In article <2gk35355nsh7u50g7lk0qmsiuqqralr78j@4ax.com>,
SnoMan <admin@snoman.com> wrote:

> Its going to take a lot more than that. The only way Chysler is going
> to be able to buy time and stay in bussiness to try to tuen around is
> through some serious cost cutting starting with labor. If they do not,
> it will not be too long before they are on the auction/chopping block
> because Cerberus has neither the money or desire to bankroll them in
> current state of operations. Whether Chrysler survives now is more up
> to the workforce than the owner because without a big reduction in
> operating cost there will be no time or money for R&D for new model to
> sell.
Based on what Cerberus did with their involvement with the Air Canada
recovery, they will tighten up everything and will try higher prices for
a slightly premium product. Less volume higher prices.
This could mean the dumping of some vehicle lines, just as A/C gave up
some less profitable routes.
http://www.cerberuscapital.com/profi..._aviation.html

 

In article <2gk35355nsh7u50g7lk0qmsiuqqralr78j@4ax.com>,
SnoMan <admin@snoman.com> wrote:

> Its going to take a lot more than that. The only way Chysler is going
> to be able to buy time and stay in bussiness to try to tuen around is
> through some serious cost cutting starting with labor. If they do not,
> it will not be too long before they are on the auction/chopping block
> because Cerberus has neither the money or desire to bankroll them in
> current state of operations. Whether Chrysler survives now is more up
> to the workforce than the owner because without a big reduction in
> operating cost there will be no time or money for R&D for new model to
> sell.
Based on what Cerberus did with their involvement with the Air Canada
recovery, they will tighten up everything and will try higher prices for
a slightly premium product. Less volume higher prices.
This could mean the dumping of some vehicle lines, just as A/C gave up
some less profitable routes.
http://www.cerberuscapital.com/profi..._aviation.html

 

In article <2gk35355nsh7u50g7lk0qmsiuqqralr78j@4ax.com>,
SnoMan <admin@snoman.com> wrote:

> Its going to take a lot more than that. The only way Chysler is going
> to be able to buy time and stay in bussiness to try to tuen around is
> through some serious cost cutting starting with labor. If they do not,
> it will not be too long before they are on the auction/chopping block
> because Cerberus has neither the money or desire to bankroll them in
> current state of operations. Whether Chrysler survives now is more up
> to the workforce than the owner because without a big reduction in
> operating cost there will be no time or money for R&D for new model to
> sell.
Based on what Cerberus did with their involvement with the Air Canada
recovery, they will tighten up everything and will try higher prices for
a slightly premium product. Less volume higher prices.
This could mean the dumping of some vehicle lines, just as A/C gave up
some less profitable routes.
http://www.cerberuscapital.com/profi..._aviation.html

 

On May 17, 4:30 am, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <t...@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
> "Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLE...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> news:TFL2i.16337$3P3.9733@newsread3.news.pas.earth link.net...
>
> > Interesting article but the history does not seem exactly accurate.
> Indeed
> > the new cars introduced in 93/94 had fit and finish problems, but they
> were
> > great looking and I see tons of them still around so owners certainly got
> > their money's worth. Just saw someone driving a 94 LHS identical to the
> one
> > I sold in 99. Too bad Chrysler didn't improve them and keep the basic
> > looks. But in 98/99 they introduced much higher quality cars.
> > Unfortunately except for the 300M, they were all pretty ugly. However
> > before the merger they were showing some great looking follow-up models.
> > Too bad Mercedes killed them and put Chyrsler products years behind
> > schedule.
>
> Exactly. It's pretty clear to me what Chrysler has to do - they have to
> take square aim at the Mercedes market.

Because everybody who's tried this has been so successful, right? GM
with Cadillac, Ford with Volvo, Nissan with Infiniti...

Good think you're not being paid for advice.


>Dieter Zetsche knew this well,
> but he also knew his stockholders wouldn't tolerate their precious Mercedes
> brand being attacked by Chrysler vehicles.

Oh BS. Chrysler has never competed in the Mercedes market, and nobody
in the market for a Mercedes or BMW would even consider Chrysler.

>
> Give Chrysler 2-3 years and some intelligent designers who aren't trying to
> make political compromises to keep stockholders happy, and they will
> pull out of it.
>
> Ted

 

On May 17, 4:30 am, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <t...@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
> "Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLE...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> news:TFL2i.16337$3P3.9733@newsread3.news.pas.earth link.net...
>
> > Interesting article but the history does not seem exactly accurate.
> Indeed
> > the new cars introduced in 93/94 had fit and finish problems, but they
> were
> > great looking and I see tons of them still around so owners certainly got
> > their money's worth. Just saw someone driving a 94 LHS identical to the
> one
> > I sold in 99. Too bad Chrysler didn't improve them and keep the basic
> > looks. But in 98/99 they introduced much higher quality cars.
> > Unfortunately except for the 300M, they were all pretty ugly. However
> > before the merger they were showing some great looking follow-up models.
> > Too bad Mercedes killed them and put Chyrsler products years behind
> > schedule.
>
> Exactly. It's pretty clear to me what Chrysler has to do - they have to
> take square aim at the Mercedes market.

Because everybody who's tried this has been so successful, right? GM
with Cadillac, Ford with Volvo, Nissan with Infiniti...

Good think you're not being paid for advice.


>Dieter Zetsche knew this well,
> but he also knew his stockholders wouldn't tolerate their precious Mercedes
> brand being attacked by Chrysler vehicles.

Oh BS. Chrysler has never competed in the Mercedes market, and nobody
in the market for a Mercedes or BMW would even consider Chrysler.

>
> Give Chrysler 2-3 years and some intelligent designers who aren't trying to
> make political compromises to keep stockholders happy, and they will
> pull out of it.
>
> Ted

 

On May 17, 4:30 am, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <t...@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
> "Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLE...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> news:TFL2i.16337$3P3.9733@newsread3.news.pas.earth link.net...
>
> > Interesting article but the history does not seem exactly accurate.
> Indeed
> > the new cars introduced in 93/94 had fit and finish problems, but they
> were
> > great looking and I see tons of them still around so owners certainly got
> > their money's worth. Just saw someone driving a 94 LHS identical to the
> one
> > I sold in 99. Too bad Chrysler didn't improve them and keep the basic
> > looks. But in 98/99 they introduced much higher quality cars.
> > Unfortunately except for the 300M, they were all pretty ugly. However
> > before the merger they were showing some great looking follow-up models.
> > Too bad Mercedes killed them and put Chyrsler products years behind
> > schedule.
>
> Exactly. It's pretty clear to me what Chrysler has to do - they have to
> take square aim at the Mercedes market.

Because everybody who's tried this has been so successful, right? GM
with Cadillac, Ford with Volvo, Nissan with Infiniti...

Good think you're not being paid for advice.


>Dieter Zetsche knew this well,
> but he also knew his stockholders wouldn't tolerate their precious Mercedes
> brand being attacked by Chrysler vehicles.

Oh BS. Chrysler has never competed in the Mercedes market, and nobody
in the market for a Mercedes or BMW would even consider Chrysler.

>
> Give Chrysler 2-3 years and some intelligent designers who aren't trying to
> make political compromises to keep stockholders happy, and they will
> pull out of it.
>
> Ted

 

On May 17, 4:30 am, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <t...@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
> "Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLE...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> news:TFL2i.16337$3P3.9733@newsread3.news.pas.earth link.net...
>
> > Interesting article but the history does not seem exactly accurate.
> Indeed
> > the new cars introduced in 93/94 had fit and finish problems, but they
> were
> > great looking and I see tons of them still around so owners certainly got
> > their money's worth. Just saw someone driving a 94 LHS identical to the
> one
> > I sold in 99. Too bad Chrysler didn't improve them and keep the basic
> > looks. But in 98/99 they introduced much higher quality cars.
> > Unfortunately except for the 300M, they were all pretty ugly. However
> > before the merger they were showing some great looking follow-up models.
> > Too bad Mercedes killed them and put Chyrsler products years behind
> > schedule.
>
> Exactly. It's pretty clear to me what Chrysler has to do - they have to
> take square aim at the Mercedes market.

Because everybody who's tried this has been so successful, right? GM
with Cadillac, Ford with Volvo, Nissan with Infiniti...

Good think you're not being paid for advice.


>Dieter Zetsche knew this well,
> but he also knew his stockholders wouldn't tolerate their precious Mercedes
> brand being attacked by Chrysler vehicles.

Oh BS. Chrysler has never competed in the Mercedes market, and nobody
in the market for a Mercedes or BMW would even consider Chrysler.

>
> Give Chrysler 2-3 years and some intelligent designers who aren't trying to
> make political compromises to keep stockholders happy, and they will
> pull out of it.
>
> Ted

 

On May 21, 11:54 am, DeserTBoB <dese...@rglobal.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 19:20:07 +0200 (CEST), George Orwell
>
> <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> >Unfortunately the gush of profits
> >began to flow only after the Chrysler board, mistakenly convinced that
> >Mr. Iacocca had lost his fastball, handed him the proverbial gold watch
> >and replaced him with Robert Eaton, freshly imported from General
> >Motors. <snip>
>
> Another example of flimsly WSJ "reporting." Eaton was brought on
> board LONG before this time by Iacocca to impose a system of financial
> controls on what was basically an uncontrolled enterprise wasting
> money on decisions made by incompetent middle and upper management. It
> was Eaton's job to seek out "finance guys" to implement the new
> system, which is exactly what he did at Woodward Avenue for GM. He
> was/is NOT a "car guy;" he's a beancounter of the same ilk whose
> decisions at GM tanked the company. Iacocca lists naming Eaton as his
> successor as "the biggest mistake of my life." Iacocca DID have a car
> guy, Bob Lutz, now mired at a collapsing GM.
>
> >Mr. Eaton encountered a paradox: Buyers were flooding the dealerships
> >for the spiffy new vehicles developed under Mr. Iacocca's leadership,
> >yet by any objective evaluation -- fit and finish, product durability
> >and reliability, or plant productivity -- Chrysler was a basket case.
> >He assumed that fixing these problems was of higher priority than new
> >hits. This was a big mistake but Mr. Eaton turned out to be the
> >luckiest man in Motown.<snip>
>
> Didn't happen that way. Eaton took over and immediately cut off all
> but "skeleton" funding for the Belvidere Design Center, opining that
> Chrysler Group's product line was "good enough" to compete. Remember,
> Eaton was NOT a "car guy." At the same time, he slashed operating
> costs at the plants through attrition-driven downsizing, cut quality
> engineering staff and made other obvious gaffes, and then started
> looking for a buyer. THAT's where Schrempp fit into this...he was the
> proverbial sucker to Eaton's polished pitch. Eaton took the money and
> ran like hell, knowing that hoary K-car based products and a
> much-troubled LH platform were ticking time bombs.
>
> >Even mini-hits like the Chrysler 300http://snipurl.com/Chrysler_300-
> >the big gangsta-car with the narrow windows and powerful hemi engine,
> >is proving to have no legs in the market. Worst of all, Chrysler's most
> >recent new offerings have been panned by Consumer Reports, the great
> >auto market influencer, as both mechanically and cosmetically deficient.<snip>
>
> That's because they're shitty vehicles. The 300 is exactly what the
> WSJ writer implies...a "gangta car," only now purchased by blacks in
> ghettos, who immediately deck them out with 22" baby buggy wheels and
> thumper car stereos, only to have them repossessed a few months later.
> The 300 is dead. One only has to look at the depreciation of these
> toadmobiles to know. Another zero..the "Charger", as well as the
> panned Caliber, which is not selling well at all due to bad design and
> quality gaffes.
>

Charger is outselling 300 so far this year:
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...01/046193.html

> >Mr. Zetsche, rewarded in January 2006 with the top job at then
> >DaimlerChrysler, had already cleaned things up at Chrysler the way a
> >financially oriented new owner like Cerberus might do it. Perhaps Mr.
> >Feinberg and his colleagues can push even further, persuading the union
> >to accept give-ups, but it will have to overcome a natural suspicion at
> >Solidarity House, UAW headquarters, of financial hotshots with a Park
> >Avenue business address. To the UAW, Cerberus has deep pockets, a
> >situation much different from 1979-80, when Chrysler was a stand-alone
> >entity and could not survive without union help. <snip>
>
> The UAW will have to tell Snow to shove it. There will be no major
> "give-ups." Those days are over, and Labor is tired of fat cat
> private equities like Cerberus crying poor mouth when they sit on
> billions of cash in some very right wing pockets. When Iacocca
> negotiated cuts from UAW in the '80s, he did it from a position of
> poverty, and UAW's Doug Fraser knew it. Iacocca told the bargaining
> committee that he had "lots of jobs at $17, but I haven't got any at
> $20." Fraser knew Iacocca was honest and reliable, and decided to
> join in Chrysler's rehabilitation. This isn't the case now. Right
> wing fruitcakes like Snow will look at that '80s episode as a sign of
> weakness and will try to pin all of Chrysler Group's troubles on
> labor, just as GM and Ford have tried to do. Ain't gonna work this
> time.
>
> >There's the rub: What even Dieter Zetsche could not accomplish was the
> >mysterious feat of generating hit products. And hitmakers are hard to
> >find. Cerberus has brought aboard a well-known auto industry ronin,
> >Wolfgang Bernhard, as an advisor, but Mr. Bernhard, Chrysler COO from
> >2000 to 2004, was on the bridge with Mr. Zetsche not when the company
> >was generating hits, but rather when it wasn't. <snip>
>
> Bernhardt (correct spelling; again, the WSJ couldn't report the
> temperature correctly) is a major mistake. He's responsible for the
> ghettomobile 300 and the now-failing Caliber and "Charger" as well as
> other screw-ups. Snow got him on board mainly because Snow doesn't
> know crap about the car biz, and Dr. Z probably sold Bernardt to him
> to get rid of him from D-B.
>
> >Cerberus, too, is taking on serious downside risk. Chrysler's physical
> >assets are essentially worthless because no one else will want them,
> >and its marketplace equity is modest at best. The Dodge and Chrysler
> >brands have only slight cachet although Jeep remains relatively iconic.
> >How long it will remain iconic is questionable. The company has been
> >endeavoring to exploit the brand, flooding its product line with
> >dubious and slow-selling new variants. <snip>
>
> If the "Dodge Nitro" is any example, they will fail at this. My local
> (D)C dealer cannot sell "Nitros" even with $3000 spiffs.
>

25,000 sales so far this year isn't peanuts.

> >Unloading 80% of Chrysler is almost certainly a good deal for Daimler.
> >Smart and resourceful as the Cerberus principals may be <snip>
>
> ROFLMAO!!! Snow?? Quayle? These are Republipedo Party silver
> spooned dumbasses! Snow almost tanked CSX and Quayle...well, all
> anyone has to do in research there is listen to some of his "speehes"
> and read some of his Bush-like scribblings to know what's going on
> there...another born-rich, dyslexic moron á la George Dubya Bush, with
> no credentials at all except those bestowed upon him by other
> Republipedoes and the WSJ.
>
> The WSJ has no credibility writing about Chrysler at all. All you
> have to do is dig up all those anti-loan-guarantee articles they wrote
> back in '79, '80 and '81 to see that these Wall St. shills are just
> that...shills. A perfect takeover target for a right wing whack job
> like Rupert Murdoch, sure, but any business/financial sagacity?
> Fahgetddaboutit. Remember, it was the WSJ's editorial statements that
> said over and over that Chrysler under Iacocca would fail and the
> cadaver should have been divied up among all the banks holding
> Chrysler Corporation's debt. WSJ also was guilty of false reporting
> even then, repeatedly writing that the Federal loan guarantees were a
> "giveaway." Nothing could've been further from the truth. They
> pulled the same stunt during the Conrail reorganization, and cheered
> when Snow made a severely undervalued bid, championed by "Newt The
> Galoot" Gingrich in the House, to get CR's assets for pennies on the
> taxpayer's dollar.

 

On May 21, 11:54 am, DeserTBoB <dese...@rglobal.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 19:20:07 +0200 (CEST), George Orwell
>
> <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> >Unfortunately the gush of profits
> >began to flow only after the Chrysler board, mistakenly convinced that
> >Mr. Iacocca had lost his fastball, handed him the proverbial gold watch
> >and replaced him with Robert Eaton, freshly imported from General
> >Motors. <snip>
>
> Another example of flimsly WSJ "reporting." Eaton was brought on
> board LONG before this time by Iacocca to impose a system of financial
> controls on what was basically an uncontrolled enterprise wasting
> money on decisions made by incompetent middle and upper management. It
> was Eaton's job to seek out "finance guys" to implement the new
> system, which is exactly what he did at Woodward Avenue for GM. He
> was/is NOT a "car guy;" he's a beancounter of the same ilk whose
> decisions at GM tanked the company. Iacocca lists naming Eaton as his
> successor as "the biggest mistake of my life." Iacocca DID have a car
> guy, Bob Lutz, now mired at a collapsing GM.
>
> >Mr. Eaton encountered a paradox: Buyers were flooding the dealerships
> >for the spiffy new vehicles developed under Mr. Iacocca's leadership,
> >yet by any objective evaluation -- fit and finish, product durability
> >and reliability, or plant productivity -- Chrysler was a basket case.
> >He assumed that fixing these problems was of higher priority than new
> >hits. This was a big mistake but Mr. Eaton turned out to be the
> >luckiest man in Motown.<snip>
>
> Didn't happen that way. Eaton took over and immediately cut off all
> but "skeleton" funding for the Belvidere Design Center, opining that
> Chrysler Group's product line was "good enough" to compete. Remember,
> Eaton was NOT a "car guy." At the same time, he slashed operating
> costs at the plants through attrition-driven downsizing, cut quality
> engineering staff and made other obvious gaffes, and then started
> looking for a buyer. THAT's where Schrempp fit into this...he was the
> proverbial sucker to Eaton's polished pitch. Eaton took the money and
> ran like hell, knowing that hoary K-car based products and a
> much-troubled LH platform were ticking time bombs.
>
> >Even mini-hits like the Chrysler 300http://snipurl.com/Chrysler_300-
> >the big gangsta-car with the narrow windows and powerful hemi engine,
> >is proving to have no legs in the market. Worst of all, Chrysler's most
> >recent new offerings have been panned by Consumer Reports, the great
> >auto market influencer, as both mechanically and cosmetically deficient.<snip>
>
> That's because they're shitty vehicles. The 300 is exactly what the
> WSJ writer implies...a "gangta car," only now purchased by blacks in
> ghettos, who immediately deck them out with 22" baby buggy wheels and
> thumper car stereos, only to have them repossessed a few months later.
> The 300 is dead. One only has to look at the depreciation of these
> toadmobiles to know. Another zero..the "Charger", as well as the
> panned Caliber, which is not selling well at all due to bad design and
> quality gaffes.
>

Charger is outselling 300 so far this year:
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...01/046193.html

> >Mr. Zetsche, rewarded in January 2006 with the top job at then
> >DaimlerChrysler, had already cleaned things up at Chrysler the way a
> >financially oriented new owner like Cerberus might do it. Perhaps Mr.
> >Feinberg and his colleagues can push even further, persuading the union
> >to accept give-ups, but it will have to overcome a natural suspicion at
> >Solidarity House, UAW headquarters, of financial hotshots with a Park
> >Avenue business address. To the UAW, Cerberus has deep pockets, a
> >situation much different from 1979-80, when Chrysler was a stand-alone
> >entity and could not survive without union help. <snip>
>
> The UAW will have to tell Snow to shove it. There will be no major
> "give-ups." Those days are over, and Labor is tired of fat cat
> private equities like Cerberus crying poor mouth when they sit on
> billions of cash in some very right wing pockets. When Iacocca
> negotiated cuts from UAW in the '80s, he did it from a position of
> poverty, and UAW's Doug Fraser knew it. Iacocca told the bargaining
> committee that he had "lots of jobs at $17, but I haven't got any at
> $20." Fraser knew Iacocca was honest and reliable, and decided to
> join in Chrysler's rehabilitation. This isn't the case now. Right
> wing fruitcakes like Snow will look at that '80s episode as a sign of
> weakness and will try to pin all of Chrysler Group's troubles on
> labor, just as GM and Ford have tried to do. Ain't gonna work this
> time.
>
> >There's the rub: What even Dieter Zetsche could not accomplish was the
> >mysterious feat of generating hit products. And hitmakers are hard to
> >find. Cerberus has brought aboard a well-known auto industry ronin,
> >Wolfgang Bernhard, as an advisor, but Mr. Bernhard, Chrysler COO from
> >2000 to 2004, was on the bridge with Mr. Zetsche not when the company
> >was generating hits, but rather when it wasn't. <snip>
>
> Bernhardt (correct spelling; again, the WSJ couldn't report the
> temperature correctly) is a major mistake. He's responsible for the
> ghettomobile 300 and the now-failing Caliber and "Charger" as well as
> other screw-ups. Snow got him on board mainly because Snow doesn't
> know crap about the car biz, and Dr. Z probably sold Bernardt to him
> to get rid of him from D-B.
>
> >Cerberus, too, is taking on serious downside risk. Chrysler's physical
> >assets are essentially worthless because no one else will want them,
> >and its marketplace equity is modest at best. The Dodge and Chrysler
> >brands have only slight cachet although Jeep remains relatively iconic.
> >How long it will remain iconic is questionable. The company has been
> >endeavoring to exploit the brand, flooding its product line with
> >dubious and slow-selling new variants. <snip>
>
> If the "Dodge Nitro" is any example, they will fail at this. My local
> (D)C dealer cannot sell "Nitros" even with $3000 spiffs.
>

25,000 sales so far this year isn't peanuts.

> >Unloading 80% of Chrysler is almost certainly a good deal for Daimler.
> >Smart and resourceful as the Cerberus principals may be <snip>
>
> ROFLMAO!!! Snow?? Quayle? These are Republipedo Party silver
> spooned dumbasses! Snow almost tanked CSX and Quayle...well, all
> anyone has to do in research there is listen to some of his "speehes"
> and read some of his Bush-like scribblings to know what's going on
> there...another born-rich, dyslexic moron á la George Dubya Bush, with
> no credentials at all except those bestowed upon him by other
> Republipedoes and the WSJ.
>
> The WSJ has no credibility writing about Chrysler at all. All you
> have to do is dig up all those anti-loan-guarantee articles they wrote
> back in '79, '80 and '81 to see that these Wall St. shills are just
> that...shills. A perfect takeover target for a right wing whack job
> like Rupert Murdoch, sure, but any business/financial sagacity?
> Fahgetddaboutit. Remember, it was the WSJ's editorial statements that
> said over and over that Chrysler under Iacocca would fail and the
> cadaver should have been divied up among all the banks holding
> Chrysler Corporation's debt. WSJ also was guilty of false reporting
> even then, repeatedly writing that the Federal loan guarantees were a
> "giveaway." Nothing could've been further from the truth. They
> pulled the same stunt during the Conrail reorganization, and cheered
> when Snow made a severely undervalued bid, championed by "Newt The
> Galoot" Gingrich in the House, to get CR's assets for pennies on the
> taxpayer's dollar.

 

On May 21, 11:54 am, DeserTBoB <dese...@rglobal.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 19:20:07 +0200 (CEST), George Orwell
>
> <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> >Unfortunately the gush of profits
> >began to flow only after the Chrysler board, mistakenly convinced that
> >Mr. Iacocca had lost his fastball, handed him the proverbial gold watch
> >and replaced him with Robert Eaton, freshly imported from General
> >Motors. <snip>
>
> Another example of flimsly WSJ "reporting." Eaton was brought on
> board LONG before this time by Iacocca to impose a system of financial
> controls on what was basically an uncontrolled enterprise wasting
> money on decisions made by incompetent middle and upper management. It
> was Eaton's job to seek out "finance guys" to implement the new
> system, which is exactly what he did at Woodward Avenue for GM. He
> was/is NOT a "car guy;" he's a beancounter of the same ilk whose
> decisions at GM tanked the company. Iacocca lists naming Eaton as his
> successor as "the biggest mistake of my life." Iacocca DID have a car
> guy, Bob Lutz, now mired at a collapsing GM.
>
> >Mr. Eaton encountered a paradox: Buyers were flooding the dealerships
> >for the spiffy new vehicles developed under Mr. Iacocca's leadership,
> >yet by any objective evaluation -- fit and finish, product durability
> >and reliability, or plant productivity -- Chrysler was a basket case.
> >He assumed that fixing these problems was of higher priority than new
> >hits. This was a big mistake but Mr. Eaton turned out to be the
> >luckiest man in Motown.<snip>
>
> Didn't happen that way. Eaton took over and immediately cut off all
> but "skeleton" funding for the Belvidere Design Center, opining that
> Chrysler Group's product line was "good enough" to compete. Remember,
> Eaton was NOT a "car guy." At the same time, he slashed operating
> costs at the plants through attrition-driven downsizing, cut quality
> engineering staff and made other obvious gaffes, and then started
> looking for a buyer. THAT's where Schrempp fit into this...he was the
> proverbial sucker to Eaton's polished pitch. Eaton took the money and
> ran like hell, knowing that hoary K-car based products and a
> much-troubled LH platform were ticking time bombs.
>
> >Even mini-hits like the Chrysler 300http://snipurl.com/Chrysler_300-
> >the big gangsta-car with the narrow windows and powerful hemi engine,
> >is proving to have no legs in the market. Worst of all, Chrysler's most
> >recent new offerings have been panned by Consumer Reports, the great
> >auto market influencer, as both mechanically and cosmetically deficient.<snip>
>
> That's because they're shitty vehicles. The 300 is exactly what the
> WSJ writer implies...a "gangta car," only now purchased by blacks in
> ghettos, who immediately deck them out with 22" baby buggy wheels and
> thumper car stereos, only to have them repossessed a few months later.
> The 300 is dead. One only has to look at the depreciation of these
> toadmobiles to know. Another zero..the "Charger", as well as the
> panned Caliber, which is not selling well at all due to bad design and
> quality gaffes.
>

Charger is outselling 300 so far this year:
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...01/046193.html

> >Mr. Zetsche, rewarded in January 2006 with the top job at then
> >DaimlerChrysler, had already cleaned things up at Chrysler the way a
> >financially oriented new owner like Cerberus might do it. Perhaps Mr.
> >Feinberg and his colleagues can push even further, persuading the union
> >to accept give-ups, but it will have to overcome a natural suspicion at
> >Solidarity House, UAW headquarters, of financial hotshots with a Park
> >Avenue business address. To the UAW, Cerberus has deep pockets, a
> >situation much different from 1979-80, when Chrysler was a stand-alone
> >entity and could not survive without union help. <snip>
>
> The UAW will have to tell Snow to shove it. There will be no major
> "give-ups." Those days are over, and Labor is tired of fat cat
> private equities like Cerberus crying poor mouth when they sit on
> billions of cash in some very right wing pockets. When Iacocca
> negotiated cuts from UAW in the '80s, he did it from a position of
> poverty, and UAW's Doug Fraser knew it. Iacocca told the bargaining
> committee that he had "lots of jobs at $17, but I haven't got any at
> $20." Fraser knew Iacocca was honest and reliable, and decided to
> join in Chrysler's rehabilitation. This isn't the case now. Right
> wing fruitcakes like Snow will look at that '80s episode as a sign of
> weakness and will try to pin all of Chrysler Group's troubles on
> labor, just as GM and Ford have tried to do. Ain't gonna work this
> time.
>
> >There's the rub: What even Dieter Zetsche could not accomplish was the
> >mysterious feat of generating hit products. And hitmakers are hard to
> >find. Cerberus has brought aboard a well-known auto industry ronin,
> >Wolfgang Bernhard, as an advisor, but Mr. Bernhard, Chrysler COO from
> >2000 to 2004, was on the bridge with Mr. Zetsche not when the company
> >was generating hits, but rather when it wasn't. <snip>
>
> Bernhardt (correct spelling; again, the WSJ couldn't report the
> temperature correctly) is a major mistake. He's responsible for the
> ghettomobile 300 and the now-failing Caliber and "Charger" as well as
> other screw-ups. Snow got him on board mainly because Snow doesn't
> know crap about the car biz, and Dr. Z probably sold Bernardt to him
> to get rid of him from D-B.
>
> >Cerberus, too, is taking on serious downside risk. Chrysler's physical
> >assets are essentially worthless because no one else will want them,
> >and its marketplace equity is modest at best. The Dodge and Chrysler
> >brands have only slight cachet although Jeep remains relatively iconic.
> >How long it will remain iconic is questionable. The company has been
> >endeavoring to exploit the brand, flooding its product line with
> >dubious and slow-selling new variants. <snip>
>
> If the "Dodge Nitro" is any example, they will fail at this. My local
> (D)C dealer cannot sell "Nitros" even with $3000 spiffs.
>

25,000 sales so far this year isn't peanuts.

> >Unloading 80% of Chrysler is almost certainly a good deal for Daimler.
> >Smart and resourceful as the Cerberus principals may be <snip>
>
> ROFLMAO!!! Snow?? Quayle? These are Republipedo Party silver
> spooned dumbasses! Snow almost tanked CSX and Quayle...well, all
> anyone has to do in research there is listen to some of his "speehes"
> and read some of his Bush-like scribblings to know what's going on
> there...another born-rich, dyslexic moron á la George Dubya Bush, with
> no credentials at all except those bestowed upon him by other
> Republipedoes and the WSJ.
>
> The WSJ has no credibility writing about Chrysler at all. All you
> have to do is dig up all those anti-loan-guarantee articles they wrote
> back in '79, '80 and '81 to see that these Wall St. shills are just
> that...shills. A perfect takeover target for a right wing whack job
> like Rupert Murdoch, sure, but any business/financial sagacity?
> Fahgetddaboutit. Remember, it was the WSJ's editorial statements that
> said over and over that Chrysler under Iacocca would fail and the
> cadaver should have been divied up among all the banks holding
> Chrysler Corporation's debt. WSJ also was guilty of false reporting
> even then, repeatedly writing that the Federal loan guarantees were a
> "giveaway." Nothing could've been further from the truth. They
> pulled the same stunt during the Conrail reorganization, and cheered
> when Snow made a severely undervalued bid, championed by "Newt The
> Galoot" Gingrich in the House, to get CR's assets for pennies on the
> taxpayer's dollar.