Re: Chrysler - did Cerberus blow it?
 

On Wed, 23 May 2007 23:45:50 -0400, Joe wrote:

>> However most Mercedes buyers don't buy for performance, just image. We
>> have many Mercedes vehicles around here and they just put along in the
>> city and seldom are seen on the highway.

> Well, you can sure say Mercedes owners don't buy for styling. Mercedes
> hasn't used any. If styling was important, Mercedes would have gone out
> of business 40 years ago.

I'd have to disagree with that. Most Mercedes (other than the "SUV's")
look great. You don't think an SL500 looks sharp? Even the little 230
Kompressor looks pretty hot.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Re: Chrysler - did Cerberus blow it?
 

On Wed, 23 May 2007 23:45:50 -0400, Joe wrote:

>> However most Mercedes buyers don't buy for performance, just image. We
>> have many Mercedes vehicles around here and they just put along in the
>> city and seldom are seen on the highway.

> Well, you can sure say Mercedes owners don't buy for styling. Mercedes
> hasn't used any. If styling was important, Mercedes would have gone out
> of business 40 years ago.

I'd have to disagree with that. Most Mercedes (other than the "SUV's")
look great. You don't think an SL500 looks sharp? Even the little 230
Kompressor looks pretty hot.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Re: Chrysler - did Cerberus blow it?
 

On Wed, 23 May 2007 23:45:50 -0400, Joe wrote:

>> However most Mercedes buyers don't buy for performance, just image. We
>> have many Mercedes vehicles around here and they just put along in the
>> city and seldom are seen on the highway.

> Well, you can sure say Mercedes owners don't buy for styling. Mercedes
> hasn't used any. If styling was important, Mercedes would have gone out
> of business 40 years ago.

I'd have to disagree with that. Most Mercedes (other than the "SUV's")
look great. You don't think an SL500 looks sharp? Even the little 230
Kompressor looks pretty hot.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Re: Chrysler - did Cerberus blow it?
 

On May 23, 12:29 am, who <i...@notaspammer.net> wrote:
> In article <1179857266.830109.152...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups .com>,
>
> Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
> > Oh BS. Chrysler has never competed in the Mercedes market, and nobody
> > in the market for a Mercedes or BMW would even consider Chrysler.
>
> Generally you're correct, but I've heard a number of hemi buyers say
> they changed from Mercedes to Chrysler because that drive train was
> almost half the price of the Mercedes.
>

So? You can get a V8 in a Chevy Impala for less than a Cadillac, or
in a Crown Vic for less than a Jag.

> However most Mercedes buyers don't buy for performance, just image.

You knoweth not of which you speak.

> We have many Mercedes vehicles around here and they just put along in
> the city and seldom are seen on the highway.

You knoweth not of which you speak.

Re: Chrysler - did Cerberus blow it?
 

On May 23, 12:29 am, who <i...@notaspammer.net> wrote:
> In article <1179857266.830109.152...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups .com>,
>
> Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
> > Oh BS. Chrysler has never competed in the Mercedes market, and nobody
> > in the market for a Mercedes or BMW would even consider Chrysler.
>
> Generally you're correct, but I've heard a number of hemi buyers say
> they changed from Mercedes to Chrysler because that drive train was
> almost half the price of the Mercedes.
>

So? You can get a V8 in a Chevy Impala for less than a Cadillac, or
in a Crown Vic for less than a Jag.

> However most Mercedes buyers don't buy for performance, just image.

You knoweth not of which you speak.

> We have many Mercedes vehicles around here and they just put along in
> the city and seldom are seen on the highway.

You knoweth not of which you speak.

Re: Chrysler - did Cerberus blow it?
 

On May 23, 12:29 am, who <i...@notaspammer.net> wrote:
> In article <1179857266.830109.152...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups .com>,
>
> Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
> > Oh BS. Chrysler has never competed in the Mercedes market, and nobody
> > in the market for a Mercedes or BMW would even consider Chrysler.
>
> Generally you're correct, but I've heard a number of hemi buyers say
> they changed from Mercedes to Chrysler because that drive train was
> almost half the price of the Mercedes.
>

So? You can get a V8 in a Chevy Impala for less than a Cadillac, or
in a Crown Vic for less than a Jag.

> However most Mercedes buyers don't buy for performance, just image.

You knoweth not of which you speak.

> We have many Mercedes vehicles around here and they just put along in
> the city and seldom are seen on the highway.

You knoweth not of which you speak.

Re: Chrysler - did Cerberus blow it?
 

On May 23, 12:29 am, who <i...@notaspammer.net> wrote:
> In article <1179857266.830109.152...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups .com>,
>
> Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
> > Oh BS. Chrysler has never competed in the Mercedes market, and nobody
> > in the market for a Mercedes or BMW would even consider Chrysler.
>
> Generally you're correct, but I've heard a number of hemi buyers say
> they changed from Mercedes to Chrysler because that drive train was
> almost half the price of the Mercedes.
>

So? You can get a V8 in a Chevy Impala for less than a Cadillac, or
in a Crown Vic for less than a Jag.

> However most Mercedes buyers don't buy for performance, just image.

You knoweth not of which you speak.

> We have many Mercedes vehicles around here and they just put along in
> the city and seldom are seen on the highway.

You knoweth not of which you speak.

Re: Chrysler - did Cerberus blow it?
 

On May 23, 12:52 am, who <i...@notaspammer.net> wrote:
> In article <hm6753t47bosr58v9b2aa6k4mfmlakf...@4ax.com>,
>
> SnoMan <a...@snoman.com> wrote:
> > It is going to take more than that, Daimler spent 500 million to sell
> > Chyrsler after all the money was spent (most of it went back to
> > Chysler Financail) and you do you spend a extra 500 milion to sell a
> > company unless it stands to cost you a lot more to keep it. Chysler
> > has major labor cost problems and either they reduce them a lot with
> > major consesions or they go out of bussiness because there will be no
> > 3rd option here.
>
> DC could afford to pay to dump Chrysler, they sucked cash out of
> Chrysler after the take over.

That is patently false. Chrysler _had_ no cash.

> That Chrysler cash got DC profitable again.
>

BS. DC was profitable before the merger and except for 1 year, it's
been Chrysler dragging down the profits ever since.

> DC will still own part of Chrysler so I expect they will still benefit
> from Chryslers higher parts volume and lower costs.

Yep, those low cost Compass and Caliber interiors.

> Also I expect Chrysler will still benefit from what they get from
> Mercedes.
> So both sides should be happy; at least for a while.

Re: Chrysler - did Cerberus blow it?
 

On May 23, 12:52 am, who <i...@notaspammer.net> wrote:
> In article <hm6753t47bosr58v9b2aa6k4mfmlakf...@4ax.com>,
>
> SnoMan <a...@snoman.com> wrote:
> > It is going to take more than that, Daimler spent 500 million to sell
> > Chyrsler after all the money was spent (most of it went back to
> > Chysler Financail) and you do you spend a extra 500 milion to sell a
> > company unless it stands to cost you a lot more to keep it. Chysler
> > has major labor cost problems and either they reduce them a lot with
> > major consesions or they go out of bussiness because there will be no
> > 3rd option here.
>
> DC could afford to pay to dump Chrysler, they sucked cash out of
> Chrysler after the take over.

That is patently false. Chrysler _had_ no cash.

> That Chrysler cash got DC profitable again.
>

BS. DC was profitable before the merger and except for 1 year, it's
been Chrysler dragging down the profits ever since.

> DC will still own part of Chrysler so I expect they will still benefit
> from Chryslers higher parts volume and lower costs.

Yep, those low cost Compass and Caliber interiors.

> Also I expect Chrysler will still benefit from what they get from
> Mercedes.
> So both sides should be happy; at least for a while.

Re: Chrysler - did Cerberus blow it?
 

On May 23, 12:52 am, who <i...@notaspammer.net> wrote:
> In article <hm6753t47bosr58v9b2aa6k4mfmlakf...@4ax.com>,
>
> SnoMan <a...@snoman.com> wrote:
> > It is going to take more than that, Daimler spent 500 million to sell
> > Chyrsler after all the money was spent (most of it went back to
> > Chysler Financail) and you do you spend a extra 500 milion to sell a
> > company unless it stands to cost you a lot more to keep it. Chysler
> > has major labor cost problems and either they reduce them a lot with
> > major consesions or they go out of bussiness because there will be no
> > 3rd option here.
>
> DC could afford to pay to dump Chrysler, they sucked cash out of
> Chrysler after the take over.

That is patently false. Chrysler _had_ no cash.

> That Chrysler cash got DC profitable again.
>

BS. DC was profitable before the merger and except for 1 year, it's
been Chrysler dragging down the profits ever since.

> DC will still own part of Chrysler so I expect they will still benefit
> from Chryslers higher parts volume and lower costs.

Yep, those low cost Compass and Caliber interiors.

> Also I expect Chrysler will still benefit from what they get from
> Mercedes.
> So both sides should be happy; at least for a while.