Re: Fiat Chief Shuffles Chrysler Exec Lineup

#1

Jim Higgins wrote:

Quote:

Fiat Chief Shuffles Chrysler Exec Lineup

The heads of the Chrysler and Dodge brands are pushed aside as
CEO Sergio Marchionne moves quickly to put his stamp on the
troubled company

These dago's are fighting a turf war inside chrysler, running it like a
mafia.

Quote:

Sources who have worked for Marchionne at Fiat say he swept out
many executives when he took over that company in 2004 and even
fired some managers during meetings.

Was Marchionne lecturing them in these meetings, making baseball
analogies, maybe even holding a baseball bat while walking around the
meeting table?

Quote:

Chrysler's New Brand Chief Is Fiat Vet

That's this week. Who will it be next week?

Quote:

Michael Manley, head of product development and chief executive
of the Jeep brand, will stay in his post.

Manley doesn't sound like an italian name. He won't be there much
longer.

Quote:

As previously reported by BusinessWeek, Chrysler is breaking
the Ram pickup out of the Dodge brand and rebranding as "Ram"
its trucks, as well as future commercial-grade products.

I can't imagine Ram as the name of a division. What name would they
then give to light-duty pickup trucks? What would they call them? Ram
what? Dodge Ram is iconic. How would they replace it? This will be a
real bone-head move, doomed to failure.

Quote:

And new products arising from the Chrysler-Fiat alliance won't
hit showrooms for more than two years.

So why does it take 2 years to scrape a Fiat badge off a car and replace
it with a Chrysler one?

Quote:

Several of Chrysler's American managers have expressed private
opposition to the strategy, reasoning that the company would be
foolhardy to try and quickly move Chrysler—which sells
minivans and a PT Cruiser selling below $20,000—into luxury
territory.

It would work if Chrysler only sold high-end sedans (no minivans, no
small cars), and they brought back Plymouth and used it to sell small,
low-end cars and low-end minivans. Mid-sized, mid-priced cars and
high-end minivans would still be sold under Dodge.

#2

General Schvantzkoph wrote:

Quote:

Giles designed the 300 which was the only real hit that Chrysler has had
in years and the only car that has the potential to be a classic that
Chrysler has produced in 50 years.
50 years! What about the '57 300? Some consider it the best of the 300

series!

I think it makes sense to limit the

Quote:

Chrysler nameplate to 300C class products, high style, full sized fully
equipped cars. Use the Dodge nameplate for family cars, Jeeps would still
be Jeeps (that was the only clearly differentiated product line that they
had), and calling the trucks Ram probably makes sense also because it
means that a Dodge would clearly be a car and a Ram would be a truck.

I agree that Dodge should be the basic line of cars, that is what Walter
P. Chrysler thought when he bought Dodge in the late '20's.
The word "Ram" also referred to the engine line, and of course the
iconic hood ornament on all Dodge cars from the '30's through the '50's.
I also think that Plymouth should be brought back to market low-price
cars/vans, again, just like WPC wanted when he came out with the
Plymouth in the first place.

#3

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 11:26:26 -0400, Count Floyd wrote:

Quote:

General Schvantzkoph wrote:

Giles designed the 300 which was the only real hit that Chrysler has
had in years and the only car that has the potential to be a classic
that Chrysler has produced in 50 years.
50 years! What about the '57 300? Some consider it the best of the 300
series!

By my calculation 1957 was 52 years ago which was my point. I can't think
of a single Chrysler product since the 50s except the 300C that could
draw stares. When my 300C was new (in 05) and I went to a restaurant with
valet parking they would leave it out front with the Mercedes and BMWs,
I've never had that happen with any other car that I've owned. I still
think it's a classically beautiful car even though the lousy Chrysler
quality is starting to worry me and I have no doubt that in 50 years it
will draw looks just like a 57 would today.

#4

General Schvantzkoph wrote:

Quote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 11:26:26 -0400, Count Floyd wrote:

General Schvantzkoph wrote:

Giles designed the 300 which was the only real hit that Chrysler has
had in years and the only car that has the potential to be a classic
that Chrysler has produced in 50 years.
50 years! What about the '57 300? Some consider it the best of the 300
series!

By my calculation 1957 was 52 years ago which was my point. I can't think
of a single Chrysler product since the 50s except the 300C that could
draw stares. When my 300C was new (in 05) and I went to a restaurant with
valet parking they would leave it out front with the Mercedes and BMWs,
I've never had that happen with any other car that I've owned. I still
think it's a classically beautiful car even though the lousy Chrysler
quality is starting to worry me and I have no doubt that in 50 years it
will draw looks just like a 57 would today.

Since I own an original 1941 Chrysler Windsor 4-door, I agree with most

'50's cars being crap. The only exceptions I would have would be the
50-52 Chrysler Imperials, the 55 Chrysler/Dodge line and that's about
it. Never did like the Exner "Forward Look" with the fins. My taste
runs to flathead engines, both 6 and 8, Fluid Drive, long hoods, short
trunks. That is one reason that I bought my first new car in years, a
2003 PT Cruiser sedan, and later, my wife got a 2005 PT Convertible.
Got rid of them due to trying to make them into something they were
not(antique look likes to match my 1941),and the poor fuel mileage. Our
"modern" car is now a 2007 Dodge Caliber, good car, great mileage, and
A/C! Found out that 45 1941 Chrysler Crown Imperials came with factory
air, but good luck finding one!

#5

General Schvantzkoph wrote:

Quote:

By my calculation 1957 was 52 years ago which was my point. I can't think
of a single Chrysler product since the 50s except the 300C that could
draw stares.

REALLY?!? Off the top of my head, I can think of a whole list that
generated FAR MORE interest than the 300C did:

-1964.5 Barracuda
-1967 Plymouth GTX
-1968 Roadrunner and SuperBee
-1966-67 Dodge Charger (fastback)
-1971 Plymouth Satellite and Roadrunner
-1968-1970 Dodge Charger (Bill Brownlee coke-bottle body)
-1970 Chrysler 300 Hurst Edition
-1969 Dodge Daytona
-1970 Superbird (these two drew more stares than all others combined)
-1970 Challenger
-1970 Barracuda
-Viper
-1993 Vision/Intrepid/Concorde
-1992 Ram pickups
-2008 LX platform Challenger

If I now had to rank that list in order of how many stares they drew,
the 300C would do no better than middle of the pack. If that high.

#6

Whether a tiny car like the Fiat 500 will suit the US is one thing, but to
suggest it is a direct successor of the old little cars is rather silly.

I am told that Alfas no longer come pre-rusted off the assembly line, but
they still don't seem to sell well in the UK, even though they look great.
Too risky for other reasons, I expect...

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Count Floyd" <CountFloyd (AT) MonsterChillerHorrorTheater (DOT) com> wrote

[...]

Quote:

I agree, the Fiat 500 is not right for American tastes. Even when it was
available in the '50's and early '60's, it was a piece of crap! My
step-father had one, always fixing it, breaking down, came pre-rusted from
the factory!
[...]

#7

In article <25GdnafyaJrCnVDXnZ2dnUVZ8lqdnZ2d (AT) pipex (DOT) net>,
"Dori A Schmetterling" <nobody (AT) spam (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

Whether a tiny car like the Fiat 500 will suit the US is one thing, but to
suggest it is a direct successor of the old little cars is rather silly.

There is a "bit of" a difference between the typical Italian and USA
driver body size. The Fiat 500 will fit only a few.

#8

not to mention the size of the streets (Europeans streets much smaller) and
the amount of distance covered by a American during his/her typical day.

"Some O" <SO (AT) nospam (DOT) net> wrote

Quote:

In article <25GdnafyaJrCnVDXnZ2dnUVZ8lqdnZ2d (AT) pipex (DOT) net>,
"Dori A Schmetterling" <nobody (AT) spam (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Whether a tiny car like the Fiat 500 will suit the US is one thing, but
to
suggest it is a direct successor of the old little cars is rather silly.

There is a "bit of" a difference between the typical Italian and USA
driver body size. The Fiat 500 will fit only a few.

#9

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 08:09:19 GMT, Some O <SO (AT) nospam (DOT) net> wrote:

Quote:

In article <25GdnafyaJrCnVDXnZ2dnUVZ8lqdnZ2d (AT) pipex (DOT) net>,
"Dori A Schmetterling" <nobody (AT) spam (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Whether a tiny car like the Fiat 500 will suit the US is one thing, but to
suggest it is a direct successor of the old little cars is rather silly.

There is a "bit of" a difference between the typical Italian and USA
driver body size. The Fiat 500 will fit only a few.

Have you sat in and driven the Fiat 500 or are you making assumptions
about it? I've never even seen one.

#10

I was addressing "Even when it was available in the '50's and early '60's,
it was a piece of crap..." not the relative sizes of lither Italians and
large Americans.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"rob" <me_ (AT) home (DOT) orgg> wrote

Quote:

not to mention the size of the streets (Europeans streets much smaller)
and the amount of distance covered by a American during his/her typical
day.

"Some O" <SO (AT) nospam (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:SO-5F8E79.01091809102009 (AT) news (DOT) telus.net...
In article <25GdnafyaJrCnVDXnZ2dnUVZ8lqdnZ2d (AT) pipex (DOT) net>,
"Dori A Schmetterling" <nobody (AT) spam (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Whether a tiny car like the Fiat 500 will suit the US is one thing, but
to
suggest it is a direct successor of the old little cars is rather silly.

There is a "bit of" a difference between the typical Italian and USA
driver body size. The Fiat 500 will fit only a few.