GM Using The Mercedes Playbook
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Breathalyzer tests to BUY booze are coming!!
Next: THE SICK COWARDLY WHITE LIBERAL MIND: MEL GIBSON BAD...BLACK PANTHERS WHO WANT TO KILL WHITE BABIES TO SCARED TO COMMENT
From: edward ohare on 26 Jul 2010 10:22 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:58:38 -0700 (PDT), "erschroedinger(a)gmail.com" <erschroedinger(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 19, 6:08 pm, edward ohare ><edward_oh...(a)nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 17:33:21 +0200, Roland Franzius >> >> >> >> <roland.franz...(a)uos.de> wrote: >> >edward ohare schrieb: >> >> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 15:50:52 +0100, Clive <cl...(a)yewbank.demon.co.uk> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> In message <0f4646pc5d2fui2q4233me3avpie0i6...(a)4ax.com>, edward ohare >> >>> <edward_oh...(a)nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> writes >> >>>> I suspect a number of people in Europe do not understand the size of >> >>>> Chrysler in the late 90s and how PROFITABLE the company was. >> >>> We know of complete firms owned by them that crashed, such as the >> >>> "Rootes group" >> >> >> Crashing a sick company is a lot different than crashing a healthy >> >> one. >> >> >> It is most obvious that Chrysler's management in the 60s and 70s did >> >> not know what it needed to know to turn around junk companies selling >> >> cars sized for roads built for Roman chariots. >> >> >> It is most obvious Mercedes management did not know what it needed to >> >> know to continue the success of a very successful company selling low >> >> and medium priced cars in the worlds largest auto market. >> >> >It obviously didn't expect such a shortness in engineering skilled >> >people. Sending German experts to develop Chrysler cars and combined >> >global producing overstretched the companies ability to find sufficently >> >many skilled engineers in Germany. >> >> Yea. Uh huh. The Germans showed up and decided the guys who made >> Chrysler shine in the late 90s were incompetent. They left. And what >> we see is the rsults of the German "experts". >> >> Sorry, These guys should have stuck to expensive cars where their >> inefficiencies aren't evident. > > >Mercedes has diesels and hybrids. Chrysler, well, they discontinued >their only hybrids and diesels. The new Grand Cherokee is based on a >Mercedes model. And diesels and hybrids are real big sellers, aren't they? They're like building sporty cars. They're an ego statement. People look at them and say "cool" but then by something else. The origin of the Cherokee shows the problem. You don't take expensive cars and try to modify them so they can be sold for cheap. You go the other way. >> Nice try. Chrysler was the most successful US company when Mercedes >> took over. The last of the Chrysler people's designs, the 00 - 04 >> models, would be more competitve TODAY in 2010 than what Mercedes came >> up with and what they're stuck with trying to sell. > >Yeah, full-sized fwd. Check Impala sales? Pontiac G6? Oh, not >around. A relevant comparison is Intrepid sales versus Magnum sales >>Coil springs on the big trucks. Why? Oh, >> yea, I know, better wheel location control but more expensive. > >Better ride and handling. You know, things that people like. Things >that got the Ram named MT Truck of the Year and winner of a C/D >comparison. Talking about ride and handling is ludicrious when customers have shown they want a vehicle jacked up sky high. Ride and handling are not high on the priorities of commerical buyers and don't fit the ego of personal buyers. Past winners of the Motor Trend Car Of The Year include the Renault Alliance, the Plymouth Volare/Dodge Aspen, the Chevrolet Vega, the Chevrolet Corvair. > > >> And >> most importantly, better or not, NOT what truck buyers want. Anyone >> remember how much better Chevy did when they canned rear coils after >> 72? How long Ford stuck with antique front I beams because that's >> what the cutomers wanted? Even if you come up with something better, >> it doesn't matter if customers don't think its better. > >So you're saying customers don't care about ride and handling? C'mon. Ford was the number one selling pickup during a time when it had Twin I Beam front suspension. Quirky handling, rode hard, and ate up tires. > > >> >> Oh, let's get rid of the Ram Van so we can ship kits to the US and >> Chrysler can build the Sprinter. > >Oh yeah, that 1970-era design Ram van was such a huge seller. You over rate Sprinter sales. Their small numbers are quite visible on the road because of their appearance. > > >>Oh, yea, its OK for a city delivery >> van. But they gave up a chance at the people mover van market and the >> cutaway van market. Notice those U Haul etc trucks are built on a GM >> or Ford van now? No Sprinters there. > >Notice how many delivery trucks (FedEx, etc) are Sprinters? My point. As with the thoughts of turning Dodge into a wagon brand, they got a higher percentage of a negligible market. >> But then the other side where the Dakota and Durango don't share front >> sheet metal any more. What's the deal there? > > >Uh, you might have noticed, no Durango any more. Which doesn't change the stupidity of the decisions I've mentioned. When they did the redesign of the Dakota and Durango, they gave each uniquq front sheet metal. They gave the Durango torsion bars and kept coils on the Dakota. Has Mercedes never heard about sharing parts? This was a smart time to share parts. NOT recreasing the sheet metal on Jeep models to sell as Dodges, merely sticking in a Dodge grill, is a dumb time to share parts. There's no conistency is what Mercedes did in these instances. Except that the decisions were wrong. > >> >> OMG, no one's building station wagons. We'll turn Dodge into a >> station wagon brand and get 100% of the market! Well, you know, >> there's a reaon no one builds station wagons, and what they were >> aiming for was 100% of almost nothing. > > >Just Subaru sells a ton of station wagons. Volvo, Audi, etc. Subaru, Volvo, and Audi, don't sell a ton of cars, let alone a ton of station wagons. And your examples further prove the stupidity of the decisons. Foolish for Dodge to have Volvo and Audi as targets, because it didn't have the brand name value to compete with them, and the idea of Dodge aiming for Subaru, well gee, that's like Coca Cola considering RC Cola instead of Pepsi their target. > >> >> Mercedes make decisions the old Chrysler crew wouldn't have made if >> you held a gun to their heads. The only thing worse than having >> Schrempp and Zetske running Chrysler was having the ex Home Depot CEO >> running it. And I'm beginning to think even the people from Fiat >> might be an improvement. > >That rwd platform you think so little of is going to used by Fiat for >the upscale Alfa-Romeo brand. Which proves once again its not suitable for a mass market car.
From: edward ohare on 26 Jul 2010 10:39 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:28:07 -0700 (PDT), "erschroedinger(a)gmail.com" <erschroedinger(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >"Starting in 1998, troops of managers started flocking to Auburn Hills >on a corporate jet. Soon the Germans discovered that Chrysler, which >has a long history of boom-and-bust cycles, was in much worse shape >than they anticipated. It spun deeply into crisis in 2000, racking up >$4.7 billion in operating losses the following year alone. Mercedes >had to make the ultimate sacrifice, squeezing its own costs to pump >out better profits for the group." Show me that the people who created the LH cars, the PT Cruiser, and the 3.5 and 4.7 engines left BEFORE Mercedes took over. You can't. Chrysler's problems at the beginiing of this century were due to cyclical market downturn. To be expected. Remember Bush and Greenspan couldn't stand still for a little economic discomfort - what was occuring was a normal cyclical adjustment - and cut taxes, sent out tax rebates, and cut interest rates. The bill for refusing to take a little discomfort back then came due as real pain in 2008. Its true Chrysler has been a boom an bust company. For the first few years of its existence, it had a license to print money. They it mistepped with the Airflow. It recovered from that and for a short time over took the terribly mismanaged Ford Motor Company in sales. But boring set in and it was in trouble again by the early 50s. Engineering and styling brought it back in the mid 50s. But they blew it on product quality and then product offerings. They came out with mid size cars - a new category - the same year Ford did, but foolishly droipped their full size cars (Plymouth and Dodge). Came back again starting in 65 with a license to print money. By the mid 70s they were in trouble again, and came back yet again with first the K cars and the the minivans. Iacocca ran the K car platform one generation too many and it was trouble again. They pulled themselves out yet again with product: the LH cars and the Neon. Its true Chrysler was a boom and bust company. Mercedes sure fixed that problem!
From: erschroedinger on 26 Jul 2010 16:28 On Jul 26, 10:22 am, edward ohare <edward_oh...(a)nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:58:38 -0700 (PDT), "erschroedin...(a)gmail.com" > > > > <erschroedin...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Jul 19, 6:08 pm, edward ohare > ><edward_oh...(a)nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > >> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 17:33:21 +0200, Roland Franzius > > >> <roland.franz...(a)uos.de> wrote: > >> >edward ohare schrieb: > >> >> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 15:50:52 +0100, Clive <cl...(a)yewbank.demon.co.uk> > >> >> wrote: > > >> >>> In message <0f4646pc5d2fui2q4233me3avpie0i6...(a)4ax.com>, edward ohare > >> >>> <edward_oh...(a)nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> writes > >> >>>> I suspect a number of people in Europe do not understand the size of > >> >>>> Chrysler in the late 90s and how PROFITABLE the company was. > >> >>> We know of complete firms owned by them that crashed, such as the > >> >>> "Rootes group" > > >> >> Crashing a sick company is a lot different than crashing a healthy > >> >> one. > > >> >> It is most obvious that Chrysler's management in the 60s and 70s did > >> >> not know what it needed to know to turn around junk companies selling > >> >> cars sized for roads built for Roman chariots. > > >> >> It is most obvious Mercedes management did not know what it needed to > >> >> know to continue the success of a very successful company selling low > >> >> and medium priced cars in the worlds largest auto market. > > >> >It obviously didn't expect such a shortness in engineering skilled > >> >people. Sending German experts to develop Chrysler cars and combined > >> >global producing overstretched the companies ability to find sufficently > >> >many skilled engineers in Germany. > > >> Yea. Uh huh. The Germans showed up and decided the guys who made > >> Chrysler shine in the late 90s were incompetent. They left. And what > >> we see is the rsults of the German "experts". > > >> Sorry, These guys should have stuck to expensive cars where their > >> inefficiencies aren't evident. > > >Mercedes has diesels and hybrids. Chrysler, well, they discontinued > >their only hybrids and diesels. The new Grand Cherokee is based on a > >Mercedes model. > > And diesels and hybrids are real big sellers, aren't they? They're efficient. They let the manufacturer make bigger, lower-mpg cars. > They're > like building sporty cars. They're an ego statement. People look at > them and say "cool" but then by something else. > > The origin of the Cherokee shows the problem. You don't take > expensive cars and try to modify them so they can be sold for cheap. > You go the other way. > > >> Nice try. Chrysler was the most successful US company when Mercedes > >> took over. The last of the Chrysler people's designs, the 00 - 04 > >> models, would be more competitve TODAY in 2010 than what Mercedes came > >> up with and what they're stuck with trying to sell. > > >Yeah, full-sized fwd. Check Impala sales? Pontiac G6? Oh, not > >around. > > A relevant comparison is Intrepid sales versus Magnum sales Sedan vs wagon? Bizzaroworld? Charger vs Intrepid is more apt, but the economy has been quite different in the 2000s and the 1990s. > > >>Coil springs on the big trucks. Why? Oh, > >> yea, I know, better wheel location control but more expensive. > > >Better ride and handling. You know, things that people like. Things > >that got the Ram named MT Truck of the Year and winner of a C/D > >comparison. > > Talking about ride and handling is ludicrious when customers have > shown they want a vehicle jacked up sky high. Yeah, I must see 1 truck a week jacked up sky high. >Ride and handling are > not high on the priorities of commerical buyers and don't fit the ego > of personal buyers. Sure they do. If Susie Soccer Mom is buying a pickup (or her husband is), she wants one that rides and handles like a car. > > Past winners of the Motor Trend Car Of The Year include the Renault > Alliance, the Plymouth Volare/Dodge Aspen, the Chevrolet Vega, the > Chevrolet Corvair. Uh huh, and Olds Toronado, Chrysler minivans, Ford Taurus (original), ... > > > > >> And > >> most importantly, better or not, NOT what truck buyers want. Anyone > >> remember how much better Chevy did when they canned rear coils after > >> 72? How long Ford stuck with antique front I beams because that's > >> what the cutomers wanted? Even if you come up with something better, > >> it doesn't matter if customers don't think its better. > > >So you're saying customers don't care about ride and handling? > > C'mon. Ford was the number one selling pickup during a time when it > had Twin I Beam front suspension. Quirky handling, rode hard, and ate > up tires. Yep, and Dodge was a far distant third. How are you going to overtake #1 if you just make something just like #1? Where's the incentive for any Ford buyers to switch to a me-too vehicle? Especially one lower in quality and reliability? > > > > >> Oh, let's get rid of the Ram Van so we can ship kits to the US and > >> Chrysler can build the Sprinter. > > >Oh yeah, that 1970-era design Ram van was such a huge seller. > > You over rate Sprinter sales. Their small numbers are quite visible > on the road because of their appearance. I see them all the time. UPS, FedEx, plumber, AC repair, ... The diesel 6 gets over twice the fuel mileage of the old Ram. And carries more inside. > > > > >>Oh, yea, its OK for a city delivery > >> van. But they gave up a chance at the people mover van market and the > >> cutaway van market. Notice those U Haul etc trucks are built on a GM > >> or Ford van now? No Sprinters there. > > >Notice how many delivery trucks (FedEx, etc) are Sprinters? > > My point. As with the thoughts of turning Dodge into a wagon brand, > they got a higher percentage of a negligible market. Again, offering a "me-too" vehicle -- especially one not updated in 20 years -- doesn't get you anywhere. > > >> But then the other side where the Dakota and Durango don't share front > >> sheet metal any more. What's the deal there? > > >Uh, you might have noticed, no Durango any more. > > Which doesn't change the stupidity of the decisions I've mentioned. > When they did the redesign of the Dakota and Durango, they gave each > uniquq front sheet metal. They gave the Durango torsion bars and kept > coils on the Dakota. > > Has Mercedes never heard about sharing parts? This was a smart time > to share parts. NOT recreasing the sheet metal on Jeep models to sell > as Dodges, merely sticking in a Dodge grill, is a dumb time to share > parts. > > There's no conistency is what Mercedes did in these instances. Except > that the decisions were wrong. Sharing parts? The problem was, most Mercedes parts were too costly for Dodges. How many parts does BMW, say, share with Mini? Ferrari with Fiat? > > > > >> OMG, no one's building station wagons. We'll turn Dodge into a > >> station wagon brand and get 100% of the market! Well, you know, > >> there's a reaon no one builds station wagons, and what they were > >> aiming for was 100% of almost nothing. > > >Just Subaru sells a ton of station wagons. Volvo, Audi, etc. > > Subaru, Volvo, and Audi, don't sell a ton of cars, let alone a ton of > station wagons. And your examples further prove the stupidity of the > decisons. Foolish for Dodge to have Volvo and Audi as targets, > because it didn't have the brand name value to compete with them, and > the idea of Dodge aiming for Subaru, well gee, that's like Coca Cola > considering RC Cola instead of Pepsi their target. Why? Subaru sold 125,000 cars TYD through June 2010, with a much smaller lineup than Chrysler (basically 2 cars and 2 "trucks"). > > > > >> Mercedes make decisions the old Chrysler crew wouldn't have made if > >> you held a gun to their heads. The only thing worse than having > >> Schrempp and Zetske running Chrysler was having the ex Home Depot CEO > >> running it. And I'm beginning to think even the people from Fiat > >> might be an improvement. > > >That rwd platform you think so little of is going to used by Fiat for > >the upscale Alfa-Romeo brand. > > Which proves once again its not suitable for a mass market car. Was the Pontiac G8? (Which GM is now making a police car off)
From: erschroedinger on 26 Jul 2010 16:30 On Jul 26, 10:39 am, edward ohare <edward_oh...(a)nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:28:07 -0700 (PDT), "erschroedin...(a)gmail.com" > > <erschroedin...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >"Starting in 1998, troops of managers started flocking to Auburn Hills > >on a corporate jet. Soon the Germans discovered that Chrysler, which > >has a long history of boom-and-bust cycles, was in much worse shape > >than they anticipated. It spun deeply into crisis in 2000, racking up > >$4.7 billion in operating losses the following year alone. Mercedes > >had to make the ultimate sacrifice, squeezing its own costs to pump > >out better profits for the group." > > Show me that the people who created the LH cars, the PT Cruiser, and > the 3.5 and 4.7 engines left BEFORE Mercedes took over. You can't. Lutz did. > > Chrysler's problems at the beginiing of this century were due to > cyclical market downturn. To be expected. Remember Bush and > Greenspan couldn't stand still for a little economic discomfort - what > was occuring was a normal cyclical adjustment - and cut taxes, sent > out tax rebates, and cut interest rates. The bill for refusing to > take a little discomfort back then came due as real pain in 2008. > > Its true Chrysler has been a boom an bust company. For the first few > years of its existence, it had a license to print money. They it > mistepped with the Airflow. Exactly, and they could see another bust coming and were worried about surviving it. > > It recovered from that and for a short time over took the terribly > mismanaged Ford Motor Company in sales. But boring set in and it was > in trouble again by the early 50s. > > Engineering and styling brought it back in the mid 50s. But they blew > it on product quality and then product offerings. They came out with > mid size cars - a new category - the same year Ford did, but foolishly > droipped their full size cars (Plymouth and Dodge). > > Came back again starting in 65 with a license to print money. By the > mid 70s they were in trouble again, and came back yet again with first > the K cars and the the minivans. > > Iacocca ran the K car platform one generation too many and it was > trouble again. They pulled themselves out yet again with product: > the LH cars and the Neon. > > Its true Chrysler was a boom and bust company. Mercedes sure fixed > that problem! How so? Chrysler was run as an independent unit, reporting its own profit and loss. And it had both profit and loss under Daimler. More loss than profit, especially towards the end.
From: who on 26 Jul 2010 20:23
In article <5o6r469o3l6fceh9v2cv0c4quer62fo9cr(a)4ax.com>, edward ohare <edward_ohare(a)nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > Show me that the people who created the LH cars, the PT Cruiser, and > the 3.5 and 4.7 engines left BEFORE Mercedes took over. You can't. It was a few years later that Chrysler mgrs left. They couldn't stand the weekly flights of German bosses who didn't understand the market. Dropping the LH line for the RWD 300 must have been a factor. Sure the 300 sold OK, but not to the LH customers who went elsewhere. > Chrysler was run as an independent unit, reporting its own > profit and loss. And it had both profit and loss under Daimler. More > loss than profit, especially towards the end. Chrysler couldn't get through the low sales times, after Daimler drained the cash off to Mercedes. |