Chrysler Downsizing - A Path to Profitability?



  • carguy58carguy58 Member Posts: 2,303
    "Now Daimler is stuck with a loser that is hurting its balance sheet, and it looks as though it will have to practically PAY another car maker to take it."

    Well Chrysler was profitbable in 2005 and Mercedes lost money I read somehwhere in 2005. In 2006 it was the other way around in which Chrysler lost money and Mercedes was very very profitable I think mostly due to robust demand of their M-Class SUV and the S-Class.
  • carguy58carguy58 Member Posts: 2,303
    "Daimler saw Chrysler as a way to bring German concepts to the American automobile market, arrogantly thinking that if it's German, Americans would know (or be taught) that it had to be better. The folks at Daimler cannot invision a world where populations aren't awestruck by a Mercedes. Daimler thought that they would elevate Chrysler just by mere association."

    The odd thing is that you said in the paragraph if the americans thought is was German it would be better. Well Chrysler was doing very well in the mid to late 90's before the merger so in my opinion Dailmer should have just let Chrysler run itself(looking back on it)with a North American team while Dailmer could have just owned their interest in Chrysler.

    BTW, I was thinking about this the last 2 days you know the Chrysler 300 sold good for about a couple years in than mid through last year maybe the demand for the 300 wasn;t there as it was for its first 2 years on the market. To me dwindling demand of the 300 wasn;t Dailmer's fault. See Chrysler used rap video's and rap stars to market the 300 but in the last year and a half rap music has kinda of been on the decline in the US thus maybe that led to the 300's decline in sales because it was just marketed through hip-hop basically.

    Does anybody on this board think if Chrysler was bought by a private firm that maybe Mitsubishi would be interested in working with Chrysler again. I just think maybe Mitsubishi had a hard time dealing with Dailmer and maybe if American's ran Chrysler again maybe Mitsu would be up for working with Chrysler again. I think the Mitsu/Chrysler relationship worked well although it was on and off again in the 90's.
  • carguy58carguy58 Member Posts: 2,303
    "Did Chrysler plan a sedan with the Caliber? I don't remember hearing anything."

    No, I don;t think Chrysler planned a sedan version of the Caliber but I was just saying that they should plan a sedan version of the Caliber.
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    Yes, there was a suit and I cannot remember who sued. Maybe Kervorkian? It was sometime later Daimler arrogantly admitted that the consolidation was never meant to be a "merger of equals."

  • yipyipyipeeyipyipyipee Member Posts: 43
    Latest news is Volkswagen and Renault-Nissan are not interested in Chrysler, but a few private equity firms and the Chinese are scrutinizing the books.

    Not surprisingly the UAW President, Ron Gettelfinger, has "absolutely no opinion on that at all."

    Heh, well how can he! The entire organization is between a rock and a hard place. Indeed, Mr. Gettelfinger and his cohorts are going to have to make some tough decisions in the near future.

    Anyway, it looks like no well established manufacturer is going to take over Chrysler. And yes, I include GM in taking a pass. So, it's either a private equity firm, the Chinese or perhaps Kirkorian.

    Hey, Mr. K. it's only money!

  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    I think DaimlerChrysler still owns a piece of Mitsubishi, but I could be wrong.

    Based on current product, for the first time in many years I look at Chrysler as a car company again, instead of a just a truck company. Unfortunately they seem to be fielding a stable of niche cars and not going head-to-head in the bread and butter segments.

    While the Caliber is being received well enough, in my opinion it is not the replacement for the Neon. There is still a market for entry level sedans, a place where it seems fewer companies want to play. While the new Sebring is probably a better car all around compared to the previous generation, the emphasis appears to have been be placed on exterior style.

    The German influence is clearly present in Chryler and Dodge interiors. I think the native Chrysler people know this but the designs are being dictated from Stuttgart. Personally, there's much to like about the Chrysler 300 and Charger (less so for me on the Magnum), but I have a hard time staring at bland interiors and cars that have less instrumentation than a riding lawn mower.

    Not please don't get me wrong. I see some of the same styling cues being picked up by other manufacturers, but again in my opinion, nobody does interiors better than the Asian auto companies. I know American car companies do benchmarking. I just wonder what they do with all of the data.

    Chrysler in private hands could likely do very well. Having another American car company pick up Chrysler would be like having a starving man take on starving children.

  • bristol2bristol2 Member Posts: 736
    Here goes...

    Cars. The 300 and the Imperial are legitimate 'wow' cars. Updating the 300 will be challenging given that it is retro but this car should be to Chrysler as the Camry is to Toyota. The Sebring looks good from the outside and is a nightmare on the inside. So fix the inside, hire the guy that did the Accord, show him a picture of the 300 and don't buy cheap, hard plastic. Take a look at this:

    This looks like a far better concept of what the 2-door roadster should be. Make it the next cross-fire.

    Utility and the working American family. Work as hard and as fast as you can to get a diesel in the Ram. Leave the Denali, King Ranch and Toyota Limited to define thier trucks and put an economical Ram in front of every working man in America. Make affordable family cars and vans. Back all of it (including the Ram) with a Hyundai-fighting 100k/ 10 year warranty. If you are going to be an econo brand, you'd better be able to fight the Koreans.

    It's a JEEP thing stupid! Cut out all the cross-over bull. The 4-door wrangler is fine, diesel and a truck bed option would make them very interesting. The Liberty is too heavy but you can certainly give it a workable refresh, square it up a little and make sure the crd is reliable. The Grand Cherokee really is a great handling vehicle, make sure it doesn't break down every 2 weeks and it is a fine 4-runner fighter. The Commander? Well it's not my cup of tea. Figure out the messy headlight assembly, put a fuel conserving diesel in there, straighten up the roof-line so it doesn't look like a steroidal Cherokee (that was actually a better 'Jeep' than the Liberty in my view) and it could be a legitimate seller. Make sure you can hose out the interior and you could really do some marketing work with it.

    Focus on quality at the factory level. Accept that 2 out of 3 are niche brands. Accept that Dodge is aimed at Hyundai, not Ford or GM. Chrysler should only be aimed at Lincoln, Cadillac and Mercedes. Jeep should focus on no-one except themselves and Toyota's off-road products.

    Just my .02c. Anyone want to invest?
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    Actually, I agree with most of what you said.

    On Dodge, however, I think that the brand is a lot deeper than you might realize, and I disagree that Dodge is aimed at Hyundai and not Ford or GM. Their LD pick-ups are great vehicles. Real working people deserve an upscale RAM, and just making those economical utility versions will not help truck sales nor profits. I have no problem with the Dodge SUV entry since it's mid-size, and to Chrysler's credit they've always refrained from entering the behemoth SUV race. While they offer margin, they don't offer volume. In addition they've got the Caliber, Caravan and the Charger. If my 13-year-old son and his friends are any gauge, the Charger hits a home run with younger people.

    As far as Chrysler aimed at Lincoln, etc. That's okay, although I think Chrysler was usually aimed at Buick. The problem then lies with the fact that they wouldn't have an entry level vehicle. They use to. It was called Plymouth. The problem with Daimler is that they moved Chrysler down to entry level, and tried to move it up with other models. Many people, including myself think this deluted the brand and alienated many buyers.


  • greenday91490greenday91490 Member Posts: 6
    If GM can successfully turn Chrysler around and acquire it at the same time, it may be very profitable for them in the long run, more so that it would be for buying Ford, for example. It may slow GM down by having to go through all of Chryslers crap, and it would give them eleven brands, rather than its already hard to control eight. I think that Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep shouldn't be placed in the same categories as the "ionic eight" but should be considered a separate company owned by GM, if that makes any sense at all. The only problem with GM buying Chrysler in my mind other than what was already stated is that there would be the Sebring-Avenger twins against the Malibu-Aura-G6, everything else on the Epilson platform. How many mid-size cars can you possibly have? Chrysler would however provide a finally decent minivan to GM, and a platform for the concept Hummer H4. It really depends on how you look at it I guess...
  • chuck1959chuck1959 Member Posts: 654
    I agree. I see no need for a "Dodge" version of the "Jeep" or vice versa. Actually I see no need for the Compass unless Jeep is the ONLY one that sells it.

    I can't tell much difference between the Patriot and Liberty, can someone tell me?
  • jchan2jchan2 Member Posts: 4,956
    that the Jeep Compass would have made a better second generation PT Cruiser than a semi CUV that somewhat dilutes the Jeep brand name?

    And what's with the Patriot and Liberty overlap? Jeep has been, and will be, a specialty company, sort of like a more affordable Land Rover. Tough, capable SUVs. The 4 door Wrangler was a good idea; and Jeep should get a Diesel version of everything.

    The Sebring is in desperate need of an overhaul. The interior screams Rental, and while the exterior is OK, it could be better. (The Avenger though, looks pretty attractive from the exterior)

    The PT Cruiser needs a complete redesign. It's been pretty much the same car appearance wise since 2001.

    Ax the Aspen. It has nowhere near the brand cachet of the Escalade, Navigator, or QX56, and while it is significantly cheaper, it's a classic example of pay less, get less.

    As much of a flop as the Pacifica has been, I think that it serves a valuable slot in Chrysler's product line up. It does need a total redesign though; seating for 7 is a good place to start (2-3-2 configuration would be good, with the middle seat in the second row being a plus one seat like the one in the 2008 Highlander) start, but the concept of first class travel for 4 was a good idea, IMO.

    Chrysler needs to reposition itself as a luxury automaker, and have the warranty to back it up. I propose a 4 year, 60,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty on every Chrysler sold, along with a 7 year 100K powertrain warranty, 7 year unlimited roadside assistance, free scheduled maintenance and loaner cars for 4 years/50K miles.

    Caliber needs a sedan equivalent. Sedans sell in the US, and Chrysler is missing out on a lot of potential sales without a compact sedan.

    Ax the Nitro. Leave that area of the market (truck based SUVs) to Jeep. Instead, replace it with a car based performance crossover.

    I can't think of anything else, but in a nutshell, Chrysler needs to position Dodge as a poor man's BMW at the Hyundai price, Chrysler as mildly upscale, giving you more bang for your buck compared with Lexus, Mercedes-Benz, and Cadillac, and Jeep is a niche brand focused on itself, keeping Toyota from selling too many FJ Cruisers, and battling Hummer as GM tries to take Hummer into new catagories.

    Any thoughts?
  • jchan2jchan2 Member Posts: 4,956
    The minivans are fine; they're a cash cow and they're the one thing that Chrysler does extremely well.

    Durango, facing a declining large SUV market, can be left alone for a few more years.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    As interesting as some of this stuff is, we simply can't wander off in any direction that happens to come to mind.

    Let's stick to discussing the topics please.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    ..would be to close as much excess capacity as possible in the market thereby making the rest of GM's product line more profitable.

    The Ram. It's 18 months away from renewal and right now it's the bottom feeder in the market that's bringing down every other vehicle.

    Consider the cost but also the benefits to GM.
    Value is estimated at $5 Billion although DCX seems to want almost $15 Billion.
    But.. Chrysler has over $30 Billion in unfunded health, retirement and legacy costs. Thus the net value is less than zero. Now these could be funded in the future but anyone remotely thinking of buying Chrysler outright is nuts - that is unless Daimler sells it for $1 kicks in about $15 Billion to split the negative value.

    But if Daimler and GM do an equity swap and GM acquires control.
    GM acquires..
    On the positive side (All of these generate new business and good profits )
    Jeep ( with Hummer, good match )
    Minivans ( no brainer )
    Dakota ( cya ColoCanyon )
    Cummins diesels
    Fantastic leverage in union discussions

    Neutral ( as in what to do with them )
    Chrysler 300
    PT ( HHR is already a winner )

    Negatives ( as in how much cash is it going to take to rectify or make them go away? )
    thousands of dealers!!!!!

    and then THE RAM..

    Unless the next Gen Ram is worlds better than the current T900's it's simply an anchor on the truck market. If by doing away with the Ram and it's negative force on prices, and if GM were therefore able to make say $2000 additional profit on each T900 then GM's current products might generate...
    $2000 x 1,000,000 trucks = $2 Billion additional profit
    $2000 x 100,000 SUV's = $200 Million additional profit
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Well it looks like GM, along with Diamler might save Chrysler. Both can make Chrysler great once again like it should be. :)

  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    seems preposterous, in the sense of impossible, and bound to lead to disaster if successful. Hey, why not have GM take over Ford too? There isn't room for much more than one American caer company these days anyway. GM wins by virtue of its sheer size.

    What the above posts point out addresses the question posed by this thread: NO, downsizing alone is not a path to profitability. The product is both bad in some segments and wrong in others. There are no real plans to change this any time soon. Let the Chinese have it. They are very good at cutting all the fat out and getting at the lean, pushing the product that shows signs of success.
    Heck, who thought we would ever see another vehicle built by Rover, and yet SAIC (is it SAIC? it's one of the Chinese Big 3) is making it happen.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • jchan2jchan2 Member Posts: 4,956
    by acquiring Chrysler. They would get 3 more redundant brand names; the Dodge area is covered by Chevrolet/Pontiac, Chrysler is covered by Buick/Cadillac, and Jeep... Well, Jeep might be a good fit. But going through all that antitrust trouble to get 1 brand, the minivans, and maybe the 300 and Caliber just doesn't seem to be worth it to me. GM would have to spend a lot of money buying out excess dealerships, dumping old inventory, killing a lot of models, and closing a lot of excess plants.

    The best suitor for Chrysler is a company without a US presence, as the large dealer network would be an asset instead of a liability.

    I'm going to go with Chery or SAIC (or whoever makes the new Roewe) as the best possible suitor, as they can use the dealer network to launch their own brand, and Chery already has an existing agreement with Chrysler to build small cars down the road.

    Whoever buys Chrysler though, is going to have to deal with a lot of excess inventory, a lot of excess plant capacity, and the UAW...
  • jipsterjipster Member Posts: 6,244
    This has become a common approach to downsizing amongst the Big 3. But, I've never really understood why pay workers such large amounts of money just to leave. Why not just fire the workers, instead of paying out hundreds of millions of dollars, when you are already in financial straits.

    Is this just the manufacturers having a kind heart. Or, is this to appease the unions to avert a possible strike?
    Why not just let the current contracts run out, and then lay off however many workers you don't need? I've been at my current employer for almost 15 years. I know if I were let go due to a slowdown I wouldn't get squat. Just curious as to how all this works... thanks.
    2020 Honda Accord EX-L, 2011 Hyundai Veracruz, 2010 Mercury Milan Premiere, 2007 Kia Optima
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    part of the $100K is a coupon for $20K off any Chrysler car of your joke.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • jchan2jchan2 Member Posts: 4,956
    That would make sense as it would get rid of all those 2006 Commanders, Durangos, and Grand Cherokees that Chrysler has parked in Michigan...
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014

    The CEO's and board of executives have plans called golden parachutes. Being in middle management is the worst place to be because while your company is doing well you get compensated pretty well but have to do more work than the top brass. If their is a slowdown you are the first one in many cases to be let go. The unions have been able to negotiate secure jobs to keep a solid membership. So while the uniion workers make less than management, and acquire slower vacation accurals etc, etc, etc, they do have the power of negotiation. The company can lay them off but they'd have to pay those workers seperation pay, any pension accurals, and health insurance benefits for X amount of months. This isn't a good explanation but rather a brief overview. It's just cheaper to pay those workers off to leave early or retire. Yes it's to appease the union and thankfully this has been written in the ground rules. I know some company's that walk up to ya and tap you on the shoulder and say "your out of here". The employee goes what, huh ? Oh well I can't make my house, car, payments and I can't feed my family.

    I would never work for a employer that didn't have the decency to pay some sort of compensation if they had to spring on you that your laid-off. I've seen it done. :mad:

  • jipsterjipster Member Posts: 6,244
    Thanks. I forgot about the manufacturers having to pay benefits when laying off employees. A friend works at the Louisville Ford plant that produces the Ranger. I think he gets 95% of his regular pay when laid off. This particular Ford plant had 2 or 3 periods last year where they shut down the plant for a couple weeks due to low demand.
    2020 Honda Accord EX-L, 2011 Hyundai Veracruz, 2010 Mercury Milan Premiere, 2007 Kia Optima
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    The UAW pays the employee 90% of his pay. The program is called sub-pay. Dad, took the sub-pay option a few times so other employees could work.

  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    They have announced that they are killing the Commander. Now there's a downsizing that is overdue! That ugly thing never sold from day one.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    I've seen a few of them around, and they are indeed superduperugly.
  • rockfish1rockfish1 Member Posts: 113
    In addition to the GM Rumor, another rumor now show Chrysler may be taken over by a private consortium of investors headed by Blackstone and Centerbridge Partners LP.

    Whoever assumes control even if it is private will still have to deal with the estimated $19 billion long-term liability to pay health care benefits for unionized retirees. Since industry analysts have placed its value at anywhere from nothing to $13.7 billion there will need to be many invented and painful ways created to cover short and long term expenses in addition to making a profit for the investors.
  • sellaturcicasellaturcica Member Posts: 145
    I'd be the first in line for a diesel 4-door Wrangler. Really like them, but 19mpg rated highway, gas is nearing $3, oh my....
  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    Aquesiton for everyone and anyone. It seems the UAW is really going to make this sale of Chrysler difficult. If a private equity group tries to buy Chrysler, the UAW will fight it. they are also on record as saying they will fight if Chrysler tries to sell individual lines (Jeep, Dodge, etc.). This doesn't leave too many options open.

    What if Daimler decides to close Chrylser or eliminate product lines, how would the UAW react to a massive layoff? They have released some lackluster vehicles recently which means a re-model is a few years away. I can't see sales improving with the current lineup which means something has got to give. either a sale or another massive layoffs and product cuts.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    dtownfb: What if Daimler decides to close Chrylser or eliminate product lines, how would the UAW react to a massive layoff?

    The problem is that if Daimler just closes Chrysler - without a declaration of bankruptcy - it would face lawsuits from not only the UAW, but dealers as well. Chrysler has contractual obligations with the union and the dealers. Simply closing its doors would be too expensive, unless Chrysler files for bankruptcy...which would be difficult, as long as it is part of the larger corporation, which, if I recall correctly, is still profitable.
  • sellaturcicasellaturcica Member Posts: 145
    I've heard that Daimler has no intention of parting with Jeep.
  • yipyipyipeeyipyipyipee Member Posts: 43
    As a number of you have outlined, there are contractual and regulatory hurdles DaimlerChrysler will have to deal with if divestiture occurs.

    Regardless, the UAW knows it is not in a good position, regardless of the outcome. So, it's really playing a game of chicken on a number of fronts. In other words, it's in damage control mode and positioning resources for whatever happens and whomever takes over Chrysler.

  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    Thanks grbeck.
  • yipyipyipeeyipyipyipee Member Posts: 43
    Kirk Kerkorian's firm Tracinda has made a $4.5bn cash offer for Chrysler.

    Seems KK willing to work with the UAW to find a workable solution, although it's my opinion some downsizing will still have to happen in order for the "New Chrysler" to be competitive.

  • carguy58carguy58 Member Posts: 2,303
    Yeah I was happy KK made that bid because I think KK could make a comeback of Chrysler happen but the thing is its going to take a long time for a Chrysler comeback to happen because the Sebring isn't competitive in its segment at all and Chrysler;s currently have terrible interiors. Secondly, there is too much overlap at Chrysler right now I mean the Aspen and the Nitro need to be axed and what exactlty do you do with the Pacifica?
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Chrysler 300/300C
    Dodge Charger
    Dodge Viper
    Dodge Challenger (hope it makes it to production!)
    Dodge Ram pickup
    Dodge Dakota pickup

    Jeep Compass
    Jeep Patriot
    Jeep Commander
    Dodge Durango - leave the SUVs to Jeep.

    Dodge Sprinter van - stupid topheavy monstrosity. Would rather seen the good old-fashioned normal Dodge van be manufactured for another 35 years versus this Teutonic piece of trash. Maybe they work in Europe, but they look stupid here.

    Dodge Nitro - YUCK!!!

    Could've been nice:
    Chrysler Sebring - bizarre styling and crummy interior kill this all too important midsize car.

    Dodge Avenger - better styling but crummy interior

    Dodge Caliber - cute, but a mini crossover is no substitute for a Corolla/Civic fighter.

    PT Cruiser - it's getting old.
  • carguy58carguy58 Member Posts: 2,303
    "Could've been nice:
    Chrysler Sebring - bizarre styling and crummy interior kill this all too important midsize car.

    Dodge Avenger - better styling but crummy interior

    Dodge Caliber - cute, but a mini crossover is no substitute for a Corolla/Civic fighter.

    PT Cruiser - it's getting old. "

    I agree on your take on those cars except that the Avenger needed to be a little more tone town on the front end and a little something was missing from the back end styling.

    To add too your commentaray I was looking foward to the release of the 07 Sebring but it could be a canadite for most dissapointing for a new debut car for the 07 model year.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    "To add too your commentaray I was looking foward to the release of the 07 Sebring but it could be a canadite for most dissapointing for a new debut car for the 07 model year"

    Could be? Most definitely is, and not just a candidate, the certified winner!

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • yipyipyipeeyipyipyipee Member Posts: 43
    ... a comeback of Chrysler happen but the thing is its going to take a long time for a Chrysler comeback to happen because the Sebring isn't competitive in its segment at all and Chrysler's currently have terrible interiors.

    I have a work colleague who bought a Civic SI coupe this past weekend. On the road price was about $24K. Yeah, he did splurge on the sat-nav and premium sound system.

    But it got me thinking about the very subjective issue of "value-for-money". Yes, I know comparing a Sebring (Limited) vs a Civic SI is not an "apples for apples" comparison, but it's interesting how people are changing their way of think about the "value" of small(er) cars.

    From my perspective, people are willing to spend more on a smaller car, as long as the quality remains high. And this is precisely why the bean-counters at DaimlerChrysler got it wrong with the Sebring. And yes, I do blame the bean-counters this time. They figured style over substance would be good enough. Fact is Honda, Toyota even the Korean manufacturers are proving you can have style *AND* substance in vehicles.

    Nowadays, being mediocre isn't good enough. You need to have a direction, a style, quality and innovation. Chrysler had that with "cab-forward design" and products like the Plymouth Prowler and Dodge Viper. And I think they can do it again with decent B and C segment cars.

    What I'm hoping is that with downsizing and some painful compromises in regard to pensions and healthcare, Chrysler can get back into the car business. They'll never be the same, that much is true. But I hope they'll be different and better in the future. And that is a good thing.

  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Administrator Posts: 11,140
    A consumer reporter with a local television station in San Francisco (SF and surrounding residents only) is looking to interview consumers who are shopping for a new car and might consider purchasing “gap” insurance. If you are interested in speaking to the reporter, please reply to [email protected] no later than Monday, April 30, 2007 with your daytime contact info.

    Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    The WSJ is reporting (paid link, sorry) that the new Chrysler may put Mopar on the auction block. Or just shut it down.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    reported here: 02/BUSINESS

    and that one's a freebie. ;-)

    I wonder what slashing and burning will begin once Nardelli gets to the 100-day mark...

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    "A person familiar with the situation said Chrysler looks at selling certain Mopar-related operations, such as warehousing and packaging, not the performance-oriented brand."

    I didn't pick up on that last night, and it makes sense that they'd keep the brand going. Contract day is Sept. 14 - that's just Nardelli's 38th day running the show. Wanna bet the contract gets stretched out past Thanksgiving and the new model year introductions while they still negotiate a long term one?
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358 that Chrysler has a different ultimate goal than GM and Ford in these negotiations.

    Chrysler wants to be able to sell certain operations (Mopar) for cash.

    GM and Ford want to have the union assume responsibility for the health care plan. This will require an upfront infusion of cash from the auto makers to make it viable. GM and Ford are willing to pay this money to be free of this burden, but Chrysler isn't.

    Very interesting...
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    "Chrysler is temporarily closing several plants beginning next week and eliminating overtime at others in an effort to head off bloated inventories of several models."

    Chrysler: Trying to Avoid Last Year’s Inventory Debacle (AutoObserver)
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    And Nardelli starts to live up to his reputation.

    End of the Line for Some Employees, Models and Production (Auto Observer)
  • british_roverbritish_rover Member Posts: 8,502
    Probably have self check out lanes at Chrysler dealers by spring and self service oil change facilities by this time next year.

    OK here are your tools and the controls for the lift are right there just make sure you have the car lined up right so it doesn't fall over.
  • oldfarmer50oldfarmer50 Member Posts: 22,457
    I'm in tears :cry: They're killing my Crossfire. Sure it was underpowered and a SLK clone but I liked the looks. Same with the PT cruiser. The Pacifica and the Magnum I was never thrilled with but weren't those hot sellers a few years ago? The public is fickle.

    2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2004 Chevy Van, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible

  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    the Pacifica was EVER a hot seller. Hence the $5000 rebates for years now. Good riddance.

    And the Crossfire never was either. My local dealer was trying desperately to sell his remaining 2005s until he went out of business early this year.

    But the PT Cruiser gets to stay. It is only the convertible model that is dying, and I am surprised. I figured that would sell well.

    Ditto the Magnum. I guess most of the Magnum sales were fleet though.

    Between the already-announced layoffs and the new ones today, that is 23,000 less workers they will have by the end of next year, by my count. They are saying it will save Chrysler $1.5 billion or something? I would say that much downsizing OUGHT to be the path to better profitability...

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,384
    I'm with you. I thought the PT Cruiser convertibles would sell. I have to admit one I saw them they don't carry the same character of the car as well.

    Would have thought the Magnum would have done better. Bye.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    "Barely a week after the United Auto Workers ratified a new four-year labor agreement with Chrysler LLC, its top executives let fly with the facts of life under new hedge-fund owner Cerberus Capital Management: assembly-plant shifts will be cut, several lame-selling models will be axed almost immediately -- and as a result, as many as 10,000 more hourly jobs will fall by the wayside in 2008"

    Chrysler's Product Cupboard Is Shockingly Bare (Auto Observer)

    (Executive summary - trucks, minivans and the Wrangler are golden. If you are building anything else ... all bets are off).
This discussion has been closed.