Does Chrysler have a chance?
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Does Chrysler have a chance?
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
You beat me to the punch, I was just about to post that link. 
Just some interesting reinforcement of stuff we have been discussing here. It almost seems like Dodge is going to play the "radically blunt" design game that got Caddy running again. The difference is, I'm not really liking what I'm seeing this time.
Just some interesting reinforcement of stuff we have been discussing here. It almost seems like Dodge is going to play the "radically blunt" design game that got Caddy running again. The difference is, I'm not really liking what I'm seeing this time.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Another pretty accurate article. Seems everyone understands Chrysler's problem except Damlier! Chrysler does/did have products that were ready, but were blocked while Daimler suck up Chrysler's cash reserves to expand Mercedes Benz & finance Smart.
The one area I disagree on in the article is quality. There's enough jokes about Chrysler interior's quality of materials to fill a dictionary. But Chrysler's ability to design drop-dead good looking cars still brought in customers. Chrysler seemed to have a 6th sense when to bring out a new model, or redesign an existing one (in the old days, just in time to stave off bankruptcy).
If this was Chrysler of the 70s & 80s, right about now we see a new model that would hit a home run, and the next 5 years or so we'd see all type of successful spin-offs. Chrysler of the 90s would have never let this happen in the first place.
Instead, it seems there is nothing that's really going to light up the sales chart. I like the 300C & Magnum, but these aren't going to be cars people are going to line up for if for nothing other than the price jump.
Worse still, there's no "WOW" designs comming out of DCX anymore.
Compare the Razor concept to the Venom or Copperhead conceps of the old Chrysler. Compare the Charger (which was to be the basis for Dodge's RWD sedan) concept to the Super 8 Hemi. Look at the Chrysler Chronos (which [i]was[/b] to be the basis of Chrysler's RWD sedan) then look at the 300C. http://www.chrysler.com/design/vehic...n/gallery.html
Once upon a time Roger Smith was and example of how not to run a car company (even Nasser and Zarrella left things in the pipeline that were windfalls) . Daimler has topped him.
The one area I disagree on in the article is quality. There's enough jokes about Chrysler interior's quality of materials to fill a dictionary. But Chrysler's ability to design drop-dead good looking cars still brought in customers. Chrysler seemed to have a 6th sense when to bring out a new model, or redesign an existing one (in the old days, just in time to stave off bankruptcy).
If this was Chrysler of the 70s & 80s, right about now we see a new model that would hit a home run, and the next 5 years or so we'd see all type of successful spin-offs. Chrysler of the 90s would have never let this happen in the first place.
Instead, it seems there is nothing that's really going to light up the sales chart. I like the 300C & Magnum, but these aren't going to be cars people are going to line up for if for nothing other than the price jump.
Worse still, there's no "WOW" designs comming out of DCX anymore.
Compare the Razor concept to the Venom or Copperhead conceps of the old Chrysler. Compare the Charger (which was to be the basis for Dodge's RWD sedan) concept to the Super 8 Hemi. Look at the Chrysler Chronos (which [i]was[/b] to be the basis of Chrysler's RWD sedan) then look at the 300C. http://www.chrysler.com/design/vehic...n/gallery.html
Once upon a time Roger Smith was and example of how not to run a car company (even Nasser and Zarrella left things in the pipeline that were windfalls) . Daimler has topped him.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Originally posted by guionM
If this was Chrysler of the 70s & 80s, right about now we see a new model that would hit a home run, and the next 5 years or so we'd see all type of successful spin-offs. Chrysler of the 90s would have never let this happen in the first place.
If this was Chrysler of the 70s & 80s, right about now we see a new model that would hit a home run, and the next 5 years or so we'd see all type of successful spin-offs. Chrysler of the 90s would have never let this happen in the first place.
The K-car saved them once....the invention of the minivan once again.
Unfortunately, Schremmp has instilled fear in the ranks. He has purged most Americans that showed any signs of initiative or leadership. His management style reminds me of Joseph Stalin. He has devoured all of Chrysler's cash. He is the one person standing in the way of any chance for a Chrysler recovery. The guy MUST GO...AND NOW!
I'd rather see DCX save and keep Chrysler, than have it sold and broken up.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Originally posted by Darth Xed
Just use the formula that worked last time for Chrysler.... Relaunch the K-Car!
Just use the formula that worked last time for Chrysler.... Relaunch the K-Car!
It's easily forgotten Chrysler had pretty big losses around 1990, though it wasn't quite at the level it was when the K-car came out... or today!
Last edited by guionM; Oct 16, 2003 at 02:29 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
Originally posted by guionM
Actually, last time it was the 1-2-3 punch of the '93 LH cars, '94 Dodge Ram & Neons, with the '92 Viper as the opening act getting everyone warmed up.
It's easily forgotten Chrysler had pretty big losses around 1990, though it wasn't quite at the level it was when the K-car came out... or today!
Actually, last time it was the 1-2-3 punch of the '93 LH cars, '94 Dodge Ram & Neons, with the '92 Viper as the opening act getting everyone warmed up.
It's easily forgotten Chrysler had pretty big losses around 1990, though it wasn't quite at the level it was when the K-car came out... or today!
I just like mentioning the K-Car when I can... brings back memories of my mom's old '87 Aries!
I remember the family debating between a leftover '86, and the new, freshened '87... 
Banned
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,954
Originally posted by guionM
Actually, last time it was the 1-2-3 punch of the '93 LH cars, '94 Dodge Ram & Neons, with the '92 Viper as the opening act getting everyone warmed up.
Actually, last time it was the 1-2-3 punch of the '93 LH cars, '94 Dodge Ram & Neons, with the '92 Viper as the opening act getting everyone warmed up.
Blaming the Germans for Chrysler's woes is pretty short sighted. Iaccoca neglected product development at Jeep. Eaton dismissed the idea of a full sized SUV. Worse yet, all of the vaunted turn around products were fatally flawed as cars. They all looked great from a distance, but a close look revealed a lack of attention to detail - both in design and engineering. Longterm ownership revealed a shocking lack of reliability.
It's pretty clear that Dodge will survive in the light truck business. However, Chrysler's dying passenger car lines should be axed immediately. Rebadge Mitsubishis if you must, but Dodge and Chrysler are moribund.
That said, the new LH-replacements should have arrived two years ago, or not at all. The current crop of LH cars were lame ducks after the initial introduction. Even the 300M felt cheap and shoddy in a way only an American manufacturer can manage.
If the new RWD sedans and wagons aren't "turnaround" products, they at least are bringing a solid image and Mercedes engineering. Sadly, the downmarket Chrysler and Dodge nameplates will hold them back from upscale success. Who know,though, they might be great cars.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,712
From: Ontario
This is the part that makes me shudder:
GM already has 1 too many truck divisions. Hopefully their recent dismal track record of mergers and alliances will sour them on any plans to add yet another brand.
The end-game will be a sale of Chrysler by its German parent, DaimlerChrysler AG, while the parts worth saving -- Jeep and Dodge trucks -- are sold off, possibly to GM.
Last edited by R377; Oct 16, 2003 at 06:11 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
You've gotta be kidding me!
Originally posted by redzed
Sadly, the LH started to die soon after the first generation premiered. In addition, the Neon nameplate should have died in '99 with the original car. Instead, Chrysler has been riding tired design and marketing concepts for a whole decade - too long for a company that traditionally relied on innovation.
Blaming the Germans for Chrysler's woes is pretty short sighted. Iaccoca neglected product development at Jeep. Eaton dismissed the idea of a full sized SUV. Worse yet, all of the vaunted turn around products were fatally flawed as cars. They all looked great from a distance, but a close look revealed a lack of attention to detail - both in design and engineering. Longterm ownership revealed a shocking lack of reliability.
It's pretty clear that Dodge will survive in the light truck business. However, Chrysler's dying passenger car lines should be axed immediately. Rebadge Mitsubishis if you must, but Dodge and Chrysler are moribund.
That said, the new LH-replacements should have arrived two years ago, or not at all. The current crop of LH cars were lame ducks after the initial introduction. Even the 300M felt cheap and shoddy in a way only an American manufacturer can manage.
If the new RWD sedans and wagons aren't "turnaround" products, they at least are bringing a solid image and Mercedes engineering. Sadly, the downmarket Chrysler and Dodge nameplates will hold them back from upscale success. Who know,though, they might be great cars.
Sadly, the LH started to die soon after the first generation premiered. In addition, the Neon nameplate should have died in '99 with the original car. Instead, Chrysler has been riding tired design and marketing concepts for a whole decade - too long for a company that traditionally relied on innovation.
Blaming the Germans for Chrysler's woes is pretty short sighted. Iaccoca neglected product development at Jeep. Eaton dismissed the idea of a full sized SUV. Worse yet, all of the vaunted turn around products were fatally flawed as cars. They all looked great from a distance, but a close look revealed a lack of attention to detail - both in design and engineering. Longterm ownership revealed a shocking lack of reliability.
It's pretty clear that Dodge will survive in the light truck business. However, Chrysler's dying passenger car lines should be axed immediately. Rebadge Mitsubishis if you must, but Dodge and Chrysler are moribund.
That said, the new LH-replacements should have arrived two years ago, or not at all. The current crop of LH cars were lame ducks after the initial introduction. Even the 300M felt cheap and shoddy in a way only an American manufacturer can manage.
If the new RWD sedans and wagons aren't "turnaround" products, they at least are bringing a solid image and Mercedes engineering. Sadly, the downmarket Chrysler and Dodge nameplates will hold them back from upscale success. Who know,though, they might be great cars.
OK, here we go again:1. Daimler CEO Juergen E. Schrempp in an interview came out and said their intention was to take over Chrysler from the very start. BTW, he quadrupled his salary once the merger was complete.
2. Daimler 1st began proceedings to create "a merger of equals", Chrysler had the best year ever, clearing $3.1 billion, had $9 billion...... as in BILLION in reserves!! To put it in perspective, GM made $6 billion that year. Chrysler made just a hair over 50% of what GM made selling only 33% of the vehicles GM sold.
3. Daimler began systematically removing or forcing out key Chrysler people in favor of their own. Damiler then FROZE all new Chrysler products that weren't too far along to kill. This left PT Cruiser, Neon's & Wrangler's restyling, and the new Ram & Jeep Liberty. Everything else was slammed shut.
4. While Daimler cancelled everything they could at Chrysler, they took Chrysler's cash reserves & used it to help finance Mercedes Benz model expansion & the Smart line, among other things.
5. When Chrysler's sales started dropping, there was no "rainy day fund", since Daimler drained it, no new models since Daimler cancelled them, so the answer was squeezing suppliers & laying off workers.
6. Daimler finally let the Dodge Durango, Chrysler 300, & Dodge Magnum wagon through to production, and put everything else on a slow track to production. A belated half step when Chrysler needed a full gallop.
7. After draining all Chrysler's money, stalling it's product development for at least 3 years, forcing it's inhouse talent to jump ship to other companies (especially, GM!), laying off a ghastly percentage of it's workforce, it just recently decided to restore most all of the new car development, so Chrysler is now where it was around 3 years ago on product development while the rest of it's competitors have moved 3 years ahead.
To answer your charge that Eaton refused to allow Chrysler to build a large SUV, it's because of CAFE numbers. Durangos have V8s, GM & Ford's mid size SUVs & Trucks have 6s. It was a decision made by the people Chrysler pays to figure these things out, not Eaton himself. The SRT-10 Ram is now a reality because the PT Cruiser is classified as a truck, and Dodge can afford it as far as Cafe goes. SS/T Ram didn't have a V10 though it was concieved as having one because of those same CAFE concerns.
FWIW, GM also underestimated the popularity of large SUVs in the late 90s. Ford seems to be the only one to hit it on the head.
I find it utterly dumbfounding that you state that blaming Daimler for Chrysler's woes is "pretty short sighted", yet every single thing you bring up as to what Chrysler has done wrong is a Daimler decision!
*Neon should have died in '99? Neon had a replacement due in 2002, that's why the restyling was pretty light.
*Chrysler riding on tired designs for a decade? Now, tell me who decided to cancel all new designs. Wanna hint? Damiler's been in charge since the end of 1997.
*Vaunted "turn around cars"? Why don't you tell me 1 "turn around car" Chrysler has introduced since Daimler took over. The new 300C is the 1st massed produced Chrysler car to be "reengineered" or "redesigned" since Daimler took over (new head & tail lights or bumpers don't qualify).
*The LH replacements should have arrived 2 years ago? Well, guess who stalled them? (the Charger and Chronos RWD concepts would have reached the streets within a few years after they were shown)
The rest of your points seem to be the same old tired "quality" and "attention to detail" issues over interior materials, which is perfectly legitimate. But It's never been a secret that Chrysler isn't BMW. People bought them because of style and price, not because the liked one piece low cost plastic door panels.
BTW, the 300M was actually a big success for Chrysler. It was no Lincoln LS, but it was still a good selling car, meaning people liked them.
Daimler is moving Chrysler upmarket, and while that may be great for Chrysler badged cars, I feel it's an impending disaster for Dodge. I feel replacing a relatively popular nicely priced big sedan with a more expensive big station wagon (done more to beef up 300C sales than anything else) isn't a smart move, even if just temporary.
Daimler brought on all these problems at Chrysler, and it's backed up by every area you care to examine. Product? Daimler stalled it. Cash? Daimler drained it. Leadership in Minivans & Jeep SUVs? Daimler starved it till everyone else caught up and began to surpass it. Management talent? Daimler drove it away in favor of it's own team, then pressured others out to thin down it's costs. The lists can go on & on.
It's simply a shame it took Toyota booting Chrysler out of 3rd place in the US market to wake Daimler up to release some new product..... finally!
Some reading if you still feel Schrempp & the Daimler arm of DaimlerChrysler has been good for Chrysler, or still think that bizzarely the old "Chrysler" (Dead for about 6 years now) is still to blame
:http://www.forbes.com/columnists/200...1009flint.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/112642.html
http://www.detnews.com/2003/insiders...ers-299245.htm
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story....uY1dsfjzu0XfuG
http://www.detnews.com/2003/autosins...a01-298522.htm
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/trib.../s_157848.html
Last edited by guionM; Oct 16, 2003 at 06:58 PM.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Re: You've gotta be kidding me!
Originally posted by guionM
OK, here we go again:
1. Daimler CEO Juergen E. Schrempp in an interview came out and said their intention was to take over Chrysler from the very start. BTW, he quadrupled his salary once the merger was complete.
2. Daimler 1st began proceedings to create "a merger of equals", Chrysler had the best year ever, clearing $3.1 billion, had $9 billion...... as in BILLION in reserves!! To put it in perspective, GM made $6 billion that year. Chrysler made just a hair over 50% of what GM made selling only 33% of the vehicles GM sold.
3. Daimler began systematically removing or forcing out key Chrysler people in favor of their own. Damiler then FROZE all new Chrysler products that weren't too far along to kill. This left PT Cruiser, Neon's & Wrangler's restyling, and the new Ram & Jeep Liberty. Everything else was slammed shut.
4. While Daimler cancelled everything they could at Chrysler, they took Chrysler's cash reserves & used it to help finance Mercedes Benz model expansion & the Smart line, among other things.
5. When Chrysler's sales started dropping, there was no "rainy day fund", since Daimler drained it, no new models since Daimler cancelled them, so the answer was squeezing suppliers & laying off workers.
6. Daimler finally let the Dodge Durango, Chrysler 300, & Dodge Magnum wagon through to production, and put everything else on a slow track to production. A belated half step when Chrysler needed a full gallop.
7. After draining all Chrysler's money, stalling it's product development for at least 3 years, forcing it's inhouse talent to jump ship to other companies (especially, GM!), laying off a ghastly percentage of it's workforce, it just recently decided to restore most all of the new car development, so Chrysler is now where it was around 3 years ago on product development while the rest of it's competitors have moved 3 years ahead.
To answer your charge that Eaton refused to allow Chrysler to build a large SUV, it's because of CAFE numbers. Durangos have V8s, GM & Ford's mid size SUVs & Trucks have 6s. It was a decision made by the people Chrysler pays to figure these things out, not Eaton himself. The SRT-10 Ram is now a reality because the PT Cruiser is classified as a truck, and Dodge can afford it as far as Cafe goes. SS/T Ram didn't have a V10 though it was concieved as having one because of those same CAFE concerns.
FWIW, GM also underestimated the popularity of large SUVs in the late 90s. Ford seems to be the only one to hit it on the head.
I find it utterly dumbfounding that you state that blaming Daimler for Chrysler's woes is "pretty short sighted", yet every single thing you bring up as to what Chrysler has done wrong is a Daimler decision!
*Neon should have died in '99? Neon had a replacement due in 2002, that's why the restyling was pretty light.
*Chrysler riding on tired designs for a decade? Now, tell me who decided to cancel all new designs. Wanna hint? Damiler's been in charge since the end of 1997.
*Vaunted "turn around cars"? Why don't you tell me 1 "turn around car" Chrysler has introduced since Daimler took over. The new 300C is the 1st massed produced Chrysler car to be "reengineered" or "redesigned" since Daimler took over (new head & tail lights or bumpers don't qualify).
*The LH replacements should have arrived 2 years ago? Well, guess who stalled them? (the Charger and Chronos RWD concepts would have reached the streets within a few years after they were shown)
The rest of your points seem to be the same old tired "quality" and "attention to detail" issues over interior materials, which is perfectly legitimate. But It's never been a secret that Chrysler isn't BMW. People bought them because of style and price, not because the liked one piece low cost plastic door panels.
BTW, the 300M was actually a big success for Chrysler. It was no Lincoln LS, but it was still a good selling car, meaning people liked them.
Daimler is moving Chrysler upmarket, and while that may be great for Chrysler badged cars, I feel it's an impending disaster for Dodge. I feel replacing a relatively popular nicely priced big sedan with a more expensive big station wagon (done more to beef up 300C sales than anything else) isn't a smart move, even if just temporary.
Daimler brought on all these problems at Chrysler, and it's backed up by every area you care to examine. Product? Daimler stalled it. Cash? Daimler drained it. Leadership in Minivans & Jeep SUVs? Daimler starved it till everyone else caught up and began to surpass it. Management talent? Daimler drove it away in favor of it's own team, then pressured others out to thin down it's costs. The lists can go on & on.
It's simply a shame it took Toyota booting Chrysler out of 3rd place in the US market to wake Daimler up to release some new product..... finally!
Some reading if you still feel Schrempp & the Daimler arm of DaimlerChrysler has been good for Chrysler, or still think that bizzarely the old "Chrysler" (Dead for about 6 years now) is still to blame:
http://www.forbes.com/columnists/200...1009flint.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/112642.html
http://www.detnews.com/2003/insiders...ers-299245.htm
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story....uY1dsfjzu0XfuG
http://www.detnews.com/2003/autosins...a01-298522.htm
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/trib.../s_157848.html
OK, here we go again:1. Daimler CEO Juergen E. Schrempp in an interview came out and said their intention was to take over Chrysler from the very start. BTW, he quadrupled his salary once the merger was complete.
2. Daimler 1st began proceedings to create "a merger of equals", Chrysler had the best year ever, clearing $3.1 billion, had $9 billion...... as in BILLION in reserves!! To put it in perspective, GM made $6 billion that year. Chrysler made just a hair over 50% of what GM made selling only 33% of the vehicles GM sold.
3. Daimler began systematically removing or forcing out key Chrysler people in favor of their own. Damiler then FROZE all new Chrysler products that weren't too far along to kill. This left PT Cruiser, Neon's & Wrangler's restyling, and the new Ram & Jeep Liberty. Everything else was slammed shut.
4. While Daimler cancelled everything they could at Chrysler, they took Chrysler's cash reserves & used it to help finance Mercedes Benz model expansion & the Smart line, among other things.
5. When Chrysler's sales started dropping, there was no "rainy day fund", since Daimler drained it, no new models since Daimler cancelled them, so the answer was squeezing suppliers & laying off workers.
6. Daimler finally let the Dodge Durango, Chrysler 300, & Dodge Magnum wagon through to production, and put everything else on a slow track to production. A belated half step when Chrysler needed a full gallop.
7. After draining all Chrysler's money, stalling it's product development for at least 3 years, forcing it's inhouse talent to jump ship to other companies (especially, GM!), laying off a ghastly percentage of it's workforce, it just recently decided to restore most all of the new car development, so Chrysler is now where it was around 3 years ago on product development while the rest of it's competitors have moved 3 years ahead.
To answer your charge that Eaton refused to allow Chrysler to build a large SUV, it's because of CAFE numbers. Durangos have V8s, GM & Ford's mid size SUVs & Trucks have 6s. It was a decision made by the people Chrysler pays to figure these things out, not Eaton himself. The SRT-10 Ram is now a reality because the PT Cruiser is classified as a truck, and Dodge can afford it as far as Cafe goes. SS/T Ram didn't have a V10 though it was concieved as having one because of those same CAFE concerns.
FWIW, GM also underestimated the popularity of large SUVs in the late 90s. Ford seems to be the only one to hit it on the head.
I find it utterly dumbfounding that you state that blaming Daimler for Chrysler's woes is "pretty short sighted", yet every single thing you bring up as to what Chrysler has done wrong is a Daimler decision!
*Neon should have died in '99? Neon had a replacement due in 2002, that's why the restyling was pretty light.
*Chrysler riding on tired designs for a decade? Now, tell me who decided to cancel all new designs. Wanna hint? Damiler's been in charge since the end of 1997.
*Vaunted "turn around cars"? Why don't you tell me 1 "turn around car" Chrysler has introduced since Daimler took over. The new 300C is the 1st massed produced Chrysler car to be "reengineered" or "redesigned" since Daimler took over (new head & tail lights or bumpers don't qualify).
*The LH replacements should have arrived 2 years ago? Well, guess who stalled them? (the Charger and Chronos RWD concepts would have reached the streets within a few years after they were shown)
The rest of your points seem to be the same old tired "quality" and "attention to detail" issues over interior materials, which is perfectly legitimate. But It's never been a secret that Chrysler isn't BMW. People bought them because of style and price, not because the liked one piece low cost plastic door panels.
BTW, the 300M was actually a big success for Chrysler. It was no Lincoln LS, but it was still a good selling car, meaning people liked them.
Daimler is moving Chrysler upmarket, and while that may be great for Chrysler badged cars, I feel it's an impending disaster for Dodge. I feel replacing a relatively popular nicely priced big sedan with a more expensive big station wagon (done more to beef up 300C sales than anything else) isn't a smart move, even if just temporary.
Daimler brought on all these problems at Chrysler, and it's backed up by every area you care to examine. Product? Daimler stalled it. Cash? Daimler drained it. Leadership in Minivans & Jeep SUVs? Daimler starved it till everyone else caught up and began to surpass it. Management talent? Daimler drove it away in favor of it's own team, then pressured others out to thin down it's costs. The lists can go on & on.
It's simply a shame it took Toyota booting Chrysler out of 3rd place in the US market to wake Daimler up to release some new product..... finally!
Some reading if you still feel Schrempp & the Daimler arm of DaimlerChrysler has been good for Chrysler, or still think that bizzarely the old "Chrysler" (Dead for about 6 years now) is still to blame
:http://www.forbes.com/columnists/200...1009flint.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/112642.html
http://www.detnews.com/2003/insiders...ers-299245.htm
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story....uY1dsfjzu0XfuG
http://www.detnews.com/2003/autosins...a01-298522.htm
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/trib.../s_157848.html
Yeah, exactly what he said.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
PFYC
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
0
Aug 7, 2015 01:26 PM
PFYC
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
0
Jul 17, 2015 02:47 PM