A Strange Detour for Chrysler

A Strange Detour for Chrysler

formatting link
So it's come to this. Chrysler, inventor of the minivan (one of the best-selling ideas in automotive history), is starting to turn itself into a marketer and contract manufacturer of other people's cars. To plug gaping holes in its truck-heavy lineup, the U.S. automaker already plans to stick a Chrysler badge on a restyled Nissan Motors (NSANY) Versa subcompact. Now comes word that it is negotiating with the Japanese company to start selling a version of the Altima family sedan. Plus, to pick up the slack at its underutilized truck and minivan plants, Chrysler aims to become an assembler-for-hire for any maker that needs those vehicles.

This plan did not spring from the brain of a car guy. It smells of the moneymen who are now deeply nested in Chrysler's operations. Cerberus Capital Management paid $7.4 billion for 80% of the company and, having underestimated the difficulty of turning it around, is looking to cut costs and conserve cash. Chrysler and Cerberus say they will save hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars in development costs for small cars and family sedans. And far better to share their factories, they say, than to lose money on them. Yes, it makes a strange kind of sense, but it virtually assures that Chrysler may never thrive as a standalone company.

The partnership has serious weaknesses. Picture the Chrysler star or Dodge horns on a restyled Nissan. And ask yourself: Why not just buy the Nissan? After all, the Chrysler and Dodge brands are among the weakest out there. Nissan vehicles often hold their value better than Chrysler ones do. (As a parallel, consider the General Motors (GM)-Toyota Motors (TM) joint venture to build small cars: The Toyota version of the same basic vehicle sells way better and for a lot more money.) And let's not forget that Chrysler's most famous names stand for off-roading (Jeep) and gas-guzzling power (the famous Hemi engine). Hard to sell small Nissan siblings with that kind of branding legacy.

Which brings us to the plan to rent out Chrysler's factories. As part of the partnership, Chrysler will build a version of its Dodge Ram pickup for Nissan. Volkswagen (VLKAY) has ordered up a minivan. Votes of confidence, to be sure. But will Chrysler's quality issues scare others off? Two recent studies from J.D. Power & Associates (MHP) maintain that Chrysler's quality lags way behind its toughest rivals. In their defense, Chrysler executives point to a study done by consulting firm Oliver Wyman Group showing the company's manufacturing efficiency is now among the best in North America. They also claim quality has suffered because its former parent, Daimler (DAI), was cheap on parts.

But there's another problem with relying on other carmakers. It steers Chrysler into me-too land and away from its roots as an innovator. The company has often risen Phoenix-like from a crisis with innovations such as the minivan or early SUVs such as the Jeep Grand Cherokee. Design breakthroughs like the Dodge Ram pickup and the PT Cruiser during the

1990s earned billions. More recently, the 300 sedan was a big, if short-lived, hit. Chrysler President Tom W. LaSorda counters that Chrysler's cars will look nothing like their Nissan siblings and that the strategy will play a big role in his planned overseas expansion.

Auto industry partnerships have a tendency to go kaput when interests diverge. For the moment, the alliance with Nissan will allow Cerberus to keep Chrysler going while it figures out an exit strategy. Nissan may not buy Chrysler outright (despite speculation) and seems content with a looser arrangement that will allow it to sell more cars. LaSorda doesn't see a sale happening any time soon. But a deepening partnership with Nissan means Chrysler is less likely to go it alone. This company will end up on the block again. The only question is when.

Reply to
Jim Higgins
Loading thread data ...

I disagree. This has been done for years, from the Chrysler Mitsubishi Colt, Champ, Arrow, Challenger, Sapporo, Stealth, and Summit, to the GM Nova, Prizm, Storm, Tracker, Metro, Sprint, and Vibe, to the Ford Probe, Isuzu Oasis and pickups, Mitsubishi Raider, Mazda pickups and Navajo, the old Chevy LUV and Ford Courier...

The VW/Porsche 914 was an early example. Then there was the Sterling. Nissan and Renault share platforms now. Most Fords use a Mazda or Volvo platform. Saab shares platforms with other GM makes.

If a platform is good, why re-invent the wheel? That's what got US makers into trouble -- they thought they had to invent everything themselves, even if another maker was already using it.

Reply to
Lloyd

Chrysler has been "involved" with other manufacturers as far back (at least) as with Simca in the middle 1960s. Then later MItsubishi and the British Rootes Group in the early 1970s (Dodge Colt and Plymouth Cricket). In the early 1970s, Chrysler's 10% state in Mitsu brought us the Dodge Colt. GM's 10% state in Isuzu got us the Chevy L.U.V (light utility vehicle) trucks. Ford's 10% stake in Mazda got us the early Ford Ranger small truck.

The fwd Chevy Nova was a Toyota Corolla with "home market" sheetmetal, rather than USA-market Corolla sheet metal. The current Mitsu Raider pickup is a re-skinned Dakota.

In typical "money people" fashion, Cerberus is seeking to stop losses in "the normal manner" (i.e., cut costs) rather than be inventive and build the business and increase market penetration. The Daimler influence in current small car products (which were done in conjunction with Mitsu and using Mitsu-influenced platforms and engines) has not been the best thing to have around, it seems. Many of the prior "good formulas" were discarded to give us what Chrysler's product portfolio now has in it.

Whether a product sells well can be highly influenced by regional issues. With the shale oil boom in certain areas of TX, all you see are Dodge Ram HD trucks with work beds and such on them. Even younger guys are driving new ones as "the image" is good for them . . . just like the Chrysler muscle cars of the '60s were back then.

It seems that Cerberus and all of their "dream team" imports from Toyota/Lexus are not up to the task of effectively marketing Chrylser products to the masses, by observation. Chrysler still has some very credible products, as suboptimal as they might appear to be in some cases, but still good products. As in other cases, the difference between good comments in the consumer magazines will not take very much money to remedy . . . different shock calibrations here, something else there, for example.

It seems interesting that Nissan would want another truck when they have a decent truck in their Titan (which I see aimed more at Ford than Dodge or GM). Nissan does have some great products, just as Mitsu does, but the image of Nissan tends to be more like Dodge than Honda or GM in the way their vehicles are perceived to be "hip" and "desireable", with a performance heritage.

Chrysler, like Oldsmobile, would not be that hard to save and make prosper . . . but you CAN'T do it by cutting product choices or following the imports down the path of "Any model you want if it has THESE option packages" rather than individual choices that allow the consumer to have real choices. Get back to basics like the old "Basic Equipment Group" that Chrysler used to great success in the '60s and '70s, then add the fluff from there. Not to mention more choices in interior colors than just TWO.

It's normal for a stock broker to look to get rid of certain parts of a portfolio to stop financial losses, but that's not the way you market a car company to consumers! This, also, is not the first time that "investment bankers" have been in control of car companies. At least in the earlier times, the bankers had the good sense to hire Walter P. Chrysler to get Buick back to health (which he did marvelously and made enough money to go on to his bigger and better things!). At that time, Buick was not bad off, just not being run efficiently.

Sometimes I wonder just how far Chrysler might have gone (with what it HAD in the 1990s) if outside influences/influencers had not meddled in Chrysler's business (pre-"merger") and if Daimler had not done all that they did (which motivated the loss of apparently good employees to GM, Ford, and others)? OR how many more golden eggs they might have accumulated to fund future product growth?

Many considered the Daimler influence to be good, but then the allegedly bad products that were in the mill when they got there were not that bad to start with . . . just that they didn't have the Daimler "magic touch" or "blessings". Their stated quest for quality obviously increased development time and expenses for very little real gain in sales or profits . . . OR customer satisfaction.

Over the road fuel economy typically took a slight dump with the block body styles, by observation, plus the heavier weight of the cars.

So far, Cerberus is not delivering on their promise of "Saving an American Icon". They might perceive they might be, but where are the fruits of their efforts rather than hire in a bunch of opportunists from Toyota/Lexus that have yet to really get a grip on how to effectively sell/market Chrysler products. Worrying about profits (in the short term) can be expected, but cutting things in the short term which will adversely affect what happens in a few years is NOT a good strategy for ANY business.

Regards,

C-BODY

Reply to
C-BODY

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.