I thought it was an odd concept as well.
How many times was Chrysler in bankruptcy? A couple at least. That may be
one way to break contractual situations which have evolved out of hand.
Would you like to guess again? Hint: its a smaller number than "a
couple" and in fact its equal to the number of times cows have sprouted
wings and flown over the moon.
There are a lot of myths about the great "Chrysler bailout." Its very
popular to believe that "the government pumped money into Chrysler to
save it." That is false- the government simply GUARANTEED private loans
to Chrysler, which Chrysler ultimately paid off early and without the
government giving Chrysler one red cent. Its also popular to believe
that "Chrysler went bankrupt" (and add "a couple of times" if you are
the previous poster!) That is also false- the company was certainly on
the edge of bankruptcy in 1979, but never went over the edge and
recovered without a bankruptcy filing.
So the answer to the question is "zero."
You are correct that they never had to file bankruptcy
but they were functionally bankrupt at least two times.
They got loan guarantees, tax credits, etc which actually kept them out of
the bankruptcy courts.
They dodged (no pun intended) the bullet, but not the
Chrysler Europe avoided filing bankrupcy by selling the operation to the
Chrysler America avoid filing bankrupcy by asking for loan guarantees based
upon tax credits, if my memory serves.
So you are correct that they never entered bankrupcy
filings, but on at least these two occasions, the operating units were out
of working capital (in essence, bankrupt).
They were saved by a white knight in the one case, and by Lee Iacocca's
brilliant maneuvering in the second.
Nope, you need a friend. Google to see meaning of word. Someone with
a Tech 2 or compatable can turn the DRL's off. It's a simple option
that turns them off via the vehicles computer. Why is this concept
so hard for some who read this group to understand... Be friendly to
people who work on your vehicle. Remember there is no law requiring
DRL's in the U.S. So there is no penalty for turning them off.
All the GM techs I spoke with towed the GM party line. All I approached
said it can't be done without GM corporate approval of the waver form and
only military, police or government are eligible to file the waver. The
rest of us (that don't get the same discounts either) don't rate,
The local independent shops most all told me either it can't be done or they
didn't want to be party to any possible future liability. In short, won't
Did any of these people know you? Were they your friends?? Does
the concept of making friends and then getting something done seem
alien to you? There is no law requiring DRL's in the U.S. Thus by
disabling them you are not breaking any law. Future liability has
nothing to do with it. Another route for you is to buy a Tech 2
compatable scan tool. Then you can disable them for people who you do
not know and who are not your friends. If you cannot handle any of
the above try a $50 bill...
Curious, why are people not all over Toyota for its use of DRLs on the
vehicles it makes? They force them on US consumers just like GM does.
Not sure of their systems for disabling them though...
On Sun, 15 May 2005 19:01:59 -0400, "James C. Reeves"
Don't need to. My vehicles don't have DRL's...never did.
So you must have confused me with the person with the S-10 that started this
thread. Or the private investigator with the Impala a few months back, or
the person with the Buick Regal, or the person that just wanted to run his
AC at the drive in movie (but couldn't since he couldn't turn his DRLs off),
or the person that wants to enter camp sites at night with only parkers (as
a courtesy to the other campers) but can't, or any one of dozens of other
people that have posted here wanting/needing to disable their DRLs (or auto
headlamps) for one legitimate reason or another. Of course, if GM
understood how people actually used their cars, perhaps they would design
the lighting controls correctly to meet the requirements.
One would think that they would understand the business they are in. :-(
But Lutz's comments a while back about forcing things on the customer is
apparently coming home to roost. Maybe GM is starting to listen with the
recent management shakeup. One can only hope.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.