By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Even in terms of CAFE impact Cruze is having a bigger impact, because CAFE is sales-weighted.
Sonic should help offset all those trucks as well.
Oil dipped below $80 per barrel, yet I haven't seen gas prices dipping much. Around here gas prices are only about 10% lower than they were when a barrel of oil cost $140. 'Sup with that?
So I'm surprised to see the Silverado making big gains like that. I guess we have to remember they're really only comparing 2 data points - August 2010 vs. August 2011. YTD sales are more significant.
Unless I missed something, wasn't it thirty years between bailouts at Chrysler??
Yep, not to mention that the second time around, Chrysler pretty much got raided by Benz, and then when they were done with it they tossed it like an empty beer can.
I don't call 30 years a long term sustainable plan. That is short sighted mid-term planning.
Yeah, oil prices are down as much as a third but it's not reflected in the pump price.
How does gas at $4 and higher impact you?
Not quite 30; and a for a decade or so they bled Daimler.
In GM news - their stock is now below $20/share. Maybe the market doesn't like the recent UAW contract and the talk of giving large profit sharing bonuses. If the U.S. government cared as much for the taxpayer, it would remain the majority stockholder, and keep any of the profits, to makeup for what it will otherwise lose with the stock tanking as it is.
If you want to bring up Mercedes quality, we can talk about the M-Class. First produced in 1997 for the 1998 model year (many of which were promptly brought back, including one short-lived one in the Edmunds fleet that barely got mentioned before it disappeared).
So did Mercedes not have a clue about how to start up a new factory in Alabama and train the suppliers and employees? Or was it just lousy engineering perhaps? Nissan had similar fit and finish issues in Canton but I guess we can blame that on the Renault merger.
In other news, GM Canada sales were down 6.1%. GM India was up 17.35%.
They said that later about the Uplander, too, though. Mine did have more dumb fit and finish issues than Chevys before and after I've owned. Notice the balance here
Regarding AL, lots of problems there. When workers have to be taught via pictogram due to local literacy issues, quality issues might follow.
But, we're off-topic.
Just imagine if DB and GM had merged :shades:
Chhrysler made bad decisions that led them to be the 3rd in market-share, they made the decision to merge and with whom, they made a bad deal with control while merged, and they made bad decisions after the merger. ACCOUNTABILIY my friend, accountability. Chrysler was accountable for their own fate. GM is accountable for their history and fate too. Both should have been replaced by competent U.S. corporations that don't rely on the government every few years for a loan, bailout, grants, bankruptcies or pension transfers.
You want to bet if GM can survive on its own in the coming financial crisis and recession.
1979, 2009
The facts are always played very loosely around here.
To give you an idea of how few vehicles that is, here are just a few of the Government Motors vehicles that sold better than the Chevy Volt this month:
Cadillac Escalade – 1,527
Chevrolet Colorado Pickup – 2,171
Chevrolet Avalanche – 1,861
Chevrolet Suburban – 5,246
Buick Lucerne – 1,068
What do you mean "didn't last long?" I'd say close to 30 years was pretty dang long. Chrysler even paid off the govt. loans early the first time around.
FWIW, my Park Ave was about 10 years old when I bought it, and I paid around 19% of its original MSRP.
Of course, losing 79% of $141,000 is a whole different story, than losing 81% of $40,000! :surprise:
I wonder if something like that S500 would have sold for close to MSRP? I'm pretty sure that while my Park Ave might have stickered for around $40K, it probably sold for a lot less.
Folks, point fingers all you want, but let's face it - the two cultures were so incompatible that no synergies ever emerged at all. If anything, the merger was a major distraction that had negative long-term effects on both companies.
Chrysler Crossfire is about as good as it got when it came to sharing synergies, and that's not saying much.
The facts are always played very loosely around here.
So those are the 2 well known bailouts. Chrysler didn't get any other government every few years? They didn't get any grants to improve fuel efficiency, get any subsidies to modernize factories, or such? Chrysler or Fiat aren't at the $25B trough?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/story/2011-09-26/energy-loan/50561868/1
This is just 1 example of similar handouts our government has made to the Big 3, that people like you don't even remember or consider. Most industries have to fund their own R&D, producing their next generation of improved products.
Piech thought he could take on Mercedes with that Phaeton.
Still does.
My sister has the ubiquitous blue one of those, and I drove it once. It was fun to drive and looks kind-of neat. She puts it away during the winter. I think they're probably a good buy as a used car now if you want something like that.
I think the Dodge Charger and Chrysler 300 were pretty decent attempts, marred mainly by continued use of the 2.7 and cheap interiors. The 2.7 was a Mopar engine though, developed before Benz came into the picture. It was overly complex, expensive to work on, and sludge prone. As long as you didn't go too long with the oil change intervals, let it run low, don't overheat it, etc, it was decent, but it had a low tolerance for abuse/neglect.
The cheap interiors though, I blame on Benz! Not that they were Benz components necessarily, but it was under Benz leadership that these things were brought to life.
Also, when the 300 and Magnum first came out, oddly enough, it was the 5-speed Benz-sourced transmission used in the Hemi models that tended to be troublesome, not the 4-speed unit used in the 2.7 and 3.5 cars! I think they might have worked the bugs out by the time the Charger hit the streets, though.
I'm guessing it had the 3.8 V-6? I've heard that it was minivans that had the most problems with that transmission, mainly because they were the heaviest vehicles to use it. Plus, the 3.8 and even the 3.3 V-6 were fairly torquey engines, which would put additional strain on the transmission, as well.
I do remember those T&C vans being expensive.
Yeah, one of the guys from the Subaru Crew bought one, a roadster I think. Used, a real bargain. It was basically the previous generation SLK.
Still, seems like a hodge-podge product that just filled a niche, rather than something that would add to the Chrysler brand. Poor resale says it all.
Maybe we should compare retained value after 13 years on a T&C vs a ML to see how the market loves each.
IIRC, the 2.7 was a Mitsubishi engine. It was also one of the ones to look out for for being sludgeprone if not maintained.