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.

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.”

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…

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?