To be fair it is SO HARD to forecast stuff like that. My guess is it's pure luck.
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.
Unless I missed something, wasn't it thirty years between bailouts at Chrysler??
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.
They bled Daimler? Everything I read was that Daimler had poor quality at the time of the "merger of equals". The difference was, the Germans at Daimler were unable to admit that.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
MB quality fell off a cliff right after the "merger", yet shortly before was very high. It seems like more of a coincidence to me. IMO for anyone to insinuate that low quality early 90s MB products contaminated world-beating similar period Mopars is kind of insane
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%.
For those that are big believers in CR, I remember the M-class was rated either the vehicle with the most problems, or the lowest owner satisfaction, of every vehicle in that year's survey. Not every SUV..every vehicle. Worse than a Cavalier, Escort, and (yes) Neon.
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 .
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
And that's when MB started running into its issues, the key problem children being the ML, the 2000+ S-class and the 2001+ C-class. And now that the "merger" is behind them, MB has been rebounding strongly. Coincidence? Look at products designed before, not as troublesome as those during.
Regarding AL, lots of problems there. When workers have to be taught via pictogram due to local literacy issues, quality issues might follow.
Engineering of it did, yes, but quite a lot of it was assembly based, too. Take a Lexus LS or whatever is seen as some kind of benchmark, build it in a subpar location,and it too will suffer. ML isn't a problem child anymore and hasn't been for some time, something changed.
Yep, because everyone knows 90s Chryslers were amazing, no achilles heels like transmissions and inconsistent overall quality, nope. That goodness makes MB what it is today.
Actually, the things you mention were mostly early '90's things. And I'm not a Chrysler fan. I can't think of a late '90's Chrysler product that had the reputation of an ML...and of course we're not even talking similar price points, especially. And I think by the late '90's, manufacturing was much at a point where a vehicle was engineered to go down the line one way, without a whole lot of variation in how things went in/on, like in the old days.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
We can debate the reasons why, until we're blue in the face, but Chrysler has failed when merged - as evidenced that Daimler didn't want to continue the merger and sold Chrysler at a loss rather than a profit. And then Chrysler failed on it's own. You can argue that the failure was due to the merger in many ways; but then again who agreed to the merger? A: Chrysler's executives which = Chrysler.
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.
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
Chryslers didn't last long before they needed a 2nd one.
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.
My BIL's Mercedes S430 is a nightmare of a car and I just don't see why he just doesn't give up on it already. If one of my Cadillacs was as troublesome as it, it would already be at the bottom of the Delaware River. Anyway, andre1969, grbeck, and I were at Carlisle and saw a 2003 S500 for sale for $29,995. The original selling price was something like $141,000! Talk about MASSIVE depreciation!
On a percentage basis, that doesn't sound too bad... a car that's 9 model years old with an asking price (God only knows what he'll actually get) of about 21% of original MSRP.
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.
Early 90s? My dad had a 97 T&C, transmission failed in the first 6 months. This was a 38K minivan! The mid 90s Mopar products, for all of their good looks, seem to be pretty thin on the ground anymore, sounds like some durability issues, maybe *gasp* no better than an ML, just with lower expectations to begin with. To even insinuate that low MB quality was somehow brought over and hurt Chrysler is laughable IMO.
An 03 S500 couldn't have stickered at 141K, unless it had a huge pile of aftermarket (Brabus, Lorinser, etc) work. Now an S600, yes. The S500 would have based around 90K and had potentially 15-20K in possible options. I am guessing it was an S600, and sadly, 29K is too much for either one. The V12 cars are notorious money pits, you can get mid 90s V12 cars for well under 10K now.
Not to mention, Benz's Dieter and company were known for their arrogance. I tell my kids all the time, it's OK to admit stuff. It doesn't mean you're weak.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I've been on the sidelines on this one, but I'm finding it amusing.
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?
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.
Chrysler Crossfire is about as good as it got when it came to sharing synergies, and that's not saying much.
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.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Hard for me to believe in 1997 a T&C would cost $38K...especially as purchased out-the-door. But I'm comparing them to Chevys which I bought that same time period, and I know Chryslers (as a brand name) were more.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Chrysler Crossfire is about as good as it got when it came to sharing synergies, and that's not saying much.
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.
Early 90s? My dad had a 97 T&C, transmission failed in the first 6 months.
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.
You're kidding, right? In my dad's case anyway, his vehicle had many more issues - fuel management/delivery was a routine problem IIRC...he liked the thing though, if only because the GM vans of the time were trash, the Fords were junkyard ready by 100K, and the Asians weren't yet competing in the fullsize minivan arena.
Maybe we should compare retained value after 13 years on a T&C vs a ML to see how the market loves each.
Probably no worse vehicle for sanity than a W220 S600 - you get the complex electrics, insane suspension, and the V12 all in one. There was an 05 on a local lot here a couple months back for 25K. New price would have been 140K-ish. Now that's depreciation.
A guy that lived down the street had 3 Grand Caravans over a period of time. Trans would die every 60k miles or so, yet they were so heavily discounted he kept buying 'em.
Funny thing, Phaeton still finds buyers in Germany, although it can be a bit of a rental fleet queen too. Kind of a German Crown Vic/Grand Marquis :shades:
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.