http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/editorial-chrysler-suicide-watch-41-rip/
Editorial: Chrysler Suicide Watch 41: R.I.P.
By Ken Elias
October 31, 2008 - 1,019 views
Chrysler is dead. Look for a Chapter 7 filing soon; that?s a liquidation plan, not reorganization. The judge will part-out and sell ChryCo?s few valuable assets to the highest bidders. There will be no ?Hail Mary? pass to General Motors, no government rescue, no money from Cerberus to keep its corpse from the grave. Yes, the mythical three-headed dog of Hades does keep souls from escaping Hell, try as they might.
Despite GM?s desire for the $9b in cash supposedly on Chrysler?s books, the money comes with even bigger liabilities: health care, pensions, taxes, supplier obligations, the works. In fact, Chrysler is saddled with as much as $27b worth of claims. Those claimholders have no interest in letting Chrysler unwind in the hands of GM? which would keep all those claims unpaid. Better to just get it over with and pay it out now. The best idea for Chrysler is, was and will be immediate liquidation. Add the proceeds from the sale of Chryco?s assets to that cash pile and there might be as much as $20b+ to disburse.
The first ones to dine on the cash are Chrysler?s lenders, led by Goldman Sachs and JPMorganChase. They originally lent Cerberus about $10b or so to fund the acquisition from Daimler, with the hopes they could then sell the debt off to bigger schmucks. Well, they mostly failed at selling it, unloading only a portion, maybe about 40 percent (or so we?ve heard) at discount to some greater fools.
The banks are still stuck with the rest and they aren?t happy about it. If you were a sane banker in troubled financial times, would you transfer your repayment risk to General Motors, an equal if not even worse credit than Chrysler today? GM was counting on a government loan to GM to pay these lenders off? or at least guarantee their debt. Give Hank Paulson credit; he simply said ?no way.? The Feds aren?t gonna take the heat for paying Wall Street off while jobs are lost.
So no, the bankers will never agree to a GM-Chryco Motors tie up. Better for them to take the priority position they get in liquidation today and take what they can. After all, Chrysler?s cash pile only gets smaller every day Chrysler continues to operate.
The second group that has a claim on Chrysler?s cash: vehicle owners. Yep, warranty claims out into the future. Remember, most recent vintage Chrysler vehicles (in service beginning in 8/07 and later) have powertrain for life warranties. The bankruptcy judge has to set aside funds to cover those claims. Say? $3b worth.
The third group: labor. The United Auto Workers (UAW) negotiated a contract that requires Chrysler to shovel $10b into a health care trust (a.k.a. VEBA) for retirees. Even the UAW wasn?t crazy enough let GM takeover Chrysler and absorb this liability when GM can?t even pay what it promised to the union. In any case, this is an unsecured claim. It?s doubtful the UAW could legally stop a sale to GM, but they can make life unpleasant for an automaker. Heck if the workers are going to lose their jobs anyway, they might as well get what they can now for retirees.
And last: working capital claims for the balance. Unpaid vendors, employee wind downs, taxes, and the rest. Maybe another $4b or so. All told, $27 billion in claims against the cash plus whatever the Court can sell the rest of the assets for. Call it $10 to $15b. Best of all, assets sold out of bankruptcy come with no liability tail for the buyer, which make them much more attractive. No pension obligations, no warranty claims, no retiree health care. Clean and simple. And you don?t even have to take the UAW contract!
I reckon that there are four major components of Chrysler that will get sold. First, the Jeep brand. Although known worldwide, it really has only has one unique product (the Wrangler). But it?s cheap to build, generates a ton of profit per vehicle and will never go out of style. Yep, wrap that up. Maybe it?s worth $3b?
Second, the minivan biz. Already having consolidated assembly in one plant (Windsor), it?s easy to just supply other automakers like GM and VW. Hmm, do I hear Magna calling? So let?s say it?s worth $5b.
Third, RAM trucks hecho in Mexico. Nissan needs a truck and they?ve already agreed to buy their next Titan built in Chrysler?s Saltillo plant. Ok, so maybe it?s 100k units per year only. Might as well buy the plant and the rights to the truck. How much did it cost Toyota to develop the Tundra and build its now underutilized San Antonio truck plant? Let?s put a $2b price tag on this.
And fourth, Chrysler?s parts supply division. I don?t know how many Chryco rigs are on the road, but they?re going to need parts for a long time. Existing parts inventory that?s worth something plus profits from sales that will continue for years. So we?ll put a $1b price tag there.
So are you getting my drift now? There?s no GM-Chrysler deal ever. The government can?t stomach funding a deal where jobs are lost with taxpayer money. Better to shut Chrysler down in bankruptcy, and let Cerberus lick its chops. Those jobs were going to be lost with or without GM in the picture.
I bet we'll be able to buy some really cheap cars and trucks. The only problem is, when a part fails in 10 years, where will you buy it?
Quote from: HEMI666 on October 31, 2008, 11:46:50 AM
I bet we'll be able to buy some really cheap cars and trucks. The only problem is, when a part fails in 10 years, where will you buy it?
"And fourth, Chrysler?s parts supply division. I don?t know how many Chryco rigs are on the road, but they?re going to need parts for a long time. Existing parts inventory that?s worth something plus profits from sales that will continue for years. So we?ll put a $1b price tag there."
Considering I can buy even the most obscure part brand new for my 12 year old Honda I wouldn't be worried about it.
Quote from: TBR on October 31, 2008, 11:47:52 AM
"And fourth, Chrysler?s parts supply division. I don?t know how many Chryco rigs are on the road, but they?re going to need parts for a long time. Existing parts inventory that?s worth something plus profits from sales that will continue for years. So we?ll put a $1b price tag there."
Considering I can buy even the most obscure part brand new for my 12 year old Honda I wouldn't be worried about it.
I guess so.
I hope VW buys Chrysler and makes a rebadged GTI called the Dodge Omni GLH. haha
Quote from: NACar on October 31, 2008, 12:04:56 PM
I hope VW buys Chrysler and makes a rebadged GTI called the Dodge Omni GLH. haha
I would like to see a Shelby Omni. That would be sweet.
Quote from: HEMI666 on October 31, 2008, 12:34:16 PM
I would like to see a Shelby Omni. That would be sweet.
Anything is better than a Caliper SRT4.
Quote from: TBR on October 31, 2008, 11:47:52 AM
"And fourth, Chrysler?s parts supply division. I don?t know how many Chryco rigs are on the road, but they?re going to need parts for a long time. Existing parts inventory that?s worth something plus profits from sales that will continue for years. So we?ll put a $1b price tag there."
Considering I can buy even the most obscure part brand new for my 12 year old Honda I wouldn't be worried about it.
In 1970 I hit a deer with my 1966 Charger. Needed a new grill and headlight assembly parts. Just three years out of production (67 models had the same parts) and those parts were virtually impossible to obtain. Took four months to get them.
The point is not all parts may be easy to get.
Quote from: Byteme on October 31, 2008, 12:53:03 PM
In 1970 I hit a deer with my 1966 Charger. Needed a new grill and headlight assembly parts. Just three years out of production (67 models had the same parts) and those parts were virtually impossible to obtain. Took four months to get them.
The point is not all parts may be easy to get.
30 years of inventory control and manufacturing technological improvements must count for something here.
I don't see why in 2020 it would be any harder to get a parts for a model 2008 Chrysler/Dodge than it would be to get them for a model 2008 Toyota.
Chrysler under Cerberus doesn't seem to be a firm that gives a shit about the future. Building and managing inventory is costly,and Nardelli LOVES TO CUT COSTS!
Quote from: TBR on October 31, 2008, 01:21:29 PM
30 years of inventory control and manufacturing technological improvements must count for something here.
I don't see why in 2020 it would be any harder to get a parts for a model 2008 Chrysler/Dodge than it would be to get them for a model 2008 Toyota.
Because they selll a bunch more Toyotas than Chrysler Corp products.
Because the money tied up in inventory ties up capital.
30 years of inventory control and technelogical improvements are, to a large degree designed to lower how much inventory maunfacturers actually have on hand for manufacturing and lower how much are in parts centers for distribution to dealers for repair. Why tie up capital in inventory unless you have to. That's a major purpose of inventory control; cost containment. It's why inventory and manufacturing techniques such as JIT and Kanban are used.
Quote from: Byteme on October 31, 2008, 01:51:50 PM
Because they selll a bunch more Toyotas than Chrysler Corp products.
Because the money tied up in inventory ties up capital.
30 years of inventory control and technelogical improvements are, to a large degree designed to lower how much inventory maunfacturers actually have on hand for manufacturing and lower how much are in parts centers for distribution to dealers for repair. Why tie up capital in inventory unless you have to. That's a major purpose of inventory control; cost containment. It's why inventory and manufacturing techniques such as JIT and Kanban are used.
They sell more Land Cruisers than they do Calibers? I don't think so.
The point with inventory control is that they are more aware of what they actually have and probably strategize more about how many of what parts to keep in inventory. And the better manufacturing ability means they can make parts very cheaper and with less lead time.
Surely they must sell more Land Crusiers than Calibers?!
Quote from: TBR on October 31, 2008, 02:17:07 PM
They sell more Land Cruisers than they do Calibers? I don't think so.
Oh yes they do. They're the truck of choice when the going gets tough........they're just tarted up and given all sorts of creature comforts for the american audience. Toyota/Lexus sells more Land Cruisers worldwide than Chrysler Corp. sells Calibers worldwide.
I HIGHLY doubt that.
Quote from: TBR on October 31, 2008, 06:12:52 PM
I HIGHLY doubt that.
Remember, in Africa, they still sell variations of the FJ60.
Yes, I am sure they sell a hundred thousand or so Land Cruisers in Africa.
Quote from: TBR on October 31, 2008, 06:20:33 PM
Yes, I am sure they sell a hundred thousand or so Land Cruisers in Africa.
Lets not forget about Asia, Europe, Australia and other locales with rough terrain.
I assure you they don't sell as many Land Cruisers worldwide as Dodge sells Calibers in the USA alone.
But, this is largely irrelevant, if you would like to deceive yourself about how many LCs Toyota sells just change that to Highlander.
It's pretty sad that it's come to this for Chrysler. It's been a long time coming. Their cars have been crap for decades, and the only mass-market vehicle that they had that was appealing was the Jeep (which they got from AMC when that company went under).
The proposed pairing with GM made little sense because GM is also in big trouble. Bad unions, bad management, a short-term mentality, and complacency have brought the US manufacturers to this sorry state.
I still remember the much vaunted K-cars. Always hated those pieces of shit. Did they even notice that "K" is the symbol for strikeout?
My grandma had a K-car station wagon. We drove it to a park in Montana back when they had no speed limits - my dad could floor it and it wouldn't go over 90.
Quote from: Secret Chimp on October 31, 2008, 09:54:45 PM
My grandma had a K-car station wagon. We drove it to a park in Montana back when they had no speed limits - my dad could floor it and it wouldn't go over 90.
She definitely fit the K-Car demographic. It was an old fart car. Total piece of crap. And that was the great car that was heralded by Lee Iacocca....the car that supposedly 'saved' Chrysler :rolleyes: I'd rather slit my wrists than have to drive one of those things.
They still saved Chrysler. Jeep isn't the only appealing vehicle Chrysler sells. The Ram, 300C, Charger, Challenger, Grand Caravan, and Town & Country would also be on that list.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 01, 2008, 12:22:55 AM
They still saved Chrysler. Jeep isn't the only appealing vehicle Chrysler sells. The Ram, 300C, Charger, Challenger, Grand Caravan, and Town & Country would also be on that list.
It's a sad commentary on the state of automotive selections in the 1980s to think that that stinkbomb of a car is what saved Chrysler. But I think you're right. I was allowing my personal opinion of the car to override business realities.
You're right about the other vehicles too, to a point. Chrysler has been particularly appealing in the truck category, pioneered the minivan (for better or worse), and has a couple of good muscle car offerings. But most of those are gas guzzlers, and this year their sales have been suffering. I wonder if people will go back to the gas guzzlers to an extent with lower oil prices. If they do, they're foolish, because they can shoot back up as easily as they've come down recently.
I don't think Chrysler is really in a radically different position than GM or Ford over the long run. They all face very serious problems, and they allowed themselves to get into the same bad position they were in in the 1970s -- depending upon gas guzzlers for virtually all their profit margin at a time when energy costs have been rising.
The dire state of the domestic auto industry is a major economic concern.
I think the K cars contributed to the demise of Chrysler, actually. If they had been better designed/engineered, then sales might not have decreased so much since their release.
Yeah, it might have saved them short term, but those cars still affect the opinion of a car shopper in 2008. Example 1: Dave :lol:
My Dad had a 1988 Dynasty, that was a pile of crap, and because of that he never bought a car from Chrysler again
Quote from: HotRodPilot on November 01, 2008, 06:33:06 AM
I think the K cars contributed to the demise of Chrysler, actually. If they had been better designed/engineered, then sales might not have decreased so much since their release.
Yeah, it might have saved them short term, but those cars still affect the opinion of a car shopper in 2008. Example 1: Dave :lol:
My Dad had a 1988 Dynasty, that was a pile of crap, and because of that he never bought a car from Chrysler again
I was never a fan of Chrysler.
The K car saved Chrysler in the 1980s only because the selection of cars available at that time was so dismal. They brought some money into the company at a time when it was badly needed.
But all of the Big 3 created a lot of the problems they face today during that period. People bought the crap that was available during that time, but they didn't forget that they bought crap, and when better options were available, they went elsewhere for their future cars. I've been picking on the K-car because it's such an easy target, but Ford and GM had essentially the same strategy during this period. Remember the Citation-Omega-Skylark combo from GM, as well as the Escort-Lynx combo from Ford? These cars were also touted as the great future cars that were going to kill the Japanese competition. There are millions of people walking around today who won't consider buying a car from any of the Big 3 because they bought one of these ill-fated brands.
Image and perception is a big factor in what cars a person buys. The Big 3 all threw away their images in the 1970s and 1980s, and allowed their brand identification to cheapen considerably. Cadillacs and Lincolns went from being high class cars to pimpmobiles. GM has repeated that mistake with the Escalade. So by cheapening their image, and selling people cars that were crap, the Big 3 foreclosed a lot of their future options during that ill-fated period in the 1970s and 1980s.
Quote from: TBR on October 31, 2008, 06:25:15 PM
I assure you they don't sell as many Land Cruisers worldwide as Dodge sells Calibers in the USA alone.
But, this is largely irrelevant, if you would like to deceive yourself about how many LCs Toyota sells just change that to Highlander.
Actually Toyota sells more Highlanders in the US than Chrysler does Calibers.
http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showthread.php?s=cf12cee61ce8820efefdf2b28ccb18ab&t=382903&page=2
Page 1 and 2
Caliber YTD as of end of september: 74,069
Highlander YTD as of end of september: 81,951
The Caliber does outsell the Landcruiser here in the states, but there are also those other international markets people were talking about.
Quote from: dazzleman on November 01, 2008, 07:34:48 AM
I was never a fan of Chrysler.
The K car saved Chrysler in the 1980s only because the selection of cars available at that time was so dismal. They brought some money into the company at a time when it was badly needed.
But all of the Big 3 created a lot of the problems they face today during that period. People bought the crap that was available during that time, but they didn't forget that they bought crap, and when better options were available, they went elsewhere for their future cars. I've been picking on the K-car because it's such an easy target, but Ford and GM had essentially the same strategy during this period. Remember the Citation-Omega-Skylark combo from GM, as well as the Escort-Lynx combo from Ford? These cars were also touted as the great future cars that were going to kill the Japanese competition. There are millions of people walking around today who won't consider buying a car from any of the Big 3 because they bought one of these ill-fated brands.
YOu may be right about that, but I don't know a single person who even remembers those cars. As for the 70s and 80s, everyone made shitty cars, including the Japanese. It was in the 90s when things started falling apart. GM, Chrysler, and Ford still weren't making high quality vehicles in a time when the Japanese improved their quality and reliability dramatically. In fact, the Big 3 really didn't start building high quality cars until the past 3 to 6 years (depending on the company). It was too late at that point, considering the Japanese had been doing it for at least the past 10 to 15 years, again, depending on the company.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 01, 2008, 09:15:06 AM
YOu may be right about that, but I don't know a single person who even remembers those cars. As for the 70s and 80s, everyone made shitty cars, including the Japanese. It was in the 90s when things started falling apart. GM, Chrysler, and Ford still weren't making high quality vehicles in a time when the Japanese improved their quality and reliability dramatically. In fact, the Big 3 really didn't start building high quality cars until the past 3 to 6 years (depending on the company). It was too late at that point, considering the Japanese had been doing it for at least the past 10 to 15 years, again, depending on the company.
The Japanese cars in the 1980s were better than the American ones, even if they weren't as good as they became in the 1990s. It was during that period in the 1980s that many people in my age group or older bought their last American car. The perception spread that the Japanese cars were better, so many people of that age group went with Japanese cars after the bad experience with their 1982 Citation, or whatever they happened to have.
The only decent market share and profitability that the Big 3 have had in the intervening years has been in the truck/SUV market, for the most part. They put all their eggs in that basket, once again, for short term reasons -- these vehicles had a higher profit margin than sedans, and there wasn't a ton of development required.
The thing they most egregiously threw away was their image. Image is the main reason why people pay more for one car than another, when they all basically do the same thing, to varying degrees. By allowing their image to be cheapened, and to allow their cars to be considered junk that you only buy if you can't afford something better, the Big 3 really painted themselves into a corner, particularly considering the cost disadvantages that they have vis-a-vis other manufacturers who don't have to contend with the UAW.
Quote from: dazzleman on October 31, 2008, 10:01:43 PM
She definitely fit the K-Car demographic. It was an old fart car. Total piece of crap. And that was the great car that was heralded by Lee Iacocca....the car that supposedly 'saved' Chrysler :rolleyes: I'd rather slit my wrists than have to drive one of those things.
It did save chrysler, it sold like hotcakes and spawned the Minivan.
Quote from: 565 on November 01, 2008, 07:40:23 AM
Actually Toyota sells more Highlanders in the US than Chrysler does Calibers.
http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showthread.php?s=cf12cee61ce8820efefdf2b28ccb18ab&t=382903&page=2
Page 1 and 2
Caliber YTD as of end of september: 74,069
Highlander YTD as of end of september: 81,951
This year perhaps. Last year I am sure the story was different. Anyway, the actual numbers are pretty irrelevant. My point was that if 13 years later I can buy any part brand new for a relatively low production Honda then people really shouldn't be concerned about buying parents for their Chryslers. It isn't like manufacturers make new parts for a car 15 years later, they just stock pile a bunch before the cars go out of production, since part of what Chrysler will be liquidating is their parts division I am sure the same will happen here.
Quote
The Caliber does outsell the Landcruiser here in the states, but there are also those other international markets people were talking about.
I am well aware of that. However, that frequently is a pretty much entirely different vehicle from what we get (the GX470 is sold as a Land Cruiser as well as previous LCs). Additionally, Asia isn't going to have much of a market for offroad vehicles while Africa and South America have such tiny markets that it is pretty safe to say the total sales are inconsequential.
Quote from: TBR on October 31, 2008, 01:21:29 PM
30 years of inventory control and manufacturing technological improvements must count for something here.
I don't see why in 2020 it would be any harder to get a parts for a model 2008 Chrysler/Dodge than it would be to get them for a model 2008 Toyota.
I don't know about that. If it's something very common then yes you'll be able to get it. But in my line of work I run up against stuff that you can't get all the time for cars that have only been out of production for 4 years or so. There are lots of parts you can't buy new for my 1990 Miata as well. I know because I've tried.
Quote from: TBR on October 31, 2008, 06:25:15 PM
I assure you they don't sell as many Land Cruisers worldwide as Dodge sells Calibers in the USA alone.
But, this is largely irrelevant, if you would like to deceive yourself about how many LCs Toyota sells just change that to Highlander.
I don't think they sell more. But it's something that would be kept around in working order for longer. And the demand for parts would be greater.
The Caliber is a throw away car.
Quote from: Onslaught on November 01, 2008, 11:35:39 AM
I don't know about that. If it's something very common then yes you'll be able to get it. But in my line of work I run up against stuff that you can't get all the time for cars that have only been out of production for 4 years or so. There are lots of parts you can't buy new for my 1990 Miata as well. I know because I've tried.
You can't buy a Ford clutch for my SVT Focus anymore and it's a 2003. The clutches available are aftermarket and they make a weird rattling noise when you're coming to a stop. Apparently it's normal with the aftermarket SVT Focus clutches...and that makes me wish Ford still made a clutch for it. Also, I can't buy SVT Focus engines from Ford anymore.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 01, 2008, 11:48:13 AM
You can't buy a Ford clutch for my SVT Focus anymore and it's a 2003. The clutches available are aftermarket and they make a weird rattling noise when you're coming to a stop. Apparently it's normal with the aftermarket SVT Focus clutches...and that makes me wish Ford still made a clutch for it. Also, I can't buy SVT Focus engines from Ford anymore.
If your Focus ever dies, may I suggest a Yamaha V6 or a V8 as a replacement engine?
Back to the subject at hand, the Japanese made vastly superior products in the 1980s and 1990s, but that was back when domestic manufacturers dominated 70% of the industry and it was seen that VW would be the next powerhouse in the industry. No one took the Japanese seriously because there was no need. They were too small and the Japanese were going through a recession, so it was unlikely that their economy could sustain such growth at the time. Honestly, everyone should have started worrying in 1981 and 1984, respectively, when Honda and Toyota built their first NA plants.
This whole predicament can be traced to three major factors: 1) the UAW, 2) the US companies not reacting quickly when their perceived quality went down the crapper, and 3) the US not making relevant products in a timely manner.
Chrysler dominated the 1990s in the US with great products, even if they had lackluster quality. They were all relevant. The 1998 merger destroyed every bit of momentum Chrysler had going into the new millennium.
Quote from: TBR on November 01, 2008, 10:46:03 AM
This year perhaps. Last year I am sure the story was different.
I'm curious why you are sure last year the story was different.
Actually I'm sure last year the story was the same, seeing how last years YTD sales were included in the same link I posted before.
2007 YTD at end of september sales
Caliber YTD at 2007 september: 80,352
Highlander YTD at 2007 september: 91,294
Quote from: the Teuton on November 01, 2008, 12:19:44 PM
If your Focus ever dies, may I suggest a Yamaha V6 or a V8 as a replacement engine?
Back to the subject at hand, the Japanese made vastly superior products in the 1980s and 1990s, but that was back when domestic manufacturers dominated 70% of the industry and it was seen that VW would be the next powerhouse in the industry. No one took the Japanese seriously because there was no need. They were too small and the Japanese were going through a recession, so it was unlikely that their economy could sustain such growth at the time. Honestly, everyone should have started worrying in 1981 and 1984, respectively, when Honda and Toyota built their first NA plants.
This whole predicament can be traced to three major factors: 1) the UAW, 2) the US companies not reacting quickly when their perceived quality went down the crapper, and 3) the US not making relevant products in a timely manner.
Chrysler dominated the 1990s in the US with great products, even if they had lackluster quality. They were all relevant. The 1998 merger destroyed every bit of momentum Chrysler had going into the new millennium.
Even in the late 1970s and early 1980s, lots of people were becoming very worried about Japanese competition with the domestic auto industry. It was a time when the US economy was weak, Chrysler was on the ropes, AMC was going under, and there were protectionist pressures.
The US auto industry was a victim of its own success. For several decades, it had a virtual monopoly on the most lucrative auto market on the planet. Chrysler, Ford and GM were in a tacit collusion with each other, and they could all survive as long as none of the three got too far ahead of the others, since consumers had few other options.
All this started to change in the 1970s. The US automakers were offering gas guzzlers at a time of gas lines and soaring gas prices. They had a couple of 'economy' cars, such as the Ford Pinto and Chevy Vega, that were absolute crap, not worth the value of the scrap metal that they could produce. This gave the Japanese their opening to crack the US market, and they did for the first time in a meaningful way in the 1970s. Their market share grew in the 1980s.
In response, the US automakers decided to take the short-term measure of milking the value of their brand names. Premium cars like Cadillacs and Lincolns were turned into pimpmobiles in order to generate short-term sales gains. And the US manufacturers cut quality, and the more fuel-efficient cars that they started to offer in the 1980s were inferior to their Japanese competition.
When gas prices dropped after the mid-1980s and gas guzzlers came back into fashion in the 1990s, the US manufacturers quickly put all their eggs in that basket, milking higher-margin SUVs and trucks. They perpetuated their cost disadvantages with ill-advised concessions to the UAW, so they had to offer inferior quality to maintain profitability. Because they pissed away their positive image on most of their sedan models, they could compete only by offering an inferior product for a cheaper price, rather than by putting out a product that would entice people to want to pay more for it.
Chrysler's current predicament is the result of decades of mismanagement and bad decision-making. Ditto for Ford and GM. I hope they can get save themselves, but I fear it may be too late. It may have been better to let Chrysler go under back in 1979. Maybe that would have jolted the other two into getting their act together. Government bailouts that seem a good idea at the time often have negative repercussions far into the future.
Quote from: 565 on November 01, 2008, 12:30:32 PM
I'm curious why you are sure last year the story was different.
Actually I'm sure last year the story was the same, seeing how last years YTD sales were included in the same link I posted before.
2007 YTD at end of september sales
Caliber YTD at 2007 september: 80,352
Highlander YTD at 2007 september: 91,294
I didn't actually look at the link... :tounge:
I don't know why I thought the Caliber was a 100,000+/year car. Still, like I said the numbers are pretty much irrelevant since Chrysler doesn't make any low production cars.
The Ultradrive transmission is what turned my family off of Chryslers. Our minivan ate two transmissions, both of which were VERY costly to repair. What garbage.
The Germans and Japanese, they have a formula and they refine it over decades. It pays dividends for them when history repeats itself - Honda and Toyota are reaping the benefits of having nurtured their small cars even in times when oil was plentiful. Detroit's singular focus of staying on the short term profit bandwagon won't allow them to do this.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 01, 2008, 11:48:13 AM
You can't buy a Ford clutch for my SVT Focus anymore and it's a 2003. The clutches available are aftermarket and they make a weird rattling noise when you're coming to a stop. Apparently it's normal with the aftermarket SVT Focus clutches...and that makes me wish Ford still made a clutch for it. Also, I can't buy SVT Focus engines from Ford anymore.
It's normal for parts of a rare version of a car to be hard to get. It also sucks a big one when that happens.
It's one of the reasons I didn't ever drive a Mazdaspeed6. I knew I'd like the car and years down the road I'd
be SOL.
Quote from: TBR on October 31, 2008, 11:47:52 AM
"And fourth, Chrysler’s parts supply division. I don’t know how many Chryco rigs are on the road, but they’re going to need parts for a long time. Existing parts inventory that’s worth something plus profits from sales that will continue for years. So we’ll put a $1b price tag there."
Considering I can buy even the most obscure part brand new for my 12 year old Honda I wouldn't be worried about it.
As it stands, most manufacturs aren't required to support parts for vehicles over 10 years old. So not much would change in 10 years, except for the fact that only the aftermarket would support chrysler vehicles.
Quote from: the Teuton on November 01, 2008, 12:19:44 PM
If your Focus ever dies, may I suggest a Yamaha V6 or a V8 as a replacement engine?
I can buy aftermarket engines, just not engines from Ford.
Quote from: Laconian on November 01, 2008, 01:39:42 PM
The Ultradrive transmission is what turned my family off of Chryslers. Our minivan ate two transmissions, both of which were VERY costly to repair. What garbage.
Coincidentally mine is doing fine. :huh: :lol:
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 01, 2008, 10:37:54 PM
I can buy aftermarket engines, just not engines from Ford.
Might I suggest:
http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/turp_0204_alamo_autosports_focus_sho_turbo_kit_system/index.html
?
Quote from: the Teuton on November 01, 2008, 11:12:12 PM
Might I suggest:
http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/turp_0204_alamo_autosports_focus_sho_turbo_kit_system/index.html
?
Actually, I would be getting an engine from these guys: Focus-Power (http://www.focus-power.com/view.php?showme=Home). They have balanced and blueprinted engines that are built with forged internals, ported and polished head, etc. for $3500. They are running a Focus with that engine with a huge turbo pushing 500hp that they call The Beast...the one in the picture on their website.
From The Left Lane News website:
Chrysler purchasing chief steps down
Although the day after the Big Three bailout failed to pass the Senate seems like a pretty good time to retire to us, Campi says his decision to leave is based on health issues and not the current state of the Michigan automaker.
According to Automotive News, Scott Garberding, 44, will take over Campi?s position immediately. Garberding has been with Chrysler since 1996 and most recent served as vice president of global alliance operations.
Campi, 64, joined Chrysler last January and served with Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli at Home Depot prior to coming to the automaker. Immediately after joining Chrysler Campi pushed for greater collaboration with suppliers and the purchase of more parts from lost-cost regions, but wound up with more supplier lawsuits than alliances.
From www.jalopnik.com comes this article about a Cerberus/Chrysler announcement that makes ya feel like Chrysler may not resume producing vehicles in 2009 unless they get Federal bail-out bucks really soon. It don't look good in th' neighborhood, bro...
Carpocalypse Now
Chrysler Ceasing Production Friday, Won't Promise To Come Back
By Matt Hardigree, 6:00 PM on Wed Dec 17 2008
Chrysler just announced plans to stop production for at least a month. Did anyone else notice they wouldn't commit to coming back?
In a statement from Chrysler, the company acknowledges the Carpocalypse and explains all 30 of the company's plants will be idled on Friday, December 19. But rather than giving a specific date for returning the release merely states:
"Chrysler manufacturing operations... will not return to work any sooner than Monday, Jan. 19, 2009."
While we assume the company will come back at some point, maybe in order to produce its not-so-mysterious future vehicles, it does make the situation sound even more dire than even we could imagine.
In reality, this will probably allow the company to avoid bringing production of cars they have way too many of online until/if demand increases. It will also allow the company to completely scuttle certain lines altogether.
Or they've almost completely run out of money.
They carefully and eerily worded press release below:
Chrysler LLC Adjusts Production as a Result of the Deteriorating U.S. Credit Crunch
Auburn Hills, Mich., Dec 17, 2008 -
Due to the continued lack of consumer credit for the American car buyer and the resulting dramatic impact it has had on overall industry sales in the United States, Chrysler LLC announced that it will make significant adjustments to the production schedules of its manufacturing operations. In doing so, the Company will keep production and dealer inventory aligned with U.S. market demand. In response, the Company confirmed that all Chrysler manufacturing operations will be idled at the end of the shift Friday, Dec. 19, and impacted employees will not return to work any sooner than Monday, Jan. 19, 2009.
Chrysler dealers confirmed to the Company at a recent meeting at its headquarters, that they have many willing buyers for Chrysler, Jeep? and Dodge vehicles but are unable to close the deals, due to lack of financing. The dealers have stated that they have lost an estimated 20 to 25 percent of their volume because of this credit situation.
The Company will continue to monitor the production schedules of its manufacturing operations moving forward.
:huh:
Why would we bail out a company who bought the brand to liquidate and dissolve it? That's oxymoronic.
If I had placed an order for a Chrysler Corp product and paid a deposit, I'd now be pissed.
Chrysler probably has a 2 month suplpy on hand for all their cars/trucks anyway... it should be applauded they shutdown instead of doing what the Big 3 always do - that is continue producing and then sell everything at 30% off pricing
Cerberus has a ton of cash on hand. They could "save" Chrysler if they really wanted to.