Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems that you have a personal attachment to Chrysler but the fact of the matter shows that Chrysler has a repeat history (a long one) of poor leadership which in turn produces a poor company. We can place blame on Eaton, on Daimler, on Cerberus and anyone else along the way and it won't change the fact that for whatever reason, Chrysler has been producing some awful cars for a very long time (with the very occasional stroke of genius shining through). I agree that proper leadership is necessary to allow the engineers to design great products and stupid people don't become engineers, but making excuses (whatever they are) can make for an interesting story as to how they failed but it wont change the fact that they failed.
Of course they failed. My argument is that it was externally-induced. And Lee Iacocca was not a poor leader. Yes, he appointed one in Robert Eaton, but he himself was not.
I'll say this: I'm much more encouraged by Sergio Marchionne than I ever was about Juergen Schrempp.
[quote=Gnutella;13729887]No excuses. Just facts[quote].
"Facts" from a Chrysler engineer.
People stay away from buying Chrysler products, that is a fact, supported by the sales numbers.
You may not like it, but it is true.
I actually liked the Neon, sorta. As someone else said, they should have just refined it ('cause that is what it needed) instead of turning it into the monstrosity that is the Caliber.
I remember in the 90s Chrysler has it going on, they were actually selling cars people liked
Daimler really did screw things up. IMO. I am really hoping that all the US Auto makers can begin to sell cars and start turning some serious profits again
Back in the late 90s Chrysler had some great cars
the 300M
Concorde
LHS
Sebring
Town and Country/Caravan/Voyager
Cirrus/Stratus/Breeze
Every Jeep product
The latest Sebring is UGLY, and slow. The avenger is slow but it is better looking, and the Avenger R/T with the 3.5 V6 can kick some real butt
I dont like the Caliber personally, it looks funny
The Pentastar engines hold a lot of promise for chrysler and I really hope they are a success
Diamer took over chrysler becuase it was having problems back then too. Bascailly its been on the ropes for years.It had a case of the same thing as GM and Ford but much worse sales figures.They are going after ford in the fleet market and fro talking to out police chief Ford is going to have a problem matching the price they are selling at;has he said they were much cheaper than ford on fleets.Theyuse to be strong on fleet but many quit buying because of probelms that lead to law suits.
Diamer took over chrysler becuase it was having problems back then too.
Bull****. Chrysler was the most profitable automaker in the world per vehicle sold during a period from 1994 through 1998, when Daimler took over. At one point they were earning $1B per quarter. No, not per year. PER QUARTER. They were so successful that unlike GM and Ford, whose market shares peaked in 1962 and 1961, respectively, Chrysler's market share peaked in 1996 -- and they were so profitable that they had up to $12B in cash reserves stashed away for a rainy day. Daimler didn't want to "save" anything other than their own asses from a takeover, which is why they seduced Robert Eaton into "merging" with them. Chrysler had the biggest treasure chest of any automaker, and when Daimler took over, they promptly wasted Chrysler's cash reserves on shares in Mitsubishi and Hyundai, plus buying Freightliner outright. This half-baked automotive empire that Daimler cobbled together with Chrysler's cash was done to make Daimler impervious to takeover by outside interests. Chrysler didn't need to be "saved" by anybody. They were doing just fine on their own, and the $1B quarterly profits and all-time market share peak in 1996 are proof of this.
It really was and it sure was better than the Caliber.
Any particular reason you know as to why they won't go through with the Imperial? I'm sure they'd have a limited pool of buyers, but just release it in limited numbers then. Honestly as much money as people put into mods on their 300s I just don't see why some wouldn't go with an Imperial especially when it's already got the bigger wheels. Suicide doors rock!
It really was and it sure was better than the Caliber.
Any particular reason you know as to why they won't go through with the Imperial? I'm sure they'd have a limited pool of buyers, but just release it in limited numbers then. Honestly as much money as people put into mods on their 300s I just don't see why some wouldn't go with an Imperial especially when it's already got the bigger wheels. Suicide doors rock!
Two reasons: 1) It was a Daimler-era styling exercise, and no longer fits the styling direction Chrysler wants to take now. 2) The concept had a relatively negative reception compared to other concepts around that time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iTsLiKeAnEgG
Why did they submit to a merger if it didn't make financial sense?
Because Robert Eaton got a golden parachute out of it. Besides, he was an "outsider" anyway, picked from GM by Lee Iacocca to be the new CEO, so he probably didn't have the same loyalty to the company that other guys like Bob Lutz, Tom Gale, Francois Castaing or Thomas Stallkamp had.
NOTE: Iacocca says in his book, Where Have All The Leaders Gone?, that appointing Eaton to be Chrysler's new CEO was the biggest mistake he'd ever made in his career.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.