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.
I recall back in January of 1994 while watching the Super bowl my wife and I saw a commercial for the New Neon. The cab forward design and powerful engine helped bring us into the show room to see one. My wife and I were both in college and needed new cars. We test drove the care and my wife loved it. My parents owned a Chrysler 1973 Furry 3 and had nothing but problems with it. For their experience I was not ready to purchase a Chrysler product. My wife leased the car in February of 1994 and during the entire lease the car had one problem after another. I opted for a 1994 Mitsubishi Mirage a few months later because I thought the Neon was a piece of junk. When the car had less than 26k miles it began to drip oil. The dealership told us it needed a head gasket. It was in the shop with several other Neons with the same problem.
We were happy when the car went back in 1997. You would think that Chrysler would produce a good entry level car for young people to get them hooked on their cars. They did the opposite. The made a crummy car and spent millions on adverting. We never did buy another Chrysler.
I'm not here just to defend Chrysler, BUT, the Detroit 3 have improved their quality over the years and you can't deny that.
Do I think that Chrysler made the correct business decisions over the past 10,20,30 years...absolutely not. Especially the people that have been running the company lately. When Daimler-Benz bought Chrysler in 1998 although they were a healthy company, with profits coming in. When Daimler AG split from Chrysler in 2007 they left them high and dry. It was actually pretty sad what they had done to a well to do company just a decade before.
Cerberus (in my opinion) has not been running the company very well either. They didn't really know what they were getting themselves into when they took on Chrysler in 2007.
Chrysler, although, has not "failed" as some would say. This bankruptcy is just a new way that they can re-organize, hopefully with some better leadership. And the Fiat-Chrysler alliance will actually work. The only thing that concerns me now is that Chrysler will be 55% owned by the UAW. Kind of odd if you ask me...
You may be too young to remember that Chrysler has failed before and the government stepped in to save the company some 30 years ago. My Dad owned a 68 Dart that was a fairly reliable car, but the 83 and 85 Omni's we owned were nothing but crap and like OP had numerous problems and were in the shop a lot. We traded them in for a Honda; vowing never ever to give Chrysler any of our money again. Guess what; that Honda ran just like it was supposed to and rarely saw the shop floor after we bought it. I will never again buy a Chrysler product.
You may be too young to remember that Chrysler has failed before and the government stepped in to save the company some 30 years ago. My Dad owned a 68 Dart that was a fairly reliable car, but the 83 and 85 Omni's we owned were nothing but crap and like OP had numerous problems and were in the shop a lot. We traded them in for a Honda; vowing never ever to give Chrysler any of our money again. Guess what; that Honda ran just like it was supposed to and rarely saw the shop floor after we bought it. I will never again buy a Chrysler product.
I remember it being 1980 when they failed. I was 14 years old and it was in the middle of the second enery crisis. Chrysler kept build huge cars like the Newports and New Yorker 5th ave. which got 12 miles a gallon and were not very well made. Seems they never learned their lesson.
I remember it being 1980 when they failed. I was 14 years old and it was in the middle of the second enery crisis. Chrysler kept build huge cars like the Newports and New Yorker 5th ave. which got 12 miles a gallon and were not very well made. Seems they never learned their lesson.
Yes, it was. I remember it well. Having just turned 20 I found a job working on the Dodge ad campaign. Boss sent a bunch of us out into the field to see if the dealer's wanted to sell cars. My research showed they didn't. I'll give someone a cookie if they know which ad agency it was.
I'm not here just to defend Chrysler, BUT, the Detroit 3 have improved their quality over the years and you can't deny that.
My wife has a Ford and I have a Japanese import. I agree that Ford and GM have improved their quality over what it was 10 - 20 years ago. Chrysler on the other hand...nope.
I went to the recent auto show and checked out the Jeep, Dodge, and Chrysler models. Cheap plastic interiors on just about all of their vehicles....cheap plastic parts on the Jeep exteriors. Square fitting and junky parts that fit together unevenly.
My wife loves her Ford, and I had an Explorer for 10 years that I loved, but other than an occasional Ford, it's been Japanese designed vehicles for me.
GM & Ford have made HUGE steps in making their cars more competitve. Chrysler has tried, and while it has succeeded in some areas, it's failed in others. Chrysler has a reputation for making desirable cars but letting them fail, IMO.
For one, let's take a look at the PT Cruiser. When it came out, it seemed a lot of people wanted this retro wagon, and it sold well. Chrysler failed to make any significant updates to the model, and it went from a desirable car to a car people could no longer stand.
An area where Chrysler still succeeds is the large car. The 300/Charger twins were selling extremely well when gas was cheaper. On top of that, they had little to no competition. The current Taurus was nowhere are near as desirable as a Charger. Even the G8 failed to catch up to the sales of the Charger/300 twins, despite having better pricing and stronger engines.
Chrysler fails miserably when it comes to fuel economy as we all know. Their "fuel efficient" Magnum only achieves 30 mpg on the highway. That's a respectable number, but when compared to other companies (Chevy Cobalt, Ford Focus, Honda Civic, etc), it's really nothing special.
Compared to nearly all other automakers, Chrysler's interiors contain an exorbitant amount of plastic. Not only is it plastic, but it is hard plastic. If Chrysler would have upped the interiors of their cars, they probably would sell better and bring in more profits.
Interior quality is not the only place where Chrysler lags; they also lag on exterior execution. Maybe I'm the only one that notices this, but in Europe the Grand Cherokee's tail lights look much better than the American version. They have designated turning signals (as in the stop light and turning light aren't the same). Chrysler seems to merge the brake light and turning light on over 75% of it's lineup. I know this is probably being a little picky, but what's so hard about having one light designated for breaking, and the other for turning? Not only is it safer for drivers, but also it makes the car more attractive.
Chrysler vehicles lag behind in reliability, which gives Chrysler the undesirable reputation of having some of the worst reliability around. I've never owned a Chrysler vehicle so I can't comment on this statement, but I can comment that if they want their vehicles to appeal to a wide range of customers, they definitely have to up their reliability ratings.
Chrysler also failed due to their extreme reliability on SUV & Pickup sales. Jeep's entire line is SUVs. The Ram was Dodge's best selling automobile. Even the Chrysler brand had an SUV, which was basically a slightly more upscale Durango. They put so much of their resources into SUVs, they had little left over for their aging sedans.
Despite the flaws, there are glimmers of hope for Chrysler, including the Fiat merge. The 2011 Grand Cherokee looks also very competitive, but it seems to be a nice SUV at a time when companies are moving toward smaller, more fuel efficient cars and Crossover/SUVs. And at 16/23 for the V6, it's not very efficient. Sure, it's an improvement over the outgoing model, but not a very big one, especially considering how Chrysler kept touting the new Phoenix V6 engine.
As stated above, I'm not really wondering why Chrysler failed. What I do wonder, however, is if they can succeed after this bankruptcy.
In the last 20 years, I've owned a Dodge Daytona (bought used) and a Dodge Neon (bought new) and I will NEVER purchase a Chystler product ever, ever again. The Daytona was ok, but had transaxle problems over and over again. The Neon was great for the first 20K miles, but then the paint started peeling off, to which my dealer told me was not covered under any warranty at all. At about 30K, we started overheating and burning oil - the first of three head gaskets. The car was JUNK! I was never happier than the day we got rid of it. I replaced it with a Ford Taurus, and it's been a great car - so good that we now have two of them. I'm a Ford man now, and while I empathize with all Chrystler workers who face job losses, I won't miss their cars.
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.
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.
