 | |
Buyer Beware at Chrysler
Chrysler Dodge, Plymouth, Jeep, Eagle, etc info/talk (rec.autos.makers.chrysler)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Buyer Beware at Chrysler (rant) -
05-05-2007
, 02:26 PM
|
Get with the times. |
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
I was a toddler when the Dukes were on TV. The over 35-40 crowd will remember the show and the ones that remember the 69 Charger? That was almost 40 years ago which means you would have been at least 18 years old to consider buying back then which makes you 58+ years old. Get with the times. What about the new Impala SS? It's not even RWD for F*&^ sake. Just wait for the Dodge Challenger if you have to have a 2 door. "80 Knight" <nospam (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote in message news:mZ6dnQQ37tKNsKHbnZ2dnUVZ_t2tnZ2d (AT) giganews (DOT) com... Come on. If it's got 4-doors, it ain't a Charger. That's all there is too it. And you want to make a bet on how many people remember the 60's Chargers? Ever heard of "The Dukes of Hazard"? Or, the 2 new movies, all using the '69 Charger? One of the most popular TV cars of all time. The Charger is a nice looking car, but IMHO, it's not a Charger. They should have came up with another name, and built a 2-door to have the honor of being called "Charger". "Victor" <vmark(nospam)99 (AT) telus (DOT) net> wrote in message news:CVP_h.3461$au6.2198 (AT) edtnps90 (DOT) .. The new Dodge Charger is not ugly nor is it underpowered. Who cares if it's not a true "Hemi". It has 350HP in R/T package and 425HP in the SRT8. It's a great car and something GM couldn't give us a 4 Door RWD V8 without paying Cadillac prices. Not too many people remember the cars from the 60's and the ones that do are too busy buying Buick Lacrosse/Lucernes. Keep driving your POS Chevy Blazer. "Duncan" <trog (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:E9WdnciTJIs3PabbnZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d (AT) comcast (DOT) com... "who" <i (AT) notaspammer (DOT) net> wrote in message news:i-D8EA0E.23151203052007 (AT) news (DOT) telus.net... My question is this. If Chrysler doesn't have the volume to keep their designs up to date, why did GM fall so far behind with their designs? http://www.businessweek.com/autos/co...2_730763.htm?c han=search Autos April 12, 2007, 2:55PM EST text size: TT Buyer Beware at Chrysler Whoever buys the carmaker Daimler is ditching won't get a stand-alone company by David Welch Autos * Can Subprime Mortgage Problems Crash the Car Business? * May Day for Automakers * VW Gains Traction and Gets Ambitious * Mitsubishi's New Full Tilt Lancer * Europe Looks Beyond Ethanol Story Tools * post a comment * e-mail this story * print this story * order a reprint * digg this * save to del.icio.us With the entrance of billionaire Kirk Kerkorian into the bidding for Chrysler Group, the struggling carmaker is starting to look like a hot property. But buyer beware. Whoever ends up purchasing the U.S. company from German parent DaimlerChrysler (DCX) might find themselves a few parts shy of a complete car company. If a deal gets done, the new Chrysler may prove the ultimate test case for outsourcing. Chrysler is far from being a turnkey company and lacks some of the most basic components of a successful automaker. Its new owners would either have to continue to rely on Daimler >> Chrysler development, engineering, even writing car loans. Tougher yet, Chrysler lacks economies of scale that rivals like Toyota Motor (TM) and General Motors (GM) enjoy by selling variations of the same car across the globe. This company was doomed by bad management long ago. I still own & drive Mopars from the '70's - Plymouth Furys(2), Dusters(2), Scamps(2) - Dodge Darts (1) & Chrysler Cordobas (3) and New Yorkers (1). I also have a 87 Dodge 4x4 and two cars from the '90s - an Intreped & a Concord, both disappointing junk.. I use to run Jeeps before Chrysler bought them too, the new ones are cheap mass market junk compared to the old ones... little 4 bangers with chinsy thin doors. I'm hoping someone -an American- buys Chrysler and pulls it back away from all of this Global garbage. I use to proud to run Chryslers, Plymouths, Dodges & Jeeps but now their nothing but a shell covering some foreign manufactures junk. My real concerns are: 1. Will Jeep be included in the sale of Chrysler? and who gets Jeeps 4x4 technology? (Jeep Quadratrac from the 70s was tough to beat). 2. Who gets the Hemi Engine design? The Hemi engines being produced today are not the same engine design from the 60 - 70 engines.. it's a cheap redesign to capitalize on the legend of one of the greatest engines ever built, the 426. (Chrysler built smaller Hemi's back in the 50s too -331, 354, 392) Todays Hemi's are going to be dropping pushrods down into the engine after they get substantial wear on them and then Hemi will get a bad name because the Germans ruined it. I see the cheap, ugly little car that they are passing off as the Dodger Charger today, and my only thoughts are: 'Man, what an insult to the Dukes of Hazard!' The Dodge Charger is my all-time favorite car & the 426 Hemi engine my all-time favorite Engine, but that new thing isn't a Dodge Charger & that ain't a true Hemi under the hood... I would never even consider buying one.. their ugly and look like they've been put in a trash compactor to crunch a foot off each end. ( I am negotiating on a 66 Charger, no engine, and a 70 Charger with a 440 right now). Right there is a perfect example of the marketing failure of Chrysler... they left the people who took them to the dance in the first place. Instead they went for mass appeal with marketing gimmicks like renaming a German peice of junk with the legendary name of an American Classic. Did these people at Chysler also think I would run right out and buy a Mitsubishi just because they stuck a DODGE name plate on it? Who's idea was it to put cheap, defective mass market ball-joints on Dodge Durangos when people buying Durangos expected something heavy-duty? Come On!!! I just can't wait to see the made in China or Korea version of Chrysler... the German version sure was an insult. For lack of a better alternative, I'm going to be running cheaply made Chevy Blazers until Chrysler produces something truely American that I would once again be proud to own. It will probably be an eternal wait since it seems that Chrysler has a historic tradition of Clueless management. I don't really give a F*&% if Germans, Japs, Chinese, Enviros or writers for the Car magazines like MY car or not, if I wanted one of their cars I would've bought one and I'm tired of being insulted by them trying to sell me their cars by puttting a Chrysler/Dodge name-tag on it. I want an American Car built BY Americans FOR Americans. I want a tapered box front-end and sleek quarter panels/roof lines leading to a box back-end. I want a big gas guzzling V-8 with rear wheel drive and enough horsepower to melt the tires off. That was what Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth was all about... not mass-market cars but cars for niche buyers, buyers who want traditional Ugly American Cars. When they built a car like that I'll buy one (even a new slant-6 Dart would do), they can take their current version of the Charger and Hemi engine and shove it. |
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
"who" <i (AT) notaspammer (DOT) net> wrote in message news:i-D8EA0E.23151203052007 (AT) news (DOT) telus.net... My question is this. If Chrysler doesn't have the volume to keep their designs up to date, why did GM fall so far behind with their designs? That is a great question. Beware any short answers to it. Only the people who work at GM And Ford know what they did wrong. I won't try to answer that. I can tell you this about scale. If you compare AMC, Chrysler, Ford, and GM over the last 50 years (or whatever, you pick) the effects of scale are dreadfully obvious in the area of style and quality, fit and finish. Especially if you look at the cosmetic quality of the cars after they hit 5 or 10 years old (you pick) they would fall right in line with who sold the most. Chrysler quality was horrendous in the 70's, and then the styling and paint were horrendous in the 80's. For their part, at no time did AMC have a car that could match the tactile quality of anything from GM. They had no styling leader, ever. The bottom line is GM had more resources, and they used them. They could spread the costs of styling, engineering, and research over more cars. Once in a while, like the 55 Chryslers, they'd actually hit a styling home run. But usually not. So scale is a very real disadvantage for Chrysler. They have overcome it with huge strides, compared to where they were. If you looked at the paint on a 1985 Chrysler product after 5 years, they were peeling and flaking and just awful. By 1995, the paint was staying on, and only the mylar chrome was peeling off. You won't see any of that right now on a 5-year-old 2002. They used the same truck cab from 1973 for 25 model years, and it was ugly in 1973 when it came out. They canceled the 3500 trucks in 1980. Now, they've restyled twice since then, and they're introducing a 4500 and a 5500. All the while losing less money and suffering less than GM and Ford. They have actually driven GM and Ford out of the minivan market, and made them admit it. They've made some good choices. Management was apparently better. Maybe some guys in engineering just had more brilliant ideas per person. You can overcome the effects of scale some days. One thing I feel sure of, if so many experts didn't agree the Chrysler minivans were the best for the last 20 years or so, Chrysler would have gone broke. That has really helped, that they had one product that was the leader, even back when the paint all flaked off. Today's product lineup from Chrysler is debateable. I think time will judge it. Resale value is still bad, and that is a really clear indication of Chrysler's product shortcomings of years past. I think it'll improve (the products did), or at least Ford will drop down and get under it. |
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
executive salaries and bonuses, pay for unreasonably high health care and have little resources left for engineering, styling and quality control. [...] |
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
What's this got to do with global trade? It has been said that a reason for Daimler Benz/DaimlerChrysler's eagerness to list in New York is tto let the top management to have 'legitimate' access to the outrageous American salaries. DAS For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling --- "Moses" <moses (AT) spoof (DOT) net> wrote in message news:463d8e81$0$15142$4c368faf (AT) roadrunner (DOT) com... [...] , [US}..companies pay excessive executive salaries and bonuses, pay for unreasonably high health care and have little resources left for engineering, styling and quality control. [...] |
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
Apparently you have had your head stuck in the ground the past several years. I too was a toddler when the Dukes were on TV, but you can bet your ass I know what a '69 Charger is. Even in the newest "Dukes of Hazard" movie, they still used the same car, a 1969 Charger. And, check with your "most popular car on TV" polls. Usually the General Lee wins every time. As for the Dodge Challenger, the pictures I have seen of it are quite nice, but I think the new Camaro will be crowned King. "Victor" <vmark(nospam)99 (AT) telus (DOT) net> wrote in message news:f22%h.4909$Vi6.44 (AT) edtnps82 (DOT) .. I was a toddler when the Dukes were on TV. The over 35-40 crowd will remember the show and the ones that remember the 69 Charger? That was almost 40 years ago which means you would have been at least 18 years old to consider buying back then which makes you 58+ years old. Get with the times. What about the new Impala SS? It's not even RWD for F*&^ sake. Just wait for the Dodge Challenger if you have to have a 2 door. "80 Knight" <nospam (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote in message news:mZ6dnQQ37tKNsKHbnZ2dnUVZ_t2tnZ2d (AT) giganews (DOT) com... Come on. If it's got 4-doors, it ain't a Charger. That's all there is too it. And you want to make a bet on how many people remember the 60's Chargers? Ever heard of "The Dukes of Hazard"? Or, the 2 new movies, all using the '69 Charger? One of the most popular TV cars of all time. The Charger is a nice looking car, but IMHO, it's not a Charger. They should have came up with another name, and built a 2-door to have the honor of being called "Charger". "Victor" <vmark(nospam)99 (AT) telus (DOT) net> wrote in message news:CVP_h.3461$au6.2198 (AT) edtnps90 (DOT) .. The new Dodge Charger is not ugly nor is it underpowered. Who cares if it's not a true "Hemi". It has 350HP in R/T package and 425HP in the SRT8. It's a great car and something GM couldn't give us a 4 Door RWD V8 without paying Cadillac prices. Not too many people remember the cars from the 60's and the ones that do are too busy buying Buick Lacrosse/Lucernes. Keep driving your POS Chevy Blazer. "Duncan" <trog (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:E9WdnciTJIs3PabbnZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d (AT) comcast (DOT) com... "who" <i (AT) notaspammer (DOT) net> wrote in message news:i-D8EA0E.23151203052007 (AT) news (DOT) telus.net... My question is this. If Chrysler doesn't have the volume to keep their designs up to date, why did GM fall so far behind with their designs? http://www.businessweek.com/autos/co...2_730763.htm?c han=search Autos April 12, 2007, 2:55PM EST text size: TT Buyer Beware at Chrysler Whoever buys the carmaker Daimler is ditching won't get a stand-alone company by David Welch Autos * Can Subprime Mortgage Problems Crash the Car Business? * May Day for Automakers * VW Gains Traction and Gets Ambitious * Mitsubishi's New Full Tilt Lancer * Europe Looks Beyond Ethanol Story Tools * post a comment * e-mail this story * print this story * order a reprint * digg this * save to del.icio.us With the entrance of billionaire Kirk Kerkorian into the bidding for Chrysler Group, the struggling carmaker is starting to look like a hot property. But buyer beware. Whoever ends up purchasing the U.S. company from German parent DaimlerChrysler (DCX) might find themselves a few parts shy of a complete car company. If a deal gets done, the new Chrysler may prove the ultimate test case for outsourcing. Chrysler is far from being a turnkey company and lacks some of the most basic components of a successful automaker. Its new owners would either have to continue to rely on Daimler >> Chrysler development, engineering, even writing car loans. Tougher yet, Chrysler lacks economies of scale that rivals like Toyota Motor (TM) and General Motors (GM) enjoy by selling variations of the same car across the globe. This company was doomed by bad management long ago. I still own & drive Mopars from the '70's - Plymouth Furys(2), Dusters(2), Scamps(2) - Dodge Darts (1) & Chrysler Cordobas (3) and New Yorkers (1). I also have a 87 Dodge 4x4 and two cars from the '90s - an Intreped & a Concord, both disappointing junk.. I use to run Jeeps before Chrysler bought them too, the new ones are cheap mass market junk compared to the old ones... little 4 bangers with chinsy thin doors. I'm hoping someone -an American- buys Chrysler and pulls it back away from all of this Global garbage. I use to proud to run Chryslers, Plymouths, Dodges & Jeeps but now their nothing but a shell covering some foreign manufactures junk. My real concerns are: 1. Will Jeep be included in the sale of Chrysler? and who gets Jeeps 4x4 technology? (Jeep Quadratrac from the 70s was tough to beat). 2. Who gets the Hemi Engine design? The Hemi engines being produced today are not the same engine design from the 60 - 70 engines.. it's a cheap redesign to capitalize on the legend of one of the greatest engines ever built, the 426. (Chrysler built smaller Hemi's back in the 50s too -331, 354, 392) Todays Hemi's are going to be dropping pushrods down into the engine after they get substantial wear on them and then Hemi will get a bad name because the Germans ruined it. I see the cheap, ugly little car that they are passing off as the Dodger Charger today, and my only thoughts are: 'Man, what an insult to the Dukes of Hazard!' The Dodge Charger is my all-time favorite car & the 426 Hemi engine my all-time favorite Engine, but that new thing isn't a Dodge Charger & that ain't a true Hemi under the hood... I would never even consider buying one.. their ugly and look like they've been put in a trash compactor to crunch a foot off each end. ( I am negotiating on a 66 Charger, no engine, and a 70 Charger with a 440 right now). Right there is a perfect example of the marketing failure of Chrysler... they left the people who took them to the dance in the first place. Instead they went for mass appeal with marketing gimmicks like renaming a German peice of junk with the legendary name of an American Classic. Did these people at Chysler also think I would run right out and buy a Mitsubishi just because they stuck a DODGE name plate on it? Who's idea was it to put cheap, defective mass market ball-joints on Dodge Durangos when people buying Durangos expected something heavy-duty? Come On!!! I just can't wait to see the made in China or Korea version of Chrysler... the German version sure was an insult. For lack of a better alternative, I'm going to be running cheaply made Chevy Blazers until Chrysler produces something truely American that I would once again be proud to own. It will probably be an eternal wait since it seems that Chrysler has a historic tradition of Clueless management. I don't really give a F*&% if Germans, Japs, Chinese, Enviros or writers for the Car magazines like MY car or not, if I wanted one of their cars I would've bought one and I'm tired of being insulted by them trying to sell me their cars by puttting a Chrysler/Dodge name-tag on it. I want an American Car built BY Americans FOR Americans. I want a tapered box front-end and sleek quarter panels/roof lines leading to a box back-end. I want a big gas guzzling V-8 with rear wheel drive and enough horsepower to melt the tires off. That was what Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth was all about... not mass-market cars but cars for niche buyers, buyers who want traditional Ugly American Cars. When they built a car like that I'll buy one (even a new slant-6 Dart would do), they can take their current version of the Charger and Hemi engine and shove it. |
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
Of course I have heard of the '69 Charger. So what? Driving it and reading about it are too very different things. You probably know nothing about the way it handles and it accelerates. Plus, I never buy used so even if the '69 Charger was so great I won't be buying a used one. |
modern and practical advances. That has nothing to do with the enjoyment of
driving a classic automobile, flying a classic airplane, or cruising in a
mahogany Cris Craft inboard speedboat, etc. You evidently don't know, and
don't care, and that is just fine. It makes more room for the rest of us
that do appreciate such things. They just don't make nostalgia like they
used to. Let's talk about this again in ten years.
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
If you follow the financial news you hear that employee health care expense drags down American manufacturing. A recent news article says some conservatives are now in agreement with labor unions in that globalization and free trade policies are bad for America. Conservative Ralph Gomory at the Alfred Sloan Foundation says the focus on profitability and footloose corporations harm the US economy. The results include loss of industry, lower wages, lower living standards and the ever growing national debt. A weakening economy can't sustain super power status, space programs, the infrastructure, research and social programs. While losing market share to the Japanese, companies pay excessive executive salaries and bonuses, pay for unreasonably high health care and have little resources left for engineering, styling and quality control. |
Labor costs in the two countries are similar, but Canada has a Gov. run
lifetime basic universal health care system.
#19
| |||
| |||
|
|
What's this got to do with global trade? It has been said that a reason for Daimler Benz/DaimlerChrysler's eagerness to list in New York is tto let the top management to have 'legitimate' access to the outrageous American salaries. |
#20
| |||
| |||
|
|
Many cars today will handle better, accelerate as fast, and have many more modern and practical advances. That has nothing to do with the enjoyment of driving a classic automobile, flying a classic airplane, or cruising in a mahogany Cris Craft inboard speedboat, etc. You evidently don't know, and don't care, and that is just fine. It makes more room for the rest of us that do appreciate such things. They just don't make nostalgia like they used to. Let's talk about this again in ten years. |
almost as good as a new cheaply built car?
That's the best of both worlds.
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.