity, let alone failing back on a heritiage, or plainly, lack thereof. In fact, the CG was a pretty big flop until the remake of the Ram, and finally they got a hit in the 2005 ineptly named 300. Without the heritage or the identity, CG as an entity will always be suspect, unless they determine to find themselves and build a solid reputation, time after time, without comprimise.
Well least chrysler still makes a profit. The other two independent american companies make a loss, BMW feels the need to copy Mercedes Benz into every new car market they enter or create and lexus feels the need to copy every one elses design. Honda I admit are doing well but Toyota are showing sign of self distructing e.g. the toyota avalon reliability.
Chryslers aim is simple at the organsation. Mercedes caters for the executive premium class and Chrysler for the luxury/cheaper class. E.g. chrysler 300c is about 20 to 30% cheaper but in the same class. Dodge was supposed to be the same for mitsubishi in the small car category. Chrysler has to go throught the same processes as everyone else if they are considering a new development jus like Mercedes. Jus mercedes has more markets because they don’t have mitsubishi anymore. Simple. Without the buyout we wouldn’t be getting the chrysler imperial (to be built on R-class platform), dodge Hornet and any other small car project (connection On Mercedes with Volkswagen), 300c plaform (Mercedes expertise) and those world class automatic and diesel engines.
Who has indicated that the Imperial (so called R class) is going to be built? So far, it is just a concept with underwhelming public interest. Chrysler Group profit is tenuous right now. Tribune Media Services Inc. has a skeptical outlook towards DCX in general advising that stock purchase is a mixed buy due to lingering problems from Mercedes-Benz with quality control issues that it can’t seem to resolve quickly, and a huge loss by stubborn refusal to let the Smart Car program either pass quietly or fix it once and for all. They also indicated that financial performance has been very uneven since the buy out. A performance indication of how things are going is the fact that Directors and Management hold only a small percentage of stock shares, exuding lack of confidence from within it’s own people! Chrysler Group sales were down in April, allowing Toyota to outsell CG for the first time in the United States. The investment of a lot of money in the introduction of 10 new models is risky since none of them are proven sales performers whereby underwhelming response in a couple of them could well spell bad investment news. This is especially troubling since CG has cut production of current models so as to reduce overstocked inventories, resorting to incentives and other “sales” methods to try and lure buyers to it’s products. The consensous then is not to buy stock.
I don’t see where loss of Mitsubishi helps Mercedes have more markets nor how it places Chrysler on the same level as a Mitsubishi. Engineering wise, Chrysler Corporation had introduced the best automatic transmission with the Torqueflite, and also has a 7 speed double clutch proven transmission that Daimler shelved, probably because it was too good. No doubt, had Chrysler been allowed to continue development with the aforementioned Torqueflite, it would have still been best in class, with a myriad of gear selections, suitable for applications behind any engine in the world. Failing to comprehend bed rock values/heritage only confuses issues. Now, you really have to ask yourself, just how does BMW copy every model that is offered by Mercedes-Benz? They do not. They may offer competition in the same market, but you can hardly compare the two as to development based upon their offerings over the years. BMW just continues to evolve. Which is what they started out to do, and have not waivered from their heritage with their comeback in the 1940′s. Seeking to have VW develop/build the Dodge Hornet is an insolent indication of how Daimler considers CG. There isn’t any reason that that car cannot be made from the folks that are right here. VW too, has wandered around aimlessly since it sought to go away from it’s heritage. Sales of the new Beetle show how much people respected, and purchased the original and the best. Continued development of the original, sticking to it’s roots, making it evolve, would still have garnered thousands of sales. New models, certainly, but keep making what works best without comprimise, and the public will keep on blazing the trail to the sales doors.
Chrylser does indeed make a profit. If they didn’t, I suspect they’d be shrunk until they did. Wlater Chrylser, in the Depression, never cut the development budget, and never substantially reduced head count.
No question as to making a profit, however, as I said it is tenuous, subject to being knocked out should a recession should occur. You have to agree that the amount of development money spent to bring out new models is also questionable in view of the cut back in production of current models. Whatever a high profit car might make is going to be reflected in the loss of money for those vehicles that do not make money.
Walter Chrysler actually expanded his operations during the depression. Achieving a number 2 in production. Without incentives and cash backs on his vehicles.
Do any of you remember when M-B tried break into the US mkt by cutting a deal with Studebaker. I believe that was was shortly before S called it quits. It really burns me that CG has to play the role of cash cow and isn’t allowed to do the things that they are capable of doing such as powerful, reliable cars and trucks that stand head and shoulders above anything on the mkt.BMW, Honda,Toyota have remained independent which demostrates the sad truth of what has happened to American industry in the past few years. Corporate Mgmt greed has hurt the quality of our products, not the workers in most cases.When will we learn?
I do recall that M-B and Studebaker tried to tie the knot some years back. That was an interesting situation and thanks for jogging the old rusty file cabinets. I will research it some more. I agree with you. It just seems that the mantra keeps on going and going that anything from Europe is superior to anything built here. Pure snobbery. There isn’t any reason that if a company’s management stands firm in issues of quality, that it cannot achieve a superior product. Even against the planned obselescense programs, quality can still be the main stay of building something. It isn’t just autos either. 5 years ago we bought a GE refrigerator. Every 8-10 months, the freezer stopped working, along with the ice maker. Turns out it was just a poor design, and GE KNEW IT! They went to market with it anyway! A year ago, a class action lawsuit was initiated against the very same model, then built in the thousands. Finally, last week, when the thing stopped working again for the 6th time, GE offered us a replacement. Needless to say, with reservations, we accepted. However, it certainly has tainted my appreciation for GE products, of which every single appliance in our house has experienced problems that have called for service, including microwave, dishwasher, dryer, and washer. Will I ever buy GE again? Assuredly not. Of course, my small protest won’t make GE go away given the millions of other people that don’t know about the quality issue, however, mere knowledge of the quality issue makes me very angry, because this country is far better than this! That profit has denigraded quality down to being marginally and ACCEPTABLE is a shame. The same thing happened to Chrysler vehicles in 1957, 1958, and 1959. Not that Ford or GM products were any better. It has taken decades and that bad image still lingers. It should never have been allowed to happen, and if anything, Chrysler should have known better taking a lesson from the 1934 Airflow. A beautiful car overall, but a bad image from production delays which while they were not true, the IMAGE of lack of quality killed what was the car of the century and dented Chrysler’s engineering image. While never being truly said, Walter Chrysler and his “three musketeers” never had the same relationship again. That enginnering influence lead to the Corpration going into a hibernation for the next 20 years, with Walter Chrysler retiring in 1935. The true vision, leadership, and drive for the betterment of the company went with him at that time.
It always seems CG has the worst timing of any car company out there. We introduce V8 RWD’s again which at first are hits when gas is still relatively cheap, then gas skyrockets and we don’t have anything in the lineup that gets good mileage. Caliber is the only thing and it only gets 30MPG. The good thing about Toyota and Honda is that they always have had their bases covered. It also seems that we have heard “we are determined to improve quality” forever. In reality it seems no one ever really cared about quality in the first place. Back when we demanded that suppliers cut their prices 25%, we got exactly what we asked for, CHEAP PARTS. Cheap parts do not last as long as good parts. Just look at how many window regulators have been replaced on 2005 models alone. It also seems like our vehicles have serious problems right out of the gate and not until they get up into the 20,000 mile range. If we would seriously address the quality issues it would go a long way to solving a lot of our problems. But if we don’t then I don’t see this company surviving many more years.
How can you tell when it’ll rain? You’ve just washed your car.
How can you tell when gas prices will go up? Chrysler just introduced cars with lousy gas mileage.
How can you tell when gas prices will fall? Chrysler just increased their gas mileage.
How can you tell when a muscle era will end? Chrysler is decidedly dominating.
How can you tell when fashion will dictate sales? Chrylser is stodgy.
How can you tell when function will dictate sales? Chrylser is fashionable.
Take with 5 ml of salt.
It seems to me that many people here need to let go of the past. The new Charger and 300 are great cars and are selling. Thats more than can be said for the rest of the Big 2 and 2/3rds. Yes, they might not be exactly like their namesakes, but they by themselves are great cars. Thats the same kind of mentality that has destroyed the new GTO. Its fast, handles great, and gets (respectivly) good mileage, yet nobody bought it because it wasnt exactly like the one from years past with its primitive suspention and such.
Besides, mass car manufacturers in the US stand no chance regardless of what they do. Both Ford and GM are taking massive losses, and if they dont get bought out, they will probably be dead in 10-15 years time unless they can pull a huge U-turn on their profits. It happened to English manufactures (Rover, Britian’s last independent mass car maker just caved a few years ago), and their’s no reason the US car makers wont be bought out just like we bought out the English.
Just be happy Chrysler is still around and still making decent money. Maybe someday they will make their own, internally develeloped cars someday, but at least for now they’re around.
Sure, we’ll look at the present and not the past. Let’s see what it looks like.
1) Minivans – falling behind in sales.
2) Market percpetions – worst quality of any automaker. (Not true of course.)
3) Great big market gaps: entry level car, small SUV, small pickup.
4) Marketing: very inconsistent – “luxury” brand starting at $14,000; Chrysler and Dodge differentiated entirely by appearance; Dodge “big and bold” with 1.8 liter Caliber base model, four-cylinder minivan, etc.
5) Customer service – better not even think about that, it’s too depressing.
Chrysler is NOT still around. “Maybe someday they will make their own, internally develeloped cars someday, but at least for now they’re around.” NO, if they’re not making their own cars, they’re not around any more. AMC is still surviving in a forgotten corner to make Jeeps and trucks, and the ghost of Mitsubishi haunts Auburn Hills, but Chrysler itself died shortly after being taken over, when all the principles WPC ran the company on were thrown into the shredder by the Boys from Stuttgart – with help from the Boys from Auburn Hills.
Dave, you are right spot on. And every thing verifiable for those that are still dipped in the ether stupor that big real wheel drive V-8s are the “bright spots” for the future. Stock holders being advised not to buy is a great big issue, along with the lack of much participation by CG and DCX management in stock ownership. But, I guess the bright dazzle of a chrome laden gas guzzler blinds a lot of people to the real truth. Chrysler is one recession away from big trouble.
“It seems to me that many people here need to let go of the past.”
Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Airflow, B-vans, A-vans, Dodge trucks, small cars, medium sized cars, (this space reserved for minivans.)
“The new Charger and 300 are great cars and are selling. Thats more than can be said for the rest of the Big 2 and 2/3rds. Yes, they might not be exactly like their namesakes, but they by themselves are great cars. Thats the same kind of mentality that has destroyed the new GTO. Its fast, handles great, and gets (respectivly) good mileage, yet nobody bought it because it wasnt exactly like the one from years past with its primitive suspention and such.”
Nobody bought it because it was overpriced and looked exactly like a Grand Am.
“Besides, mass car manufacturers in the US stand no chance regardless of what they do. Both Ford and GM are taking massive losses, and if they dont get bought out, they will probably be dead in 10-15 years time unless they can pull a huge U-turn on their profits. It happened to English manufactures (Rover, Britian’s last independent mass car maker just caved a few years ago), and their’s no reason the US car makers wont be bought out just like we bought out the English.”
GM made a small profit in the last quarter in case you didn’t notice, and they are reaching new labor deals that will make that into a big profit next year, most likely. I doubt you can count Ford out either. GM and Ford aren’t going anywhere depsite idle auto-writer speculation. As for the English automakers, they spent decades not making money, bickering, mismanaging, and spreading a small number of sales across a huge number of brand names, doing NOTHING to improve quality, and in the case of all the Rootes Group brands, doing mind-numbingly stupid things like buying a company, shutting down its factory, killing its carlines, and then not using its name.
BTW thanks, Curtis.
[...] Allpar has an interesting editorial on the costs of compromise and the value of sticking to your guns. There’s a fine line between responding to market needs and being wishy-washy and all-things-to-all-people. I really resonated with that editorial and think it’s worth your time, too. But come back when you’re done! [...]
First of all no brand is or will ever be all things to all people.
This is a quote from AE, which is always directed at MB, who gets things wrong half the time IMO.
This argument about BMW, Toyota, “sticking to guns” and never compromising is luke warm at best.
For any company that has any type of history, you can always go back and find may compromises.
We may not see it today in the present…but there are there and they will turn their ugly heads in the future.
Oh and about the comments about Chrysler is worse off then BMW because someone bought them out is ridiculous.
We live in a capitalistic society where companies are always merging, being spun off from one another.
Exxon and Mobile, for example since there are some what connect to cars via gasoline.
Does anyone think less of them because they merger or one of them got bought out?
In the future we will see more buyouts like we did in the late nineties.
How many companies did GM and Ford buy?
How many will Toyota buy in the coming years?
Here are some of the things I saw after giving a quick glance to the replies.
1) “Chrysler has the best line-up in the industry” I don’t remember who said that, but come on. Is that why Toyota now outsells CG in monthly sales as well as YTD? From a strictly business standpoint, Toyota’s lineup is far more successful even though it is not the most exciting. People must like what Toyota is offering because Toyota is able to sell more products than CG is.
To add on top of that, the “best lineup in the industry” should not have 1) “the industry’s highest incentives (on average)”, 2) the factory pushing more and more products on dealers to clear out overstock problems – not once, but twice now, and 3) an increase in fleet sales just to get the products out of the factory and the storage yards. According to numbers in the Wall Street Journal, 22% of the first quarter sales for CG were to fleet sales while only 9% of Toyota’s first quarter sales were to fleets. How is it that Toyota can sell a lot more products in the retail market without the heavy aid of fleet sales? I understand Honda doesn’t do any fleet sales. I’m not 100% posititve about that, but if Honda can sell a small % to fleets and still thrive, why can’t the “best lineup in the industry”?
2) The overweight issue. I think both of you nailed this aspect of the current CG products. You aren’t alone either as I communicate with a former Chrysler owner that sees this as clear as day. The LX cars are overweight as well as the Caliber and other products. Why? Our guess is that Mercedes never had to bother with making light-weight vehicles and since they now call the shots on CG products, they’ve gone back to their 100 years experience of building heavy cars. I know Dave hammered this plenty of times concerning the Caliber. In the latest Motor Trend and Car & Driver, the Caliber got stomped on by the competition. In one of the articles, they tested the “hot rod” R/T version. I’m guessing R/T still has some performance to it? Anyway, with ~170 hp, the thing was the slowest of the group even though it had the most horsepower. It was the heaviest of the bunch and even with the CVT had the worst EPA mileage. How is this an improvement over the Neon? I remember C&D ripping the Caliber for not being a confident driver and blamed it on the “7/8ths” complete chassis and weight. Again, how is this an improvement over the Neon – one of the most fun cars to drive when it first appeared? I know there will be an SRT Caliber coming out with 300 hp, but I would not be surprised if that thing didn’t out run the Neon SRT-4. And if it doesn’t, then what is the point? Both publications mentioned terrible torque steer on the R/T model and that is with the ~170 engine. How on earth are they going to conquer this on a 300 hp version? I didn’t read anything about AWD on the SRT-4 model!
3) The cheap interiors: Bravo!!! I’m glad I’m not the only one seeing it. Actually, I’m not the only one as the GM folks are having a field day laughing their butts off over these new interiors. For once, they have a right to laugh because GM might very well be making the best interiors in Detroit. In my opinion, CG has now taken GM’s spot as the worst (cheapest and ugliest) interiors in the industry and that is saying something. GM has always had bad interiors as long as I can remember, but Lutz has them going in the right direction. I think cost cutting (directed from Stuttgart) is a major factor in why the Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep interiors look like crap. The spy photos of the Sebring look pathetic in my opinion – and that is the Chrysler model! What is the Dodge one going to look like? Why is everything going to silver, gray, and flat colors? I remember when Tom Gale and bunch actually experimented with colored interiors. The old Chrysler interiors weren’t the best out there, but they were nice looking and showed some passion for the automobile. These new interiors look like something out of East Germany.
4) Cost cutting for better profit margins? I think this issue was brought up as investment bankers are getting cold feet over DCX. The latest DCX quarterly profits did not set the world on fire. Mercedes still is losing money with its money lossing SMART division and Maybach disaster, and now CG’s profits declined by 53% from the same time last year. Combine that with adjusted profits of the fourth quarter due to the Arizona Testing Grounds sale, and it appears CG is starting to slip.
I also read where CG’s profit margins never did meet the goal set forth by Dieter, but I guess he gets away with a “passing” grade anyway. Now it sounds like CG’s profit margins are hovering around 1%. Last year I think CG was squeeking out 2.6% (or something like that). So, what has the latest and greatest Mercedes business model done for CG? Is pumping up market share at all costs good for the bottom line? GM found out the hard way that is not the best way to go. But good old Eberhardt just keeps on pumping out vehicles and piling on the incentives so that the market share numbers look good. Well, so far, CG is actually behind last year’s sales numbers. CG is starting to show a loss in annual sales as well as GM and Ford. Has anybody on Allpar noticed that?
5) I noticed Curtis mentioned something about their marketing in regards to Chrysler being a “luxury brand”, but selling a $14,000 model. I thought Dieter was going to take Chrysler up market. You can’t be taken seriously up market if you continue to sell PT Cruisers at bargain basement prices. I thought Dieter was totally against badge engineering when he said he would never have brought out the Sebring and Stratus so close together. So, why are we going to get the Dodge Durango and Chrysler Aspen – two vehicles that look almost exactly alike? The Sebring and Avenger look to be twins as well. So, what happened?
Like I said, I think you guys see what is going on and are not happy about it. No body else seems to care so I figure just let them live in their own dream world. If they think Daimler is the greatest thing to ever happen to Chrysler then they obviously aren’t paying attention. Anybody that truly knew Chrysler knows that the magic is gone from the 90s. I saw a 1996 Viper GTS the other day and it just hit me how impressive that vehicle was. It WAS a Chrysler Corporation vehicle! You could not deny that fact. All their products in the 90s had that special “something” that made them look good AND made them uniquely Chryslers. The new stuff doesn’t at all. Most of the new stuff coming out look like “me-too” vehicles that somebody already has on the market. On the other hand, I am stating to see that special “something” popping up on the latest GM vehicles. It is obvious that Lutz is turning GM design into the design studio he once visited every day at Chrysler. The designs coming out of GM are unlike anything that company has produced for a long time. GM still has its pension and union problems that could sink it, but I think GM is going to kick butt in the product field in the next few years. They have some very impressive products coming out apparently – at a time when CG seems to have lost its direction. Everything is boxy or just plain old looking, while Lutz is adding curves and sleek line to Buicks and Chevys. That upcoming Buick Enclave, if done like the concept, will kill the Pacifica. The new GM suvs kill the Durango and Aspen. And now GM’s 2 seat roadsters (Solstice and Sky) are sold out while the Misfire can’t seem to get on the streets. The Corvette/Z06 is making everybody forget about the new Viper, and the Cobalt SS has now become the pocket rocket of choice now that the SRT-4 is gone. GM still has some troubles ahead, but I feel GM’s product planning is going in the right direction thanks to Lutz. He will be the difference maker.
So, other than “HEMI”s, “Chargers”, 300s and bold, in-your face designs, what does CG have? I can tell you CG doesn’t have the third sales slot any more. I wonder if the Allpar regulars know that Toyota passed them up last month. Maybe then these guys will think about what happened and why.
You guys were right. Chrysler had momentum when the “Team” was there in the 90s, but like usual, stupid business decisions destroyed whatever good momentum Chrysler had going.
“Change – a bend in the road does not mean the end of the road, unless you fail to make the turn” -unknown
Without any disrepect to the Chrysler of old, they recognized that the auto industry is a very dynamic place, and ignorantly clinging to “the way things have always been” was the quickest route to going nowhere. The concept of the “Big Three” American auto companies is obsolete — the auto industry is now global with, possibly (arguably) a “Big Six” (GM, Ford, DC, Honda, Toyota, & Nissan). Chrysler on its own would not necessarily have figured into that list. The requirement for ultra-efficient development and production to compete in this industry has led to mergers, acquisions, and joint ventures across the board, including the “independant” companies listed above.
Example: BMW/GM/DC hybrid joint venture. Would one suggest that these companies are weaker or in some way less independant because they share and leverage each others’ strengths and resources to bring new technologies to market sooner and better? How long would it be before each of those three companies have hybrid powertrains available, and with what quality level and at what price, had they each been “strong” enough to develop their own systems independantly? Another example: Is Lexus weak because they are a division of Toyota, or Acura as a division of Honda? I do not see how this is different in principle than Chrysler being a part of DC. As another example, it was mentioned above that DC seeking to partner to build the Hornet is an indication of their regard for their own people. Dodge has essentially designed the car, but they want to share the costs of bringing it to market withh another company… Keeping in mind that developing an entirely new product is very expensive, and that this particular product will have a relatively low profit margin per unit, DC has a choice: go it alone with a price a couple thousand dollars too high, or team up and hit the market at the right price point. Is an independant flop better than a shared success? How about the Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe JV? Or the World Engine developed by Hyundai, Kia, and DC? Do you really think there would still be new Jaguars, Land Rovers, Aston Martins, and Lamborghinis all driving the same streets if not for Ford’s “protection”? There are far too many examples to list them all…
To say that Chrysler is worse off by working with others, and that they would be better off working completely independantly, is a very naive and conceited statement indeed. The industry is changing, evolving if you will, and to resist that change, to bury their heads in the sand, would be not only ignorant, but also suicidal. Companies like Toyota & Honda are thriving because they are consistent and reliable (not to get into how their undervalued currency allows them to do so much cheaper), not independant. Using GM & Ford in an argument about surviving is questionable (to be polite). Chrysler has attitude, style, & performance, and they are certainly closing the gap in quality. What they need is the confidence of buyers, which has nothing to do with independance.
I don’t think you understand Lexus and Acura. They are divisions like Plymouth was a division – they were CREATED BY the companies in question and they are BRANDS and not real separate divisions.
Chrysler would still have worked with others, WHEN IT SUITED THEM. They would not have to kowtow constantly and be careful not to step on anyone’s toes or cross their little lines. Mostly, they WOULD NOT HAVE TO SUPPORT MERCEDES.
Is Chrysler better off now? Well, let’s see. They’re short on engineers. They can’t build a full line of vehicles because they don’t have the cash. They are cost-cutting like mad because they don’t have any cash. In 1999 they had $12 billion and Chrysler Credit pumping in nice healthy profits. Now everything seems to be getting outsourced, they’re losing control over key components and even assembly lines, and they can’t engineer a car without having another company involved, and they have to design Jeeps to be Mercedes as well. Yeah, a real improvement.
I completely understand the examples I gave — but how is it significant if a division is created from within or acquired? At the end of the day they’re both one of multiple product lines in a single larger company. Above all else, we’re talking about a business, and as with any other business in any industry, some products will generate more revenue than others, and all contribute to the greater good of the whole company. MINI doesn’t make as much money as BMW. Although designed in part by BMW designers, they aren’t designed as BMWs. MINI can’t start building large SUVs all by themselves tomorrow either. But neither BMW nor MINI as a division are “weak” because of it.
Chrysler is losing ground to the larger Japanese companies because Chrysler has an (inaccurate IMHO) reputation for building unreliable vehicles. They are cost-cutting and resource sharing to compensate for, in large part, legacy costs (money which should be going towards improving reliability) that only seem to apply to American manufacturers, which have begun to show themselves more in this new, global industry. The “improvement” is that, while non-American companies can take advantage of their favorable local economies, and while the other two American companies (the “thriving” GM & Ford) seem to be struggling with slipping market share and revenues from their bland and unimpressive products, at least Chrysler is able to produce new, unique and innovative products that are closing the gap in quality, stirring passion, and are capturing some interest.
‘In this industry, first you prove the products, then you get the confidence, THEN you get the sales.’ -borrowed from Scarface, adapted for the situation.
It’s totally significant because of the argument that you’re making. Chrylser as an organization is being sucked dry to support an organization in another country. Lexus as an organization doesn’t really exist any more than Toyota Camry as an organization does. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
You are right about losing ground to the Japanese companies – NOT LARGER ones, because Chrylser was, until this year, LARGER than Toyota or Honda – or in fact ALL Japanese automakers other than Toyota combined. The high legacy costs are partly because of the downsizing; retirees keep on living and taking up medical costts. As for MINI, it does not exist except as a product line. Rover once existed and now does not. Mini was part of Rover.
Let’s get somethign straight. Lexus and Scion are not companies and never were. Lexus and Scion are subgroups of modified Toyotas. While Dodge was once a separate company, and probably would have been better off staying that way, they were eventually integrated into Chrysler so that by the 1970s, Dodge and Plymouth and Chrysler were all the same company. You can’t then say that Plymouth is being helped by being part of Chrysler. It’s meaningless because Plymouth could not stand alone; the only Plymouth employees, if there were any, were in marketing, and the rest were Chrysler Corp employees. Plymouth, as a standalone company, would be like Jensen at best. Nobody wants that.
Chrysler is losing ground to the Japanese now because their money and people were taken by Mercedes, and they have to work extra-hard to support losses at Mercedes. Any synergy is more than compensated for by that massive drain on tehir resources – and the loss of profit-making Chrysler Credit which also feeds in to Mercedes, so that the German Giant doesn’t have to make any serious sacrifices or give up any vehicles. In fact, even as Chrysler let the B-vans go, Mercedes is going into new territory.
When you can find an analogy that works, let me know.
American auto mfgs. are good at building their products to what they perceive their customer wants or needs, Japanese mfgs. are senstive to critism of their products.Case in point:When I was a Kubota tractor dealer we had field day to demostrate some new models. Kobota’s engineers were everywhere taking notes on every positive or negative comment. This may be why the Japanese are so highly regarded by the media, because they [the Japanese] are senstive to any testers criticism, which of course gives the media an ego boost, whereas criticism of American mfgs. falls on deaf ears, or so it seems.[Just a theory]BMW also seems to respond to criticism of their products and are constantly making improvements in their products. An average or even a poor product will be perceived in a much more favorable light if the service is above average, whereas an excellent product will develop a bad reputation if the service is sorry! I have been in shops where the mechanics were poor mouthing the dealers products to the customer. I told one that if he did not like Chrysler products he should work for someone that sold a product he liked. Shocked him!Lack of product knowledge by sales people is another shortcoming.I know that dealers are independently owned businesses but they are shooting their own foot!
That’s true… I fully agree with you. What makes it worse is when Chrysler employees (customer service) put down the company. And when Chrysler puts down its own stuff, e.g. the Neon. The arrogance that temporarily lifted and has now returned is quite a put-off. “If your suggestion was any good, we’d have thought of it.”
It seems to me that quality and reliability are getting worse than better which is leading to increased customer dissatisfaction. But if you try and point it out to a Chrysler representative, they pay no attention. I originally thought that when Mercedes took over that quality would greatly improve but there are no signs of that yet. It shouldn’t be so hard to see that there are a large number of warranty claims for 3.7 litre Grand Cherokee water pumps so something needs to be done to improve the part. Chrysler also has a high number of recalls which leads to a bad public image. True, some of them are only for a small portion of a certain model but it still counts against their total number. It didn’t do much good when Chrysler fought the ball joint recall on Durangos and Dakotas for so long only to finally do the right thing and issue the recall. By contrast, Toyota recalls a large number of trucks for ball joints also but it is barely a blip anywhere in the news.
To me it’s very simple, you keep customers cars out of the shop, they are happy and recommend the vehicles to their friends and family, and sales go up. If they have to keep bringing their vehicles in over and over again for problems, not only will they not return, they won’t recommend the product.
Why would you think quality would go UP when Mercedes took over, given that Mercedes had lower quality than Chrysler at the time of the buyout?
As it happens, quality started shooting up just about the time of the takeover, due not to Mercedes but to focusing on, well, quality, including pushing team-based, quality-oriented manufacturing systems. The PT Cruiser was probably the highest quality vehicle in terms of low warranty repairs and 0-100,000 mile freedom from breakdowns that Chrysler ever produced. The Jeep Liberty was probably the best Jeep ever made in the same terms. But when there is a highly publicized “sub-optimal design,” such as the water pumps or ball joints, they are slow to respond as long as the problem doesn’t hit their own internal measures. Part of Toyota’s success IS due to seeing which way the wind blows and repsonding quickly to customer perception rather than their own internal myopia. (Of course Toyota did get a black eye with the sludge in the engines, but Toyota apologists — not Toyota employees! — are doing a great job of blaming the victim to make sure that doesn’t translate to lost sales.)
That’s what I’m saying we need is a system that responds quickly to problems encountered in the field so they can be fixed and the damage minimalized similar to what Toyota does. Anytime I try to bring up quality problems to one of the Chrysler service reps in the field, I’m told to get with my dealer council representative. Well the Dealer Councils meet 4 times a year I think and if the representative on that council doesn’t think it’s a big problem then he’s not going to say anything. I would like to see a direct pipeline from the service departments to engineering that can quickly address quality issues. I know that’s not going to happen anytime soon.
Speaking of oil sludge, I’m kind of suprised that the issue of 2.7 engine sludge problems has kind of died down. At least I haven’t heard much on it lately. I knew at one time there was a class action lawsuit being prepared.
Daimler/Chrysler has the most exciting line up of cars and trucks in the automotive industry
period. Every one else is doing nothing but copying their designs. Chrysler before Daimler
was a leader in their designs and still are. Since Daimler,the better engineering has increased their warrantees. They have the best out of all American made autos.
I have a 2004 Dodge Neon and I get 41 mpg on trips and 30 mpg around town. It has 34,000
and hasn’t been to the shop yet for warrantee work.
Own a Daimler/Chrysler vehicle before you talk out your ass.
And one should think before one begins typing out things that have no basis in fact least one sound like a braying ass which this comment certainly does. While your opinions mean something, citing them as “facts” hardly qualifies as proof of anything except your opinion. DCX CUT warranties a few months back, not increased them in case you missed that. And JD Powers which maybe you have heard of, doesn’t exactly rate Chrysler high up on the quality quotient. The large back log of vehicles held in DCX banks across the country also indicate that while stating their vehicles are exciting, the buying public isn’t so enanmoured of them, not beating new paths to the dealer’s doors. Citing a vehicle no longer produced by DCX doesn’t mean anything except to you, and while I am glad you are proud and pleased with your purchase, panning someone else for their assertions does mean something here and that is not talking by, for, about or through anyone’s orifice except your own.
I agree with you then, Brad. Rapid response is absolutely essential. That was one of the hallmarks of the Lutz days, and at the MANUFACTURING level, it is definitely an emphasis, but once sold, the blinders go on, the denial goes into overdrive, and the customers migrate to Toyota.
got a 3 ton ’05 Plymouth Ram 4 x 4 with 4200 miles and I love it….no major repairs and get at least 8 mpg. What do think of that?
I think that’s very nice. Plymouth Ram, huh?
1 of the last
Since they never made them, as far as I know, I’d say it would have to be.
I own an ’03 V6 Dakota CC with 105K, replaced water pump under warranty @ 25k, front brake pads @ 103K, gets 18mpg. the Dakota before this the tran. went out at 115K, would have cost 3K to replace so I traded. I drive 30K/yr.My truck is my field office. I usually trade at 150k and whether I buy new or used I generally have little problems. My dealer is small town dealer that takes care of me, keeps me going. In general, most dealers mfg. decent products, dealer service makes the difference. Also, as my little brother told me one time when I was complaining about a car problem as he opened the car door, ” Wayne, I’ve found the problem, there’s a short circuit between the seat and the steering wheel”I learned long ago when hiring drivers for trucks, if the driver or owner likes his vehicle he will endure all sorts of problems with little complaint provided his dealer is honestly trying to solve the problem. Conversely, if that same person does not like his vehicle choice or if he has friends that tease him ridicule him for his choice he will start to have all sorts of problems. Of course, there is the genuine problem vehicle. So far I have driven Chrysler product for 45 years and have been spared this aggravation, thank goodness.
GOTCHA COVERED
Folks, Chrysler is like Buick or Chevrolet or Jaguar: part of a large corporation. That’s neither good nor bad; it just is. Almost all experts say Chrysler would not be around if it had stayed independent. Is Toyota independent? Yes, but Lexus is not. Similarly, DaimlerChrysler is independent, but Chrysler and Mercedes are not. (I wonder if Dodge fans complained in the 1920s about Dodge not being independent any more.)
Some points: The Commander looks nothing like what Mercedes would style. It’s the old XJ Cherokee updated, pure and simple. (And by the way, BMW is owned mostly by one family, so it doesn’t have to answer to stockholders; no other auto company except Porsche is like this.)
Cheap interiors? Looked at an Impala or Monte Carlo? Grand Prix? CTS or SRX?
New GM SUVs? Yes, they’re light years better than what they replaced, but almost anything would be. The Tahoe doesn’t have as much cargo or third-seat room as a Durango though. And now isn’t a good time to be introducing 12-mpg gas guzzlers (despite the tricks GM plays to get their highway rating at 22).
True, DC has no Corvette competitor. Big deal. Neither do most manufacturers. GM has no 300 competitor, and the sales are much higher there.
Everybody is losing ground to the Japanese — Chrysler, Ford, GM, VW, etc. And Mercedes takes all their money? Get real. That’s just plain stupid. And the B vans were selling so poorly, they lost money. (The Sprinter is selling much better. 30 mpg in a full-size van!)
So come on, folks. You can be Chrysler fans without putting down Daimler.
Short on engineers? How do you know? Full line of vehicles? Who does besides the money-losing GM and Ford? (And Chrysler never had as full a line — no Lincoln/Cadillac segment vehicle after 1975, no Corvette, no Thunderbird, a Mustang for only a few years, no Mark/ElDorado coupe, no full-size 4-door SUV, …).
$12 billion? In what? Not cash. Chrysler’s financials were in bad shape when the merger took place. Read some of the books written about it.
And complaining that Chrysler has nothing like Lexus? Hello, that’s Mercedes. Toyota has nothing like Mercedes either. Get real.
And as for the cash cow. Mercedes carried Chrysler a few years ago; now Chrysler is carrying Mercedes. That’s what divisions of a corporation do.
“Almost all experts say Chrysler would not be around if it had stayed independent. ” Are those the experts who said last month that GM would be dead now, or last year that Ford would be dead now? They had $12 BILLION IN CASH. How often do we have to repeat that they would NOT BE DEAD because their losses never ate even a majority of that?
Cheap interiors: Looked at a Kia Optima? Hyundai? Oh, no! They look better!
New GM SUVs: Most people thought the previous generation beat Dodge Durango and though they weren’t as nice to drive, they had better numbers. They were seen, even in the last generation’s last year, as the benchmark.
Corvette – well, I agree there.
Sprinter – doesn’t help Chrysler one bit since it’s a Mercedes. I can’t blame Daimler for killing the B-vans, though. But ARE the Sprinters profitable? Who knows?
Short on engineers? Well, I know because engineers noted that with over 1/3 gone, there aren’t enough people to go around. Full line of vehicles? Well, there’s Toyota.
Chrysler’s financials in bad shape? Which ones? Do you mean the record profits, or the $12 billion? Where’s YOUR evidence there?
I don’t recall complaining that Chrylser had nothing like Lexus. Nor do I believe Mercedes EVER carried Chrysler. When Chrysler Credit was yanked away and the impact of MErcedes’ horrific “Americans suck, Germans are better” ad campaign hit home, along with the impact of years of Eaton – as you say, things were not perfect before the takeover either – yes, then Chrysler lost money, because they had to support Mercedes research and Mercedes engineering and Mercedes consulting services, not to mention redoing the entire LX project to fit Mercedes technology and components, without Chrysler Credit’s predictable profits, now going straight into the corporate coffers in Germany.
Don’t repeat the armchair-analyst lines to me, I’ve read them. According to them, Chrylser, GM, Ford, and Apple are all dead, and Microsoft is losing money and market share. I don’t see any of those things being real.
I think the original question was “the survival of BMW and Chrysler”. Dave pointed out that BMW is mostly family owned plus they seem to have their act together and there their targeted. If Chrysler were not owned by Diamler, Toyota would have bought, probably, us to get Jeep and Dodge trucks. It would have saved a lot of time & money for T.We,Chrysler, would be a desirable property if available. I suspose you remember how crazy things were in the automotive/invester world at the time Schrempt went to bed with Eaton.
Chrysler, to survive as any company would, needs to keep their product launch at a steady pace, build their flex plants, bring some more of their concepts to life, make sure that ALL their new products [engines, trans.,processes,fit & finish,NVH] are thoroughly tested and problem solved to the greatest possible degree beforethey are loaded on the carrier. CG should never rest until we have the best vehicles built in NA or the world for that matter. We need more independence from Stuttgartt, which will only come when we, our mgmt, proves that they are capable of fulfilling that promise to our customers and stockholders. Our dealers need to be trained to sell quality. Any one can sell on price, at least once per customer.Auto dealers and sales people cannot sell med. & HD trucks. They cannot spec out a truck or at least most of them can’t. I have had dealers hand me their catalogs and tell to pick out what I thought I needed. Most auto sales peoples product knowledge is lacking, to be polite.Chrysler needs to be SUREe the dealer and his associates know what they are doing. If CG wants to move the Chrysler up to a higher price point, they need to BE SURE that all Chryslers have tha quality, performance and content to justify the price. We need the PT/PLY-oops to anchor the under $20,000 segment. Dodge-Jeep will have a range of products that cross both price rang es. On another thought, i believe the S/S twins are based on a platform that will work with fwd,rwd & awd. What would you think about the Sebring becoming a coupe w/rwd and taking on the Crossfire identity at about $15,000 less and some serious hp @ 300+. If the 4.7 w/3valves is a reality, perhahs we could look for a lightweight engine with about 300 hp w/o turbo & 375w/turbo? Yes, Chrysler can survive, but they must not get lszy.
DCX also needs to realize that they cannot force products on the CG just to try and find a niche that really is not there in our market. Example Crossfire. Mercedes must have figured that it would sell just because it was a Mercedes product. Well it was an older Mercedes platform rebadged into a Chrysler and it tanked right out of the gates. As of a couple of months ago there were still 2005 models sitting in the ports.
I think they are making the same mistake with the Aspen. Trying to compete in the upscale SUV market at the wrong time. They made the same mistake a few years back when Town & Country prices soared way above the other minivans. Pacifica launch was screwed up by trying to go with the fully loaded versions ONLY at first. A loaded Durango is now about $41,000 and they are not selling. Why do they think a $45,000 Aspen will do much better.
To me they’ve missed the mark by not going ahead with some concepts that could have been huge hits now. I thought the MD80 truck was great. An affordable small truck that the kids could trick out would be great right now. My idea was to take the Toluca PT plant and split it down the middle one side building PT’s and the other MD80′s. Or make it flexible to build more of either if demand warranted. It’s also strange that everytime I see a Pontiac Solstice or Saturn Sky, I think that’s what Copperhead could have been.
I really don’t think Chrysler needs to move more upscale that we currently are. That’s why I really don’t want Imperial to see the light of day. $45,000 to $50,000 for something that looks like that? Umm..no.
You know, I think most of you need to put down the crack pipe. I see people pining for the good old mid-nineties
Chrysler. Let me be clear. I’ve driven Chrysler products for 26 years and the 2006 Charger I’m driving right
now is better than anything Chrysler has produced since the late-1960s. I’ve owned several 1991 – 2000 Chryslers
and they were pitiful. Yes, great styling, but lousy quality and lousy safety. The quality and performance
of my Charger is light years ahead of the 1998 Intrepid we had. Have you folks forgotten about the crappy transmissions,
door seals that won’t stay in, premature rust, so many interior rattles that the car sounded like a bucket of
chains in a hopper, 2.7L engines that seize? Heck, my 98 Intrepid had a failed HVAC controller, tie rod ends that needed to be replaced every
three years, and oil line leaks all over the place. Add to that leather seats that felt like vinyl (and looked like it after 5 years), headlight
lenses that clouded yellow, door seals that fell out, and lousy safety ratings and gee, it was just beautiful.
If you’re looking for a company that was short sighted it was Chrysler starting in about 1970 forward. Our
Intrepid was so bad it pushed my wife and I into Honda Accords. The new Charger is the only reason I came
back. As is human nature, memories always seem better than things actually were. Sure, I’d like it if Chrysler
was still an independent American owned company and produced a car like my new Charger, but it would’ve never happened.
Any car produced would’ve still been something that looked nice, but fell short in every other category.
You just don’t get it. Yeah Toyota sells the hell out of cars, but they sell them to people who really don’t
like cars. If you want to drive something as exciting as a refrigerator, buy a Toyota or a Honda. They work,
but don’t plan on any fun or enjoyable driving experiences. Instead of whining, you might try writing to DC and
tell them you want more flashy design. As I said before, I’ll take my new Charger over anything Chrysler has
made in the past 30 years and while you may not like it, and I can say this since I actually owned a lot of Chrysler muscle, I can tell you that this new Charger is everything the old one was and then some. Not only that, it blows away
that excuse of a car the “independent” Chrysler called a Charger in 1975/76. Get a grip folks!
Do you people not notice the benefits of a merger with MB? Without Benz’s help, the LX cars would probably be stuck with a four speed automatic, and a mediocre suspension. It might not even exist, if Chrsler was in such financial troubles, as you all claim. But if it did, you could probably forget any sort of RWD platform for it. A V8? Possibly the 5.9, but last time I checked, it had only 250 hp. How could Chrysler have payed for all the R&D that 1: a new Hemi; 2: the level of quality in the new LXes(good compared to any LH); 3: MDS {Were you all complaining about fuel economy, or what?); and many other things, all required? Any way you look at it becoming DCX is the only way they could have.
Probably, probably. Well, MY guess is it would have the Jeep 5-speed automatic which is frankly quite nice and probably much cheaper to make. It would still have the Hemi – giving Daimler credit for that is a true insult.
Why don’t you just go all the way and drive a Volkswagen if you think Americans can’t engineer their way out of a paper bag?
I keep seeing that “12 billion dollars in cash.” Where do you get that? Chrysler’s finances were so bad at the time, they had to merge to stay afloat. And that’s Lutz saying that in his book.
Yes, I’ve looked at an Optima. Generic Japanese/Korean. Get into one blindfolded and try to identify it.
Last gen GM SUVs? Last in a Car & driver comparison. Last in a Consumer Reports test. The new ones are better, sure; anything would be. They’re nice, but I wouldn’t want to have billions riding on 12-mpg vehicles right now.
Chrysler was selling so few of the old Ram vans, it wasn’t making any money. Sprinter does help — first, it helps the corporation. Second, it helps Dodge dealers.
Toyota a full line? Only now, with a full-size pickup coming. No full-size van, though, no sports car. But Toyota is bigger than Ford; they should have more lines.
Chrysler lost money before the merger because they had to support Mercedes? That makes no sense. Chrysler has had good times and (mostly) bad times for the past 50 years; before the merger was a bad time. And yes, the Chrysler Group has lost money some years since the merger. And there is no Chrysler financial any more than there is a Lexus financial or a Pontiac financial. Every corporation has one financial arm.
BTW, know what division of DC was most profitable last year? Commercial vehicles (Freightliner, Mercedes trucks, Setra, Western Star, Orion, Fuso). That division was tanking, losing money like crazy, a few years ago, and now it’s the most profitable. It was carried by the others and now it’s helping them. That’s how a corporation works.
As an aside, do you recall that DC was going to buy into Nissan a few years back? Nissan had lots of debt and was looking for a partner. The Chrysler folks, those who had been at Chrysler, talked DC out of it, saying Nissan was a money pit, that they’d be throwing money away. Let’s buy into Mitsubishi instead, they said. We know them, we’ve worked with them for years. So DC bought into Mitsubishi and Renault bought into Nissan. OK, where are Nissan and Mitsubishi today? Nissan is contributing billions to Renault’s profits and their cars are the darlings of the critics. Mitsu? Not so great. Think that soured the DC folks about the Chrysler folks’ judgment?
“I keep seeing that “12 billion dollars in cash.” Where do you get that? Chrysler’s finances were so bad at the time, they had to merge to stay afloat. And that’s Lutz saying that in his book.”
I see that in every report that was published at the time – well, between $8 and $14 anyway, and by the way, I don’t recall seeing that in Lutz’s book.
Optima – yes, and very comfortable generic Japanese/Korean. Nicer than the Camry whicih is the BEST SELLER in case you hadn’t noticed.
Ram vans – no question and I said I don’t balme them for killing it off, though investment might’ve been nice.
I never said Chrysler lost money BEFORE the merger becasue they had to support Mercedes.
I’m tired of this…
Well, I checked my last Chrysler annual report, the last one before the merger. Sure enough, assets exeeded liabilities by 11.5 billion dollars. But cash? Nope. Mostly value of plants, tools, inventory, future tax credits, consumer loans, etc. (Plus there was a big unfunded pension liability not included.) Companies don’t sit on cash! They invest it or pay it to stockholders (or these days, to CEOs who retire).
Here’s an interesting tidbit from the news today:
“Nissan, Toyota and Honda each earned more than $1,200 before taxes on every vehicle they sold in North America in 2005. In contrast, Chrysler Group earned $223, while Ford lost $590 and GM lost $2,496 on each vehicle. This reflects differences in health care and pension costs, as well as rebates and low-interest financing used to cut inventories.”
Some companies do sit on cash – those who know they’ll need it in lean times. GM has a massive cash reserve, believe it or not.
Chrysler’s biggest profitmaker then was probably Chrysler Credit, a massive moneymaker not unlike GMAC (except of course it didn’t do home mortgages). Now it delivers its massive profits directly to Daimler in Germany.
Regarding the current losses, how does that have a bearing on pre-merger Chrysler? Back then they were intensely profitable, and didn’t have to use expensive Mercedes parts in each car. I doubt the LX is as profitable as the LH – there’s a reason Mercedes cost so much and yet don’t earn Mercedes itself any profits, quite aside from the archaic management of their factories. The third generation LH would have been rear wheel drive and Hemi powered – just like the current ones – but I believe it would have been much cheaper to make, albeit less capable in turns.