Built like a Mercedes (?)

With job cuts announced on both sides of the Atlantic, its clear Daimler-Chrysler is serious about cutting the fat. Even more, it has announced plans for increased production at the currently hot Chrysler unit without additional workers. That is truely cutting the fat. But observers wonder if Daimler-Chrysler has really identified all its fat. Its not just in the workforce. It is in the cars and trucks.

At the Chrysler unit, the new Dodge Dakota, which, perhaps only coincidentally, is selling poorly, picked up 600 pounds in its re-design, all for a paltry additional 2 inches back seat room. But it merely followed the example of the Pacifica: over

4000 pounds for a six passenger vehicle that has all the luggage space - in both shape and volume - of a 78 Plymouth Horizon. The Pacifica isn't even in the same league as Chrysler's all time weight efficient 6 passenger vehicle: the (then) downsized 79 New Yorker, Newport, and St. Regis, at under 3800 pounds.

The extra weight is generally not evident on the road, thanks to Chrysler's potent engines. But it is at the gas station. And it certainly takes a toll in increased wear of mechanical parts.

It may not matter, however, if the Chrysler unit can convince customers the extra weight means greater quality. Mercedes has been quite successful, until recently, with this strategy. Mercedes' economy car, the C230, makes its tires scream with a hefty load of 3405 pounds. In contrast, a Honda Civic with

5 cubic feet greater combined capacity weighs 777 pounds less.

But there is always opportunity. With the added weight, Lee Iacocca may be tagging Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep commercials with "Built like a Mercedes". Of course, if that turns out to be true, Chrysler Financial will soon be in the business of offering car equity loans for the repair bills.

Reply to
Comments4u
Loading thread data ...

No. It's about getting America off its lardy ass and competing at world standard productivity levels.

Compete or die. The world is hungry for jobs and there's no space for lazy weaklings.

Graham

Reply to
Pooh Bear

No, it's about getting America to get off it's lard butt and take back it's industry, but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the EPA being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree.

If you want to buy American, it needs to be OWNED and built here.

Japan and Germany didn't lose WW II, they just waited and bought us off.

Budd

Reply to
Budd Cochran

Well said, Mr. Cochran! Well said!

Reply to
BudE

That's put me off Jaguar, Volvo, Saab, Land Rover, Ford, Vauxhall, and all the other American owned brands we buy in Europe then. F*** 'um foreign things. We'll buy European domestic products like Renault, Fiat and Peugeot instead.

But wait, how does nationalism and protectionism help all those American Ford and GM brands? Oh it doesn't, it guarantees even bigger losses for them. Perhaps Americans only believe in free trade when the going is good for them? Yes that is probably it.

Fact is, there is only one way to stem those losses at Ford and GM and that is for them to become more efficient and trade their way out. It can be done. Just look at the example of Nissan which under French management has been transformed from imminent bancruptcy to a modern success story in less than ten years.

There is nothing magical about Japanese or German industry. Just look at the present debacle at Mitsubishi which Daimler/Chrysler could not turn around.

If you want a global recession where you are absolutely guaranteed to have fewer sales and total business failures then certainly go protectionist. If you want continued relitive prosperity and employment then become competitive and grow your economy. There is no stopping China and other major competitors becoming more prosperous because they are coming around to the American way of doing business. If enough trade is done both ways then both economies win. Obviously America has more to lose and China has more to win but what you need is a win/win situation. It is inevitable though that China will become a stronger economy than the USA in the medium term.

Huw

Reply to
Huw

How about we cut your pension or however you get paid. I'm so sick of hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. Who the hell here can afford a pay cut?

Roy

Reply to
Roy

Top-posted and un-trimmed, Mr. BudE.

Reply to
Scott en Aztlán

Which would you rather have: your pay cut, or your job cut?

A lot of Ford and GM workers are about to wish they had taken the pay cut...

Reply to
Scott en Aztlán

You folks continue with the same mantra. Cut the workers wages. It is damn easy to say until it affects you. Also the same bs "it will be your job if you don't take a pay cut" The jobs will go anyway.

Roy

Reply to
Roy

It may be a choice between some jobs going and a pay cut for the rest or all of the jobs going. All jobs are of the 'here today, gone tomorrow' type in a competitive economy. There is a train of thought that all change is good because it is always followed by innovation and increased competitiveness, but I'm not sure I agree with that. The winners in a previous era are usually resentful if they lose out to new winners. The trick I think is to make sure no one loses out for long and a good standard of living with an opportunity of new employment can be had by all.

Huw

Reply to
Huw

None of what you are saying makes much sense. Evidence of this is your claim that you'd buy Fiat, Peugot and Renault. Great, patronize your government by purchasing known inferior cars. Meanwhile, you extoll the virtues of a free market economy. Sorta hypocritical to throw government owned business in at the top of the diatribe, then revert to free market, and THEN claim the U.S. doesn't like a free market.

Not making sense to you? Great, neither does your essay.

Reply to
Max Dodge

None of those are British and none are actually inferior. GM has just had to pay a huge sum to Fiat to get out of a contract it could not afford. Have you any experience of those cars? Millions of satisfied customers run them and I have just bought my first Fiat recently to go with my year old Range Rover and eight year old Land Cruiser. I am very satisfied with all of them.

Meanwhile, you

Fiat is a family owned business and neither of the others are government owned so I am not sure what you are on about.

then

Did I say that? No. But it is evident that some posters here do not wish it to be a free market when they are less competitive, only when they come out top. Rather hypocritical don't you think? The US government is sticking to free market principles in this case [they don't always, thinking of steel] but it is a few posters here that are arguing that they should put up the shutters. I am saying that it will do them more harm than good.

Then you have a problem. Are you a street sweeper or the office coffee maker by any chance?

Huw

Reply to
Huw

Can some one explain to me why people have such a bug up their butt about top-posting? I find it much more convenient when reading through a thread...

Reply to
Tom Lawrence

Oh, I dunno...Fiat reliability/rust resistance is still not great (otherwise I might own an Alfa Romeo, which I try to rent when in Italy) and in Britain the French cars tend to cluster low down in the satisfaction stakes though some, e.g. Renault, do well in the EuroNCAP tests.

(Admittedly Fiat produces some funky cars...and, of course, owns Ferrari...)

I guess Renault could be considered private as the French govt only owns about 16%.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

Yes. An enduring phenomenon ('ongoing situation'... ) since the introduction of machinery (Industrial Revolution).

For example in Britain there was massive restructuring in the seventies and now employment is still at among its highest levels and certainly among the highest in western Europe (perhaps partly because more partners in a family need to work to have sufficient income to enjoy 'the good life').

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

some people need something to gripe about? just a guess. *grin*

Reply to
Christopher Thompson

I can't see why their reliability is not as good as any. Rust resistance is OK and they use as many galvanised panels and have as good a warranty as anyone. Rust was a particular problem when scrap metal had to be incorporated in sheet steel and was a particular problem in Italian, French and Japanese cars of a period up to the early 90's.

and in Britain the French cars tend to cluster low down in the

Italian engineering has always been absolutely top notch although their electrics have not always been even adequate. This has changed markedly over the last fifteen years. I own several pieces of sophisticated electronically controlled industrial units built in Italy from the early 90's and they are rust resistant and I have never had a single electronic problem from their engine management, full electronic transmission management or chassis management systems alone or their comunication with each other. Admittedly mid 80's models with far less sophistication had a reputation for wiring loom fires but time moves on.

Certainly it is private with a minority shareholder which happens to be a Govt investor. EU rules on competition prevent any unfair investment though.

Huw

Reply to
Huw

I guess that some are all consumed about what are supposed rules and guidelines. Or perhaps they touch themselves too much. Screw'em.

Reply to
Roy

Certainly not the ones with an overpopulation problem.

************************* Dave
Reply to
DTJ

Cite? Every country which is more densely populated than the US has a far lower standard of living.

Potential? They have the potential to get their asses kicked if they keep supporting terrorists.

************************* Dave
Reply to
DTJ

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.