Re: Automobile Magazine on future Dodge trucks

From: Tom Byrne (kerib@ptd.net)
Date: Sun Jul 06 2008 - 00:51:09 EDT


Bob Eaton should rot, not for selling Chrysler to Daimler, but for
squandering profits Chrysler was making since the LH cars came on line.
During the early years of the LH, Neon, Gen II Dak and Ram, Chrysler was
profitable and was the most efficient manufacturer bringing a vehicle from
drawing board to showroom. However, Chrysler took the profits, gave
management raises and agreed (along with GM and Ford) agreed to crazy
generous UAW contracts. By the 1998, Chrysler needed a cash infusion as it
had no R&D bucks left in the kitty.

Pressure from mega shareholder Kirk Kerkorian caused Chrysler management to
make a deal with Daimler. It was a deal with the Devil, bit it was Eaton and
his pals who ran Chrysler onto the rocks.

Jurgen Schrempf finished the job. He tried to make Chrysler European. He had
visions of $35,000, leather-appointed Caravans. Dieter Zetsche actually did
a good job of righting the ship, but the damage had been done.

I had a ringside seat to the financial side of this. Chrysler would have
filed for Ch XI by 2000 or 2001 if not for a partner. Daimler was a bad
choice, but the only one who would put forth the cash at the time. Kirk
eventually sued DCX / Schrempf for misrepresenting the "merger of equals".

If Chrysler would have stayed the course of being the U.S. small car leader,
it would have been in good shape for today's fuel prices, but it git truck
and SUV fever. It will be a miracle if Chrysler remains independent. Look
for Nissan / Renault to by Chrysler within a year, keep Jeep and, possibly,
Dodge trucks and that is it. New small cars are already using
Nissan-designed engines, which are actuall inferior to the 2.0 / 2.4 used in
Neons.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terrible Tom" <silvereightynine@aol.com>
To: <dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net>
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 3:47 AM
Subject: Re: DML: Automobile Magazine on future Dodge trucks

>
> Jason Bleazard wrote:
>
>> For those who haven't seen it yet...
>> http://tinyurl.com/3rxeyl
>>
>> There's some stuff about the Dakota on the second page. It's depressing,
>> but
>> then again, name some piece of recent news that *isn't* depressing.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure we'll be replacing our '01 with a Ram when that time
>> comes. We'll just have to enjoy this Dakota while we have it, because I
>> have no
>> desire to get a Dodge Ridgeline.
>
> I'm not shocked that its not selling well compared to other trucks. (but
> what trucks ARE selling well right now?) I have a bad feeling that its on
> its way out. The trend lately it seems is that the car companies are not
> continuing name plates for very long. Hell - forget name plates, they
> aren't doing evolutionary designs for the most part. Everything is getting
> totally redesigned every couple of years. If you look at a Camaro from 67
> up to the last production car in 2002... you can see a clear progression
> of designs.
>
> Take the Durango and the Liberty for examples... both were drastically
> redesigned atfer a short period of time... the Liberty had a grill change
> once and that was it... Durango didnt even get that - it had one body
> style - then it became a totally different vehical.
>
> The Legacy that Daimler left was nothing but a disaster. They farted
> around and mucked up designs and left Chrysler worse off than when they
> took them over. Because of this, its possible that current Chrysler brass
> will see the Dakota a long in the tooth and think its time to put it out
> to pasture. Rather than take a chance on a 3rd redesign and risk a poor
> reaction.
>
> I hope Bob Eaton rots in hell for trashing Chrysler and selling out to
> Daimler.
>
>
> >As for my '95, I might replace that with a
> > moped. Or a horse if things continue at this rate. Gas is supposed to
> > be $5.19 a gallon here tomorrow. Whee!
>
> Well I hesitate to even talk about fuel prices because every time someone
> brings the topic up it usually turns into a flame way fanned by political
> fuel. However... it just hit me tonight when I was the gas stations
> changed to $4.09.9 a gallon for 87 octane.
>
> We ARE in the middle of an energy crisis. We may not have lines around
> the block at gas stations and gas rationing... but we are in a crisis. Or
> perhaps "turning point" may be a better choice of words.
>
> Adjusting for inflation and all that good stuff - I'm hearing that the
> cost to joe-schmoe to full up his car is now higher than its ever been.
> 4.09.9 a gallon is a bargan compared to some places in the country... and
> I've seen $5.00+ in places like Califorina and Alaska... lets not even
> talk about diesel fuel costs...
>
> For whatever reasons a person wants to point to for the cause of all
> this - the fact remains that we're not likely to see fuel costs become
> more affordable. Its more likely going to be expensive from now on... and
> I think we as a society have to start accepting that and making smart
> choices.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> TerribleTom! New and improved for 2008! Twice As TERRIBLE!
> Twice as INSANE! Now with Kung Foo Grip! *batteries not included*
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The Mopar Enthusiasts Crunch Team http://tinyurl.com/32g3qj
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 01 2008 - 00:06:47 EDT