How much power could that board have wielded over Daimler, the parent company?Maybe! But you have to agree that the failure was Chryslers as well, lack of corporate responsibility, is the term I was looking for.
Transverse torsion bars were not necessary to put torsion bars in a small car. The A body used conventional longitudinal torsion bars and was the same size (roughly) as the F body.I don't think that's what he's referring to. The transverse torsion bar system was an evolution of the torsion bar front suspension Chrysler used for quite some time.
It made fitting a smaller vehicle with a torsion bar suspension possible.
Quite a lot actually, Chrysler was the one with money and market share, Daimler was courting them. The Chrysler Board simply accepted whatever deal Daimler offered without serious negotiation, failing to protect its own shareholders from the predatory actions of their so called partner. You can't really talk away Chryslers lack of due diligence on its own behalf. If you decide to sell half of your house to a stranger, don't you think a little caution should be the order of the day?How much power could that board have wielded over Daimler, the parent company?
Had they pushed back, couldn't Daimler just cut funding, re-organize staff or try any number of moves to squash the "rebellion"?
I still give Daimler most of the blame for the fall of Chrysler. They bought it. They didn't develop it to its full potential. And killed off anything they saw as a threat to their Benz product line.
Unless there's something I'm not seeing.
True but, I'm still never buying a Benz...lolQuite a lot actually, Chrysler was the one with money and market share, Daimler was courting them. The Chrysler Board simply accepted whatever deal Daimler offered without serious negotiation, failing to protect its own shareholders from the predatory actions of their so called partner. You can't really talk away Chryslers lack of due diligence on its own behalf. If you decide to sell half of your house to a stranger, don't you think a little caution should be the order of the day?
Believe me, when it comes to corporate immorality, Daimler is way up there! In many ways, I'm glad of the split, but it damaged Chrysler almost mortally, financially speaking. It's not likely I would ever purchase a MB product either.True but, I'm still never buy a Benz...lol
I also own a 2007 but mine is a Grand Cherokee. Only 105,000 miles on mine with the original 4.7. I agree about the interior: rather plain but very goodand comfortable leather. If my head gasket holds out for another 95,000 miles like yours did, I'll be more than pleased.Here is a Daimler Era vehicle. Ive owned this 2007 since 2012. And I'm no way agreeing with the occupation, they did do some things right. While the interior is plain as hell, it's bulletproof. This car has over 230k on it and the interior is original and so is the outside. The 4.7 lost a head gasket at 200k. I put an engine out of an 07 Durango in its place. The rest of the car is as it came from Jefferson North assembly. Recently, I treated it to some new wheels. I think these make it look pretty good. View attachment 94560 ,
View attachment 94557
View attachment 94559
View attachment 94558
The body and interior still looks great. Impressed.Here is a Daimler Era vehicle. Ive owned this 2007 since 2012. And I'm no way agreeing with the occupation, they did do some things right. While the interior is plain as hell, it's bulletproof. This car has over 230k on it and the interior is original and so is the outside. The 4.7 lost a head gasket at 200k. I put an engine out of an 07 Durango in its place. The rest of the car is as it came from Jefferson North assembly. Recently, I treated it to some new wheels. I think these make it look pretty good. View attachment 94560 ,
View attachment 94557
View attachment 94559
View attachment 94558
Thanks. It hasn't been babied, as it was our main car until January of 2022. But i have taken care of it. Now it's my work transportation.The body and interior still looks great. Impressed.
Daimler only really was interested in Jeep and they said so.Believe me, when it comes to corporate immorality, Daimler is way up there! In many ways, I'm glad of the split, but it damaged Chrysler almost mortally, financially speaking. It's not likely I would ever purchase a MB product either.
Remember the K cars were the most advanced FWD cars in the world in 1981. Their profits paid off the government loans early and financed the minivan. The minivan profits bought AMC. The K car stood still. The '81 K car was vastly superior to the '81 and '82 Accord, the '86 Accord was superior to the '86 K car. Camry arrived in '83, the '87 was superior to the K car. The K car was a better car than the Nissan Stanza which came out for '82. The Mazda 626 came out for '83, the '88 was a far better car than the K car.Great question! I know that it cost some serious $$ at the time to buy out AMC/Jeep. I often wondered if they had put the same $$ into new platforms, what might have that been? Iacocca was pushing for more K-Car variants and updates, for sure, and AMC platforms (at least, the Premier/Monaco) helped lead the way to the LH cars, under the direction of Francois Castaing (who also come to Chrysler from AMC). Without him, we wouldn't have had the LH Cars and the Viper (at least, not as they came out).
We also gained the (at the time) state of the art Brampton, Ontario assembly plant that went on to build LH cars and later LX/LY platforms cars as well.
Plymouth may still be around had Daimler not killed them off. Plymouth was to be reinvigorated with the Prowler styling and the idea of the Kiosks in Malls may have taken off had it been given time. Of course, today, an App to build and price (and customize) a new Plymouth would be a great way to connect with young buyers. Scion tried the "customize me" approach but ultimately failed as no one had any connection to Scion. A customizable Plymouth as a "youth" brand could have been a success with the right marketing. Tying new Plymouth's to the old ones (Road Runner, Duster, GTX, etc.) would have a better impact (Rapid Transit System, connection to other Mopar brands as well). I'd market the new Dodge Hornet as a Plymouth and offer factory/dealer installed vinyl wraps that you could customize online as well as optional front grille/headlights, badges, and features to tie-in to the Plymouth Heritage while still feeling "custom".
JS
No, they weren't. The PT cruiser was going to be a Plymouth, and we long-term Allpar users consider this common knowledge, and it (along with the Prowler) were going to be the bold, new face of Plymouth.Plymouth was already being killed by Chrysler before Daimler as I recall. I knew it was the end for Plymouth when the cloud cars debuted, and the Plymouth version (Breeze) was not released for another year - only the Dodge and Chrysler cloud cars debuted initially.
No, gen III LH was already going to be RWD. Those of us around here for a long time know this.As bad as Daimler ended being for Chrysler, the RWD LX cars --300, Magnum and Charger, and its derivative Challenger, may never have come to fruition. These cars have been cash cows for Auburn Hills for many years.
At the same time, Grand Cherokee may not have gotten as soft as it is today. I test drove WK2 many times; was never able to pull the trigger: it felt more like driving a sedan than a Jeep.
Ah, but the PT ended up being a Chrysler, not a Plymouth. Just more proof Plymouth was being murdered. Count me as one that was disappointed that Plymouth is no more.No, they weren't. The PT cruiser was going to be a Plymouth, and we long-term Allpar users consider this common knowledge, and it (along with the Prowler) were going to be the bold, new face of Plymouth.
Cheers
Yes, Plymouth’s problems happened long before DCX. Some examples: any Chrysler Newport, no full size 1979 Plymouth, no AC Plymouth in 1988-1993, no LH Plymouth in 1993, the late, almost didn’t happen JA Plymouth.No, they weren't. The PT cruiser was going to be a Plymouth, and we long-term Allpar users consider this common knowledge, and it (along with the Prowler) were going to be the bold, new face of Plymouth.
Cheers
Yes, they did under DCX, but you all just admitted that the plan was to revive Plymouth, so you're also admitting that I'm right.Yes, Plymouth’s problems happened long before DCX. Some examples: any Chrysler Newport, no full size 1979 Plymouth, no AC Plymouth in 1988-1993, no LH Plymouth in 1993, the late, almost didn’t happen JA Plymouth.
There were plans to revive Plymouth that were stopped under DCX, but Plymouth’s death started long before DCX entered the picture.
From a long term Plymouth fan, before Allpar even existed.
A plan that didn’t happen, and was too late anyway.Yes, they did under DCX, but you all just admitted that the plan was to revive Plymouth, so you're also admitting that I'm right.
I'm also aware Plymouth's issues started back around the Valiant. Plymouth was the only one to get it, but Dodge decided to be a bully.
Don't quote history to people who actually know it.
I also own a Daimler era 2005 Magnum rt, which is still my daily driver. For all of it's cost cutting, Chrysler still managed to build a very reliable vehicle!Here is a Daimler Era vehicle. Ive owned this 2007 since 2012. And I'm no way agreeing with the occupation, they did do some things right. While the interior is plain as hell, it's bulletproof. This car has over 230k on it and the interior is original and so is the outside. The 4.7 lost a head gasket at 200k. I put an engine out of an 07 Durango in its place. The rest of the car is as it came from Jefferson North assembly. Recently, I treated it to some new wheels. I think these make it look pretty good. View attachment 94560 ,
View attachment 94557
View attachment 94559
View attachment 94558
