GM Volt Forum banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,085 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
We've all seen the concept vehicles from Chrysler. There was a time when they were the most radical vehicle designers in Detroit - PT Cruiser, Prowler, Magnum, 300M and so on. Will they be able to recapture that magic to deliver on their concept vehicles - Jeep Renegade diesel hybrid, Zeo EV, ecoVoyager FCV?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,085 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
LA Times has a good article about GM and Chrysler - they don't even metion Ford:

Link

Essentially, Chrysler should have been chopped up and sold off a couple years ago. I suppose there are larger forces out there that desire to keep Chrysler solvent and operating, in spite of the foreign competition that exists in the US - Toyota, Honda, etc.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
968 Posts
Hendler, as you may have noticed, we rarely agree. This is one of those rare instances. I shall savor the moment. I shall take a photo for my scrapbook and make an entry in my journal.

When the company's big idea is to induce people to purchase their gas hogs by buying down the price of fuel a buck or so for three years, you can just stick a fork in 'em, 'cause they're done.

Collectively, we're just a bit dim when it comes to our energy future but I think only a very few people are stupid enough not to realize that, if they jump for this, in 3 years, they'll be driving an unsubsidized fuel pig to the filling station and screaming in pain. Those that are so stupid probably don't have the money to buy a new vehicle very often, so Chrysler's pitching to an unimportant part of the customer base.

I thought their vehicles were the ugliest in the world, anyway and their reliability is the absolute pits (a recent warranty cost comparison put them at twice the warranty cost of GM).

I won't say, "Die, Chrysler, die!" but I'll be thinking it. Especially if it improves the chances for Ford and GM to survive and thrive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,085 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Perhaps this is an instance where the situation is so obvious, even dagwood sees it ;) .

I wonder if Fisker is talking to Chrysler about building his vehicle for him. I suspect they would be amenible to a new tech being infused into their infrastructure, especially one that would lead to future growth.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
968 Posts
Perhaps this is an instance where the situation is so obvious, even dagwood sees it ;) .

I wonder if Fisker is talking to Chrysler about building his vehicle for him. I suspect they would be amenible to a new tech being infused into their infrastructure, especially one that would lead to future growth.
If you were Fisker, would you want Chrysler build quality infused into your vehicle?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,085 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
If you were Fisker, would you want Chrysler build quality infused into your vehicle?
Chrysler's quality was bad, because they always went cheap on material and components. As long as Fisker specs high quality materials and components, there is no reason that a Chrysler plant couldn't bolt it together.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
151 Posts
Chrysler's quality was bad, because they always went cheap on material and components. As long as Fisker specs high quality materials and components, there is no reason that a Chrysler plant couldn't bolt it together.
If I were either company, I'd be open to possibilities. Chrysler is in great need of an electric-capable vehicle.

Cerberus isn't a multibillion dollar company that jumps in to mistakes without taking a close look at things. There's money to be made in Chrysler...I'd love to see some more EVs hit the road. And anyone cheering for their death needs to look around this country. The last thing we need is another dead American auto manufacturer. My city is dying because of the stupidity--GM's stupidity.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
968 Posts
Chrysler's quality was bad, because they always went cheap on material and components. As long as Fisker specs high quality materials and components, there is no reason that a Chrysler plant couldn't bolt it together.
I wouldn't take the chance. Fisker only gets one shot at this.

GM's going to idle several plants, get GM to do it. Janesville would love the work.

I don't recall specifics on Ford; if they idled a plant, get Ford to do it. Ford doesn't have an EV in the pipe, anyway, and Ford quality is looking pretty good, lately.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,085 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I wouldn't take the chance. Fisker only gets one shot at this.

GM's going to idle several plants, get GM to do it. Janesville would love the work.

I don't recall specifics on Ford; if they idled a plant, get Ford to do it. Ford doesn't have an EV in the pipe, anyway, and Ford quality is looking pretty good, lately.
Any of the big 3 would be happy to contract out their idled manufacturing capacity, especially for a vehicle that is a path to future growth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,085 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I think of the big 3, Chrysler has defaulted themselves into a position of 'relative' greater strength because of their past failure to enter the large platform market.

The Chrysler lineup consists of far proportunately less large vehicle and a much wider car base. I think short term Chrysler will have much stronger year over year sales comparisons of that of Ford or GM.
Actually, that isn't true. Look at all the Dodge pickups and SUV's, as well as all the Jeep vehicles. I read one article that stated Chrysler was hurt more than GM and Ford. Chrysler's big sellers are their minivans, so they are being hit as hard or harder than Ford or GM. Chrysler has turned to Nissan to manufacture small cars for them to sell - that's not a move that a company "well positioned" would make. GM is leveraging small Opel platforms, and Ford is looking to bring back the Fiesta platform from Europe.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
968 Posts
Hendler's right... And Chrysler's ops are almost entirely North American; they have no worldwide small-car experience on which to build. Or to reduce exposure to North American economic downturn.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
You could be right about the mini vans hurting them big time. I never really considered it's potential impact...I know May's auto numbers for Chrysler are affected because of it's decision to weed out 40% of it's fleet reduction.

Guess it's a coin toss. We should bookmark this and just check back at year's end and see who is down the most, it's like the saddest horse race ever. (Sad, how it is a given on the 'down')
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
597 Posts
Leadership is Horrible

When the company's big idea is to induce people to purchase their gas hogs by buying down the price of fuel a buck or so for three years, you can just stick a fork in 'em, 'cause they're done.

I thought their vehicles were the ugliest in the world, anyway and their reliability is the absolute pits (a recent warranty cost comparison put them at twice the warranty cost of GM).

I won't say, "Die, Chrysler, die!" but I'll be thinking it. Especially if it improves the chances for Ford and GM to survive and thrive.
First, their only alternative is to offer incentives because no one in their right mind would buy any of Chrysler's trash products. Yes, they are ugly and low quality.

Private equity tends to be smart and destructive. Most private equity firms buy a company, gut it, and sell it off in pieces. Private equity by nature is short-term, destructive and uncaring about who gets hurt.

Cerebrus hired Bob Niardelli into the leadership role at Chrysler. Niardelli is the man who nearly destroyed Home Depot. He fired employees making $12/hour and replaced them with employees making $8/hour. Turnover and bad customer service sent profits into the tank. Niardelli is best known for being fired and collecting a $210 million paycheck on his way out.

Why would Cerebrus hire Niardelli? Slash, burn, slice and sell. Chrysler is gone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,085 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
GE is helping Chrysler with their EV's:

Link

GE has some proprietary battery tech that works in their serial hybrid locomotives that they are sharing with Chrysler.

Since GE is invested in A123 and Th!nk, I would have thought they would partner with Chrysler much the way Nissan is - by supplying the vehicles Chrysler needs to sell now by just slapping a Chrysler nameplate on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
I think of the big 3, Chrysler has defaulted themselves into a position of 'relative' greater strength because of their past failure to enter the large platform market.
Stopped into the chrylser dealer yesterday. All huge SUVs on the showroom floor. Pacifica, Aspen, Jeeps. When I asked about hybrids they pointed at the Aspen (tank) and said soon it will be offered in a hybrid. I said that is the wrong way to go. The sales lady (friend) said we can't sell those. Didn't see any choices for an efficient vehilce. The PT cruiser is small but not as efficient as other brands with similiar interior space.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,085 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Stopped into the chrylser dealer yesterday. All huge SUVs on the showroom floor. Pacifica, Aspen, Jeeps. When I asked about hybrids they pointed at the Aspen (tank) and said soon it will be offered in a hybrid. I said that is the wrong way to go. The sales lady (friend) said we can't sell those. Didn't see any choices for an efficient vehilce. The PT cruiser is small but not as efficient as other brands with similiar interior space.
Thank God the unions accepted $0.71 on the dollar for their future liabilities, or the big 3 couldn't even begin to contemplate offering small cars. Chrysler is looking to Nissan to cover their small car needs, while scrambling to put batteries and motors in their Jeeps.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top