Fiat CEO: Chrysler worse than we thought

Jim Higgins wrote:

> Fiat CEO: Chrysler worse than we thought


Reminiscent of Lee Iaccoca's comment on arriving...

Josh S wrote:
> In article >,
> Bob Grimes > wrote:
>
>> Steve,
>> We have had this discussion before. I agree with you that Chrysler
>> should have kept the two and four door Neon, but the Caliber is a good
>> car, kind of like the Lancer/LeBaron of the late '80's. I call it a
>> five door hatchback sedan, which to me, it is. Very comfortable, with
>> the CRT/2.0 very good mileage.
>
> I like the mechanicals of the Caliber, but I'm not interested in driving
> it in that thing of a body.
It's all in the eye! I, personally hate the style of the Fit, and told
a Honda dealer that. Also, my friend is a die-hard prewar Ford Fan:
Model A and especially the '40 Ford. I took him for a ride in my 1941
Chrysler Windsor, he drove it, and he says that it is a beautiful car.
He also chided me for having Fluid Drive instead of wanting a "real"
automatic, but after showing him how to drive it, he admitted it was a
smooth advance over the old Ford manual and even GM's first HydraMatic.
There are several cars that I would consider "that thing of a body":
the new Mercedes sedan body(the one that crashes through the glass in
the commercial), the Honda Fit/Element, that Toyota that looks like it
is a wannabe old school Land Rover, Cadillac CTS(horrible front end),
and there are others. But for my not liking them, their are others that
think they are great.

Bob Grimes wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>> MoPar Man wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why not at least mention the Caliber?
>>
>> Because its kinda an embarrassment. What brain-dead manager decided to
>> replace the company's ONE compact economy car (the Neon) with an
>> underpowered (except for the SRT version) thing that looks more like a
>> crossover SUV?
> Steve,
> We have had this discussion before. I agree with you that Chrysler
> should have kept the two and four door Neon, but the Caliber is a good
> car, kind of like the Lancer/LeBaron of the late '80's. I call it a
> five door hatchback sedan, which to me, it is. Very comfortable, with
> the CRT/2.0 very good mileage.

My point is not that the Caliber is necessarily a bad car (although I
still say the low-trim versions that I've had as rentals are pretty
shamefully appointed) but that it was a bad decision to use it to both
replace the Neon *and* cover an up-class niche too.

The Caliber is what it is... and that's a small-to-midsize
crossover/wagon/hatchback (however you want to visualize it). Its not an
economy car that can compete with Civics, Cobalts, Focuses (Foci?),
Scions, etc, let alone the new craze for Yaris/Fit sized things (which I
would *never* buy personally, but for which there is a growing market).
There's a big hole in the Chrysler lineup in that size vehicle and it
all goes back to not replacing the Neon.

wrote:

> There IS no Chrysler -- it's part of Fiat Group.
>
<snip>

> Chrysler's profits belong to its owners -- Fiat Group.

I was agreeing with a lot of what you said until these two comments.
Since when does a 20% share, with a planned growth in share to at most
35%, constitute "ownership?" There IS (for now) still very much a
Chrysler. Fiat Group owns one/fifth of Chrysler.

>Bringing back a 13-year old design seems to be your only solution for
>that.

While I'm picking nits, the LH platform he's always touting is a 17+
year old design. It went on sale in the fall of 1992 as a 1993 model. I
bought one in the spring of 1993 and it was one of the best cars I've
ever had, and he is right in that it had SOME features that you can't
get anymore. For one thing, our 1993 3.5L Vision TSi routinely got 28
mpg highway and 23 mpg combined. Try THAT in a 3.5L LX platform with all
its added weight and pug nose aerodynamics. But for me, the fact that
the LH was a front-drive was a HUGE strike against it. With the power
the 3.5 had, FWD was wholly inadequate. Just like the 300-hp front-drive
Northstar Cadillacs handled like sh*t compared to the current rear-drive
CTS. And the LX chassis is indeed FAR more taut and stiff than the LH,
handles better in every regard, and has superior fit-and-finish.

Let's remember that the Grand Caravan/Town & Country are
still selling above expectations. They are the only NA made
minivans and still the perfect choice for the large family.
Not to mention that they are great choices for inside mount power
wheelchair lifts, along with total conversion (dropped floor pan)
wheelchair vans.

Since one has dodgy maths.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Steve" > wrote in message
news [...]
> Since when does a 20% share, with a planned growth in share to at most
> 35%, constitute "ownership?" There IS (for now) still very much a
> Chrysler. Fiat Group owns one/fifth of Chrysler.
[...]

On Sep 19, 8:42*am, QX > wrote:
> Let's remember that the Grand Caravan/Town & Country are
> still selling above expectations. They are the only NA made
> minivans and still the perfect choice for the large family.

When did Alabama secede from NA? 'Cause the Honda Odyssey is made
right here in Lincoln, Alabama.
Also, when did Indiana secede? The Toyota Sienna is made Princeton,
Indiana.

In fact, since the Chryslers are now made only in Windsor, Ontario,
the Honda and Toyota are the only minivans made in the US.


> Not to mention that they are great choices for inside mount power
> wheelchair lifts, along with total conversion (dropped floor pan)
> wheelchair vans.

" wrote:

> In fact, since the Chryslers are now made only in Windsor, Ontario,
> the Honda and Toyota are the only minivans made in the US.

And what's the significance of that?

When you look at the trading relationship between the US and Canada,
it's far more equitable and even-handed (and open) then with any other
two trading parters in the world.

Pointing out these production differences, or making distinctions
between made-in-usa vs made-in-canada means about as much as
made-in-michigan vs made-in-ohio.

Do Ohioans go out of their way to buy vehicles (or any products) made in
Ohio over those made in another state? What's so different about
Michigan vs Ontario vs Ohio? We all buy each-others products along
free-market, free-access lines. You can't say that for US vs EU trade,
or US vs Japan trade.

On Sep 28, 5:33*pm, MoPar Man > wrote:
> " wrote:
> > In fact, since the Chryslers are now made only in Windsor, Ontario,
> > the Honda and Toyota are the only minivans made in the US.
>
> And what's the significance of that?
>
> When you look at the trading relationship between the US and Canada,
> it's far more equitable and even-handed (and open) then with any other
> two trading parters in the world.
>
> Pointing out these production differences, or making distinctions
> between made-in-usa vs made-in-canada means about as much as
> made-in-michigan vs made-in-ohio.
>
> Do Ohioans go out of their way to buy vehicles (or any products) made in
> Ohio over those made in another state? *What's so different about
> Michigan vs Ontario vs Ohio? *We all buy each-others products along
> free-market, free-access lines. *You can't say that for US vs EU trade,
> or US vs Japan trade.

Because some people insist on "Buy American." Even when the cars they
buy were made in Canada or Mexico. There's nothing wrong with the
cars being made there; it just makes the "Buy American" jingoism
silly.

But when a poster is flat-out wrong about where minivans are made,
that deserved a detailed response.

Any examples?

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"MoPar Man" > wrote in message
...
[...]
We all buy each-others products along
> free-market, free-access lines. You can't say that for US vs EU trade,
> or US vs Japan trade.