From: Clive on
In message <5o6r469o3l6fceh9v2cv0c4quer62fo9cr(a)4ax.com>, edward ohare
<edward_ohare(a)nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> writes
>They pulled themselves out yet again with product:
>the LH cars and the Neon.
We had a Chrysler Neon over here, and like it's stable mate the Chrysler
Jeep Grand Cherokee, it was a pile of junk.
--
Clive

From: erschroedinger on
On Jul 26, 8:23 pm, who <i...(a)notaspammer.net> wrote:
> In article <5o6r469o3l6fceh9v2cv0c4quer62fo...(a)4ax.com>,
>  edward ohare <edward_oh...(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.

Oh BS. For most of the time it was DCX, Mercedes sales kept Chrysler
going -- the Chrysler unit lost money. That's why DCX stock dived and
why they sold off Chrysler so cheaply.
From: who on
In article
<26c7fb0c-fe04-4fd2-9f71-d9b7a99e8249(a)t35g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
"erschroedinger(a)gmail.com" <erschroedinger(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 26, 8:23�pm, who <i...(a)notaspammer.net> wrote:
> > In article <5o6r469o3l6fceh9v2cv0c4quer62fo...(a)4ax.com>,
> > �edward ohare <edward_oh...(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.
>
> Oh BS. For most of the time it was DCX, Mercedes sales kept Chrysler
> going -- the Chrysler unit lost money. That's why DCX stock dived and
> why they sold off Chrysler so cheaply.

You read a different story, likely from the other side of the pond,
released by the Daimler take over artists.
Here is what a insider Chrysler saw in the early years of Daimler
control of Chrysler: http://www.allpar.com/ed/mistakes.html

By 2005 Daimler's influence on Chrysler was seriously losing their
traditional customers. I know, because I was there.

Daimler sold off Chrysler cheaply because they knew they screwed up
Chrysler and want to limit their losses. They did OK, because they kept
the pile of cash Chrysler had 10 years ago.
More recently Cerberus also did OK by Chrysler. In 2008 GM was thinking
of taking over Chrysler to get at another cash pile. When Cerberus
dumped Chrysler that cash was gone, vanished.
So twice in 10 years Chrysler's cash was ripped off.
By then Chrysler not only lost many customers, but Cerberus cut so many
designers Chrysler couldn't design cars to go around their recent new V6
engines.
From: rob on
the Pacifica design studios and Arizona proving grounds were also sold off
during Mercedes rein , supposedly to get more operating capital and pay some
debts.


"who" <i(a)notaspammer.net> wrote in message
news:i-D56EFC.22194127072010(a)news.telus.net...
> In article
> <26c7fb0c-fe04-4fd2-9f71-d9b7a99e8249(a)t35g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> "erschroedinger(a)gmail.com" <erschroedinger(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 26, 8:23 pm, who <i...(a)notaspammer.net> wrote:
>> > In article <5o6r469o3l6fceh9v2cv0c4quer62fo...(a)4ax.com>,
>> > edward ohare <edward_oh...(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.
>>
>> Oh BS. For most of the time it was DCX, Mercedes sales kept Chrysler
>> going -- the Chrysler unit lost money. That's why DCX stock dived and
>> why they sold off Chrysler so cheaply.
>
> You read a different story, likely from the other side of the pond,
> released by the Daimler take over artists.
> Here is what a insider Chrysler saw in the early years of Daimler
> control of Chrysler: http://www.allpar.com/ed/mistakes.html
>
> By 2005 Daimler's influence on Chrysler was seriously losing their
> traditional customers. I know, because I was there.
>
> Daimler sold off Chrysler cheaply because they knew they screwed up
> Chrysler and want to limit their losses. They did OK, because they kept
> the pile of cash Chrysler had 10 years ago.
> More recently Cerberus also did OK by Chrysler. In 2008 GM was thinking
> of taking over Chrysler to get at another cash pile. When Cerberus
> dumped Chrysler that cash was gone, vanished.
> So twice in 10 years Chrysler's cash was ripped off.
> By then Chrysler not only lost many customers, but Cerberus cut so many
> designers Chrysler couldn't design cars to go around their recent new V6
> engines.


From: edward ohare on
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:28:56 -0700 (PDT), "erschroedinger(a)gmail.com"
<erschroedinger(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>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"

>>
>> And diesels and hybrids are real big sellers, aren't they?
>
>They're efficient. They let the manufacturer make bigger, lower-mpg
>cars.


You explained why, in your view, people should buy them in large
numbers while ignoring the fact they don't.


>> 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.


Normally yes, however, Mercedes replaced the Intrepid sedan with the
Magnum wagon. If you want to evaluate the quality of that decision,
compare Intrepid and Magnum sales.



>> 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.


You aren't paying attention. Over the last 20 years or so, the
manufacturers have jacked up the trucks. Current mid sized trucks are
taller than full size trucks were 20 years ago. Current full size
half tons are at least as tall as 1 tons were 20 years ago.

They did it because that's the look customers want. They didn't
provide any significant load capacity increases by jacking up the
trucks. Because so many of the truck buyers don't need that. After
all, its pretty tough to strain the capacity of a pickup even with the
be completely full groceries.

>
>
>>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.


Well, if Mercedes really believed that, not only would they have done
the coil suspension they've done, they'd lower the Ram. They didn't.
So they didn't get anywhere near full benefit of the design.


>> 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?

Having part of a large market may be better than having 100% of a
smaller one. Often you don't need something drastically different.
You just need something different in detail.

Dodge jumped into competitiveness with the orignal Freightliner styled
Ram pickup. Mechanical features were similar to Ford and Chevy. What
made it sell was the tough truck image, which was there functionally
but the styling really gave the tough truck impression. And that's
what customers wanted.

You can logic out "better" all you want but that doesn't mean its what
people think. VW's Rabbit based pickup, and the Dodge and Plymouth
Horizon/Omni coupe based pickups. Don't you think they were better in
just about every way than the Japanese sourced small pickups Chevy,
Ford, and Dodge were selling? Yes, they were. Did they sell? No.

And what happened to Ford when they made their full sized truck just
slightly smaller for a few years? Chevy almost caught them.

Often companies shouldn't build something completely different. Often
just different in details works. Following your view, the original
Escort/Lynx and the Omni/Horizon should not have been built since they
followed the Rabbit format.



>> 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.


And costs more. And has less power. And really contradicts your
ride/handling pitch on the pickups.


>> 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.


Me too gets you lots of places lots of the time. It can give you a
share of a large market which might be better than all of a small one.
The reason CVS and Walgreens build their stores right across the
street from each other. The reason many towns have streets referred
to as "auto dealers row". The reason why companies other than Bayer
make aspirin. The reason why most companies choose to make standard
potato chips rather than going after Ruffles or Pringles.


>> 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?

Yet that is what they tried to do. They treated Chrysler as a captive
customer for over priced parts.

You know, I don't know if what you say is due to lack of knowledge or
denial. But I usually only have discussions of this character with
people who still believe Saddam had Weapons Of Mass Destruction.