kramtrah

While I conceptually agree with you guys about adapting or dying, but if we had said that to Chrysler 30 years ago and not given them a loan then, we very well wouldn't be driving the amazing car we have today. Sure, they have produced a lot, well, a real lot of crap, but Chrysler was on to something in their design process in the 90's, and then Daimler came in and totally blew them up. GM was all the mess it was, giving us the Aztec and it's brethren, stupid Saturn ideas, and axing Olds, which really had become your grandfather's car company and nothing else (ohh so sad for the days of 442s). Ford, who would have believed that making everything oval (grills, back windows, dash, radio's, etc) in shape was a good idea.

So yeah, that got what was coming in many respects, but today's US car companies are giving us better vehicles. And stick with a name and refine it over and over. Why did Ford kill the Taurus off. Look at the Japanese, Camry, Civic, Corolla, Accord. Keep perfecting the model and people think you are perfecting the brand.

I love cars. Surely can't work on one nor can I fix much being an electronics and IT Operations guy, but I love them all the same. I admit to liking some of the other brands, but owning them, that is another thing. Have owned Chryler products all my driving life (oops, Dodge Colts are Mitsu's)but will always be a MOPAR guy, if nothing more because they did things different.

So, to sum it up, I for one support a loan with a plan. No bailout, but a loan, one which I look to Chrysler to use wisely and bring us more great and innovative cars and trucks!

RLSH700

One of the other facts is that if some of the Big Three (most likely GM) were to fail, the Germans, Japanese, and Koreans would pick up the slack as they are continuing to build more factories here in the U.S. Now having said this, I hope and pray this doesn't happen, because the Big Three support American based suppliers far more than these other companies do. The truth is I think that they will bounce back if they do this now and begin the process.

The one proposal where the Government would gain partial control of them would destroy the company. If I actually have to explain why on this, then that would explain a lot of why we are in the rut we are in (the Government messes up anything and everything they have control of). They would only produce economy cars and the fact is those are not profitable. On top of this, can you imagine the corruption that would come out of this? It would make blunders like the Pinto, Corvair, Firestone Wilderness blowouts, and any other popular blunder seem like nothing. We should keep the Government as far away from the auto industry.

The thing you have to remember about this is they now expect that from us and they will continue to do that until we put our foot down. On top of that, look at the field back then and now. The Big Three still had a very strong hold on the car market yet, now the number and strength of the competition is amazing. The other thing was cars like the K-line were profitable, now they are not profitable. GM's best selling models are the Impala, Cobalt, and Silverado, and they were each on the top ten list, yet they are going broke anyhow. The problem is they need to fix their cost structure.

Chrysler is the only one who didn't deserve what has happened to them. They were doing perfectly fine then Daimler drove their fangs into them and sucked out their blood. GM and Ford have come a long way, but one of their problems is despite being on a sinking ship they decided they needed to go on a path full of icebergs and make more and more models in unproven markets when it was obvious that the demand was going down. GM & Ford should have started to cut back on their models. They do not need so many darn overlapping CUVs & SUVs.

The time to fix the Taurus was back in 2000. They should have downsized it to the Fusion's size. They should have went back to the previous formula. You are right about continuing to use the same name. One of the biggest problems Ford has run into is that people do not recognize the name and a picture of the car doesn't develop in their minds when they hear the name. The only time when a name should be discontinued is if it becomes tarnished permanently. I think there was a stronger case to lose the Explorer name than the Taurus. Dull, boring, and cheap can be fixed by adding a performance model (SHO) that is competitively priced if not a trend setter in performance (in other words what the 1989-1995 not what the 1996-1999 SHO was), having superior seats in the next generation, and adding more spice to the styling. Dangerous is a much bigger obstacle to overcome.

I understand your view of things. If they could come up with the right plan (one with the Government not getting too involved), and it being a loan that is paid back, I might reconsider my stance.

mopar2ya

But Andre... your ideaology goes against the governments brand of socialism for Amerika...

Andre@Edge

Or sorry,
Did I mention a chicken in every pot?

Mind you it would be a goverment owned Chicken, and you would pay for it over the next 12 years....

Just not feeling good about what Obama will be delivering up on the self imployed. I will get taxed more, and be forced to reduce my work force. The reduction makes quality control another challenge. I should ask my workers to produce 20% more while I chop two people off my pay roll?
One guy with cancer, and another with a new born, and sick wife and I should lay them off so I can comply with new tax codes in an already impossiable to profit state of California?
I get taxed to save autoworkers, while I cut jobs at home....

RLSH700

Alright, now just calm down. You can disagree with each other, that is the point of a forum like this. Just be respectful to each other. And please, let's avoid getting into another debate about politics. If we cannot keep this on topic and respectful, we will have to lock and delete this thread. Alright?

Andre@Edge

No fears Bro,
I never intended to offend anyone, or sound truly irate. I just find it funny, and Chris, knowing me gave me a second laugh.
Politics was not my intent, just what is being spelled out by some people in Washington.
I did jump off topic in a strange sort of way.
The post was about US Auto Sales Bleak

I just saw starting at the bottom as an answer no one is considering. Imagine ME getting to use my money to help Dodge with yet another purchase. No money to the tax payer, but some zero interest loans, and a government rebate to get the terms needed to stay ahead.

American rebates for Americans. Buying American.
Not a crazy thought really. Kills many birds with a single stone, and upgates all cars to recent BS CAFE standards. Puts a whole new line on the road, and still forces the big 3 to come to an agreement with the awu, and caw to bring costs down. Chrysler has come a long way in a short time, and shows promise if finance allows the time.
What better way to raise funds then sell product?
What better way to keep plants open and production up.
Keep parts producers building parts
Move inventory in a hurry and boost buy all non-vintage non-emission cars (government added). We see increase in nearly all crisis categories. Workers stay at work, The big three are revised and truly American consumer owned.


The proverbial Chicken in every pot was not a political jab, but I should have said A CAR IN EVERY GARAGE. Out with the old, and in with the new. Detroit stays alive, the lenders get a note that has equity, and you can use a fat 5000-8000 check to go with dealer incentives to clear great points. I see no reason why we cant go interest free to raise capitol for the auto makers, until our government gives us a bit more on taxes for the interest paid.
Not a cure all, but a right step. The Obama comment was out of line when I look back. I should be clear about the taxes that will have unlucky enough to see an average of 200,000 per year in gains. I am all for Change, and look forward to seeing how he brings this country back! Before any of you say it…. I know it’s not that simple, and my figures are a revised guess based on what we are going through in the next 45 days.

They make this seem so hard guys. The automakers need 25-34 billion for the bail out.

Only way. Make a gas (floor) level of lets say 3.60-3.80 per gallon. No tax when gas goes above 3.60
Simple projections show we could finance the entire Auto bailout in less the 60 days at the current oil levels. After that, it’s a fund to keep gas at no more then 3.50 per gallon levels. Perhaps even subsidize a few programs.
It would pay the average consumer to “go green” or pay more. If you ad liability insurance into that fund, then you have no uninsured drivers on the road. If you have gas, you are insured for the minimum liability. This works on paper because the faster sports car eats up more gas, and pays higher insurance by default. Larger SUV’s use more gas and they pay higher.
We need a gas tax. We pay the 3.60 per gallon as Americans, and the bail out is straight forward! If this works, then the big 3 would be paying back the funds into the agreed gas fund. What better motivation, for competition to find cleaner burning cars.

We pay more for gas, but we have been kicked down that road. The automakers don’t pay back the government (so to speak), they pay the owner in America by paying for part of our fuel, or making better cars.
No politics this time I think. Sorry for the last rant. From the desk of a private business trying to make ends meet, I would rather spend more on gas and insure its price in the future. Then flat out raise taxes. One more revenue we should consider why gas is so low. We would need concessions with OPEC, but it’s win, win at this point. Saudi Arabia is getting ready to defy the next cutbacks imposed, and many other nations have defied it all ready. Gas should stay stable long enough to make this fund very substantial

And the whole insurance / gas thing…. Have you seen how many drive without insurance? Except for loan ratio insurance you would not have to carry uninsured motorist. The better your car does the cheaper the insurance. If you are an old lady from Pasadena and you drive twice a month… even lower. Electric, or cars the see 150 mpg or better are exempt? This way if you want to go green, you go GREEN. Drive a Challenger and pay a little more…
Let this fund be controlled, not by oil, but the DMV (a new division), or a private service

Even the police get a break to improve our safety because they are not out running in uninsured motorist, or writing the ticket.

Is this so simple it cant work, or is it just to easy to take the tax payers money to bailout a flawed industry in the dark on night.

This is a car debate, all politics aside and I hope my Apology and explanation keeps the thread alive.

The post name PEGS the problem. Sell cars, and start from the small guy and lets see how much trickles up to the CEO...
Can that be so wrong? We give to the American instead, and it gives the industries another chance to get in done. Americans are committed to paying this back, and the makers need to sell cars. Dealer incentives would go nuts, and every joe with a 7000 government check will qualify for something. Want the money, trade in an oil burner and drive out with interest free papers.

Just crazy guys.
at this point I truly understand why ignorance would be bliss... Sorry for the spelling.

No one disagrees that we need to find a way out, but people... why should we start at the top?

That wont fix the housing issues, but it sure will take about 30-50% of the impeding doom called Detroit at bay

Green house/global warming, employment, retirement benefits, and keeping the impression we still have enough power the all of the big 3 remain in tacked

Motivation for Americans to bet on the big 3

Yankee

To play a little "devil's advocate" here if I may...

If Daimler "drove its fangs into Chrysler and sucked the blood right out of it", as one poster put it - if it wasn't for the Daimler takeover, would we not have the Charger/300/Magnum and ultimately our Challenger - since these cars are based on the Mercedes E-Class platform? Would Chrysler have some up with these cars on their own without someone like Daimler calling the shots? Personally I kinda doubt it - I think we'd still have interpretations of FWD Intrepids running around (not knocking Intrepids, mind you, but I think the Charger is a vastly superior car), and forget about the Challenger - V6 FWD Avenger/Stratus R/Ts would probably be as good as it ever got as far as any "sporty" coupes are concerned.

Seems to me while the Daimler takeover might not have been such a good idea in hindsight, some good DID come out of it. Anyone else agree or am I way off base here with that assessment?

RLSH700

I would say that it was possible this would have happened anyways. The demand for the LH cars (Intrepids, 300Ms, Concordes) was diminishing as time went on with an increase in competition. I believe the 1999 Charger Concept was a sign that this was the direction they were planning to go towards. It is also quite possible that had this merger not happened, the Charger would be on the LH platform. The LH platform was designed with the capability to switch over to RWD in case the FWD large car formula failed to succeed as it had for them with the Dynasty/New Yorker/Fifth Avenue/Imperial & Premier/Monaco. We saw this potential when they built the Prowler.

I would say that the Charger being vastly superior is based on one's interpretation. The Charger is superior when it comes to performance no doubt as it has the Hemi engines as options; however, without that I'm not sure how the rest would stack up. The styling is subjective. Many liked the aerodynamic styling of the Intrepid and the 1999 Charger Concept ran off of that mentality which few found as controversial as the Charger they produced. The interior in my view is no contest with the fact that everyone complains about it on the Charger and few ever complained about the interior in the Intrepid. Just compare them for yourself.

On top of this, I have heard over and over again from the dealerships that they preferred having the Intrepids as they sold easier.

Likewise, I'm going to play devils advocate here. Let's assume that the LX cars would have never been produced if Chrysler had remained independent, and let's assume that they are "vastly superior" in everyway to the LH cars and that far more customers buy them than the did with LH cars. Before the merger, Chrysler was in outstanding financial shape. They had more money than they knew what to do with. Now they are on the verge of going bankrupt. Is having one superior car line worth the death of a company? What other models did Daimler make superior to their predecessors?

The Caliber gets horrible gas mileage, slower, and in my view less attractive looking than majority of the Neons.

The Avenger/Sebring although on paper sound superior having a Chrysler best V6 in the car line and having their latest transmission, has unique features and styling, and so forth, but it is under performing the sales of the duller Stratus/Sebring. On top of this, the first generation Stratus/Cirrus/Breeze that was built under the Eaton/Lutz era had won awards like the Car of the Year for 1995 and been on the best lists for MT and C&D. The 2nd gen Stratus under German management got nothing. The same was true with Chrysler's minivan line during the Eaton/Lutz era it got the 1996 Car of the Year award from MT and was on the C&D top ten list for years. The 01-07 under the German management was never on either list. The Dakota and Durango are without a question much weaker offerings than they were under Eaton/Lutz watch. The Ram has remained competitive, I'll give them credit for not screwing up that model. The PT Crusier was conceived by the Eaton/Lutz era; therefore, they can split the credit for that.

Also, look at the number of failed models under both management. About the only failure I can think of was the Breeze as it only lasted one generation as it was uncompetitive without having a V6 offering. The Laser, Talon, & Stealth failed, but in fairness those weren't Chrysler models anyhow and their Mitsubishi equivalents were either redefined or discontinued. New Yorker version of the LHS wasn't as popular and was dropped. The small badge engineered Eagle division failed, but that provided Chrysler with the popular 300M. Beyond that everything was a smashing success. The failed models under the German management are as followed: the Crossfire, Pacifica, the Magnum, Durango, Aspen, Commander, Sebring coupe, Stratus Coupe, etc. The Germans couldn't get anything to succeed that was originally their idea beyond the Charger & 300. The Magnum was a failure so I do not view that is good per sey. Also the 300 has failed to be maintain the luxury image that the 300M had before it.

The other problem is that Chrysler was working on dual-clutch transmission before the merger and the Germans killed that and told them to continue to use the 4-speeds and their W5A580 instead. Big mistake. They also fired a lot of the talent that the company had which is why they have had to rely on others to a degree. Any gains the LX platform has given us is insignificant with everything they messed up.

Andre@Edge, I might have missed read you post and interaction, and for that I apologize. I'm just wanting everyone to know that for too long we have allowed things to happen on here that shouldn't be tolerated, and I'm letting it known that it will not be tolerated. I know that saying in which you referred, I just know last time there was a discussion about politics and who won the election this caused a bunch of fighting and inappropriate behavior and this is a blanket warning that if anyone starts to become unreasonably unfriendly or starts attacking, the tread will be shut down. You can debate as much as you want, in fact I encourage it. If anyone disagrees with what I have posted go ahead and challenge what I have written and tell me why you disagree, just be tasteful and respectful and I will reply in a tasteful, respectful manner. Enjoy!

BLK 6050

Several points come to mind (besides the one on top of my head):
Why is Chrysler saying that they need money now, IF they indeed have 11 Billion in cash?
Many years ago (and may still be the case) Chrysler (and perhaps the others) had a special, and closer parking area for those who drove their products…imports could not use the lot.
It must also be remembered that even if the “import” was built here…the money still goes back to the country of origin. Sure it pays for American pay checks…but the profit still goes overseas.
Just read that the average auto worker makes $71.00 an hour…..WHAT THE…….(sorry but it’s production work…..they are not doing brain surgery……it’s basically unskilled labor….
Auto Chairpersons willing to take only $1.00 dollar a year to help the situation….what a joke….they aren’t giving up any thing. They still get bonuses and other perks that far exceed what their “pay” is……It’s a snow job to my John Q. Public think they care…They should be “canned” if their companies are in such bad shape….
IF the whole “bailout” or whatever you want to call it is to work you must get the government out of the picture…..they are the problem. Their mandated café standards, safety standards, etc., etc., have in many cases made Detroit what it is today….get them out of business…………

RLSH700

Because they are burning through that rapidly, and they are thinking ahead for a change.

One of the schools of thought is that if they declare bankruptcy, the auto worker's wage will be forced down. I know I'm going to be flamed for saying this, but frankly that is just plan ridiculous. There were several factories (a battery factory, chain factory, Kawasaki, etc) where I went to college and I knew the people who worked there because of family connections and they were getting paid way less than that and although they are not rich, they are doing just fine. I do not see why they deserve to get paid more to do the same functional work just because they have a mob backing them.

You're absolutely right about that. Bill Ford did the same stupid thing and it turned out he was getting more from doing that than just taking a fixed salary. Just pay them a set wage of half of what the Japanese get paid and adjust the pay accord to profit or loss. You are also correct that all of these regulations are what is hurting them. They have to keep raising the fuel economy, while cutting emissions (two things which often work against each other despite popular belief), and raising safety. The reason why I'm opposed to a loan or bailout is that the Government will make these things worse. It's time for the Big Three to grow some courage and say to them. "If you want to still have the auto manufacturing industry in the U.S. then you need to back off and get lost. And remember, if we go, many of you will be coming with us."