GM's deal is expected to add or create 6,400 jobs. It also will provide workers with a $5,000 signing bonus, three $1,000 lump-sum payments, an improved profit sharing plan and a $3.50 per hour raise for entry-level workers over the life of the contract.
Sounds like the auto execs are still drunken sailors. They get a few bucks and out the window it goes. Why not, right? If things turn bad tomorrow, the "essentiasl nature of the Big 3 " and the "retention of millions of jobs" will just require Uncle Sam to reach in his pockets again.
It was loaded - even had the gold trim. Leather, infinity stereo, wheels, everything. He might have got a few grand off, but still, it was a lot of money for something where the transmission fails in under a year of ownership. I still remember the loaner car the dealer gave him - a Celebrity. My dad was not happy, said it was one of the worst cars he ever drove.
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.
Those vans were bad reliability wise, but the sad thing is they were still way better than the crap GM and Ford were peddling. The Chrysler vans were far more attractive and user friendly than a GM or Ford fwd minivan.
I don't have the guts to risk a used Phaeton, too complex. I remember the HVAC system in those, if that goes awry it would be like repairing HVAC in a house :shades:
I also wouldn't trust it to a place that generally can't fix a Jetta properly.
That's exactly it, and from a design standpoint, the 96+ models were light years ahead of the competition. Ford and GM never caught up and still haven't.
It was loaded - even had the gold trim. Leather, infinity stereo, wheels, everything. He might have got a few grand off, but still, it was a lot of money for something where the transmission fails in under a year of ownership.
I remember our neighbor having a T&C van in the late 80's (89 ultradrive I believe)and the joke was the tires lasted longer than the transmission. IIRC, by 80k it was on its 3rd transmission.
Small town dealer. No modern loaner fleet. Chrysler should have policed this. A few years later the dealer went under and was bought out by the local Ford/GM/Toyota dealer who now sells everything in the region but Honda.
300 has many W210 suspension and control components - and I bet it has turned a tidy profit for Chrysler over the years. The new style one even looks kind of MB like, IMO.
That's exactly it, and from a design standpoint, the 96+ models were light years ahead of the competition. Ford and GM never caught up and still haven't.
Nope, for whatever reason Ford and GM were completely lost in that market. There vans were ugly, poorly designed and assembled, with poor reliability to top if off. No surprise GM and Ford left the market all together.
The Chrysler vans were far better overall even with the reliability issues.
Now my SIL has an '08 Caravan for a company vehicles. She has nearly 90k on it w/o any issues. Maybe the newer Chrysler vans are better. They seem to sell well.
Oh, no doubt, Lutz and other execs at GM should know that. But Big Three execs aren't the only arrogant SOB's out there in autoland...although on these forums, one would think so.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Sienna and Odyssey put the market on its head - premium product at a premium price, while GM and Ford worked on crossovers and SUVs. I am sure Chrysler still is able to get profits out of their vans, I see new ones too, and strangely enough they sell in Europe too.
Why would a Chrysler dealer loan a Chevy? I'm assuming they went through a rental car agency. Remember, as you told me when I complained about my lousy Camry rental, you really can't judge a car line by a rental .
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
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.
Being a Mopar fan, I wish I could blame Mitsubishi, but unfortunately that one was all Mopar's doing. Mitsubishi had a 3.0 V-6 that was common in minivans, before the 3.3/3.8 came out, and was also used in some of the K-car variants (LeBaron, Acclaim, Spirit). It tended to start burning oil and smoking around 70,000 miles, but other than that I think it was fairly sturdy. The old Mitsubishi 2.6 4-cyl would do that too, as I recall.
In later years, they did improve the Mitsubishi 3.0. There was also a small Mitsubishi 2.5 V-6 that was used in the first-gen Sebring/Cirrus, and Stratus/Avenger, up through 2000. When the 2001 models came out, the convertible and 4-doors switched to the Mopar 2.7, and the 2-door coupes used a Mitsu 3.0 V-6, which was a pretty good engine by that time, from what I've heard.
Depends on the dealer. When I had an '01 Nissan Pathfinder, the dealer I bought it from was a Nissan, Jeep, and Kia dealer at the same location. The one time I had my Pathfinder serviced there, they gave me new Jeep Liberty as a loaner.
Now my SIL has an '08 Caravan for a company vehicles. She has nearly 90k on it w/o any issues. Maybe the newer Chrysler vans are better. They seem to sell well.
I thought the Uplander looked better, but I do see a ton of the latest Chrysler minivans out there. And they're good enough that Volkswagen just slaps their nameplate on them to sell.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I like it more than the first one, for sure. It has matured nicely, and I am sure will sell more than a few. The disastrous merger had one positive product anyway.
I guess I never knew a Chrysler dealer to sell Chevys out of the same location. As it was, they gave fintail's Dad a used car as a loaner, not even a rental.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Oh, no doubt, Lutz and other execs at GM should know that. But Big Three execs aren't the only arrogant SOB's out there in autoland...although on these forums, one would think so.
Wagoner's been really quiet since he was fired. I'd be hiding, too.
I guess I never knew a Chrysler dealer to sell Chevys out of the same location.
The dealer I bought my 2000 Intrepid from also sold Chevies and Isuzus. Isuzu faded away, and then a few years later, strangely enough, they quit selling Chevies! At that point they started selling Chryslers and Jeeps. A couple years ago though, they dumped Mopar altogether and closed that dealership down.
Their main excuse was that Chrysler had passed through too many hands (Benz, then Cerberus, and then Fiat) and that they didn't have much faith that the brand would be around long-term. Secondary, they said that it didn't look like Chrysler was going to be building a fuel-efficient small car anytime in the near future, and with the way the economy was starting to turn, that was an important market.
In the small town where my dad bought that van, today Ford and Chrysler share a facility, and even stranger, Chevy and Toyota share a facility. The nicer but small Chrysler facility now sits abandoned. Back in the day, also weirdly, Honda Buick and Caddy shared a facility, but the latter two have been gone for maybe 15 years now and Honda has the entire premises.
>You should tell that to Lutz and the rest of the overpaid underworked GM executive cabal
Lutz already knows the problems. He clearly exposed them in his book. The company is as much a mess as the cable companies and cell phone companies are today. They exist only to supply jobs for those there. Pricing, customer service, and services suitable for customers are not a consideration
Hopefully some of those pyramids have been neutered at GM (this is the GM discussion, right?). And hopefully there's someone who's actually responsible for whether or not a car sells in an appropriate number.
Sienna and Odyssey put the market on its head - premium product at a premium price, while GM and Ford worked on crossovers and SUVs
Took them a while.
Caravan debuted in, what was it, 1984?
The first Ody was small and didn't have sliding doors. It wasn't until they really copied Chrysler's formula before they started to challenge them, which was in 1999. 15 years later!
Toyota took even longer. The Previa was a mid-engined odd ball, quirky and very much a low volume niche product. Even the first conventional Sienna was too small. Toyota didn't really arrive until 2005, with the bigger gen II. So Toyota took 21 years to really challenge Dodge for the crown.
GM built the Lambdas, which probably sell for more money, so I doubt they care. Still, you'd think maybe one of those clones could have sliding doors.
Ford seemingly has 27 3-row SUVs. I guess the Flex is their closest thing to a van now. The Aerostart and Windstar tended to be trucky, and minivan buyers wanted car-like plushness.
Right now it's a close 3-way race YTD thru end of Sept:
85,830 GCs 83,188 Swagger Wagons 76,021 Odys
Dodge and Toyota are up, Honda is down. I think the new look went too far, shocking a conservative segment.
First Ody was really an Isuzu, which is even odder. I still see them around now and then. First Previa was relatively cool with supercharged and AWD variants, poor crash test scores as well - everything you need. GM and Ford seemed to like kind of clunky small vans or truck like larger ones. Oh well, not something I hope to ever need to buy.
First Ody was really an Isuzu, which is even odder.
I don't think that's correct. Isuzu rebadged the first Ody under their name. Honda rebadged an Isuzu as their Passport before they had any SUVs or trucks of their own. That vehicle was really an Isuzu and AFAIR was much less reliable than typical Hondas.
Of course the Neon just started coming of the assembly lines in 1994, not exactly early 90's.
I agree, Mercedes was not infected with general wide spread low quality until AFTER the merger. The plague of being associated with Chrysler infected them, was predictable, and still lingers a bit..... It is a stench, like a dead body in the trunk; tough to get rid of.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
How many of those 30 years turned a profit? They were lucky to last as long as they did without a 2nd predictable bailout. It was inevitable, and that is the problem. I'd of bet the farm, the house, the family dog, and my first born that Chrysler would of had a 2nd bankruptcy in my lifetime after experiencing a vehicle they made in 1995.
I'm thinking I should hire a lawyer to sue the heck out of the idiots responsible for the first bailout, as they have caused me significant financial losses from a car company that should have ceased to exist long before 1995.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
The plague of being associated with Chrysler infected them
Chrysler has been a habitual also run in quality. But I think MB really got infected with Wall Streetitis. As business has gone global, so has the short term financial focus of Wall Street spread across the globe. Back then, MB was growing fast as Americans (and others) were more plush in their wallets, and leasing helped wannabe's get into them. The revenue jumps caught stock trader's eyes and then the push to grow the bottom line hit. Cut costs and increase margins. Its not just D3, look at a lot of the imports (and in particular Toyota). Of course, you see this self defeating Wall Street infection in all kinds of companies and industries with similar results. It almost always ends ugly and then take years to climb back. Maybe business schools need to start requiring a course in finance and marketing history?
and the joke was the tires lasted longer than the transmission. IIRC, by 80k it was on its 3rd transmission.
I think there are Chrysler execs right now conspiring in a room some where to advertise that their new transmissions last 3X longer than the tires, and in the small fine print of the commerical it'll say *using 100 treadware track R-compound tires
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Remember, as you told me when I complained about my lousy Camry rental, you really can't judge a car line by a rental .
I'm actually going to disagree with Fintail on that one. As long as the rental is from a reputable rental car agency, I think rentals are an excellent way to see how a car holds up under actual use.
I wouldn't blame cigarette burns on the car though, and they do tend to buy the cheapest tires possible, which makes handling harder to judge.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I'd say VW has a better perception with quality than does Chrysler, but they certainly are in a group of their own with a lot of people.
On Sunday I went up to a local used car lot, while they were closed, to see if they had anything interesting. Oddly, side-by-side, they had a Dodge Caravan, Chrysler T&C, and a VW Routan, so it was easy to compare them. Interestingly, the Routan seemed to have the nicest interior of them all. FWIW, they were all well-equipped models, with leather seats and such, so it's not like I was comparing a base model to a top level.
The newer minivans are using a 3.6 V-6 and, IIRC, a 6-speed automatic transmission, so if the long-term reliability holds up, they should be pretty competitive.
Wagoner is probably off on a deserted island somewhere since he could afford to buy the whole island with a tax payer subsidized golden parachute severance package he received.
I wonder what would have happened if Bin Laden had chosen to crash those planes into the GM headquarters building rather than the World Trade Centers.
Then all the GM fans could have always blamed the Taliban for GM's woes.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
He can say it, but a really effective leader can do something about it. I know the sixty-leven levels of management at GM along with the "it's the other guy's fault" mentality will be hard to crack, but that's how it has to go. I don't know if I really see evidence of that just yet.
Oops, my bad. To me, the first Odyssey is such an oddball that it screams Isuzu. I forgot about the Passport, and does anyone remember the Acura SLX? I bet the suckers who bought those were happy campers.
MB was also freaking out because of Lexus in the 90s, not wanting to cede the important NA market to cars which required much less intensive maintenance. That hurt too, a distraction which caused some corners to be cut. But IMO the worst products of MB's dark years are the ML, W203, and W220 - and at least two of these have massive design and production done during the merger. Now that the merger is history, MB is advancing. It's too much to be a coincidence in my eyes.
I think business schools are pretty much churning out a product that can look a quarter ahead, at the most.
I don't know if any rental group is really reputable. They all do the minimum amount of maintenance required, which can show poorly on the cars, especially as mileages increase. Many stories out there about people being delivered rentals with significant problems that the agencies tried to pass off without saying a word.
If you get a rental with say under 5K on it, it can be useful, one with 30K+ (and they exist), not so much. Who knows how it has been abused.
Comments
Used ones can be bargains. They are a great car underneath, just not the right badge. Keep in mind how poor VW service is, traditionally.
GM's deal is expected to add or create 6,400 jobs. It also will provide workers with a $5,000 signing bonus, three $1,000 lump-sum payments, an improved profit sharing plan and a $3.50 per hour raise for entry-level workers over the life of the contract.
Sounds like the auto execs are still drunken sailors. They get a few bucks and out the window it goes. Why not, right? If things turn bad tomorrow, the "essentiasl nature of the Big 3 " and the "retention of millions of jobs" will just require Uncle Sam to reach in his pockets again.
Those vans were bad reliability wise, but the sad thing is they were still way better than the crap GM and Ford were peddling. The Chrysler vans were far more attractive and user friendly than a GM or Ford fwd minivan.
I also wouldn't trust it to a place that generally can't fix a Jetta properly.
No you don't! Because there was no Celebrity in the 90's, lol
probably a Lumina...
It was a nice vehicle when everything was right - super comfortable and pretty posh, but it wasn't exactly 100% reliable.
I remember our neighbor having a T&C van in the late 80's (89 ultradrive I believe)and the joke was the tires lasted longer than the transmission. IIRC, by 80k it was on its 3rd transmission.
Nope, for whatever reason Ford and GM were completely lost in that market. There vans were ugly, poorly designed and assembled, with poor reliability to top if off. No surprise GM and Ford left the market all together.
The Chrysler vans were far better overall even with the reliability issues.
Now my SIL has an '08 Caravan for a company vehicles. She has nearly 90k on it w/o any issues. Maybe the newer Chrysler vans are better. They seem to sell well.
Most to all execs are arrogant blowhards living in their own world, it's a prereq to join the club.
But for a dealer to even pull something like that, shows there are some deep problems.
Being a Mopar fan, I wish I could blame Mitsubishi, but unfortunately that one was all Mopar's doing. Mitsubishi had a 3.0 V-6 that was common in minivans, before the 3.3/3.8 came out, and was also used in some of the K-car variants (LeBaron, Acclaim, Spirit). It tended to start burning oil and smoking around 70,000 miles, but other than that I think it was fairly sturdy. The old Mitsubishi 2.6 4-cyl would do that too, as I recall.
In later years, they did improve the Mitsubishi 3.0. There was also a small Mitsubishi 2.5 V-6 that was used in the first-gen Sebring/Cirrus, and Stratus/Avenger, up through 2000. When the 2001 models came out, the convertible and 4-doors switched to the Mopar 2.7, and the 2-door coupes used a Mitsu 3.0 V-6, which was a pretty good engine by that time, from what I've heard.
Depends on the dealer. When I had an '01 Nissan Pathfinder, the dealer I bought it from was a Nissan, Jeep, and Kia dealer at the same location. The one time I had my Pathfinder serviced there, they gave me new Jeep Liberty as a loaner.
I thought the Uplander looked better, but I do see a ton of the latest Chrysler minivans out there. And they're good enough that Volkswagen just slaps their nameplate on them to sell.
Wagoner's been really quiet since he was fired. I'd be hiding, too.
The dealer I bought my 2000 Intrepid from also sold Chevies and Isuzus. Isuzu faded away, and then a few years later, strangely enough, they quit selling Chevies! At that point they started selling Chryslers and Jeeps. A couple years ago though, they dumped Mopar altogether and closed that dealership down.
Their main excuse was that Chrysler had passed through too many hands (Benz, then Cerberus, and then Fiat) and that they didn't have much faith that the brand would be around long-term. Secondary, they said that it didn't look like Chrysler was going to be building a fuel-efficient small car anytime in the near future, and with the way the economy was starting to turn, that was an important market.
His legacy is indeed nothing to brag about.
Lutz already knows the problems. He clearly exposed them in his book. The company is as much a mess as the cable companies and cell phone companies are today. They exist only to supply jobs for those there. Pricing, customer service, and services suitable for customers are not a consideration
Hopefully some of those pyramids have been neutered at GM (this is the GM discussion, right?). And hopefully there's someone who's actually responsible for whether or not a car sells in an appropriate number.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
Took them a while.
Caravan debuted in, what was it, 1984?
The first Ody was small and didn't have sliding doors. It wasn't until they really copied Chrysler's formula before they started to challenge them, which was in 1999. 15 years later!
Toyota took even longer. The Previa was a mid-engined odd ball, quirky and very much a low volume niche product. Even the first conventional Sienna was too small. Toyota didn't really arrive until 2005, with the bigger gen II. So Toyota took 21 years to really challenge Dodge for the crown.
GM built the Lambdas, which probably sell for more money, so I doubt they care. Still, you'd think maybe one of those clones could have sliding doors.
Ford seemingly has 27 3-row SUVs. I guess the Flex is their closest thing to a van now. The Aerostart and Windstar tended to be trucky, and minivan buyers wanted car-like plushness.
Right now it's a close 3-way race YTD thru end of Sept:
85,830 GCs
83,188 Swagger Wagons
76,021 Odys
Dodge and Toyota are up, Honda is down. I think the new look went too far, shocking a conservative segment.
I don't think that's correct. Isuzu rebadged the first Ody under their name.
Honda rebadged an Isuzu as their Passport before they had any SUVs or trucks of their own. That vehicle was really an Isuzu and AFAIR was much less reliable than typical Hondas.
I agree, Mercedes was not infected with general wide spread low quality until AFTER the merger. The plague of being associated with Chrysler infected them, was predictable, and still lingers a bit..... It is a stench, like a dead body in the trunk; tough to get rid of.
There's a mis-managed brand. They went from having the best-selling imported truck (Rodeo) to extinction, under GM IIRC.
I think GM really just wanted their diesel tech, and tossed the rest.
I'm thinking I should hire a lawyer to sue the heck out of the idiots responsible for the first bailout, as they have caused me significant financial losses from a car company that should have ceased to exist long before 1995.
Chrysler has been a habitual also run in quality. But I think MB really got infected with Wall Streetitis. As business has gone global, so has the short term financial focus of Wall Street spread across the globe. Back then, MB was growing fast as Americans (and others) were more plush in their wallets, and leasing helped wannabe's get into them. The revenue jumps caught stock trader's eyes and then the push to grow the bottom line hit. Cut costs and increase margins. Its not just D3, look at a lot of the imports (and in particular Toyota). Of course, you see this self defeating Wall Street infection in all kinds of companies and industries with similar results. It almost always ends ugly and then take years to climb back. Maybe business schools need to start requiring a course in finance and marketing history?
What stood out about the first ML? Where it was built.
New plant, new design, new issues, new training protocols, heck even a new language.
I think there are Chrysler execs right now conspiring in a room some where to advertise that their new transmissions last 3X longer than the tires, and in the small fine print of the commerical it'll say *using 100 treadware track R-compound tires
Can't be any more reliable than a typical VW as VW chose to rebadge Chrysler's minivan.
I'd say VW has a better perception with quality than does Chrysler, but they certainly are in a group of their own with a lot of people.
I'm actually going to disagree with Fintail on that one. As long as the rental is from a reputable rental car agency, I think rentals are an excellent way to see how a car holds up under actual use.
I wouldn't blame cigarette burns on the car though, and they do tend to buy the cheapest tires possible, which makes handling harder to judge.
On Sunday I went up to a local used car lot, while they were closed, to see if they had anything interesting. Oddly, side-by-side, they had a Dodge Caravan, Chrysler T&C, and a VW Routan, so it was easy to compare them. Interestingly, the Routan seemed to have the nicest interior of them all. FWIW, they were all well-equipped models, with leather seats and such, so it's not like I was comparing a base model to a top level.
The newer minivans are using a 3.6 V-6 and, IIRC, a 6-speed automatic transmission, so if the long-term reliability holds up, they should be pretty competitive.
I wonder what would have happened if Bin Laden had chosen to crash those planes into the GM headquarters building rather than the World Trade Centers.
Then all the GM fans could have always blamed the Taliban for GM's woes.
I think business schools are pretty much churning out a product that can look a quarter ahead, at the most.
If you get a rental with say under 5K on it, it can be useful, one with 30K+ (and they exist), not so much. Who knows how it has been abused.
My last rental was an Impala with 4 miles on it.