Chrysler selling Viper as a brand

[r0tor]

or running a non shielded power cable right next to some shitty audio cable...

[Eye of the Tiger]

wrap it in grounded foil

[S204STi]

or running a non shielded power cable right next to some shitty audio cable...

The part where he says he can hear the engine revving up made me think spark plug wires first.

[FordSVT]

Probably, but Cerberus is being smart about it: breaking the product up into smaller, more manageable segments that may be within the financial reach of many more players. There are very few potential buyers for Chrysler as a whole, but Viper as a stand-alone package may garner lots of interest.

Look for Jeep Wranglers to be packaged next if this move is succesful.

At that point, just put a gun to Chrysler's head and get it over with.

Not that the marque can't be saved, but that the Wrangler alone probably has the best ptential of bringing interested parties to the bidding.

I think the Wrangler and JGC are the only two Jeeps that would have a chance of continuing onward under another automaker's stewardship. No one would be dying to have the Compass in their lineup.

[Nethead]

And people complain about GM? When they probably make the best vehicles out of all the American automakers? 

Of course they do!  How do you think they increased their 2008 market percentage to less than half what it was four decades ago?

[ifcar]

Of course they do!  How do you think they increased their 2008 market percentage to less than half what it was four decades ago?

And how many more automakers is the market split between now versus 1968?

[Nethead]

And how many more automakers is the market split between now versus 1968?

ifcar:   Eh???   The center of the auto marketplace today is made up of customers who want to buy the best vehicle they can get for the money they have to spend, and it has nothing to do with how many manufacturers are in the marketplace since the vehicle they actually buy will be made by only one of them.

Now, "best" varies from customer to customer--some want the performance of a GT500, others want the roominess of a Charger, and still others value hauling & towing capability so they might go for an F-Series.  Whatever...

They're all free to buy a GM vehicle, but fewer than half of them choose a GM vehicle than chose a GM vehicle four decades ago.  You  never  hear any of them say something like "I meant to buy a GM vehicle but I got confused by all the different automakers to choose from and bought a Nissan Altima by mistake!   My bad!" 

[SVT666]

ifcar:  What?    The center of the auto marketplace today is made up of customers who want to buy the best vehicle they can get for the money they have to spend, and it has nothing to do with how many manufacturers are in the marketplace since the vehicle they actually buy will be made by only one of them.

Now, "best" varies from customer to customer--some want the speed of a Veyron, some want the economy of a Smart, and millions are somewhere in between.  Some value room, so they might go for a Sprinter.  Others value hauling & towing capability, so they might go for a Super Duty.  Some want an affordable mix of capabilities, so they might go for a Corolla.

They're all free to buy a GM vehicle, but fewer than half of them choose a GM vehicle than chose a GM vehicle four decades ago.  You never hear any of them say something like "I meant to buy a GM vehicle but I got confused by all the different automakers to choose from and bought a Nissan Altima by mistake!  My bad!" 

Perception is reality...right or wrong.

[Nethead]

Perception is reality...right or wrong.

HEMI666:  Note that I changed my previous posting from that which you quoted so that it used examples of vehicles that are for sale today that were also for sale in 1968 so as not to be guilty of comparing apples to oranges...

[ifcar]

Obviously, when there are more choices, it's much more difficult to maintain the same market share. It's unrealistic to expect otherwise, regardless of how good the product is. No one is close to GM's market share from 40 years ago because the customers are split in so many more ways now than then.

[FordSVT]

ifcar:   Eh???   The center of the auto marketplace today is made up of customers who want to buy the best vehicle they can get for the money they have to spend, and it has nothing to do with how many manufacturers are in the marketplace since the vehicle they actually buy will be made by only one of them.

Now, "best" varies from customer to customer--some want the performance of a GT500, others want the roominess of a Charger, and still others value hauling & towing capability so they might go for an F-Series.  Whatever...

They're all free to buy a GM vehicle, but fewer than half of them choose a GM vehicle than chose a GM vehicle four decades ago.  You  never  hear any of them say something like "I meant to buy a GM vehicle but I got confused by all the different automakers to choose from and bought a Nissan Altima by mistake!   My bad!" 

Let us explain this to you simply, because I know you already know this.

Pretend there is only one automotive manufacturer (GM) and they sell 100,000 cars a year and they have 100% of the market place. The next year, another manufacturer comes to market, and while GM's sales actually increased to 110,000 cars, the new manufacturer managed to sell 5,000 cars. GM's marketshare has decreased to 95%. In the 50s, it was pretty much GM, Ford, Chrysler and American, the Japanese makers were a blip on the foreign radar. There are now more than 20 automotive groups selling cars in the US. Even if GM was profitable, healthy, and still the number one seller, their market couldn't possibly be more than 20-25% unless the other car makers were absolutely terrible (in which case they wouldn't be around).

That is why it's largely irrelevant to compare GM's market share in 2008 to what it had in 1958; even if they were selling more cars now than ever it would still be a fraction of what it used to. Ten year and five year and year to year comparisons are useful, but who gives a shit about the market 40 years ago? It's mostly just tossed around to make GM's position feel worse than it is.

Not that their position is good, it's obviously not.

[Nethead]

Let us explain this to you simply, because I know you already know this.

Pretend there is only one automotive manufacturer (GM) and they sell 100,000 cars a year and they have 100% of the market place. The next year, another manufacturer comes to market, and while GM's sales actually increased to 110,000 cars, the new manufacturer managed to sell 5,000 cars. GM's marketshare has decreased to 95%. In the 50s, it was pretty much GM, Ford, Chrysler and American, the Japanese makers were a blip on the foreign radar. There are now more than 20 automotive groups selling cars in the US. Even if GM was profitable, healthy, and still the number one seller, their market couldn't possibly be more than 20-25% unless the other car makers were absolutely terrible (in which case they wouldn't be around).

That is why it's largely irrelevant to compare GM's market share in 2008 to what it had in 1958; even if they were selling more cars now than ever it would still be a fraction of what it used to. Ten year and five year and year to year comparisons are useful, but who gives a shit about the market 40 years ago? It's mostly just tossed around to make GM's position feel worse than it is.

Not that their position is good, it's obviously not.

FordSVT & ifcar:  You know, you guys coulda had huge salaries on the boards of the Big Three forty years ago!  By this---ummm, errr--Sarah Palin logic, Toyota's marketshare in 1968 (Two percent?  Four percent?) could only have gone down (which history proves to us that it did, of course) as the four domestic manufacturers and the other import manufacturers of 1968 increased their models and expanded their offerings into new markets. 

Before the next forty years pass, Toyota will surely have over 52 percent of the US marketplace--the marketplace share GM had forty years ago.  Most would bet that Toyota will pass that 52 percent in less than twenty years, and the recent collapse in sales of the three remaining domestic manufacturers (if Chrysler is actually a "domestic manufacturer" now that it's owned by a Canadian corporation) makes less than ten years more probable--and five years is no longer a preposterous prognostication at all (if Toyota has the factories to produce that many vehicles by 2014)...

As I posted earlier, the customers will buy the best vehicle they can get for the money they have to spend in the majority of cases.  I saw this happen when I was a bowtie diehard selling Chevies for a living at the time GM had 52 percent of the US market.  The savvier the automotive buying public became, the tougher our jobs became.  And the headlines of every newscast & newspaper show it's gettin' tougher every day...

[SVT666]

FordSVT & ifcar:  You know, you guys coulda had huge salaries on the boards of the Big Three forty years ago!  By this---ummm, errr--Sarah Palin logic, Toyota's marketshare in 1968 (Two percent?  Four percent?) could only have gone down (which history proves to us that it did, of course) as the four domestic manufacturers and the other import manufacturers of 1968 increased their model numbers and expanded their offerings into new markets. 

Before the next forty years pass, Toyota will surely have over 52 percent of the US marketplace--the marketplace share GM had forty years ago.  Most would bet that Toyota will pass that 52 percent in less than twenty years, and the recent collapse in sales of the three remaining domestic manufacturers (if Chrysler is actually a "domestic manufacturer" now that it's owned by a Canadian corporation) makes less than ten years more probable and five years is no longer a preposterous prognostication at all (if Toyota has the factories to produce that many vehicles by 2014)...

As I posted earlier, the customers will buy (to be continued)

I see your point, but at the same time Toyota's 2% was when Toyota was in their infancy in NA.  The big dogs have only one direction to go, and if the little guys have only one way to go.  It's expected, but now it has everything to do with perception.  GM and Ford make damn fine cars, but the public doesn't perceive it to be true.  I know lots of people who refuse to buy domestics and will only buy imports.    When asked, their answer is, "The domestics aren't reliable".  Who's fault is that?  Obviously it's GM and Ford's fault, but the public still ain't buying what they are sellin'.

[ifcar]

Toyota isn't going to get 52% of the U.S. marketshare. There are too many other strong competitors, foreign and domestic alike, and China hasn't even started coming in yet. (Within 40 years, they'll be a strong presence here.) And even with the "collapse" of Big Three sales and Toyota's until-just-now surge, GM is still the top seller in the US.

Of course Toyota market share increased from 1968, it wasn't established then the way the Big Three were. It's established now. It's the up-and-comers with low or zero US market share that will make the difference in the next 40 years, not the ones that are already big.

[Nethead]

Toyota isn't going to get 52% of the U.S. marketshare. There are too many other strong competitors, foreign and domestic alike, and China hasn't even started coming in yet. (Within 40 years, they'll be a strong presence here.) And even with the "collapse" of Big Three sales and Toyota's until-just-now surge, GM is still the top seller in the US.

Of course Toyota market share increased from 1968, it wasn't established then the way the Big Three were. It's established now. It's the up-and-comers with low or zero US market share that will make the difference in the next 40 years, not the ones that are already big.

ifcar:  If GM has not been overtaken in the US by Toyota in 2008, it is only because of the massive discounts offered by GM.  Where does that lead?  Near-term bankruptcy?  Selling off of assets or product lines?  Negotiating buy-outs?  Becoming a front for imported cars re-badged to your product lines?  Shifting production overseas? 

Sure, Chinese automobiles and Indian automobiles may have a future here--the customers will buy the best cars they can get for the money they have to spend, and if those cars are Chinese or Indian then the Japanese may have some real competition that they have only had from each other for what seems like decades now. 

However, Toyota is in the position of building cars that customers trust--an excellent position to have--and they have the bigness and $$$ to pretty much double their marketshare directly as Toyotas or indirectly as Toyota products re-badged to other brand names--Lexus, Scion, and even Geo Prism, for example.  The eight hundred pound gorilla sleeps wherever the Hell it wants...

Not only that, but in today's world everything has dominoed Toyota's way--the quest for miserly fuel consumption just plays into the hands of the world leader in practical small vehicle manufacturing.  The quest for successful alternative fuel vehicles requires intense and expensive research to make the breakthroughs needed to design alternative fuel vehicles that are reasonably priced, reliable, practical to operate, and desirable to own--who's in a better position to fund the lion's share of that research if not the most profitable automobile manufacturer on the planet? 

Only protectionist legislation could prevent Toyota (or Toyota products marketed under other brand names) from commanding over fifty percent of the US market, the question is whether it will be soon or sooner...Barring that, affordability might have an impact--Toyota may decide that they don't want to bother with the "sub-subcompact market" (Tata Nanos, Smarts, whatever...) because the profit margins are too thin to spend big bucks to get them when they've had such huge success with higher-profit-margin subcompacts, compacts, and midsized vehicles.   

[ifcar]

Toyota is in the same situation GM was in in 1968. Why are you so confident their fortune will be so drastically different?

[FordSVT]

^I completely disagree with you Nethead, I don't think it's possible for any one car company to command more than 35% of the market.

I'd also like to point out that Toyota quality has been declining in recent years, trending with their sales increases. Who's to say their reputation of quality will last forever? All it might take is a few big, dangerous recalls on mainstream cars like Camry and Corolla (that actually receive press coverage) and all of the sudden Joe Public has it stuck in his mind that "Toyota's aren't what they used to be," and asking "You're buying a used Toyota? Is it made before 2010?".

Nothing is guaranteed, but you're really pressing things if you think Toyota is going to get 50% of the market. And,contrary to popular belief, I'd put money down that both Ford and GM will be around in the future. They might be smaller, but I think they'll still be here. There is a certain amount of insurance that comes with being such a big company with so many physical assets and employees, and neither Ford nor GM are doing poorly outside of America. In fact, I believe GM sells more cars in China than any other company. I know they happen to sell more Buicks in China than they do in the USA, the Chinese like their Buicks.

[Nethead]

^I completely disagree with you Nethead, I don't think it's possible for any one car company to command more than 35% of the market.

I'd also like to point out that Toyota quality has been declining in recent years, trending with their sales increases. Who's to say their reputation of quality will last forever? All it might take is a few big, dangerous recalls on mainstream cars like Camry and Corolla (that actually receive press coverage) and all of the sudden Joe Public has it stuck in his mind that "Toyota's aren't what they used to be," and asking "You're buying a used Toyota? Is it made before 2010?".

Nothing is guaranteed, but you're really pressing things if you think Toyota is going to get 50% of the market. And,contrary to popular belief, I'd put money down that both Ford and GM will be around in the future. They might be smaller, but I think they'll still be here. There is a certain amount of insurance that comes with being such a big company with so many physical assets and employees, and neither Ford nor GM are doing poorly outside of America. In fact, I believe GM sells more cars in China than any other company. I know they happen to sell more Buicks in China than they do in the USA, the Chinese like their Buicks.

FordSVT:  It's a complicated picture--too complicated to explain the full dynamics in a web posting.  There's no law that limits marketshare to thirty-five percent or less, so Toyota will probably cruise above 35 percent soon, or else really soon.  The only thing holding Toyota back is competition from Honda--if Honda quit selling cars in the US tomorrow, probably over ninety percent of Honda owners would pop for Toyotas whenever they trade in their current Hondas.  Not that Honda is quitting the US market--far from it--but that shows you what a huge latent market there is for Toyotas in this country.  (The WifeDude and the Nethead here shopped Corollas back in '03, but liked Sentras better because the Corollas had relatively tight interior space.  If Nissan hadn't tried to rip us off for an extra $351 after a sale price was agreed upon, we would never have looked at Focuses--we bought our first one then and have bought two more Focuses since).  If the Corolla had been a few more interior inches here & there, we probably would not have cross-shopped the Sentra and we'd have a Toyota today.  So we're part of Toyota's latent market, too, although we are open-minded about other makes if they offer better vehicles for the money. 

But I digress...Reliability is big with us, as is value.  The Toyota Sienna is the best minivan in the world today for sure, but we've owned a Grand Caravan and two Windstars although the Siennas were better than either of these--but not $9,000 better, which is the sticker difference between these domestic minivans and Siennas in our area.  That difference is $9,000 we saved every time we passed on Siennas!  Passing twice on Siennas saved us enough to buy a Grand Caravan or a Windstar with just the money we saved from passing on the Siennas!

You are correct that Toyota could lose their quality reputation they once had--as has Mercedes-Benz.  It would take a long, long quality decline to get down to, say, GM's quality reputation--back in early '07 an extensive owner survey found GM vehicles having the same level of problems at three years after the sale that Toyota vehicles don't have until eight years after the sale.  You and I both know that Toyota ain't gonna slip that much--and they didn't slip at all until they moved a lot of assembly to US factories.  'Same for Nissan--they had great quality reps while imported fully-assembled from Japan. 

Will Ford and GM be around in the future?  Have you written off Chrysler already?  They're the shakiest, for sure, but Chrysler is the master of niche vehicles.  That may not generate enough unit sales to sustain them in these austere times, but then again they might survive as a low-volume niche manufacturer where GM and likely Ford could not.  GM is running out of operating capital fast--massive discounts to move the products are taking a toll that could have GM in Chapter 11 within a year from now at the current rate of losses.  No one wants to buy their domestic product lines (it would be hard to even give away Hummer) although their foreign product lines--Saab, Opel, Asian makes--might sell well.  Ford has operating capital, but most of that was raised by selling capital assets (some product lines, factories, and the like) so there's nothing there to fall back upon if the sales of automobiles don't happen.  No one wants Lincoln or Mercury, and I am shocked that anyone was stupid enough to buy the money pit black hole that is Jaguar.  Ford's European product lines could sell very well, but that's the last ace Ford has in its hand.  To Ford's credit, they've done the best job of getting their manufacting capacity in line with their realistic sales volume in hard times.  And, too, they have the most modernized domestic product lines in the competitive markets (the Crown Vic is a relic, to be sure, but it's not a model in a particularly competitive market so it'll probably linger on as long as its sales can cover its costs to the company). And Ford leads the domestics solidly in reliability--a good thing, to be sure, but hardly something that will have multitudes swamping their dealerships...

What happens if GM and Ford file Chapter 11?  Your guess is as good as mine.  A lot might hinge on some sorta bail-out, but I can't see either political party trying to hustle up public support for such an action.  Everyone smart knows that the domestic industry created their own problems, and would vote out any politician guilty of foisting a domestic auto industry bail-out cost on the public.  Many incumbents may get the axe for the Wall Street bail-out so the remaining incumbents are running scared--and should be!  GM could slip further into badge engineering--perhaps selling GM sheetmetal on imported chasses and powertrains (Honda would be the likely provider) as opposed to rebadging Aussie and Asian models with domestic GM nameplates across the board.  Ford of the US might become the marketing entity for Ford of Europe products and have only a limited manufacturing capacity within the US--if vehicles the size/weight/mileage of the F-Series can still bring in the bucks.  These are last ditch desperation scenarios, of course, but both companies know that last ditch desperation looms closer today than it has since The Great Depression (which at least had plentiful cheap gasoline if anyone had money to buy it--an advantage not available today).

Gloomy?  Yes.  Inevitable?  Maybe...   

[sandertheshark]

Does this mean no more Ram SRT-10s? 

[Raza]

Does this mean no more Ram SRT-10s? 

One can only hope.  But probably not; although the economic climate might.

[Nethead]

So what's the latest on the sale of the Viper product line?

Schadenfreude:  To wrap up and close-out the off-topic discussion initiated by your posting:
"And people complain about GM? When they probably make the best vehicles out of all the American automakers?"

Auto News

Ford Quality: Dead Heat With Honda And Toyota

Staff Report

New independent study shows dramatic improvements .

10-13-08: There is good news sometimes, and right now it is a welcome breath of fresh air. This week, an independent study shows that Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles continue their quality gains, collectively improving for the fourth straight year and moving into a virtual tie with Honda-Acura and Toyota-Lexus-Scion for the 2008 model year.

The independent  U.S. Global Quality Research System  (GQRS) study says that the Ford F-Series Super Duty and Lincoln Mark LT rank atop their respective segments with fewest ?things gone wrong? (TGW) and in customer satisfaction. Ford Mustang GT500 had the least number of TGW among sports cars.

Overall, 18 of 24 Ford domestic brand vehicles posted TGW improvements, including the hot-selling Ford Focus, which matched the Toyota Corolla. The Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan are significantly better in TGW than the Toyota Camry, which they tied in customer satisfaction. That is pretty heady company when it comes to quality.

?This is One Ford at its best. It's taken thousands of people continuously working together with laser-like focus every day to boost vehicle quality for our customers to the top of the pack,? said Bennie Fowler, Ford group vice president, Global Quality. ?But this is a never-ending journey. The goal now is to distance ourselves from our top competitors. We want to be the sole quality leader."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------








 

[Tave]

What does any of that have to do with the Viper?

[Nethead]

What does any of that have to do with the Viper?

Tave:  'Don't really know...Schadenfreude brought it up earlier in the thread--see the quote in the posting preceding this one.  Maybe there's a clue further upstream of his "And people complain about GM..." quote.

[Lebowski]

It's a "halo car", and will now have nothing attached to it to benefit from this "halo".

Does the Viper make money on a stand alone basis (i.e. without counting any "halo" value)?  Doubtful.

And nobody can get financing to buy real businesses right now, let alone just a brand.

They won't get shit for it.  My guess is the Viper, as we know it, is dead.

[Soup DeVille]

I met a man yesterday that works for Eaton and closely with Chrysler.

He says that the Crossfire and Prowler will also likely be branded and sold off seperately, if anybody wants to buy them.

[the Teuton]

I met a man yesterday that works for Eaton and closely with Chrysler.

He says that the Crossfire and Prowler will also likely be branded and sold off seperately, if anybody wants to buy them.

They're both out of production.  Who would want them?  They're worth about as much as Avanti at this point.

[Soup DeVille]

They're both out of production.  Who would want them?  They're worth about as much as Avanti at this point.

I'm assuming they still have most fo the tooling and of course the intellectual rights.

Besides, Avanti still makes money.

[Raza]

They're both out of production.  Who would want them?  They're worth about as much as Avanti at this point.

If the Prowler came with a stick, it would be so high on my list of sports cars to buy I couldn't think of anything to knock it off the top. 

[280Z Turbo]

If the Prowler came with a stick, it would be so high on my list of sports cars to buy I couldn't think of anything to knock it off the top. 

You're just a bellhousing adapter away from perfection.

[Raza]

You're just a bellhousing adapter away from perfection.

I've just got to find one that isn't priced at more than its original sticker...damn, these things are unjustifiably expensive on the used markets, with modified ones going as high as 70K!

EDIT:  Wait, are there common manual transmission swap kits out there?