Tom Byrne wrote:
> Chrysler was not on a major rebound. They had run out of R&D money and the
> didn't even have the money to bring the PT to market. Without Daimler,
> Chrysler was in real trouble.
I gotta disagree with this. Granted I'm not an insider, I don't know Bob
Lutz or Bob Eaton. But I have read VOLUMES of info and reports and
publications about the situation. Ever Read "Taken For A Ride - how
Diamler Drove off With Chrysler"? I'm not an expert in this stuff - and
no I didn't read a book and overnight become an expert on Chrysler Corp.
There's my disclaimer ok?
Having said that - based upon what I have read (lots) - this whole BS
manuever came about as a result of Chrysler looking to shoehorn in on
European market - with a world wide platform project. They wanted to
join up with an euro car maker and come up with a platform jointly - to
sell world wide. That idea eventually morphed into the so called
"Merger Of Equals" blanket that was pulled over the eyes of everyone -
while Daimler plotted to take over Chrysler.
Stop and think for a moment now - what is the most recognizied brand
name among internal combustion powered modes of transportation? Go
anywhere in the world - say the word "Jeep" and people instantly know
what you mean.
While I have no info to back this claim up with, I strongly believe
Daimler saw an oppertunity to get a brand name that is known world wide.
> I have corresponded with Dieter Zetsche. He is actually a
> classic Mopar fan.
Relay a message to him from your fellow DML'ers heheh
"we're still pissed off"
:-P
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Attention Infidels: I am your official DBDoMPfIWUMOT! Terrible Tom -- AIM & Yahoo Name: SilverEightynine http://members.aol.com/silvereightynine/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2005 - 00:18:31 EST