GM News, New Models and Market Share

ateixeira

Surprised the Altima finished so low.

In that segment they're all close, though.

berri

I think Daimler and Cerebus got infected with the zombie plague by Chrysler, not the other way around.

I dunno. I'm not defending Mopar, but seriously, Dr Z over at Daimler stays in control while MB has had numerous quality glitches, fallen behind BMW and now has Audi nipping at it's [non-permissible content removed].

Cerebus hasn't always been a paradigm of good business decisions either, but it is VERY connected with the federal gov. Look at some of it's key members and leaders (both parties well represented here too!)! After you do that, you may better understand the Chrysler bailout while you puke.

berri

Surprised the Altima finished so low

I've had a fair number of those as rentals. Nothing really stood out, just blah riding and driving, but yet not as smooth as a Camry even. I haven't driven the new model yet. Some rave about the new seats, but others say they get tired after an hour or two??? I think Ghosn (or however you spell it) and his cost cutting has started to show in Nissan's.

dieselone

Saw Motorweek on Velocity tonight. A comparo of mid-size sedans. They said that Malibu was excluded because it was priced too high.

I DVR Motorweek and I saw that episode last week. I don't agree with them regarding their exclusion of the Malibu, but it's their test.

Their requirement was for the price to be a max of $26k and IIRC each car had to have an EPA FE average of 28 mpg. The Malibu was excluded because the regular model didn't meet the FE number and the Eco was to expensive. They should have just tested a regular Malibu and then scored it accordingly if the FE came up short.

fintail

I don't know about Audi chasing down MB just yet, esp on a global basis.

It is kind of amusing that both Chrysler and MB had some of their worst products during the partnership.

scwmcan

I know they say they expect it to compete with the x1, but really we know it doesn't and so do they, there is a reason it starts at under $25,000, it is really a competitor to the x1 which starts out much higher priced ( and quickly goes up from there). This isn't to say the encore may not be a good trucklet but it is sort of in a classic its own, not big or powerful enough to compete with the luxury crossovers and too luxurious ( maybe) to compete with the mainstream minutes, it may actually work for them, time will tell.

scwmcan

And don't forget that Mitsubishi was supposed to be their Aisian brand to get them into the mass market there, I think Dailmer just didn't know what to do to try and grow their business at that time.

ateixeira

Yeah, X1 is $6500 more and options packages a bunch more. Most are high $30s cars.

I don't see them competing.

Could help Buick, to be the bargain upscale mini-ute.

tlong

Chrysler invented the minivan concept just as Ford invented the pony car concept with their Mustang.

I never could understand the minivan claim. VW had the van first.

Smaller than a regular van - check
Sliding side door - check
Hactch in back - check
Three rows of seats, middle row narrower for rear seat access - check

The only thing Chrysler did with that concept is put a front water cooled engine in it which made the rear floor lower and flat.

andre1969

The main thing that Chrysler brought to the table was making it more comfortable and car-like. And unlike the VW, your legs didn't double as the crumple-zone!

The Voyager/Caravan were probably closer in concept to those raised Toyota, Nissan, and Honda Civic wagons, just built on a larger scale and with sliding side doors.

In a way, the Voyager/Caravan did to minivans what the 1964 GTO did for musclecars. Or the Corvair Monza did for the pony car market. :P None were truly the first their kind on the market. But they all opened up their respective markets, made them popular, and got everyone to jump on the bandwagon.

fintail

I think the "car like" part is what makes the Chrysler vans important. None before were as easy to drive or as normal to ride in.

dieselone

I think the "car like" part is what makes the Chrysler vans important. None before were as easy to drive or as normal to ride in.

Definitely, plus they got better fuel economy than a full-size wagon. Though those early 4 cylinder vans had to be painfully underpowered with the a/c on and a full load.

andre1969

Though those early 4 cylinder vans had to be painfully underpowered with the a/c on and a full load.

With the right (or wrong) person behind the wheel, they still had enough power to scare you. Back in the early 90's, a co-worker had one, with the 4-cyl and a stick shift. Dunno if it had a/c or not. Anyway, one day I rode with him down to DC to get a Powerball ticket, when the jackpot got up real high. I'd guess this was oh, early 1993?

Anyway, that fool scared the hell out of me! Now, I'm sure a lot of what passed for "power" in that minivan was all the jerking around it did when he shifted gears, but it felt a lot quicker than you'd think it would be.

Then again, I think those early models only weighed about 3100 lb. I remember one of the early selling points was that overall length was about the same as a K-car wagon, yet they could hold a lot more cargo, and have a third row seat.

I'd imagine loading one up to the max would be a recipe for disaster, though.

fintail

IIRC they didn't get a V6 until 1987 - and I don't know how reliable that unit was either - but I know they eventually started eating transmissions. I recall there was also a turbo variant.

andre1969

I think the V-6 was the Mitsubishi 3.0. From what I've heard, it wasn't a horrible engine, although it would often start burning oil and puffing blue smoke, usually before 90,000 miles.

Also, for a few years, to get a little extra power, the Mitsubishi 2.6 "Silent Shaft" "Hemi" was offered. It only had a few more hp than the 2.2, but it had more torque, and a broader torque curve.

I wonder how the old, early 4-cyl Aerostars and Astro/Safaris compared? They had similar power to the Mopar 2.2, but I'm sure were considerably heavier.

busiris

- but I know they eventually started eating transmissions.

Yes. My wife bought a 1990 Voyager and it had the relatively new 4-speed automatic that imploded at 77K miles/4+ years.

Still, Chrysler stepped up and replaced it at a $0 cost to us, which I though was "stand up", since it was out of warranty. That extra effort by Chrysler led to the sale of 2 more T & C minivans and 4 other Chrysler products over the next 12 years.

Predictably, Chrysler's refusal to address the oil burning issue on my 2000 Concorde (from day one and all throughout the warranty period) costs them any future sales from me. See how saving a few dollars on warranty claims really adds up?

imidazol97

The Chryser vans were like riding in a car.

>but I know they eventually started eating transmissions.

Did the 4-cylinder models have 3-speed transmissions and the 6-cylinders have 4-speed trannies?

I recall hearing about people having repeated problems with transmissions fairly early and then I bought a new GM car with a 4-speed transmission. My salesman, part owner of the dealership, warned me to use 3rd if I was in slower speed suburban driving with starts and stops where the trans could shift in and out of OD. He said that slow rotation speed in 4th gear lessened the rate of flow of transmission fluid due to slow pump speed and gave higher temperatures in the transmission leading to failures.

I believe he alluded to the Chrysler transmissions saying that was a cause of their problems. It made sense, with slower air speeds at less than highway speed to cool the radiator trans cooler and the transmission itself, that the transmission would run hotter.

fintail

The 6cyl models must have had a different unit. I don't remember the 4cyls having any notorious flaws, but the V6s through the late 90s had the transmission issue, and the earlier V6s the aforementioned smoking issue.

In 1997, an old friend of mine bought a 1990 Caravan ES - the super loaded now rarely seen model. His was a V6, not the turbo. He was only maybe 19 when he bought it, fell in love with it somehow - made me chuckle. It was a pristine lower mileage car, in the typical dark red with grey trim (I think) exterior, and a plush matching interior. 48 hours after purchase, it was dead in his driveway - transmission puked. Luckily, he bought it from the local dealer, who replaced the unit without complaint. The new one had no problems in several years of driving.

I am pretty sure it was in late 97 when my dad bought his fanciest vehicle ever, a loaded T&C. That transmission lasted roughly 6 months. But the replacement was fine.

fintail

I can't even imagine a 4cyl Aerostar or Astro - would have had 1950s MB diesel acceleration, no doubt. Heck, when I was a kid, I remember my uncle telling me about someone he knew with a 4cyl Ciera - I could barely believe that.

ateixeira

I drove a really early V6 and thought it was a 4 banger. I can't imagine the 4 banger (sans turbo).

A neighbor from my previous house used to eat through those, he'd put tons of miles and I don't think he ever got more than 80k out of a trans. IIRC he went through 3 of those vans while I lived in that house, which was from 93 to 96.

His wife drove an Accord and owned it the whole time.

dieselone

I can't even imagine a 4cyl Aerostar or Astro

Me either. Back in HS I knew a guy who's grandpa had a v6 Astro with a manual trans. It was pretty quick and good do some nice smokey burnouts;)

My grandma had a late 80's Aerostar with a 2.8 or 3.0 v6 IIRC , it certainly didn't feel fast. A 4cyl would have been a dog.

ateixeira

My 91 Escort GT has the same fabric on the seats (velvetty gray with red piping) as the same era Aerostar. It was a funny detail to notice.

stever

My wife bought a 1990 Voyager and it had the relatively new 4-speed automatic that imploded at 77K miles/4+ years.

We had the 4 cylinder and the transmission was fine. Had head gasket issues but the warranty at the time was 7/70 and I only wound up paying $100 for the one out of warranty repair.

Chrysler's minivan was one of the first concept cars I got excited about, ~5 years before they were introduced. I had driven a VW Bus for a year, but the flat floored, FWD minivan was a game changer.

And GM has nothing for that slot. :confuse:

andre1969

If Ford had played their cards right, they could have claimed the title of first "car like" minivan. Iaccocca had been working on something called the Carousel when he was at Ford, and I think work on it started in 1972. Ultimately it died, and Iaccocca himself was fired, and then took over at Chrysler.

l1972 Ford Carousel Concept

keystonecarfan

Chrysler was not on the verge of collapse in 1998. Saying that just makes Daimler management look even worse - if anything, it looks even dumber than Packard management when it "merged with" (but really bought) a very sick Studebaker in 1954.

If Chrysler was on the verge of collapse, then why did Daimler buy it in the first place? It certainly wasn't to rescue the company. That wasn't how Daimler portrayed the merger at the time. Remember, it was Daimler that described it as a "merger of equals."

Daimler was building lemons before it took over Chrysler. The company hit trouble in the early 1990s, when Lexus built a car that was just as good (while offering superior reliability) as the S-Class for a much lower price.

keystonecarfan

The cars developed under Daimler, with the exception of the 300/Charger, were WORSE than the cars they replaced. They were developed by Daimler personnel and under Daimler guidelines. The company bears the ultimate responsibility.

Daimler underestimated what it would take to compete directly with Honda and Toyota during these years. When Lexus debuted, Mercedes could get by for a few years on the strength of its styling cues and heritage. Lexus had one weakness - it looked like a super-size Toyota. The Mercedes S-Class and E-Class looked like a Mercedes, which carried (and still carries) a lot of weight.

Dodge and Chrysler didn't have that luxury when competing directly with Honda and Toyota. Competing in the mass market is a whole different ball of wax than competing in the more rarified luxury market.

fintail

The design of the original LS400 was pretty much cribbed from the W126, and the 2001 LS was very much related to the design of the W140. Toyota did indeed build a much more reliable/easier to maintain version of a lower line S-class, but was definitely sold at a loss for the first several years, too. And to this day, even with its positives, has a hard time competing with the original, especially on the global market.

I still say it was revenge. Some of the Daimler-Chrysler decisions and products didn't even appear to be trying. The three pointed star could recover from errors - it has arguably the most brand equity of any automotive logo. The Mopar brands would be handicapped for longer.

lemko

Before Lexus, Mercedes built cars of outstanding quality as cost was not yet an object. When Mercedes tried to build cars at a cost-point as did Lexus, they fell flat on their faces.

busiris

The cars developed under Daimler, with the exception of the 300/Charger, were WORSE than the cars they replaced. They were developed by Daimler personnel and under Daimler guidelines. The company bears the ultimate responsibility.


You're correct, in saying that the folks in charge bear ultimate responsibility.

Daimler underestimated what it would take to compete directly with Honda and Toyota during these years.


Correct again. I posted the very same info from an article from the time period Cerberus took control.

What you omitted was that GM and Ford did the very same thing (underestimating the foreign competition), yet MB had no management influence over either of them. All 3 were suffering from what I called "domestic-itus".

When Lexus debuted, Mercedes could get by for a few years on the strength of its styling cues and heritage. Lexus had one weakness - it looked like a super-size Toyota. The Mercedes S-Class and E-Class looked like a Mercedes, which carried (and still carries) a lot of weight.

Dodge and Chrysler didn't have that luxury when competing directly with Honda and Toyota. Competing in the mass market is a whole different ball of wax than competing in the more rarified luxury market.

Seems to me that history shows us that GM and Ford suffered from the same ailment. Unless someone can demonstrate Chrysler had a plan to effectively compete against the foreign competition (but somehow MB kept it from being implemented) it seems to me to be a moot point. Chrysler's direction was already cast in stone before MB ever took control.

That's the only point I'm making...

robr2

MB and Chrysler - keep in mind the most important thing in that merger was the $12 billion Chrysler had and wasn't spending on model development. That was the real synergy of the merger.

busiris

MB and Chrysler - keep in mind the most important thing in that merger was the $12 billion Chrysler had and wasn't spending on model development. That was the real synergy of the merger.

Is that fact, or supposition?

I can't say one way or the other, but I find it questionable to think that Chrysler dropped its development programs completely.

Edit:From Wikipedia...

Chrysler had suffered a series of setbacks in recent years, culminating in DaimlerChrysler's agreement to sell the unit to Cerberus Capital Management in May 2007 for US$6 billion. Through most of its history, Chrysler has been the third largest of the "Big 3" U.S. automakers, but in January 2007, DaimlerChrysler, excluding its luxury Mercedes and Maybach lines, also outsold traditionally second place Ford, though behind General Motors and Toyota.

In the middle of the past decade, the merger began to take a turn for the worse. Due to Daimler's reluctance to allow Chrysler to continue development and use quality materials[dubious – discuss], Chrysler vehicles suffered lower fit and finish quality as well as sub-standard parts being supplied and used in spite of concerns[citation needed]. Although the resulting vehicles produced were still adequate, they were generally not on par with the competition.

robr2

Depending on the article, the cash on hand in Chrysler was between $7.5 and $12 billion dollars (the latter number from Lee Iacocca).

Read "Taken for a Ride". The cash on hand was important for Daimler. In reality, the entire fiasco was nothing but empire building for Schrempp.

It was never a merger of equals. Chrysler was treated as a step child and Daimler got the money they wanted.

uplanderguy

if anything, it looks even dumber than Packard management when it "merged with" (but really bought) a very sick Studebaker in 1954.

As a Studebaker buff, this is an accurate statement, but I do like to point out that when the hard decision was made on which was to stay and which was to go, the Board picked Packard to go. Until the '55 model year, they didn't build their own bodies, and in '56 the combined loss was $43 million--with Packard/Clipper sales down a thumping 67% from the year before (Stude's sales were down too, just not quite that dramatic). With a basically unrevised Studebaker line for '57, the loss was down to $11 million. I read that the sale of the Packard plant in Detroit only brought $750K.

Studebaker had a $13 million loss in '58 and a $28.5 million profit in '59.

Packard's President, James Nance, went on to manage the Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln division of Ford, until he was fired in 1959 or '60.

Packard definitely had more cash on hand at the time of the buyout, and Studebaker had the highest pay in the industry, coddling its union and resulting in a ridiculous breakeven point. But Packard still was using a straight eight in '54, and their styling was basically unchanged since the '51 model year. Studebaker came out with new cars in '47, new trucks in '49, a V8 in '51, and two new cars in '53 with no interchangeable body parts (Loewy coupes, and sedans). Stude spent more postwar on product up until the Packard purchase.

That said, I'm not sure anything else rode like a torsion-level Packard in '55 and '56, and they were luxurious cars for sure.

OK, back to GM!

busiris

Depending on the article, the cash on hand in Chrysler was between $7.5 and $12 billion dollars (the latter number from Lee Iacocca).


Hmmm. ... A $4.5 billion spread between the 2 estimates. That alone isn't doing much to support the ACCURATE amount of the amount of cash claimed to be available.

Read "Taken for a Ride". The cash on hand was important for Daimler. In reality, the entire fiasco was nothing but empire building for Schrempp.


I don't disagree that Daimler wanted to control Chrysler's $$$. Isn't that why companies buy other companies/ merge/take control?

It was never a merger of equals. Chrysler was treated as a step child and Daimler got the money they wanted.

I don't think anyone even remotely "in the know" ever believed that line of "a merger of equals". And, Chrysler may have indeed been hung out to dry.

The point that's being evaded here, for whatever reason, is that Daimler had ZERO control over GM and Ford, yet at the end of the 1st decade of the 21st Century, all 3 domestic automakers arrived at the very same end (Ford came out better, only because it had raised $$$ before the bailouts were needed to save GM and Chrysler).

Being educated in a statistical background, I know that trends usually continue in a direction unless some force is exerted to redirect it.

So, here's the conclusion I arrived at...

Since all 3 domestics ended up at the same point, and since MB had no management influence on 2 of the 3, its difficult to understand what effect MB had on the failure of Chrysler ~2008.

Certainly, the controlling interest in Chrysler COULD have changed direction, but it seems clear they, for the most part, let Chrysler continue on down the path is was on before the "merger".

Again, unless anyone can explain how such a rare occurrence of all 3 domestics crashing and burning at the same time (with only 1 of those domestics being under the control of Daimler) is tied to Chrysler's failure under the Daimler/Cerberus takeover of Chrysler, I'll continue to see the obvious, which is Daimler's "occupation" of Chrysler had zero influence on Chrysler choking, unless one wants to blame Daimler/Cerberus for doing too little to change Chrysler's direction.

Edit: Example...

3 new planes are to be ferried to their purchaser from the factory.

Plane A has 1 pilot, plane B has 1 pilot, but plane C has 3 pilots (of course, only 1 pilot in control at a time.

All 3 planes crash and burn before arriving at their destination.

Would it be logical to suspect all three planes suffered from the same ailment, or to say "I think plane C crashed because of the 2nd pilot's error?"

berri

While Daimler wanted to get it's hands on Chrysler's cash, I think Chrysler wanted to use Daimler to help in developing new, modern engines, trannies and platforms???

xrunner2

Lots of posts here on Chrysler, a little Packard with no reference or relation to GM. What gives?

berri

OK, here's one: Do you think either Chrysler or GM would be better off, or worse off today if they had been forced to merge in the bailout?

fho2008

I remember reading a car mag that said GM made the 4.3 V6 standard in the Astro/Safari when 95% of dealer orders were for the 4.3!

Once in a while they make good decisions.

robr2

OK, here's one: Do you think either Chrysler or GM would be better off, or worse off today if they had been forced to merge in the bailout?

Worse. They would have too many overlapping products and many would have been killed, those plants closed and those workers and suppliers dumped.

lemko

I read that the sale of the Packard plant in Detroit only brought $750K.

Somebody bought that colossal ruin? What for?

uplanderguy

I can't recall. I think I read that at the old Studebaker Museum archives 20 years ago in the '57 Annual Report.

The archives at that time were in a non-descript building a couple miles south of the old museum, and I remember the older-lady archivist telling me when I went to leave at lunchtime, to have my car key "ready" between my thumb and index finger so I didn't waste time fumbling to get into my car.

A friend of mine whose Dad was a Packard and Studebaker dealer, got a piece of the original lobby tile flooring from the Packard facility on E. Grand Blvd. in Detroit there a couple years ago, and had it mounted and framed. He was lucky to get that I think. But then I love stuff like that. The desk I'm working on right now is a glass-covered Parts Department door from the Carl E. Filer Stude-Packard-MB dealer in my hometown of Greenville, PA. The door has a large round, 'red ball' "Studebaker Parts and Accessories" decal on it. I paid fifty bucks for the door about eight or so years ago, from the building's current owner (it's a laundromat).

stever

"General Motors Co., seeing Germany at risk of slipping into recession, may shutter a factory in that country two years earlier than planned as the European auto market sinks for a sixth straight year.

"They are trying to get in front of the trouble and have come to the realization that it is a very long road ahead," said Jeff Schuster, an industry analyst with LMC Automotive. "My view is that this is the painful reality of what needs to be done across Western Europe."

GM may shut German site early (Detroit News)

keystonecarfan

busiris: What you omitted was that GM and Ford did the very same thing (underestimating the foreign competition), yet MB had no management influence over either of them. All 3 were suffering from what I called "domestic-itus".

All three were still very dependent on the U.S. market, and that market tanked dramatically in 2008. That is the common denominator.

busiris

All three were still very dependent on the U.S. market, and that market tanked dramatically in 2008. That is the common denominator.

Exactly! So, when the reckoning day came for Chrysler, it wasn't because of the former merger with Daimler. My point all along...

I remember reading an article written by a now-forgotten financial analyst in 2008/9 that called the big-3 "truck manufacturers that also sold cars".

I thought tat was a pretty good analysis of the big-3 at the time.

tlong

All three were still very dependent on the U.S. market, and that market tanked dramatically in 2008. That is the common denominator.

Honda is also extremely dependent on the US market, yet had nowhere near the problems.

IMHO the common denominator is the UAW and the inept US management for many years, partly due to complacency after decades of market leadership.

keystonecarfan

Daimler was responsible for the Dodges, Chryslers and Jeeps developed when it owned the company.

The products were hardly stellar - with a few exceptions (the 300/Charger and Grand Cherokee) they were INFERIOR to what GM and Ford were offering at that time. A Dodge Caliber, for example, was inferior to a Ford Focus or Chevrolet Cobalt (let alone a Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla). The Dodge Stratus/Avenger and Chrysler Sebring developed under Daimler's watch received terrible reviews.

Daimler bears sole responsbility for those cars. Are you really going to call the Dodge Caliber a great vehicle, or allow Daimler to escape responsibility for it when it was calling the shots from Germany (this is on the record) and Daimler appointees were running Chrysler (this is also on the record)?

Just because all three experienced trouble at the same time doesn't mean it was all for the same reasons. And note that Ford never declared bankruptcy.

Nor were the companies equal. The team assembled by the Obama Administration almost considered letting Chrysler go under, for example, as they were unimpressed with its vehicle line-up and figured that the country's economy could withstand the "hit". Meanwhile, they were seriously impresssed with the vehicles that GM either had just introduced, or was preparing to introduce.

xrunner2

Per Keystone: " Meanwhile, they were seriously impresssed with the vehicles that GM either had just introduced, or was preparing to introduce."

That is good reason why General Motors, the good parts of it, would have survived and flourished somehow under a standard bankruptcy process without government interference from the Obama Administration.

Airlines and other companies had previously went through bankruptcy.

In the case of GM, bondholders would have been treated fairly by law rather than what had happened.

bpizzuti

Keep in mind it was not one but two Administrations that gave GM a government bailout. Two different, theoretically opposite ideologies, also.

The bondholders were done. GM's execs had Bush bought and paid for, and GM's union labor already owned Obama. Bondholders never ever stood a chance.

busiris

Just because all three experienced trouble at the same time doesn't mean it was all for the same reasons. And note that Ford never declared bankruptcy.

Each to his own opinion.

There is no question that the 3 domestic automakers all suffered from the very same problems.

They shared the same labor forces (UAW), and they all hit the wall simultaneously. To attempt to exonerate Chrysler and blame its problems on Daimler is simply a one dimensional view of a multifaceted problem, and I say that without owning, either now, in the past, or any plans in the future, a MB product.

IMO, its like blaming your BIL for your car's imploded transmission last week because he drove it once 5 years ago.

I won't go into your comment regarding Ford, since its been bludgeoned to death so many times already on these forums.

busiris

A little refresher article for the big-3 in 2008...

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/06/news/companies/big_three_woes/