Smart loss is several billion?

You've been saying this over and over, but I'd like to see a reference. And the argument that bigger cars are safer cars doesn't take into account the risk that large cars have to pedestrians, motorcyclists, bicyclists, and small car drivers. Not everyone can afford to pilot a 2.5 ton vehicle around. And the planet can't supply enough fuel and atmosphere.

There has to be a balance between safety and other desirable attributes in a vehicle: low price, fuel economy, and driving enjoyment. I for one would be glad to see more Smart-like cars in this US. They'd reduce our fuel consumption and reduce traffic congestion. They could be a valuable addition to our transportation needs.

- Mark

Reply to
markjen
Loading thread data ...

Having been to USSA, I don't think many of them would be slim enough to fit in a Smart.

Reply to
Ric

What can I say. Americans may not be fit but probably are clever. They sold a nosediving Chrysler Corp. for rising Euros. You miight want to accumulate some extra body fat for warmth in the coming long European economic winter.

Cheers Howard

Reply to
hnelson

"Ric" hat in Betrag news:blv6q5$n7s$ snipped-for-privacy@news-reader4.wanadoo.fr dies gedichtet:

The main point of a smart (compared to other subcompact cars) is that the smart features two real seats instead of four too small seats. I am 6ft 9in high and not very thin. I do fit in a smart, while a Ford Ka or a Fiat Seicento are impossible for me. In Germany smart made a strange commercial of two quite fat persons fitting in a smart and in no other car.

Even our former federal cancellor Mr. Kohl fits in a smart :-)

Frank

Reply to
Frank Kemper

Americans aren't fit? Hmmm, seems like Lance Armstrong is fairly well conditioned!

Reply to
Gerald G. McGeorge

If the Chrysler folks were so clever, then what about ol Jerkin Shrimp's lie's & deceptions? He initially called it a "merger of equals", then admitted later it was a takeover all along, he just called it a "merger" to get Chrysler to agree. Chrysler was profitable for years before being swallowed whole by McBrue's buddy, 'ol Jerkin Shrimp, but he fixed that in a hurry.

So, clever Europeans, who's the joke on NOW?? HAH, HAH!!!

Reply to
Gerald G. McGeorge

"Gerald G. McGeorge" hat in Betrag news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com dies gedichtet:

Well, currently _no_ american car manufacturer really is pofitable. AFAIK GM is the only car builder which produces positive revenue, but only due to their financial services.

If I were DaimlerChrysler, I had to decide between two choices: 1. Shut down chrysler, throw away my investment and lay off ten thousands of american workers. 2. work hard and wait for better times.

I think it is not a bad idea to have a multi brand strategy. The potential market share of Mercedes cars in the US is limited. If you want to sell more cars, you have to offer different cars. In Germany Mercedes had to learn that it is quite hard to sell a subcompact Mercedes successfully. I doubt that a smart would work with a Mercedes star on the bonnet.

Frank

Reply to
Frank Kemper

I wonder. Isn't it usually better to stick to your knitting?

I wonder when VW management will have to undergo treatment for schizophrenia... :-)

DAS

--

Reply to
Dori Schmetterling

All goofing aside, the purchase of Chrysler was a bold move by Daimler Benz and had the potential of allowing them to enter markets and product segments, particularly trucks, that would have been virtually impossible to do with the MB brand.

Daimler has some serious product issues on both the MB and Chrysler sides of the house. Years of cost and content cutting have resulted in poor quality and customer satisfaction ratings for Mercedes Benz in North America. This has tarnished the image of the brand tremendously. While Chrysler has traditionally been a quality bottom feeder their scores have steadily risen in recent years. However, even before the merger they scooped the domestic industry many times by not only being very profitable, but by offering innovative, exciting products Ford & GM couldn't match. Further, they proved they could fast-track products to market. The Neon, the mini van line, the Jeeps, Viper, Prowler, PT Cruiser, the Dodge trucks, etc. are all very distinctive, exciting products that have sold well. Thus, comparing Daimler Benz's decision on Chrysler to BMW's with Rover is silly, the latter was an antiquated disaster, propped up by the British Govt. for decades with massive, wasted cash flows. And while the US Govt. loaned Lee Iacocca's Chrysler money in the late '70's, they quickly paid it back and developed a momentum that made it one of the success stories of all time. Not that there wasn't a bit of "smoke & mirrors" to the whole thing.

The hope would be that Daimler will do more than just slash costs looking for short-term profits. They have a very serious problem with MB long term if quality doesn't turn around. My dealer and other sources are concerned about the leadership of MB here in the States, claiming anyone who had tenure was either fired or early-retired, only to be replaced by inexperienced, career-centric MBAs who have no clue and don't care.

On the other side, their approaches to the Chrysler issue look rather enlightened. Time will tell.

Reply to
Gerald G. McGeorge

LOL!

As a former VW manager here in the States, with many friends still working for them, every time I mention the Phaeton I get red faced stares! VW needs to deal with their quality problems and soon, sales are slipping and it reminds me of the same head-in-the-sand mentality that nearly killed them back in the 80's.

Reply to
Gerald G. McGeorge

Gerald:

Here are some recent crash tests with pictures:

VW beetle (bad) Golf II (worse) Golf IV (four stars, good)

formatting link

Wolfgang

Reply to
wolfgang

George:

the latest rates I come up with:

USA: 1.51 fatalities per mile driven in 2002, new record low Germany: 1.67 fatalities per mile driven, years 2000/2001 extrap. to 2002

USA: 14.85 fatalities per 100,000 population (2002) Germany: 8.3 fatalities per 100,000 population (2002)

Wolfgang

Reply to
wolfgang

"Dori Schmetterling" hat in Betrag news:3f853d4c$0$252 $ snipped-for-privacy@news.dial.pipex.com dies gedichtet:

Compare the sales figure of the Audi A8 to those of the VW Phaeton, and you know what I am talking about.

Frank

Reply to
Frank Kemper

Just a minor quibble:

Actually, the government didn't loan any money to Chrysler. Instead, it guaranteed $1.5 billion in loans to Chrysler, which made it possible for Chrysler to get the loans it needed through normal market sources. Chrysler ultimately borrowed about $1.2 billion against these guarantees.

The government assumed the risk of Chrysler defaulting on these loans, but as you note, this was not a problem--the loans were in fact repaid early. And, as part of the deal, the government received Chrysler stock warrants that produced a big profit when the company recovered.

Reply to
Carroll Bloyd

What about all that money Deiss & Associates loaned Chrysler, didn't they get chizzeled out of that? ;-)

Reply to
Gerald G. McGeorge

No, but they definitely ran past their 30 days net for a while. :-)

Reply to
Carroll Bloyd

The nerve, just like 'ol shifty Lee!

Reply to
Gerald G. McGeorge

Not sure what you mean by that.

And what about Bentley? Isn't that in Phaeton's price class?

As as has been said before, how many people will spend that much on a VW badge when they can have a Bentley badge or an M or a Three-Pointed Star and change etc...?

DAS

--

Reply to
Dori Schmetterling

"Dori Schmetterling" hat in Betrag news:3f8a8e48$1$246 $ snipped-for-privacy@news.dial.pipex.com dies gedichtet:

A Phaeton starts at 68.100 Euro, that is the 3,2 litre V6 engine with front wheel drive and 6 speed manual gearbox, no additional options. The big W12 engine with AWD and auto gearbox starts at 102.000 Euro. A Bentley Continental GT starts at 160.000 Euro, a Bentley Arnage, which is a 4 door sedan and size-wise comparable with a Phaeton, is at least twice as expensive as the Volkswagen Limo.

What I wanted to say: VW Phaeton and Audi A8 have a lot of similarities: Size, price, technological standard. Nevertheless the Audi A8 sells a lot better than the Volkswagen, which leads me to the conclusion, that it is almost impossible to sell a car in this price range under the label of Volkswagen (which means People's Car, by the way). VW would have done a lot better if they reanimated one old brand like Horch for the Phaeton.

Frank

Reply to
Frank Kemper

The _Horch_ name rights are owned by VW.

Juergen

Reply to
Juergen .

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.