NO NO and NO !!!!

 

1. Just to get you up to date drew,chrysler was sold 2 years or so ago to an investment group after the Benz boys figured out they couldnt make it work either.Not a car guy in the group,just a bunch of bean counters waiting to toss it off someday to whoever was fool enough to make an offer. Well , I guess now we know who will be doing the buying HUH!
   As for the industry in general, the jap car guys already have enough manufacturing capability in the US now to handle the sales needed. GM and toyota have been partners for over a decade here already.And they would be able easily to buy up any existing Plant needed from the Big 3.So letting the Big 3 fade will only affect the UAW union gravy train deals they had.WHICH IS WHY they will not be allowed to fail.No union money for the dems and we cant let THAT happen!!!

   Posted by Rich K       11/12/2008  at  09:06 PM  



2. Correct on what RichK just said, as a former Chrysler tech I can fill you in on some history that will make your hair curl.

   1) The first bailout (78-80) was not a bailout but a loan which the government made a splendid profit on in interest and selling of Chrysler stock.

   2) The merger with Benz wasn’t a merger at all but a takeover, pure and simple. At the time of the “merger” Chrysler was rich with product and cash reserves.

   3) Blaiming the current mess on Cerberus (who only purchased Chrysler a year ago) isn’t assigning blaim where blaim is due- The boyz from Germany who ran the company into the ground.

   A) The Benz plan was to turn Chrysler into the SUV division of Benz. Word from on high was that consumers would have to learn that the vehicle they were buying was not a Chrysler product but a Benz and priced as such. Buyers used to buying cheap Chrysler cars laughed and went elsewhere.

   B) Benz also wanted a captured partner it could sell parts to and defray costs on thier own vehicles. Benz saved millions apon millions of dollars on the German stuff by forcing Chrysler to drop their robust systems for the crappy German one.

   One example I can give offhand is the internal com network used by Chrysler (PCI) very fault tolerant! A module can go down in the network and car can function normal. This is an important point to consider as the network can have up to 120 modules on it!!

   The late model Chryslers use the Benz network to save Benz money on Benz cars, it’s all about scale. Chrysler sold 10 times as many modules in a month than Benz did. Saved Benz some big dollars on electronics I’m told! But the Benz network system was very INTOLERANT of shorts or module faults! I have seen Jeep Cherokees with no start condition caused by a shorted radio. You see the security key module can’t talk to the Powertrain module and tell the PCM it is ok to start if the radio is knocking the network out.

   C) Product planning happens 3-5 years in advance- Benz bet big on the ‘09 Ram quad cab being the big seller at $40k a pop. Guess what? No one is buying big profitable trucks and SUV’s and Benz did not give a crap about small cars getting great MPG. My ‘91 Spirit turbo beater gets better MPG then the best available from Chrysler right now. Benz chose not to invest heavy amounts of money in small cars because small cars = small profit.

   Benz split town after raiding Chrysler cash reserves and setting themselves up with a nice racket to sell overpriced Benz parts to a captured market.

   I type all this with a heavy heart; Chrysler will Chapter 11 inside 6 months. As a longtime Chrysler fan with no less than six Mopars and 25 years of wrenching under my belt this is a terrible thing to watch.

   Gary

   Posted by gdonovan       11/13/2008  at  06:36 AM  



3. To me it is reminiscent of Britain in the 1970’s though I would say American cars are infinitely better than the rubbish that British Leyland churned out. Nevertheless it still strikes me that both countries had car industries making cars that people didn’t want to buy. The leftards still blame Maggie Thatcher for killing off the British car industry but they committed suicide assisted by the unions. The difference now is that in 1979 the British car industry went cap in hand to Maggie who was ideologically opposed to bail outs. The US is in a similar position but with a pseudo socialist in the White House who doubtless has a lot of union money and votes behind him. The reception will be a lot more friendly. Ultimately if people are not buying their product then they need to either make stuff people want or go out of business.

   Posted by LyndonB       11/13/2008  at  02:47 PM  



4. Don’t get me wrong- I’m just throwing some history out there as to what happened. I’m not in favor of a bailout of Chrysler unless it is a loan that will be paid back (or the company is broken up and sold to get the funds back) and the company has no government input.

   That is the last thing we need, a bunch of goverment hacks trying to tell Mopar how to build a car.

   Better to go down with the ship than let elected fools at the wheel.

   Posted by gdonovan       11/13/2008  at  05:33 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.