Although I did think of the BMW/Rover mess as well, but it is quite different to Daimler/Chrysler. BMW sold it for a nominal sum but it came with very large debts, so it wasn't cheap for any buyer. Even so, BMW made the deal relatively sweet but the crooks who bought it pocketed vast sums.
I never understood how the trades unions fell for the line that the buyers (4 senior managers from the team that had previously driven Rover into the ground in the first place) would continue production/sales at 250 000 per year. The alternative buyer (a financial group) said they would initially produce 50 000 per year of the MG sports car and related vehicles, a far more realistic proposition. It did not take long for Rover's sales to fall through 50K p.a. and then into bankruptcy.
BTW, Rover long ago ceased being 'mass market' Relatively small and declining sales.
DAS
To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
They should have studied BMW's purchase of a mass-market manufacturer, Rover, and all the problems that caused, such that BMW, I believe, sold it for the equivalent of one dollar just to get rid of it.
I read Chrysler first tried to interest Fiat in merging, but Fiat said no. Interesting, because back in the 70s, Iacocca also tried to get Fiat interested in a merger, and Fiat said no then too.
Yes to some, the Chrysler 300 series is very good in a segment of the market. But Chrysler lost their traditional FWD customers. We started buying Chryslers in the early 80s because of their FWD cars. Over the years we bought many of their cars new. A few years ago I had to replace my '95 Concorde with a used 2004 300M which I love. Nothing since the 300M interested me. I did have two weeks
300 experience with a rental 300, not my kind of car even if it was FWD.
Our next FWD cars likely won't be Chrysler's, unless they finally come out with something that fits today's mid priced market. For now Chrysler is surviving selling trucks and the truck like 300.
Under The Hood Of The Chrysler Deal Even though it has been 30 years since I worked for Chrysler (DCX ), the auctioning off of the division by Daimler deeply offends me ("A deal that could save Detroit," News & Insights, May 28). The idea that Daimler (DCX ) has been dragged down and German investors have somehow been cheated is a myopic vision of the situation.
What happened to the *** $8 billion survival fund Chrysler had in the bank when the merger occurred? Was it used to buy Detroit Diesel Corp. outright and Mitsubishi Motors shares? Why did Daimler get rid of competent American management at Chrysler and install "sock puppets"?
Wasn't there. Read Chrysler's 1997 annual report (I rechecked it -- I was a stockholder). 8 billion was the value of assets over liabilities -- that includes plants, machinery, etc., not all cash.
A lot resigned rather than work with the Daimler folk. Happens a lot in mergers, take-overs, etc.
Besides, part of the reason for coming together was to save money by avoiding duplication -- of people as well as other things.
And as for Mitsubishi -- Daimler was intersted in buying into Nissan, but the Chrysler folks said, "no, they're about to go bankrupt. Buy Mitsubishi -- we worked with those guys before."
Of course, Mitsu was in bad financial shape and has misled everyone, including covering up recalls, warranty work, etc. When Damiler found this out and got rid of their piece of Mitsu, in return for the deception, Mitsu gave Daimler Mitsubishi Fuso trucks, which Daimler still owns.
And diesels and hybrids are real big sellers, aren't they? They're like building sporty cars. They're an ego statement. People look at them and say "cool" but then by something else.
The origin of the Cherokee shows the problem. You don't take expensive cars and try to modify them so they can be sold for cheap. You go the other way.
A relevant comparison is Intrepid sales versus Magnum sales
Talking about ride and handling is ludicrious when customers have shown they want a vehicle jacked up sky high. Ride and handling are not high on the priorities of commerical buyers and don't fit the ego of personal buyers.
Past winners of the Motor Trend Car Of The Year include the Renault Alliance, the Plymouth Volare/Dodge Aspen, the Chevrolet Vega, the Chevrolet Corvair.
C'mon. Ford was the number one selling pickup during a time when it had Twin I Beam front suspension. Quirky handling, rode hard, and ate up tires.
You over rate Sprinter sales. Their small numbers are quite visible on the road because of their appearance.
My point. As with the thoughts of turning Dodge into a wagon brand, they got a higher percentage of a negligible market.
Which doesn't change the stupidity of the decisions I've mentioned. When they did the redesign of the Dakota and Durango, they gave each uniquq front sheet metal. They gave the Durango torsion bars and kept coils on the Dakota.
Has Mercedes never heard about sharing parts? This was a smart time to share parts. NOT recreasing the sheet metal on Jeep models to sell as Dodges, merely sticking in a Dodge grill, is a dumb time to share parts.
There's no conistency is what Mercedes did in these instances. Except that the decisions were wrong.
Subaru, Volvo, and Audi, don't sell a ton of cars, let alone a ton of station wagons. And your examples further prove the stupidity of the decisons. Foolish for Dodge to have Volvo and Audi as targets, because it didn't have the brand name value to compete with them, and the idea of Dodge aiming for Subaru, well gee, that's like Coca Cola considering RC Cola instead of Pepsi their target.
Which proves once again its not suitable for a mass market car.
Show me that the people who created the LH cars, the PT Cruiser, and the 3.5 and 4.7 engines left BEFORE Mercedes took over. You can't.
Chrysler's problems at the beginiing of this century were due to cyclical market downturn. To be expected. Remember Bush and Greenspan couldn't stand still for a little economic discomfort - what was occuring was a normal cyclical adjustment - and cut taxes, sent out tax rebates, and cut interest rates. The bill for refusing to take a little discomfort back then came due as real pain in 2008.
Its true Chrysler has been a boom an bust company. For the first few years of its existence, it had a license to print money. They it mistepped with the Airflow.
It recovered from that and for a short time over took the terribly mismanaged Ford Motor Company in sales. But boring set in and it was in trouble again by the early 50s.
Engineering and styling brought it back in the mid 50s. But they blew it on product quality and then product offerings. They came out with mid size cars - a new category - the same year Ford did, but foolishly droipped their full size cars (Plymouth and Dodge).
Came back again starting in 65 with a license to print money. By the mid 70s they were in trouble again, and came back yet again with first the K cars and the the minivans.
Iacocca ran the K car platform one generation too many and it was trouble again. They pulled themselves out yet again with product: the LH cars and the Neon.
Its true Chrysler was a boom and bust company. Mercedes sure fixed that problem!
They're efficient. They let the manufacturer make bigger, lower-mpg cars.
Sedan vs wagon? Bizzaroworld? Charger vs Intrepid is more apt, but the economy has been quite different in the 2000s and the 1990s.
Yeah, I must see 1 truck a week jacked up sky high.
Sure they do. If Susie Soccer Mom is buying a pickup (or her husband is), she wants one that rides and handles like a car.
Uh huh, and Olds Toronado, Chrysler minivans, Ford Taurus (original), ...
Yep, and Dodge was a far distant third. How are you going to overtake #1 if you just make something just like #1? Where's the incentive for any Ford buyers to switch to a me-too vehicle? Especially one lower in quality and reliability?
I see them all the time. UPS, FedEx, plumber, AC repair, ...
The diesel 6 gets over twice the fuel mileage of the old Ram. And carries more inside.
Again, offering a "me-too" vehicle -- especially one not updated in 20 years -- doesn't get you anywhere.
Sharing parts? The problem was, most Mercedes parts were too costly for Dodges. How many parts does BMW, say, share with Mini? Ferrari with Fiat?
Why? Subaru sold 125,000 cars TYD through June 2010, with a much smaller lineup than Chrysler (basically 2 cars and 2 "trucks").
Was the Pontiac G8? (Which GM is now making a police car off)
Exactly, and they could see another bust coming and were worried about surviving it.
How so? Chrysler was run as an independent unit, reporting its own profit and loss. And it had both profit and loss under Daimler. More loss than profit, especially towards the end.
It was a few years later that Chrysler mgrs left. They couldn't stand the weekly flights of German bosses who didn't understand the market. Dropping the LH line for the RWD 300 must have been a factor. Sure the
300 sold OK, but not to the LH customers who went elsewhere.
Chrysler couldn't get through the low sales times, after Daimler drained the cash off to Mercedes.
Oh BS. For most of the time it was DCX, Mercedes sales kept Chrysler going -- the Chrysler unit lost money. That's why DCX stock dived and why they sold off Chrysler so cheaply.
You read a different story, likely from the other side of the pond, released by the Daimler take over artists. Here is what a insider Chrysler saw in the early years of Daimler control of Chrysler:
formatting link
By 2005 Daimler's influence on Chrysler was seriously losing their traditional customers. I know, because I was there.
Daimler sold off Chrysler cheaply because they knew they screwed up Chrysler and want to limit their losses. They did OK, because they kept the pile of cash Chrysler had 10 years ago. More recently Cerberus also did OK by Chrysler. In 2008 GM was thinking of taking over Chrysler to get at another cash pile. When Cerberus dumped Chrysler that cash was gone, vanished. So twice in 10 years Chrysler's cash was ripped off. By then Chrysler not only lost many customers, but Cerberus cut so many designers Chrysler couldn't design cars to go around their recent new V6 engines.
the Pacifica design studios and Arizona proving grounds were also sold off during Mercedes rein , supposedly to get more operating capital and pay some debts.
You explained why, in your view, people should buy them in large numbers while ignoring the fact they don't.
Normally yes, however, Mercedes replaced the Intrepid sedan with the Magnum wagon. If you want to evaluate the quality of that decision, compare Intrepid and Magnum sales.
You aren't paying attention. Over the last 20 years or so, the manufacturers have jacked up the trucks. Current mid sized trucks are taller than full size trucks were 20 years ago. Current full size half tons are at least as tall as 1 tons were 20 years ago.
They did it because that's the look customers want. They didn't provide any significant load capacity increases by jacking up the trucks. Because so many of the truck buyers don't need that. After all, its pretty tough to strain the capacity of a pickup even with the be completely full groceries.
Well, if Mercedes really believed that, not only would they have done the coil suspension they've done, they'd lower the Ram. They didn't. So they didn't get anywhere near full benefit of the design.
Having part of a large market may be better than having 100% of a smaller one. Often you don't need something drastically different. You just need something different in detail.
Dodge jumped into competitiveness with the orignal Freightliner styled Ram pickup. Mechanical features were similar to Ford and Chevy. What made it sell was the tough truck image, which was there functionally but the styling really gave the tough truck impression. And that's what customers wanted.
You can logic out "better" all you want but that doesn't mean its what people think. VW's Rabbit based pickup, and the Dodge and Plymouth Horizon/Omni coupe based pickups. Don't you think they were better in just about every way than the Japanese sourced small pickups Chevy, Ford, and Dodge were selling? Yes, they were. Did they sell? No.
And what happened to Ford when they made their full sized truck just slightly smaller for a few years? Chevy almost caught them.
Often companies shouldn't build something completely different. Often just different in details works. Following your view, the original Escort/Lynx and the Omni/Horizon should not have been built since they followed the Rabbit format.
And costs more. And has less power. And really contradicts your ride/handling pitch on the pickups.
Me too gets you lots of places lots of the time. It can give you a share of a large market which might be better than all of a small one. The reason CVS and Walgreens build their stores right across the street from each other. The reason many towns have streets referred to as "auto dealers row". The reason why companies other than Bayer make aspirin. The reason why most companies choose to make standard potato chips rather than going after Ruffles or Pringles.
Yet that is what they tried to do. They treated Chrysler as a captive customer for over priced parts.
You know, I don't know if what you say is due to lack of knowledge or denial. But I usually only have discussions of this character with people who still believe Saddam had Weapons Of Mass Destruction.
I rented a first year Magnum for two weeks. It had excellent interior space, but it's poor handling and vision left me very happy to return to my '95 Concorde. The only good thing here was many got a real cheap Magnum when they were cleared out. Of course the rest of the 300 line has sold fairly well, being a unique car in todays market.
Don't answer me then, you are still thinking inside the box on this one.
You keep claiming this. Provide some proof. Have you read any of Chrysler's annual reports prior to the arrangement? A simple yes or no.
Yeah, Daimler dumped Chrysler because Chrysler had too much cash. Real sensible.
" But then this spring, something strange happened. It had become evident to anyone who cared to look that the company the Germans had bought was not exactly flourishing. Chrysler managers, stuffed full of hubris from their world-beating 90's performance, had allowed operations to grow bloated and inefficient. The company's production costs were too high; it introduced too few new products; it overloaded its cars with expensive electronics and then couldn't compete with Honda, Toyota and Volkswagen. Product incentives and rebates up to $4,000 per car sent Chrysler's losses soaring, eating up cash reserves.
A change of heart began to take hold in Detroit. ''The issue of the 'evil Germans' has turned into questions about Bob Eaton's management,'' said Paul Krell, press secretary to Stephen Yokich, president of the United Auto Workers, ''and all the millions the merger earned him.'' Even Yokich, who held his fire surprisingly long after the Chrysler Group announced a worldwide ''work-force reduction action'' of 26,000 employees earlier this year, took it easy on the Germans, saying, ''I think there wouldn't be a Chrysler today, quite frankly, if there wasn't a Daimler with a fatter purse than we have here in Michigan.''"
If Gentz is right, if the Germans were overly concerned with being seen as ''invaders,'' then this culturally motivated hesitation cost the shareholders -- German as well as American -- quite a bit. Now a new version of the drama is starting to take shape. Chrysler's decline had nothing to do with the merger. In reality, the American team had driven the company into the ground and left their German partners in the dark for too long. When their mismanagement could no longer be ignored, they took the easy way out by blaming their successors for their troubles.
Depends on gas prices. When gas hit $4 a gallon a couple of years ago, hybrids were back ordered; 2 and 3-year old Priuses were demanding the same price as new ones.
The new coil-spring one looks lower at least -- less dead cat space between the tire and the fender.
Sure, if you're content with scraps.
Just fewer than wanted Chevy or Ford. And now there's Toyota and Nissan too.
OTOH, El Camino and Ranchero seemed somewhat successful.
But did they just copy it and hope for the scraps? No, they tried going better/different with bigger engines, more American-like interiors, etc.
But the cost is made back in gas and maintenance savings. You don't think FedEx is buying them just for the looks, do you?
But the hope of every company is a bigger share of a new market, not the crumbs in the existing one. Otherwise, Chrysler would still be selling Omnis and Reliants.
Not really. Things like suspensions were built with cheaper cast iron instead of aluminum parts for Chrysler.
And I usually encounter conspiracy theorists among those who think global warming is a big conspiracy by all the world's scientists to enslave them.
Why would I want to? My 300M's 3.5L engine has more power than I need in that car. Of course in the much heavier 300 my 3.5L engine may not be so swift, and would not give the same excellent mileage.
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.