What ARE we going to do, Chrysler?

There's a condom named Magnum? I'd say that's the dumb name.

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

And its original meaning, double-size bottles of champagne! Not really such a dumb name; I think it's associated with big&powerful, which seems to be the look they were going for with it (that the vehicle looks like it was styled by DC's Little Tykes division is a whole 'nother can of wroms).

They had a very short 2003 run and then called them 2004 so they would have something to sell before the new vehicles were available.

Concordes, 300Ms,

They were certified as 2004 model year vehicles the same as any other that is/will be available on the market. They didn't '[call] them 2004' in the sense that they really were 2003 vehicles somehow being misrepresented as something other than that, which is what your post clearly implies. There are quite a few 2004 model year vehicles in production; I daresay most that will be available as such have been being built since late summer, when the last LHs came off the line.

It is fair to say that it was a shortened model year run.

--Geoff

Magnum is a Latin adjective. It is the NEUTER form of magnus, which means great, large.

Yes, my sister owned a white '78 Magnum. One of my co-workers had a Midnight Blue Magnum GT with T-Tops I lusted after.

Who can forget the use of Magnum as an engine label? 440 Magnum? The Magnum series of truck engines?

As I said, No problem with me and Magnum. I like Intrepid too.

Lloyd, Chrysler had never been in better financial shape or product shape as in 1998. They entered the merger with a hoard of cash. Quality was rising.

I hope you enjoy your Daimler 300C.

As far as the Daimler quality myth, read this. Stuttgart's cost cuts are coming home to roost:

J.D. POWER AND ASSOCIATES SURVEY RESULTS: GM makes quality strides; Japanese still dominant Lexus is best; Mercedes slips; Focus glitchy July 9, 2003

FREE PRESS NEWS SERVICES

While Japan's largest automakers dominated an annual vehicle quality survey released Tuesday, General Motors Corp., scored high and DaimlerChrysler AG's Mercedes brand stalled.

The benchmark J.D. Power and Associates survey of long-term vehicle quality polled 55,000 owners of 3-year-old vehicles and found that some automakers are not living up to their promises -- or reputations -- for better quality.

"About half of new car buyers say longer-term dependability is a key factor in choosing which vehicle they want," said Joe Ivers, J.D. Power's executive director of quality and customer satisfaction research. "This is becoming the next major issue in the auto industry, and a much more consistent focus from automaker to automaker than it has been in the past."

As it has for the past several years, Toyota Motor Corp.'s Lexus luxury unit topped the brand rankings with 163 problems per 100 vehicles, followed by Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.'s Infiniti brand, GM's Buick unit, Porsche AG and Honda Motor Co. Ltd.'s Acura brand.

"The Lexus brand has become one of the bulletproof brands out there," said Mike Wall, an industry analyst with CSM Worldwide. "In terms of quality, efficiency and overall manufacturing, I think Toyota's been head and shoulders above the rest."

Among manufacturers overall, Porsche led the list, followed closely by Toyota. Honda, Nissan and BMW AG rounded out the top five.

GM was the only one of Detroit's three automakers to rank above the industry average of 273 problems per 100 vehicles, with its Buick, Cadillac, GMC and Chevrolet brands all performing above average.

"GM's quality has been improving, and I think this reinforces that," Wall said. "Their biggest challenge has been getting consumers to recognize that and bringing them back in the fold from the Hondas, Toyotas and Nissans of the world."

Ivers noted that GM had never performed above the industry average in prior surveys and that the survey backed up claims from GM executives that they were matching the quality of Japanese automakers.

This year, we see GM "sort of turn a corner," he said. "They've begun to show evidence of closing that gap" with foreign automakers.

This spring, GM began a national advertising campaign acknowledging quality lapses of the past to underscore progress it's made in recent years.

Ford Motor Co.'s Lincoln brand scored just above Honda and its Mercury brand did better than the industry average. But the Ford brand was below average, with 295 problems per 100 vehicles, dragging down the company as a whole.

While Ford's F-Series pickup topped its class, the survey was the first to include the Ford Focus, which was plagued with quality problems when it was launched in 1999.

"Since the 1997 model year, Ford vehicles have been improving on a consistent basis. This year is a bit of an exception," Ivers said. "The Focus is one of those vehicles that hasn't aged gracefully."

Perhaps the study's most shocking results involve DaimlerChrysler. Since the

1998 merger, Daimler executives have contended that Mercedes-Benz's knowledge of how to build quality vehicles would be used to improve the Chrysler brands.

But Chrysler, Dodge and the now-defunct Plymouth brand all outranked Mercedes, which had 318 problems per 100 vehicles. Ivers said Mercedes' troubles were concentrated in its M-Class sport utility vehicle and its E-Class sedans, which accounted for roughly half its sales.

"The M-Class has had a lot of problems since its launch," Ivers said. "The rate of deterioration on the E-Class is greater than on any other vehicle in the industry."

Long-term quality often translates into money won or lost for automakers. Ivers said Honda's reputation for durability translates to a $1,500 premium in the new-car market, with an even larger premium in used vehicles.

Some of the most common problems in the new survey were excessive brake wear, wind noise and the replacement of components not called for under the normal maintenance schedule.

This year's survey is not directly comparable to previous studies because J.D. Power lowered the age of the vehicles it was monitoring to catch problems earlier.

Abridged version with most important section only:

Perhaps the study's most shocking results involve DaimlerChrysler. Since the

1998 merger, Daimler executives have contended that Mercedes-Benz's knowledge of how to build quality vehicles would be used to improve the Chrysler brands.

But Chrysler, Dodge and the now-defunct Plymouth brand all outranked Mercedes, which had 318 problems per 100 vehicles. Ivers said Mercedes' troubles were concentrated in its M-Class sport utility vehicle and its E-Class sedans, which accounted for roughly half its sales.

"The M-Class has had a lot of problems since its launch," Ivers said. "The rate of deterioration on the E-Class is greater than on any other vehicle in the industry."

"

Would that people could look at endangered species the same way.

Again, relate to endangered species (survival of the fittest).

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

Sold and built are two different things of course.

Check out this thread titled "Last 300M Special" over on the 300M ezBoard:

Further down in that thread, you'll see that one of the factory workers claims that the workers signed the floor pan, and the poster himself claims to have written "LAST LH CAR EVER" - that was on a white Intrepid.

Earlier in that same thread, the same factory worker posted on Aug. 28 that the last M was built that day.

In other places in the thread he posts serial numbers of the last M Specials and of the last Intrepid built incase people were interested in purchasing a "special" Special or Intrepid.

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

Lloyd, Chrysler was the most efficient and profitable of the former Big Three when it was taken over in 1998. This is a fact that can easily be verified by going back to the business publications of the day. Both efficiency and profitability have suffered under Daimler. Look at the stock price alone!!!!!

No, I am not one who thinks everything was junk after the '68 Fury. I think the current crop of LH cars were about the best overall vehicles to ever be produced. By any manufacturer. Their balance between room and power set standards in my opinion, but they have been scrapped.

Juergen and Dieter would like us to forget the successes of Chrysler in the

1990's. They would like to reference the dark days and they act like they bought the company in 1980. Makes sense, everyone wants to be a hero. But the Chrysler that had evolved into the 1990's was something special and something we're not likely to ever see again. No car company was ever so in tune with what the public would move toward. I felt like I had my own personal design team in Detroit. Chrysler had a base, contrary to Daimler Belief, and they are in the process of alienating it with the new product.

I would argue that what Dieter and Juergen are doing is more like the Riccardo Era of Chrysler, if you want to use Chrysler History as a reference point. You know, when green Newports with brown interiors were being built and put into the sales bank, then force fed down the dealers throats. That led to 1979-81. I hope I'm wrong, but the market is not asking for what they are making. We will see.

That's its etymology (which I actually didn't know until you posted -- thanks!); it's original meaning in English is a noun referring to a specific size champagne bottle.

Unfortunately, this merger is turning two companies that were fit to survive into one that will end up struggling to maintain. Chrysler for the first time ever losing it's sales position to Toyota even if only for one month so far this year should have been impossible at any point past November 17,

1998, if the Daimler promises held out would have been truths.

Instead of being like the Studebaker-Packard merger, which was characterized by many to be like two drunks trying to help each other across the street, this is turning out more like a marriage between two parties that was set up with lies. Instead of going to divorce court, the dominant member is smothering the other. The course was laid out when Robert Eaton turned submissive in the final stages of negotiations. Read the book "Taken for a Ride, How Daimler Drove Off With Chrysler"

When Chrysler bought AMC in 1987, there's no doubt that many AMC fans were alienated. I still know a few that will never forgive the former Chrysler for that. The stakes were much larger with this merger, and it was handled just as if not even more poorly. And it shows no sign of improving.

RE: So what says Chrysler Corp.? Chrysler Corporation is and will be forevermore silent. Chrysler Corporation ceased to exist on November 17, 1998. Chrysler can't say anything because Daimler-Benz AG bought it, ran off the bulk of it's design and management talent, and replaced it with "superior" German talent. What bricks and mortar that haven't been closed or sold off are still there, but what was Chrysler is now just part of a five year old enterprise named DaimlerChrysler AG. (Note who's name is first in the GERMAN headquartered company's name!) Auburn Hills, kind of a branch headquarters if you will, lives and dies by and MUST conform to the wishes of Stuttgart. Many names responsible for the product resurgence at Chrysler in the 1990's are gone because they chose not to live like that.

Instead of attempting to maintain and preserve what had made Chrysler successful, Daimler has swept through the company as if they had bought a basket case in need of a rebuild. It has taken this long for the total effect of the new ownership to present itself in the showroom because of the lead time from concept to production in the auto business (which is much longer under the European methods of management than by those pioneered by the FORMER Chrysler Corporation), and the year or two Daimler took to wrestle control in an attempt to make it look like the "Merger of Equals" they claimed it was. Of course, doubters of that will point to the early "financial losses", and the need for Daimler to do something. If that argument is pursued though, one could say they have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Also, if you are not prepared for economic cycles, then why are you in the auto business?

What can we do? We could buy what is made for us and ask no questions. But that is why I was a Mopar Man in the first place. I didn't fall for the Ford or GM line of old. And I just couldn't bring myself to buy an import. That left me only one choice. And now that choice is gone. Those distinct Chrysler design cues are soon to be forever lost. Oh sure there were big changes at times in the past, but never before were they made by people outside of the Chrysler Corporation, let alone from another existing European automaker (One who thinks what the USA needs a good lesson in Diesels, boxy bodies, and Station Wag, er, uh "Sport Tourers" (excuse me!).

One little thing I hate about the new products is that the interiors are distinctly European, all squared off with the hazard lights button on the center of the dash. Not what I expect in a Mopar. And RWD? What FWD Mercedes could they have shared parts with? Even though older Mopar nuts like me loved the old 1980 and prior RWD's, FWD saved the former company, and the bulk of the former Chrysler's base (particularly in Northern climates) love FWD Mopars. Remember, the merger was justified by economies of scale through parts sharing (remember who's name is first!).

Anyone who has been cruising along thinking the landscape hasn't changed will have to do some real self examination over the next few years. I wish all of you luck in your personal journey into future. If you like what Daimler likes, you're in luck.

"Jerry" wrote in message news:EsFkI7LVLls8-pn2-Bz5BhlMth9eS@localhost... > The wife and I were driving back to Virginia Beach from Raleigh > yesterday and I happened to mention that Intrepids are no longer being > built. My wife said "What are we going to do when we need a new > car?!" > > Yes, Chrysler, what are we supposed to do? We currently drive '95 and > an '02 Intrepids. Our prior cars have all been Dodge and Chrysler > sedans and station wagons going back to a '68 Barracuda. Station > wagons no longer make sense for our lifestyle. Similarly, we have no > use for a mini-van or a SUV. > > So what says Chrysler Corp.? Are they suggesting (pushing, bullying) > that we move to Mercedes? That might push us places that we've never > wanted to go - like Accord or Camry. I'm hoping our Intrepids last a > long, long time! > > Just wondering, > Jerry >

Wrong. Chrysler was losing money big time -- they hid this from the Daimler folks until after the deal was struck. Chrysler had also become the least efficient of the Big 3 -- most hours and most employees to make a vehicle. And quality was rising? I guess you could say so, just like if your fever drops from 103 to 102, it's coming down.

I hope you enjoy your Daimler 300C.

Brand new model. Often have problems first year. The old adage "never buy a car in its first year" ring a bell?

Wrong.

I've looked at the data, all the stories, Lutz's book. Chrysler had become the least efficient of the Big 3. It had "lost its way," according to Lutz.

Because rwd offers better ride and handling for a big car.

Success for a year followed by misery for 3 years, just like in the 1980s. Chrysler was always feast or famine. They'd finally make some money, and then they wouldn't plow it back into R & D (remember how long everything was based on the K car?), so they started losing money again. Chrysler seemed to lurch from one financial crisis to another. By 1998, the Chrysler management was desperate -- they knew Chrysler could not survive alone; it was losing too much money. BMW was approached, but since the company is privately held, the stock swap would have run afoul of German tax laws. Honda was approached, but nothing came of that. Finally Daimler approached Chrysler, and management jumped at what they felt was a life preserver.

Like Stratus? Cirrus? Neon? Want to talk about their sales?

What people said when the formal roof cars were replaced with cab forward.