http://blog.chryslerllc.com/blog.do;jsessionid=A02D9A8FD2AEC1ADFAE84747C365FE5C?id=564&p=entry#comments
Turn your attention toward the comments section.
Ouch. Lot of anger there.
This is awesome.
"Thank You? Kiss mine you looters. I had ZERO choice in the matter. The money was taken from me by FORCE of GOVERNMENT and given to you. Ads like this reaffirm my decesion to buy a Honda last year. Bottom line Chrysler- I WILL NEVER BUY FROM A COMPANY THAT POINTS A GUN TO MY HEAD AND THEN SAYS THANKS. This ad infuraties me. Rot in hell scumbags."
It's nice to see people warming up to chrysler, i'm sure this guys opinion has actually IMPROVED over the past 10 years.
Nardelli could forgo a paycheck since he can more than easily live on the $210 million golden parachute he got from Home Depot.
I'm too lazy to register, but I'd probably rant, too.
There are a lot of bitter people over there, whew.
"What a total waste of money. That useless ad money could have been put into research and development to make better quality and fuel efficient vehicles. This has got to be the most expensive thank you card ever written, providing better products would be just as sufficient."
:hesaid:
:lol:
(http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/5008/xmas08threekings01er6.jpg)
Chrysler is still waiting for their first installment.
If those comments are representative of how people in the US feel about the company then they are in big trouble
Wimmer: great pic
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on January 02, 2009, 02:46:41 PM
If those comments are representative of how people in the US feel about the company then they are in big trouble
Wimmer: great pic
If comments on a webpage are representative of anything, then according to YOuTube, the entire world is in big trouble...
lol!
I think Chrysler is as good as dead.
After reading Motor Trend today, it appears that Nardelli signed a contract that if a merger happens and/or Nardelli gets the boot before his contract expires, Cerberus is obligated to pay him out the ass to leave. Therefore, it's not in their best interests to let go of him right now.
I wonder how many of these people are phoning up their banks and telling them the same sorts of things?
Not that I support government investment in non-military private companies owned by wealthy and profitable holding companies (take a look at cerberus' finances outside of chrysler), but there does seem to be an inordinate amount of rancor directing at the automotive companies in general.
So are we all welcome to come to GM's shareholder meetings? I mean, we're all owners of GM, right?
Chrysler is still a private LLC, though, so I wonder how that all works.
Quote from: the Teuton on January 02, 2009, 03:03:24 PM
I think Chrysler is as good as dead.
No! Don't say that. :nono:
Chrysler made some of the hottest landyachts ever. :mrcool:
(http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/3747/newyg9.jpg)
(http://www.degeneratepress.com/newport/images/71royal.jpg)
Pfft. To their credit, they did make the Bluesmobile (Dodge Polara), but nothing beats a 1973 DeVille for a landpimpboat.
Quote from: Secret Chimp on January 02, 2009, 04:58:39 PM
Pfft. To their credit, they did make the Bluesmobile (Dodge Polara), but nothing beats a 1973 DeVille for a landpimpboat.
Chrysler had some awesome coupes too. Like the Newport. :praise:
(http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/6852/newdf7.jpg)
Man, I'd loved to get seduced by five hot chicks in the trunk of this thing. :praise: :wub:
(http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/9946/new2pg7.jpg)
Why the hell does oil have to be a limited resource!? :rage:
Chrysler is as good as gone. We probably should have let it go in 1979. Had we done that, the other 2 of the Big3 might have gotten a wakeup call, and they'd probably be much better positioned today. Bailouts that regard stupid decision-making never have the intended effect.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 02, 2009, 05:25:07 PM
Chrysler is as good as gone. We probably should have let it go in 1979. Had we done that, the other 2 of the Big3 might have gotten a wakeup call, and they'd probably be much better positioned today. Bailouts that regard stupid decision-making never have the intended effect.
The loss of AMC didn't seem to do anything.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on January 02, 2009, 05:25:43 PM
The loss of AMC didn't seem to do anything.
AMC was ailing for a very long time, and it got rolled into Chrysler, so it didn't totally go away. But you may be right. I just think Chrysler was a much bigger factor in the market than AMC was at that time, and the loss of Chrysler at that time would have been a much bigger shock than the loss of AMC. We'll never really know. The road not traveled.
I wish there was still an AMC Eagle off-road wagon still around. Chrysler, probably the most innovative of the Big Three, let a lot of good ideas go down the drain.
Quote from: the Teuton on January 02, 2009, 06:39:43 PM
I wish there was still an AMC Eagle off-road wagon still around. Chrysler, probably the most innovative of the Big Three, let a lot of good ideas go down the drain.
The AMC Eagle was not one of them.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on January 02, 2009, 08:20:54 PM
The AMC Eagle was not one of them.
He's just fawning over another lesbo buggy.
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on January 02, 2009, 02:46:41 PM
If those comments are representative of how people in the US feel about the company then they are in big trouble
I think they're more representative of how people on auto-related message boards who got the link feel than anything, but that doesn't mean the bail out is supported by the populace (as I understand it, it isn't).
I think there's an above-average level of rancor on that blog.
Do most people even know about this baillout?
Are you kidding?
Quote from: thecarnut on January 02, 2009, 08:34:49 PM
Do most people even know about this baillout?
Its been huge news on , well just about everything...
Quote from: thecarnut on January 02, 2009, 08:36:47 PM
I don't see the news.
Oh God. I hope you don't get all your info from here!
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 02, 2009, 08:38:46 PM
Oh God. I hope you don't get all your info from here!
Yup! :lol:
Seriously, at school I don't have a TV or get the newspaper...
Quote from: thecarnut on January 02, 2009, 08:40:18 PM
Yup! :lol:
Seriously, at school I don't have a TV or get the newspaper...
So, what's your opinion on the St. Louis Meatloaf cat disaster?
Quote from: thecarnut on January 02, 2009, 08:34:49 PM
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". :lol:
Quote from: the Teuton on January 02, 2009, 06:39:43 PM
I wish there was still an AMC Eagle off-road wagon still around.
There is... it's called Subaru. :lol:
Chrysler is like an ailing old man. Due to die anytime but the doctors keep prolonging the agony.
Quote from: thecarnut on January 02, 2009, 08:40:18 PM
Yup! :lol:
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.
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.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 03, 2009, 07:35:14 AM
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.
Quote from: ifcar on January 03, 2009, 07:53:51 AM
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.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 03, 2009, 07:55:45 AM
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.
Chrysler needs to go back to the good old ways starting with advertisements like this. It should work! :ohyeah:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLYXMjOGtVM
Quote from: ifcar on January 03, 2009, 08:05:29 AM
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.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 03, 2009, 09:20:23 AM
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.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 03, 2009, 09:20:23 AM
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.
Quote from: HEMI666 on January 03, 2009, 09:24:52 AM
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.
Quote from: ifcar on January 03, 2009, 09:24:56 AM
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.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 03, 2009, 09:29:53 AM
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.
Quote from: ifcar on January 03, 2009, 09:38:22 AM
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.
Quote from: ifcar on January 03, 2009, 09:38:22 AM
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)?
Quote from: MX793 on January 03, 2009, 09:59:30 AM
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.
Quote from: ifcar on January 03, 2009, 10:02:07 AM
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.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 03, 2009, 10:06:18 AM
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.
Quote from: MX793 on January 03, 2009, 10:11:19 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: the Teuton on January 03, 2009, 10:49:19 AM
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.
Quote from: MX793 on January 03, 2009, 10:11:19 AM
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.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 03, 2009, 03:11:25 PM
Only the panel wagon version.
AKA the only version worth buying.
Quote from: ifcar on January 03, 2009, 03:12:08 PM
Not per fueleconomy.gov.
My mistake then. Are all HHRs trucks?
Quote from: ChrisV on January 02, 2009, 02:52:15 PM
If comments on a webpage are representative of anything, then according to YOuTube, the entire world is in big trouble...
lol!
haha...very true!