Mercedes, Not US, To Bail Out Chrysler

"Josh S" > wrote in message
...
> The is funny and makes some sense, but is it
> really a time to poke more
> fun at Chrysler robber Mercedes?
>
> In article
> >,
> Comments4u
> >
> wrote:
>
>> In a huge surprise, Chrysler has decided to
>> decline US government help and
>> instead accept help from Mercedes, which still
>> owns 20% of Chrysler. Under
>> the plan, Chrysler will introduce competitive
>> platforms starting in June
>> 2009, with a total of three new platforms
>> available by December 2009.
>>
>> The V6 versions of the Chrysler 300 and Dodge
>> Charger will be replaced by
>> front drive models with better fuel mileage and
>> more interior room. The
>> Hemi powered rear drive 300 and Charger will be
>> retained to fill their
>> proper role as specialty models built mostly
>> for status rather than for
>> wide market appeal.
> This is quite smart, but sorry Chrysler the 300M
> I recently purchased
> for a few songs should last me for 8+ years.
> Of course keep the RWD 300C for the police who
> like dangerous chases.
>>
>> In the midsize segment, the current Mitsubishi
>> sourced Sebring and Avenger,
>> awkwardly styled in the theme of a brick set on
>> edge, will be replaced by
>> lower, sleeker, and more aerodynamic models.
>> In the compact segement, the
>> PT Cruiser will be retained since it has proven
>> appeal as a styling
>> curiousity.
> I guess if it sells, why not. IMO it's styling
> is worse than the Caliper.
>
>>The Dodge Caliber, also curiously styled but
>>without a retro
>> look to work in its favor, will be replaced by
>> a conventionally styled
>> small car which will have wider appeal.
> Too bad his will come too late for me.
> Actually the Compass would be easier to change
> for my liking, simply
> replace the Jeep front end. Chrysler doesn't
> need two Jeep front end
> cars in this class.
> My dealer told me they just don't know how to
> sell the split personalty
> Compass. (true story!)
>>
>> Mercedes announcement that these changes can be
>> accomplished in a six to
>> twelve month time period and at a cost of a
>> mere $1.6 billion initially
>> baffled industry observers. "I wondered how
>> Chrysler could produce three
>> new lines of roomy and economical front drive
>> cars - cars that are right
>> for America - so quickly and for so little
>> money" said Joseph Camel of the
>> Brand Research Institute.
> The changes would be relatively minor, if they
> haven't sold the tooling
> to Russia and China.
>>
>> But then came the surprising answer. The
>> solution to fixing Chrysler's
>> current unsaleable car lineup is merely to
>> replace the current cars with
>> the cars they replaced: 2004 Concorde/Intrepid,
>> the 2007 Sebring/Stratus,
>> and the 2002 Neon.
> Nope, a slight revision of the mid 90s LH and
> the 91+ Sebring, with the
> current drive trains (less the 2.7L V6) would
> have done it.
> Too late for me again Chrysler.
>>
>> "This is an investment in the future" said
>> Mercedes spokesman Heinreich
>> Tungensheek. "By spending this money, we
>> expect the value of our 20% stake
>> in Chrysler will eventually rise to zero!"
> It might even rise a bit above zero, but
> Mercedes just doesn't know how
> to make a longer term hit with Chrysler. They
> don't understand NA.

You didn't understand that this was a satire and
likely has no basis in fact.

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 08:29:59 -0500, "NapalmHeart"
> wrote:


>>> "This is an investment in the future" said
>>> Mercedes spokesman Heinreich
>>> Tungensheek. "By spending this money, we
>>> expect the value of our 20% stake
>>> in Chrysler will eventually rise to zero!"
>> It might even rise a bit above zero, but
>> Mercedes just doesn't know how
>> to make a longer term hit with Chrysler. They
>> don't understand NA.
>
>You didn't understand that this was a satire and
>likely has no basis in fact.
>

Its a fact Chrysler LLC has negative value. Its worse off now than
when Mercedes sold it. And if you review the "sale" transaction,
you'll find that despite saying they got something for Chrysler,
Mercedes covered enough other expenses that their net from the "sale"
was negative. None of which changes the humor of the original
article! <G>

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:44:26 -0800 (PST), Lloyd >
wrote:



Strange "facts" you're using here Lloyd.

>Interestingly, it was the Chrysler people who talked the Daimler
>people out of buying into Nissan (and let Renault snap it up
>instead). The Chrysler people said, Hey, we've worked with Mitsubishi
>in the past, they're good, buy into them instead.
>
>So instead of Nissan platforms, we get Mitsubishi platforms for fwd
>Chryslers. Daimler bought into Mitsubishi, and found they were
>covering up warranty problems (Mitsu gave Daimler MitsubishiFuso
>trucks in compensation, which they still own). Can't blame the
>Daimler folks for having it in for the Chrysler people after that~

I don't know who talked Schrempp out of buying Nissan (you're talking
like you were a mouse in the corner during the meetings). Nissan was
on the brink. There was nothing to "snap up". Taking on Nissan was
taking on a huge risk. Oh, yea, Ghosen did well, but would Schrempp
have?

Chrysler already had money in Mitsubishi. They didn't put more into
Mitsubishi as an alternative to buying Nissan. When Mitsubishi got
into trouble, and Schrempp wanted to invest more, the Mercedes board
stopped him.

You say Chrysler people had confidence in Mitsubishi, but the actions
they've taken over the years don't show that. Their involvement with
Mitsubishi was usually to fill a need on a temporary basis.

When Chevy and Ford started selling the Vega and Pinto, Chrysler
sourced the Colt and then the Arrow from Mitsubishi. But then when
they were able to build their own small car, the Omni/Horizon, they
cut out Mitsubishi in that size class. But even smaller cars had
become popular, so they, again unable to build one, sourced a smaller
Colt from Mitsubishi, one down in the Ford Fiesta/Toyota Starlet
class.

When they needed a larger 4 cylinder in the early 80s, they bought
Mitsubishi engines, but only until they could expand the 2.2 into the
2.5. When that happened, the Mitsubishi 2.6 was gone. When gas
stayed cheap and they needed a V6 in 87, they bought the Mitsubishi
V6. But only until they could develop their own V6.

Chrysler bought small trucks from Mitsubishi, but again, only until
they could build their own. Interestingly, Mitsubishi now buys the
Dakota from Chrysler to sell under their name.

With the Neon, Chrysler made a decision yet again to build their own
small car rather than buy something from Mitsubishi to sell. And so
after having had a lot of Mitsubishi products in the showroom for
years, they were down to a couple of specialty coupes, with the rest
of their product range populated by their own products.

Then under Mercedes, it was decided all the midsizes, not just the
coupes, would be bought from Mitsubishi. The standard small car went
away, replaced by the Cruiser and Caliber, and Mercedes didn't even
bother to plan for a normal small car at all.

And what's this fixation with wagons? The Caliber as a Neon
replacement? The Magnum as an Intrepid replacement? (Remember there
was initally to be no Charger.)

I don't see that Mercedes missed anything by failing to "snap up" a
decimated Nissan. After all, they took a healthy company, Chrysler,
and ran it into the dirt. And the actions over the years indicate a
consistent effort by Chrysler people not to rely on Mitsubishi.

In article
technology>,
"NapalmHeart" > wrote:

> "Josh S" > wrote in message
> ...
**************
> > The is funny and makes some sense, but is it
> > really a time to poke more
> > fun at Chrysler robber Mercedes
*************
> >
> > In article
> > >,
> > Comments4u
> > >
> > wrote:

>
> You didn't understand that this was a satire and
> likely has no basis in fact.

You should READ, before you post.

And didn't Renault already have cooperation with and/or shareholding in
Nissan?

BTW, aren't you kidding yourself that it was Mercedes that spoiled a healthy
Chrysler? Chrysler was a vehicle (pun intended) for Merc to have large
sales in the US (and to give the German executives an excuse to pay
themselves ridiculously high American wages). Hardly motives to wreck
Chrysler.

Blame the foreigners....

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"edward ohare" > wrote in message
news
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:44:26 -0800 (PST), Lloyd >
> wrote:
[...]
>
> Chrysler already had money in Mitsubishi. They didn't put more into
> Mitsubishi as an alternative to buying Nissan. When Mitsubishi got
> into trouble, and Schrempp wanted to invest more, the Mercedes board
> stopped him.
[...]

> I don't see that Mercedes missed anything by failing to "snap up" a
> decimated Nissan. After all, they took a healthy company, Chrysler,
> and ran it into the dirt. And the actions over the years indicate a
> consistent effort by Chrysler people not to rely on Mitsubishi.

You mean from a minus value?

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Guenter Scholz" > wrote in message
...
> ,,,,,, yes, but the math is probably stil correct.... rise to zero :-)
>
> cheers guenter
>
> In article >,
> Bill Putney > wrote:
>>(Dori - it's satire)
>>
>>--
>>Bill Putney
>>(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>address with the letter 'x')
>>
>>Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>>> Don't understand the maths
>>>
>>> "...we expect the value of our 20% stake in Chrysler will eventually
>>> rise to
>>> zero!"
>>>
>>> FALL to zero maybe?
>>>
>>> DAS
>>>
>>> To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
>>> ---
>>> "Comments4u" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> "This is an investment in the future" said Mercedes spokesman Heinreich
>>>> Tungensheek. "By spending this money, we expect the value of our 20%
>>>> stake
>>>> in Chrysler will eventually rise to zero!"
>
>

Hello Dictator, PeterD.

Don't bottom-post. I find it intensely inconvenient and irritating as I
have to scroll though loads of repeat stuff just to get to a few pearls of
wisdom. But I only tell you that and not the other bottom-posters as it is
a case of chacun a son gout.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"PeterD" > wrote in message
...
> **DO NOT TOPPOST!**
>
[...]

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> ...chacun a son gout.

Exactly. (???)

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

"Josh S" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> technology>,
> "NapalmHeart" > wrote:
>
>> "Josh S" > wrote in message
>> ...
> **************
>> > The is funny and makes some sense, but is it
>> > really a time to poke more
>> > fun at Chrysler robber Mercedes
> *************
>> >
>> > In article
>> > >,
>> > Comments4u
>> > >
>> > wrote:
>
>>
>> You didn't understand that this was a satire
>> and
>> likely has no basis in fact.
>
> You should READ, before you post.

So you both TOP and BOTTOM post. How retarded.

In article >,
Dori A Schmetterling > wrote:
>You mean from a minus value?
>
>DAS

Yes. BTW I notice that no one here appears to be a Monty Python fan :-(

cheers

>
>To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
>---
>"Guenter Scholz" > wrote in message
...
>> ,,,,,, yes, but the math is probably stil correct.... rise to zero :-)
>>
>> cheers guenter
>>
>> In article >,
>> Bill Putney > wrote:
>>>(Dori - it's satire)
>>>
>>>--
>>>Bill Putney
>>>(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>>address with the letter 'x')
>>>
>>>Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>>>> Don't understand the maths
>>>>
>>>> "...we expect the value of our 20% stake in Chrysler will eventually
>>>> rise to
>>>> zero!"
>>>>
>>>> FALL to zero maybe?
>>>>
>>>> DAS
>>>>
>>>> To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
>>>> ---
>>>> "Comments4u" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> "This is an investment in the future" said Mercedes spokesman Heinreich
>>>>> Tungensheek. "By spending this money, we expect the value of our 20%
>>>>> stake
>>>>> in Chrysler will eventually rise to zero!"
>>
>>
>
>