Chrysler: Thanks, America. America: Screw You!

[cawimmer430]

Do most people even know about this baillout?

Ask that question to a typical M-TV generation kid. They can tell you all about those shit shows on M-TV but will frown at you when you ask them about the "big bailout". 

[S204STi]

I wish there was still an AMC Eagle off-road wagon still around. 

There is... it's called Subaru.

Chrysler is like an ailing old man.  Due to die anytime but the doctors keep prolonging the agony.

[dazzleman]

Yup!

Seriously, at school I don't have a TV or get the newspaper...

Seriously, you need to grow up a little bit.  Part of your education should be to obtain a better awareness of what is going on in the larger world.  If you're approaching graduation trying to get a job, and you have no clue of what is going on in the world, it's going to seriously hamper you.  Get a clue, man.

[dazzleman]

Chrysler is done.  It's only a matter now of giving it a controlled death, rather than an uncontrolled death.  It can't be saved.

GM is iffy.  It could maybe be saved, but the hour is very, very late.

This whole stupid bailout of this industry was approved because (1) Bush didn't want the collapse on his watch; and (2) the administration doesn't think the economy can take another shock right now.

Maybe they're right, but we're going to waste a lot of money to get the same inevitable result that would have happened in any case.

Chrysler will end up going into receivership and being sold off, and will cease to exist as a company going forward.  GM will also go bankrupt, IMO, but there's a chance that it may emerge as a smaller firm.  Ford may limp along and survive, and could benefit from the demise of Chrysler.

We should have let Chrysler go in 1979.  Propping up failing companies doesn't work out in the long run.  The rest of the Big 3 would have been better off today if Chrysler had been culled out 30 years ago.

[ifcar]

We should have let Chrysler go in 1979.  Propping up failing companies doesn't work out in the long run.  The rest of the Big 3 would have been better off today if Chrysler had been culled out 30 years ago.

Chrysler is collapsing because so many of its current and recent products are and have been so bad. The fact that they haven't had popular compact or midsize sedans in years is irrelevant to the 1979 loans.

[dazzleman]

Chrysler is collapsing because so many of its current and recent products are and have been so bad. The fact that they haven't had popular compact or midsize sedans in years is irrelevant to the 1979 loans.

In an immediate sense, yes, but in a broader sense, no.  They're fallen into the same trap they did then.  You could have said the same thing you just said about them now back in 1979.

[ifcar]

In an immediate sense, yes, but in a broader sense, no.  They're fallen into the same trap they did then.  You could have said the same thing you just said about them now back in 1979.

In 1979 they had the means to make new, relatively modern, and highly popular products, and did so. That's not the case now.

It was Daimler that put them in their current situation.

[cawimmer430]

Chrysler needs to go back to the good old ways starting with advertisements like this. It should work! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLYXMjOGtVM

[dazzleman]

In 1979 they had the means to make new, relatively modern, and highly popular products, and did so. That's not the case now.

It was Daimler that put them in their current situation.

Could you elaborate on your last statement?  I always wondered what Daimler got out of the relationship with Chrysler.

As for making new, modern and popular products in 1979, I guess that means the K-Car.  That only shows how low standard were at that time.

[SVT666]

Could you elaborate on your last statement?  I always wondered what Daimler got out of the relationship with Chrysler.

As for making new, modern and popular products in 1979, I guess that means the K-Car.  That only shows how low standard were at that time.

What was wrong with the K-cars at the time?  They were cheap, reliable transportation.  In fact I still see a lot of them driving around after dealing with 15-27 years of Canadian winters.

[ifcar]

Could you elaborate on your last statement?  I always wondered what Daimler got out of the relationship with Chrysler.

As for making new, modern and popular products in 1979, I guess that means the K-Car.  That only shows how low standard were at that time.

It was modern in the sense that it was compact and front-wheel-drive. Plus the K-platform spawned the Caravan/Voyager.

Chrysler's biggest problem right now is that its products are almost all terrible, and Daimler was in charge at the time they were being developed. They apparently demanded cost-cutting that prevented viable cars from being produced.

[dazzleman]

What was wrong with the K-cars at the time?  They were cheap, reliable transportation.  In fact I still see a lot of them driving around after dealing with 15-27 years of Canadian winters.

There was nothing wrong with them at the time, because in that era, just about everything sucked, so they were right there with the competition.

[dazzleman]

It was modern in the sense that it was compact and front-wheel-drive. Plus the K-platform spawned the Caravan/Voyager.

Chrysler's biggest problem right now is that its products are almost all terrible, and Daimler was in charge at the time they were being developed. They apparently demanded cost-cutting that prevented viable cars from being produced.

I understand what you mean.  They probably did what the other Big 3 did, and milk the SUV craze.  That's the ironic thing -- the only viables lines they have right now were actually picked up from another failed manufacturer, AMC.

[ifcar]

I understand what you mean.  They probably did what the other Big 3 did, and milk the SUV craze.  That's the ironic thing -- the only viables lines they have right now were actually picked up from another failed manufacturer, AMC.

Chrysler didn't have a full-size SUV between the 1993 Ramcharger (2-door only and dating back nearly 20 years) and the 2004 Durango. It did well with Jeep and with the Ram pickup, but I'd never heard that its cars were unprofitable.

Contrast that to GM, which for years sold garbage Cavaliers at a loss to offset its trucks' gas mileage for CAFE.

[dazzleman]

Chrysler didn't have a full-size SUV between the 1993 Ramcharger (2-door only and dating back nearly 20 years) and the 2004 Durango. It did well with Jeep and with the Ram pickup, but I'd never heard that its cars were unprofitable.

Contrast that to GM, which for years sold garbage Cavaliers at a loss to offset its trucks' gas mileage for CAFE.

GM was/is the epitome of shortsightedness.

[MX793]

Chrysler didn't have a full-size SUV between the 1993 Ramcharger (2-door only and dating back nearly 20 years) and the 2004 Durango. It did well with Jeep and with the Ram pickup, but I'd never heard that its cars were unprofitable.

Contrast that to GM, which for years sold garbage Cavaliers at a loss to offset its trucks' gas mileage for CAFE.

Aren't there seperate CAFE averages for a company's truck and car fleets (as well as a distinction between models that are built domestically and those that are imported)?

[ifcar]

Aren't there seperate CAFE averages for a company's truck and car fleets (as well as a distinction between models that are built domestically and those that are imported)?

Hm, that may be. I remember talking with someone from NHTSA some years back about the Cavalier and CAFE; it must have been that it was offsetting larger cars.

[dazzleman]

Hm, that may be. I remember talking with someone from NHTSA some years back about the Cavalier and CAFE; it must have been that it was offsetting larger cars.

I had heard that the SUVs were built a certain way so that they could be considered trucks, and therefore subject to different standards, and so they wouldn't drag down the CAFE calculations for the firm.  SUVs have been portrayed as an unintended byproduct of the CAFE standards.

[MX793]

I had heard that the SUVs were built a certain way so that they could be considered trucks, and therefore subject to different standards, and so they wouldn't drag down the CAFE calculations for the firm.  SUVs have been portrayed as an unintended byproduct of the CAFE standards.

I don't think it even matters how they are constructed.  If the manufacturer can make a compelling enough argument that a vehicle is an SUV, then it gets classed as a light truck and included in their truck fleet average.  Case in point, the Dodge Magnum and Chrysler PT Cruiser are both classified as SUVs by the EPA for CAFE purposes.  I suspect Chevy got the HHR classified as an SUV as well, but I'm not positive.

[ifcar]

I don't think it even matters how they are constructed.  If the manufacturer can make a compelling enough argument that a vehicle is an SUV, then it gets classed as a light truck and included in their truck fleet average.  Case in point, the Dodge Magnum and Chrysler PT Cruiser are both classified as SUVs by the EPA for CAFE purposes.  I suspect Chevy got the HHR classified as an SUV as well, but I'm not positive.

The HHR is indeed classified as an SUV.

[the Teuton]

Dazzle, I disagree that Chrysler should have been let go in 1979.  After Iacocca took to the helm over there, the company thrived with innovative, cheap, and relatively reliable modern products.  Iacocca didn't like Bob Lutz and instead gave control of the company to Bob Eaton when he retired.  That's when the company went down the crapper.

If Eaton had never sold Chrysler in 1998, none of their problems would have ever happened.  Of course, that would imply that Lutz would have been president of Chrysler instead of Eaton because Eaton was a spineless bastard.

Iacocca cites this as one of the biggest mistakes he ever made, btw.

[dazzleman]

Dazzle, I disagree that Chrysler should have been let go in 1979.  After Iacocca took to the helm over there, the company thrived with innovative, cheap, and relatively reliable modern products.  Iacocca didn't like Bob Lutz and instead gave control of the company to Bob Eaton when he retired.  That's when the company went down the crapper.

If Eaton had never sold Chrysler in 1998, none of their problems would have ever happened.  Of course, that would imply that Lutz would have been president of Chrysler instead of Eaton because Eaton was a spineless bastard.

Iacocca cites this as one of the biggest mistakes he ever made, btw.

We'll never really know the right answer.  For a long time, Chrysler seemed like a success story, and maybe today's failures are irrelevant to their 1970s failures.  But sometimes bailing out a failing company has negative, unforseen consequences.  A capitalist economy is sort of like a forest -- you sometimes have to cull out the weak, stunted growth in order to make room for stronger growth to flourish.  If you worry about saving every tree, you end up with an overgrowth of weak trees.  I worry that our whole bailout mania right now is creating exactly that situation.

[Soup DeVille]

I don't think it even matters how they are constructed.  If the manufacturer can make a compelling enough argument that a vehicle is an SUV, then it gets classed as a light truck and included in their truck fleet average.  Case in point, the Dodge Magnum and Chrysler PT Cruiser are both classified as SUVs by the EPA for CAFE purposes.  I suspect Chevy got the HHR classified as an SUV as well, but I'm not positive.

Only the panel wagon version.

[ifcar]

Only the panel wagon version.

Not per fueleconomy.gov.

[hotrodalex]

Only the panel wagon version.

AKA the only version worth buying.

[Soup DeVille]

Not per fueleconomy.gov.

My mistake then. Are all HHRs trucks?

[ifcar]

My mistake then. Are all HHRs trucks?

The EPA thinks so.

[nickdrinkwater]

If comments on a webpage are representative of anything, then according to YOuTube, the entire world is in big trouble...


lol!

haha...very true!