Buyer Beware at Chrysler

You have nothing to say but this?
Keep reading about the 69 Charger while I drive the real thing from the 21st
century.
How's your F body or whatever piece of **** you drive.
Dumb ****.



"80 Knight" > wrote in message
...
> Wow. It's like talking with a tree.
>
> "Victor" > wrote in message
> news:8Kt%h.7180$au6.81@edtnps90...
>> Of course I have heard of the '69 Charger.
>> So what? Driving it and reading about it are too very different things.
>> You probably know nothing about the way it handles and it accelerates.
>> Plus, I never buy used so even if the '69 Charger was so great I won't be
>> buying a used one.
>>
>>
>>
>> "80 Knight" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Apparently you have had your head stuck in the ground the past several
>>> years. I too was a toddler when the Dukes were on TV, but you can bet
>>> your ass I know what a '69 Charger is. Even in the newest "Dukes of
>>> Hazard" movie, they still used the same car, a 1969 Charger. And, check
>>> with your "most popular car on TV" polls. Usually the General Lee wins
>>> every time. As for the Dodge Challenger, the pictures I have seen of it
>>> are quite nice, but I think the new Camaro will be crowned King.
>>>
>>> "Victor" > wrote in message
>>> news:f22%h.4909$Vi6.44@edtnps82...
>>>>I was a toddler when the Dukes were on TV.
>>>> The over 35-40 crowd will remember the show and the ones that remember
>>>> the 69 Charger?
>>>> That was almost 40 years ago which means you would have been at least
>>>> 18 years old to consider buying back then which makes you 58+ years
>>>> old.
>>>> Get with the times.
>>>> What about the new Impala SS? It's not even RWD for F*&^ sake.
>>>> Just wait for the Dodge Challenger if you have to have a 2 door.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "80 Knight" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Come on. If it's got 4-doors, it ain't a Charger. That's all there is
>>>>> too it. And you want to make a bet on how many people remember the
>>>>> 60's Chargers? Ever heard of "The Dukes of Hazard"? Or, the 2 new
>>>>> movies, all using the '69 Charger? One of the most popular TV cars of
>>>>> all time.
>>>>> The Charger is a nice looking car, but IMHO, it's not a Charger. They
>>>>> should have came up with another name, and built a 2-door to have the
>>>>> honor of being called "Charger".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Victor" > wrote in message
>>>>> news:CVP_h.3461$au6.2198@edtnps90...
>>>>>> The new Dodge Charger is not ugly nor is it underpowered.
>>>>>> Who cares if it's not a true "Hemi". It has 350HP in R/T package and
>>>>>> 425HP in the SRT8.
>>>>>> It's a great car and something GM couldn't give us a 4 Door RWD V8
>>>>>> without paying Cadillac prices.
>>>>>> Not too many people remember the cars from the 60's and the ones that
>>>>>> do are too busy buying Buick Lacrosse/Lucernes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Keep driving your POS Chevy Blazer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Duncan" > wrote in message
>>>>>> . ..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "who" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> My question is this.
>>>>>>>> If Chrysler doesn't have the volume to keep their designs up to
>>>>>>>> date,
>>>>>>>> why did GM fall so far behind with their designs?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.businessweek.com/autos/co...2_730763.htm?c
>>>>>>>> han=search
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Autos April 12, 2007, 2:55PM EST text size: TT
>>>>>>>>> Buyer Beware at Chrysler
>>>>>>>>> Whoever buys the carmaker Daimler is ditching won't get a
>>>>>>>>> stand-alone company
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> by David Welch
>>>>>>>>> Autos
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * Can Subprime Mortgage Problems Crash the Car Business?
>>>>>>>>> * May Day for Automakers
>>>>>>>>> * VW Gains Traction and Gets Ambitious
>>>>>>>>> * Mitsubishi's New Full Tilt Lancer
>>>>>>>>> * Europe Looks Beyond Ethanol
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Story Tools
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * post a comment
>>>>>>>>> * e-mail this story
>>>>>>>>> * print this story
>>>>>>>>> * order a reprint
>>>>>>>>> * digg this
>>>>>>>>> * save to del.icio.us
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With the entrance of billionaire Kirk Kerkorian into the bidding
>>>>>>>>> for Chrysler
>>>>>>>>> Group, the struggling carmaker is starting to look like a hot
>>>>>>>>> property. But
>>>>>>>>> buyer beware. Whoever ends up purchasing the U.S. company from
>>>>>>>>> German parent
>>>>>>>>> DaimlerChrysler (DCX) might find themselves a few parts shy of a
>>>>>>>>> complete car
>>>>>>>>> company.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If a deal gets done, the new Chrysler may prove the ultimate test
>>>>>>>>> case for
>>>>>>>>> outsourcing. Chrysler is far from being a turnkey company and
>>>>>>>>> lacks some of
>>>>>>>>> the most basic components of a successful automaker. Its new
>>>>>>>>> owners would
>>>>>>>>> either have to continue to rely on Daimler >> Chrysler >>
>>>>>>>>> development, engineering, even writing car loans. Tougher yet,
>>>>>>>>> Chrysler lacks
>>>>>>>>> economies of scale that rivals like Toyota Motor (TM) and General
>>>>>>>>> Motors (GM)
>>>>>>>>> enjoy by selling variations of the same car across the globe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This company was doomed by bad management long ago. I still own &
>>>>>>> drive Mopars from the '70's - Plymouth Furys(2), Dusters(2),
>>>>>>> Scamps(2) - Dodge Darts (1) & Chrysler Cordobas (3) and New Yorkers
>>>>>>> (1). I also have a 87 Dodge 4x4 and two cars from the '90s - an
>>>>>>> Intreped & a Concord, both disappointing junk.. I use to run Jeeps
>>>>>>> before Chrysler bought them too, the new ones are cheap mass market
>>>>>>> junk compared to the old ones... little 4 bangers with chinsy thin
>>>>>>> doors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm hoping someone -an American- buys Chrysler and pulls it back
>>>>>>> away from all of this Global garbage. I use to proud to run
>>>>>>> Chryslers, Plymouths, Dodges & Jeeps but now their nothing but a
>>>>>>> shell covering some foreign manufactures junk. My real concerns a
>>>>>>> 1. Will Jeep be included in the sale of Chrysler? and who gets Jeeps
>>>>>>> 4x4 technology? (Jeep Quadratrac from the 70s was tough to beat).
>>>>>>> 2. Who gets the Hemi Engine design? The Hemi engines being produced
>>>>>>> today are not the same engine design from the 60 - 70 engines.. it's
>>>>>>> a cheap redesign to capitalize on the legend of one of the greatest
>>>>>>> engines ever built, the 426. (Chrysler built smaller Hemi's back in
>>>>>>> the 50s too -331, 354, 392) Todays Hemi's are going to be dropping
>>>>>>> pushrods down into the engine after they get substantial wear on
>>>>>>> them and then Hemi will get a bad name because the Germans ruined
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see the cheap, ugly little car that they are passing off as the
>>>>>>> Dodger Charger today, and my only thoughts a 'Man, what an insult
>>>>>>> to the Dukes of Hazard!' The Dodge Charger is my all-time favorite
>>>>>>> car & the 426 Hemi engine my all-time favorite Engine, but that new
>>>>>>> thing isn't a Dodge Charger & that ain't a true Hemi under the
>>>>>>> hood... I would never even consider buying one.. their ugly and look
>>>>>>> like they've been put in a trash compactor to crunch a foot off each
>>>>>>> end. ( I am negotiating on a 66 Charger, no engine, and a 70 Charger
>>>>>>> with a 440 right now).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right there is a perfect example of the marketing failure of
>>>>>>> Chrysler... they left the people who took them to the dance in the
>>>>>>> first place. Instead they went for mass appeal with marketing
>>>>>>> gimmicks like renaming a German peice of junk with the legendary
>>>>>>> name of an American Classic. Did these people at Chysler also think
>>>>>>> I would run right out and buy a Mitsubishi just because they stuck a
>>>>>>> DODGE name plate on it? Who's idea was it to put cheap, defective
>>>>>>> mass market ball-joints on Dodge Durangos when people buying
>>>>>>> Durangos expected something heavy-duty? Come On!!! I just can't wait
>>>>>>> to see the made in China or Korea version of Chrysler... the German
>>>>>>> version sure was an insult.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For lack of a better alternative, I'm going to be running cheaply
>>>>>>> made Chevy Blazers until Chrysler produces something truely American
>>>>>>> that I would once again be proud to own. It will probably be an
>>>>>>> eternal wait since it seems that Chrysler has a historic tradition
>>>>>>> of Clueless management. I don't really give a F*&% if Germans, Japs,
>>>>>>> Chinese, Enviros or writers for the Car magazines like MY car or
>>>>>>> not, if I wanted one of their cars I would've bought one and I'm
>>>>>>> tired of being insulted by them trying to sell me their cars by
>>>>>>> puttting a Chrysler/Dodge name-tag on it. I want an American Car
>>>>>>> built BY Americans FOR Americans. I want a tapered box front-end and
>>>>>>> sleek quarter panels/roof lines leading to a box back-end. I want a
>>>>>>> big gas guzzling V-8 with rear wheel drive and enough horsepower to
>>>>>>> melt the tires off. That was what Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth was all
>>>>>>> about... not mass-market cars but cars for niche buyers, buyers who
>>>>>>> want traditional Ugly American Cars. When they built a car like that
>>>>>>> I'll buy one (even a new slant-6 Dart would do), they can take their
>>>>>>> current version of the Charger and Hemi engine and shove it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

You don't drive a real Charger. You drive a piece of ****, with 'Charger'
slapped on the side to make it sell. A real Charger never had 4 doors, and
never will.

"Victor" > wrote in message
news:cI81i.7926$g63.584@edtnps82...
> You have nothing to say but this?
> Keep reading about the 69 Charger while I drive the real thing from the
> 21st century.
> How's your F body or whatever piece of **** you drive.
> Dumb ****.
>
>
>
> "80 Knight" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Wow. It's like talking with a tree.
>>
>> "Victor" > wrote in message
>> news:8Kt%h.7180$au6.81@edtnps90...
>>> Of course I have heard of the '69 Charger.
>>> So what? Driving it and reading about it are too very different things.
>>> You probably know nothing about the way it handles and it accelerates.
>>> Plus, I never buy used so even if the '69 Charger was so great I won't
>>> be buying a used one.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "80 Knight" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Apparently you have had your head stuck in the ground the past several
>>>> years. I too was a toddler when the Dukes were on TV, but you can bet
>>>> your ass I know what a '69 Charger is. Even in the newest "Dukes of
>>>> Hazard" movie, they still used the same car, a 1969 Charger. And, check
>>>> with your "most popular car on TV" polls. Usually the General Lee wins
>>>> every time. As for the Dodge Challenger, the pictures I have seen of it
>>>> are quite nice, but I think the new Camaro will be crowned King.
>>>>
>>>> "Victor" > wrote in message
>>>> news:f22%h.4909$Vi6.44@edtnps82...
>>>>>I was a toddler when the Dukes were on TV.
>>>>> The over 35-40 crowd will remember the show and the ones that remember
>>>>> the 69 Charger?
>>>>> That was almost 40 years ago which means you would have been at least
>>>>> 18 years old to consider buying back then which makes you 58+ years
>>>>> old.
>>>>> Get with the times.
>>>>> What about the new Impala SS? It's not even RWD for F*&^ sake.
>>>>> Just wait for the Dodge Challenger if you have to have a 2 door.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "80 Knight" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Come on. If it's got 4-doors, it ain't a Charger. That's all there is
>>>>>> too it. And you want to make a bet on how many people remember the
>>>>>> 60's Chargers? Ever heard of "The Dukes of Hazard"? Or, the 2 new
>>>>>> movies, all using the '69 Charger? One of the most popular TV cars of
>>>>>> all time.
>>>>>> The Charger is a nice looking car, but IMHO, it's not a Charger. They
>>>>>> should have came up with another name, and built a 2-door to have the
>>>>>> honor of being called "Charger".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Victor" > wrote in message
>>>>>> news:CVP_h.3461$au6.2198@edtnps90...
>>>>>>> The new Dodge Charger is not ugly nor is it underpowered.
>>>>>>> Who cares if it's not a true "Hemi". It has 350HP in R/T package
>>>>>>> and 425HP in the SRT8.
>>>>>>> It's a great car and something GM couldn't give us a 4 Door RWD V8
>>>>>>> without paying Cadillac prices.
>>>>>>> Not too many people remember the cars from the 60's and the ones
>>>>>>> that do are too busy buying Buick Lacrosse/Lucernes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Keep driving your POS Chevy Blazer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Duncan" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> . ..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "who" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> My question is this.
>>>>>>>>> If Chrysler doesn't have the volume to keep their designs up to
>>>>>>>>> date,
>>>>>>>>> why did GM fall so far behind with their designs?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.businessweek.com/autos/co...2_730763.htm?c
>>>>>>>>> han=search
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Autos April 12, 2007, 2:55PM EST text size: TT
>>>>>>>>>> Buyer Beware at Chrysler
>>>>>>>>>> Whoever buys the carmaker Daimler is ditching won't get a
>>>>>>>>>> stand-alone company
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> by David Welch
>>>>>>>>>> Autos
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * Can Subprime Mortgage Problems Crash the Car Business?
>>>>>>>>>> * May Day for Automakers
>>>>>>>>>> * VW Gains Traction and Gets Ambitious
>>>>>>>>>> * Mitsubishi's New Full Tilt Lancer
>>>>>>>>>> * Europe Looks Beyond Ethanol
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Story Tools
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * post a comment
>>>>>>>>>> * e-mail this story
>>>>>>>>>> * print this story
>>>>>>>>>> * order a reprint
>>>>>>>>>> * digg this
>>>>>>>>>> * save to del.icio.us
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> With the entrance of billionaire Kirk Kerkorian into the bidding
>>>>>>>>>> for Chrysler
>>>>>>>>>> Group, the struggling carmaker is starting to look like a hot
>>>>>>>>>> property. But
>>>>>>>>>> buyer beware. Whoever ends up purchasing the U.S. company from
>>>>>>>>>> German parent
>>>>>>>>>> DaimlerChrysler (DCX) might find themselves a few parts shy of a
>>>>>>>>>> complete car
>>>>>>>>>> company.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If a deal gets done, the new Chrysler may prove the ultimate test
>>>>>>>>>> case for
>>>>>>>>>> outsourcing. Chrysler is far from being a turnkey company and
>>>>>>>>>> lacks some of
>>>>>>>>>> the most basic components of a successful automaker. Its new
>>>>>>>>>> owners would
>>>>>>>>>> either have to continue to rely on Daimler >> Chrysler >>
>>>>>>>>>> development, engineering, even writing car loans. Tougher yet,
>>>>>>>>>> Chrysler lacks
>>>>>>>>>> economies of scale that rivals like Toyota Motor (TM) and General
>>>>>>>>>> Motors (GM)
>>>>>>>>>> enjoy by selling variations of the same car across the globe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This company was doomed by bad management long ago. I still own &
>>>>>>>> drive Mopars from the '70's - Plymouth Furys(2), Dusters(2),
>>>>>>>> Scamps(2) - Dodge Darts (1) & Chrysler Cordobas (3) and New Yorkers
>>>>>>>> (1). I also have a 87 Dodge 4x4 and two cars from the '90s - an
>>>>>>>> Intreped & a Concord, both disappointing junk.. I use to run Jeeps
>>>>>>>> before Chrysler bought them too, the new ones are cheap mass market
>>>>>>>> junk compared to the old ones... little 4 bangers with chinsy thin
>>>>>>>> doors.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm hoping someone -an American- buys Chrysler and pulls it back
>>>>>>>> away from all of this Global garbage. I use to proud to run
>>>>>>>> Chryslers, Plymouths, Dodges & Jeeps but now their nothing but a
>>>>>>>> shell covering some foreign manufactures junk. My real concerns
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> 1. Will Jeep be included in the sale of Chrysler? and who gets
>>>>>>>> Jeeps 4x4 technology? (Jeep Quadratrac from the 70s was tough to
>>>>>>>> beat).
>>>>>>>> 2. Who gets the Hemi Engine design? The Hemi engines being produced
>>>>>>>> today are not the same engine design from the 60 - 70 engines..
>>>>>>>> it's a cheap redesign to capitalize on the legend of one of the
>>>>>>>> greatest engines ever built, the 426. (Chrysler built smaller
>>>>>>>> Hemi's back in the 50s too -331, 354, 392) Todays Hemi's are going
>>>>>>>> to be dropping pushrods down into the engine after they get
>>>>>>>> substantial wear on them and then Hemi will get a bad name because
>>>>>>>> the Germans ruined it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I see the cheap, ugly little car that they are passing off as the
>>>>>>>> Dodger Charger today, and my only thoughts a 'Man, what an
>>>>>>>> insult to the Dukes of Hazard!' The Dodge Charger is my all-time
>>>>>>>> favorite car & the 426 Hemi engine my all-time favorite Engine, but
>>>>>>>> that new thing isn't a Dodge Charger & that ain't a true Hemi under
>>>>>>>> the hood... I would never even consider buying one.. their ugly and
>>>>>>>> look like they've been put in a trash compactor to crunch a foot
>>>>>>>> off each end. ( I am negotiating on a 66 Charger, no engine, and a
>>>>>>>> 70 Charger with a 440 right now).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right there is a perfect example of the marketing failure of
>>>>>>>> Chrysler... they left the people who took them to the dance in the
>>>>>>>> first place. Instead they went for mass appeal with marketing
>>>>>>>> gimmicks like renaming a German peice of junk with the legendary
>>>>>>>> name of an American Classic. Did these people at Chysler also think
>>>>>>>> I would run right out and buy a Mitsubishi just because they stuck
>>>>>>>> a DODGE name plate on it? Who's idea was it to put cheap, defective
>>>>>>>> mass market ball-joints on Dodge Durangos when people buying
>>>>>>>> Durangos expected something heavy-duty? Come On!!! I just can't
>>>>>>>> wait to see the made in China or Korea version of Chrysler... the
>>>>>>>> German version sure was an insult.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For lack of a better alternative, I'm going to be running cheaply
>>>>>>>> made Chevy Blazers until Chrysler produces something truely
>>>>>>>> American that I would once again be proud to own. It will probably
>>>>>>>> be an eternal wait since it seems that Chrysler has a historic
>>>>>>>> tradition of Clueless management. I don't really give a F*&% if
>>>>>>>> Germans, Japs, Chinese, Enviros or writers for the Car magazines
>>>>>>>> like MY car or not, if I wanted one of their cars I would've bought
>>>>>>>> one and I'm tired of being insulted by them trying to sell me their
>>>>>>>> cars by puttting a Chrysler/Dodge name-tag on it. I want an
>>>>>>>> American Car built BY Americans FOR Americans. I want a tapered box
>>>>>>>> front-end and sleek quarter panels/roof lines leading to a box
>>>>>>>> back-end. I want a big gas guzzling V-8 with rear wheel drive and
>>>>>>>> enough horsepower to melt the tires off. That was what
>>>>>>>> Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth was all about... not mass-market cars but
>>>>>>>> cars for niche buyers, buyers who want traditional Ugly American
>>>>>>>> Cars. When they built a car like that I'll buy one (even a new
>>>>>>>> slant-6 Dart would do), they can take their current version of the
>>>>>>>> Charger and Hemi engine and shove it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

80 Knight wrote:
> You don't drive a real Charger. You drive a piece of ****, with 'Charger'
> slapped on the side to make it sell. A real Charger never had 4 doors, and
> never will.
That's like saying that a GTO isn't a real GTO if it doesn't have a hood
scoop. And, I would agree. ;-)

Your question was about why GM fell so far behind...
There are multiple reasons, of course, but some of the things GM did
in the 90s were just dumb.

They put all their effort into trucks. They kept car designs around
for way too many years without restyling them much (e.g. Chevy
Cavalier the same from 1982-96), and really never did much advertising
for their formerly strong selling makes like Buick and Oldsmobile.

All the effort seemed to have gone into trucks. What effort was put
into cars was done for Chevrolet and Cadillac, and the other makes
were forgotten.

I do think that people no longer wanted the American type of car- e.g.
soft riding, wire wheels, chrome trim, etc- and GM kept that around
longer than most. People were shifting towards "world" type cars that
were sportier and had more of a focus on handling than soft ride. I
think this is why Buick and Olds came to be seen as an older person's
car- whereas before they had been highly respected.

Pontiac- well, I don't know what happened there. They always had a
sporty, youth riented focus. I suppose there were just other choices,
such as VW and Honda, that younger people gravitated towards...
although GM cars across their makes were often too much like one
another in terms of styling. Same body, just with different
nameplates.

Also, even though quality improved greatly by the late 80s, people
still bashed American cars well into the 90s, and the authors in
magazines certainly didn't give them credit for making the
improvements they did make, though they really did deserve credit for
that. E.g. making the cars more fuel efficient, making them more
reliable and needing less maintenance by switching over to fuel
injection and distributorless ignition. The magazines never seemed to
have anything positive to say about GM, but I think they chose not to
see anything positive.

What is more amazing to me is that the Japanese were able to improve
their products so quickly, and respond to market changes as quickly as
they did. Perhaps they did it because their volume at the time was
smaller so they could respond more quickly. So many Japanese cars in
the 70s and 80s were buzzy four cylinder cars with a poor ride,
cramped interiors, and few options. For them to have been able to
expand their dealer networks and offer more luxurious, sophisticated
cars as quickly as they did, well, it's pretty amazing.

But they obviously reinvested in research and development properly and
came out ahead.

Getting back to GM, I really think they focused too much on trucks (as
did Ford, by the way) and not enough on cars, and they let foreign
makes just take over the car part of the market by not advertising
enough or updating their products quickly enough.


On May 4, 2:15Â*am, who > wrote:
> My question is this.
> If Chrysler doesn't have the volume to keep their designs up to date,
> why did GM fall so far behind with their designs?
>
> http://www.businessweek.com/autos/co...70412_730763.h...
> han=search
>
>
>
> > Autos April 12, 2007, 2:55PM EST text size: TT
> > Buyer Beware at Chrysler
> > Whoever buys the carmaker Daimler is ditching won't get a stand-alone company
>
> > by David Welch
> > Autos
>
> > Â* Â* * Can Subprime Mortgage Problems Crash the Car Business?
> > Â* Â* * May Day for Automakers
> > Â* Â* * VW Gains Traction and Gets Ambitious
> > Â* Â* * Mitsubishi's New Full Tilt Lancer
> > Â* Â* * Europe Looks Beyond Ethanol
>
> > Story Tools
>
> > Â* Â* * post a comment
> > Â* Â* * e-mail this story
> > Â* Â* * print this story
> > Â* Â* * order a reprint
> > Â* Â* * digg this
> > Â* Â* * save to del.icio.us
>
> > With the entrance of billionaire Kirk Kerkorian into the bidding for Chrysler
> > Group, the struggling carmaker is starting to look like a hot property. But
> > buyer beware. Whoever ends up purchasing the U.S. company from German parent
> > DaimlerChrysler (DCX) might find themselves a few parts shy of a complete car
> > company.
>
> > If a deal gets done, the new Chrysler may prove the ultimate test case for
> > outsourcing. Chrysler is far from being a turnkey company and lacks some of
> > the most basic components of a successful automaker. Its new owners would
> > either have to continue to rely on Daimler‹which may keep a stake in
> > Chrysler‹or find new partners for such vital disciplines as research and
> > development, engineering, even writing car loans. Tougher yet, Chrysler lacks
> > economies of scale that rivals like Toyota Motor (TM) and General Motors (GM)
> > enjoy by selling variations of the same car across the globe.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

njot wrote:
> Your question was about why GM fell so far behind...
> There are multiple reasons, of course, but some of the things GM did
> in the 90s were just dumb.
>
> They put all their effort into trucks. They kept car designs around
> for way too many years without restyling them much (e.g. Chevy
> Cavalier the same from 1982-96), and really never did much advertising
> for their formerly strong selling makes like Buick and Oldsmobile.
>
> All the effort seemed to have gone into trucks. What effort was put
> into cars was done for Chevrolet and Cadillac, and the other makes
> were forgotten.
>
> I do think that people no longer wanted the American type of car- e.g.
> soft riding, wire wheels, chrome trim, etc- and GM kept that around
> longer than most. People were shifting towards "world" type cars that
> were sportier and had more of a focus on handling than soft ride. I
> think this is why Buick and Olds came to be seen as an older person's
> car- whereas before they had been highly respected.
>
> Pontiac- well, I don't know what happened there. They always had a
> sporty, youth riented focus. I suppose there were just other choices,
> such as VW and Honda, that younger people gravitated towards...
> although GM cars across their makes were often too much like one
> another in terms of styling. Same body, just with different
> nameplates.
>
> Also, even though quality improved greatly by the late 80s, people
> still bashed American cars well into the 90s, and the authors in
> magazines certainly didn't give them credit for making the
> improvements they did make, though they really did deserve credit for
> that. E.g. making the cars more fuel efficient, making them more
> reliable and needing less maintenance by switching over to fuel
> injection and distributorless ignition. The magazines never seemed to
> have anything positive to say about GM, but I think they chose not to
> see anything positive.
>
> What is more amazing to me is that the Japanese were able to improve
> their products so quickly, and respond to market changes as quickly as
> they did. Perhaps they did it because their volume at the time was
> smaller so they could respond more quickly. So many Japanese cars in
> the 70s and 80s were buzzy four cylinder cars with a poor ride,
> cramped interiors, and few options. For them to have been able to
> expand their dealer networks and offer more luxurious, sophisticated
> cars as quickly as they did, well, it's pretty amazing.
>
> But they obviously reinvested in research and development properly and
> came out ahead.
>
> Getting back to GM, I really think they focused too much on trucks (as
> did Ford, by the way) and not enough on cars, and they let foreign
> makes just take over the car part of the market by not advertising
> enough or updating their products quickly enough.
>
>
> On May 4, 2:15 am, who > wrote:
>> My question is this.
>> If Chrysler doesn't have the volume to keep their designs up to date,
>> why did GM fall so far behind with their designs?
>>
>> http://www.businessweek.com/autos/co...70412_730763.h...
>> han=search
>>
>>
>>
>>> Autos April 12, 2007, 2:55PM EST text size: TT
>>> Buyer Beware at Chrysler
>>> Whoever buys the carmaker Daimler is ditching won't get a stand-alone company
>>> by David Welch
>>> Autos
>>> * Can Subprime Mortgage Problems Crash the Car Business?
>>> * May Day for Automakers
>>> * VW Gains Traction and Gets Ambitious
>>> * Mitsubishi's New Full Tilt Lancer
>>> * Europe Looks Beyond Ethanol
>>> Story Tools
>>> * post a comment
>>> * e-mail this story
>>> * print this story
>>> * order a reprint
>>> * digg this
>>> * save to del.icio.us
>>> With the entrance of billionaire Kirk Kerkorian into the bidding for Chrysler
>>> Group, the struggling carmaker is starting to look like a hot property. But
>>> buyer beware. Whoever ends up purchasing the U.S. company from German parent
>>> DaimlerChrysler (DCX) might find themselves a few parts shy of a complete car
>>> company.
>>> If a deal gets done, the new Chrysler may prove the ultimate test case for
>>> outsourcing. Chrysler is far from being a turnkey company and lacks some of
>>> the most basic components of a successful automaker. Its new owners would
>>> either have to continue to rely on Daimler‹which may keep a stake in
>>> Chrysler‹or find new partners for such vital disciplines as research and
>>> development, engineering, even writing car loans. Tougher yet, Chrysler lacks
>>> economies of scale that rivals like Toyota Motor (TM) and General Motors (GM)
>>> enjoy by selling variations of the same car across the globe.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>

GM sowed the wind and now they reap the category 5 Hurricane.