<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Don&#8217;t blame the (1970s) engineers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2008/07/16/dont-blame-the-1970s-engineers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2008/07/16/dont-blame-the-1970s-engineers/</link>
	<description>Chrysler, car, and other discussions by Allpar contributors</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:12:03 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2008/07/16/dont-blame-the-1970s-engineers/comment-page-1/#comment-76387</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:37:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/?p=308#comment-76387</guid>
		<description>That article makes an excellent point. That said, I'm not sure that the E-bodies were the solution - they could have had similar-looking bodies on top of a moderately modified A-body chassis for much lower production costs and greater flexibility.

The article also points out that Chrysler's willingness to be led by GM and Ford - just as they were very recently willing to be led by whatever spurious market research came up - led them to lurch from bad decision to bad decision. This also explains the recent drop (by Daimler) of smaller, more fuel-economical cars ... including the most recent, not building the Rebel (Caliber sedan).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That article makes an excellent point. That said, I&#8217;m not sure that the E-bodies were the solution - they could have had similar-looking bodies on top of a moderately modified A-body chassis for much lower production costs and greater flexibility.</p>
<p>The article also points out that Chrysler&#8217;s willingness to be led by GM and Ford - just as they were very recently willing to be led by whatever spurious market research came up - led them to lurch from bad decision to bad decision. This also explains the recent drop (by Daimler) of smaller, more fuel-economical cars &#8230; including the most recent, not building the Rebel (Caliber sedan).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stéphane Dumas</title>
		<link>http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2008/07/16/dont-blame-the-1970s-engineers/comment-page-1/#comment-76374</link>
		<dc:creator>Stéphane Dumas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:00:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/?p=308#comment-76374</guid>
		<description>For the E-body, there is a good article about "The fish that good away: the 1975 Barracuda"
http://www.popularhotrodding.com/features/0709phr_1975_barracuda/index.html about if they hadn't dropped the E-body. 
Then having the UK-Hillman Avenger/Plymouth Cricket built in a US plant instead of a British plant, I wonder if history could had been different?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For the E-body, there is a good article about &#8220;The fish that good away: the 1975 Barracuda&#8221;<br />
<a href="http://www.popularhotrodding.com/features/0709phr_1975_barracuda/index.html" rel="nofollow" onclick="javascript:urchinTracker ('/outbound/comment/www.popularhotrodding.com');">http://www.popularhotrodding.com/features/0709phr_1975_barracuda/index.html</a> about if they hadn&#8217;t dropped the E-body.<br />
Then having the UK-Hillman Avenger/Plymouth Cricket built in a US plant instead of a British plant, I wonder if history could had been different?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
