SilverEightynine@aol.com wrote:
> Not happy with what I am seeing...
Allpar's coverage is a bit more positive. Those guys are fanboys, but
then again, so are many of us here.
http://www.allpar.com/corporate/chrysler-group/five-year-plan.html
http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/
I'll say one thing about the plan: it's better than what the WSJ and
autonews.com had predicted a few days ago. I was almost ready to just
give up on the whole company and declare Bob Lutz my new master. Granted,
my opinion doesn't really count for much since I doubt I'll ever be able
to swing another brand new vehicle purchase in this lifetime, but I'd
still like to see Chrysler do well. Too bad they've wound up with yet
another bunch of European overlords. I'm still debating whether that fact
alone is enough to get me to give up in disgust, or if I should keep a
more open mind.
For now, I think I'll try to remain cautiously optimistic, although I've
been saying that ever since the Daimler fiasco. I'm not sure how much
more patience I have.
jon@dakota-truck.net wrote:
> I
> don't think its a coincidence that the only one of the big three
> currently turning a profit - Ford - is also the only one that didn't
> latch onto the government "bailout" teet.
My dad said the *exact* same thing the other day. You guys must listen to
the same news channel or something. I seem to remember that Mulally was
right there begging Congress for cash with the rest of 'em and their
private jets. Good for them for staying out of bankruptcy, but they've
had a pretty rough time as well (lost $14.6 billion in 2008).
>From what I understand from a quick read of the Wikipedia article (yeah, I
know) it looks like all three tried to get money from Congress, which
didn't work, and then only GM and Chrysler went on to get money from the
executive branch (Bush administration) under the TARP program. That
sounds right from what I remember reading as it was all going on.
> Yep! Heh - "Ridgeline" was the first thing I thought when I saw
> that too. :-) Better to just let the Dakota name die than to tack it
> onto such an abomination.
Agreed. Jalopnik seems to think it's going to be some kind of Rampage /
El Camino type vehicle, but it seems to me it would make more sense to
have that under the car division. I'm hoping it'll be more Comanche and
less Ridgeline, but I somehow doubt it. (BTW, the unibody Dakota has been
in the works for a while now, at least back to Cerberus, but I don't
remember if they started it or if it was another of Daimler's brilliant
ideas.)
So, are we doing to accept owners of Ridgeline-style Dakotas on the list?
I guess we'll have to, since we even put up with the damned Subaru people
:-).
I get why they have to do something with the Dakota. The current model is
so big and expensive that there's not much reason to get one instead of a
Ram 1500. What they should do is take it back down in size to the sweet
spot it used to occupy between compact and full-size trucks. It's grown
out of that and now they wonder why it isn't doing as well.
If they want a light-duty personal use truck, IMHO they'd do better to
make a Scrambler based off the Wrangler. A new model would look like a
step forward, instead of dragging an existing model down and moving it
backwards. Of course, they probably think that John Q. Public will view a
wimpy unibody Dakota as an improvement as long as it gets good gas
mileage. They sad thing is they're probably right.
It's a good thing for me that I had already decided our next truck will
probably be a full-size, or I'd be pretty upset. If I had the money, I'd
head out and get a new Dakota, just for the historical significance of
having one of the last real Daks ever made. I guess I can wait 5 years
and get a used one.
> The idea of splitting the "Ram" name into
> some sort of separate brand seems stupid to me too.
I can see why they would want to have different departments internally.
IIRC, Chrysler used to have separate divisions for Dodge trucks and cars
even before das Germans, which makes sense. However, I have no idea why
the Italians think they have to market trucks using a different brand
name. I don't think Europeans understand pickup trucks any more than
Americans understand soccer.
So, now that the Dakota is considered part of the Ram brand, do we have to
start calling it the "Ram Dakota"? That's just silly. I'd rather see
them re-name it to a Ram 1000 or something.
-- Jason Bleazard http://drazaelb.blogspot.com Burlington, Ontario his: '95 Dakota Sport 4x4, 3.9 V6, 5spd, Reg. Cab, white hers: '01 Dakota Sport 4x4, 4.7 V8, Auto, Quad Cab, black
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 01 2009 - 18:23:04 EST