Buyer Beware at Chrysler

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‹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.

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...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‹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.

GM rested on their laurels thinking that their position as #1 would
never change, that it was theirs by divine right. GM failed/refused to
look at the real world and they are now paying the price-as are Ford &
Chrysler. The Detroit Tiny Three fading into history.

"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.

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.
>

"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?
>

That is a great question. Beware any short answers to it. Only the people
who work at GM And Ford know what they did wrong. I won't try to answer
that. I can tell you this about scale. If you compare AMC, Chrysler, Ford,
and GM over the last 50 years (or whatever, you pick) the effects of scale
are dreadfully obvious in the area of style and quality, fit and finish.
Especially if you look at the cosmetic quality of the cars after they hit 5
or 10 years old (you pick) they would fall right in line with who sold the
most. Chrysler quality was horrendous in the 70's, and then the styling
and paint were horrendous in the 80's. For their part, at no time did AMC
have a car that could match the tactile quality of anything from GM. They
had no styling leader, ever. The bottom line is GM had more resources, and
they used them. They could spread the costs of styling, engineering, and
research over more cars. Once in a while, like the 55 Chryslers, they'd
actually hit a styling home run. But usually not.

So scale is a very real disadvantage for Chrysler. They have overcome it
with huge strides, compared to where they were. If you looked at the paint
on a 1985 Chrysler product after 5 years, they were peeling and flaking and
just awful. By 1995, the paint was staying on, and only the mylar chrome
was peeling off. You won't see any of that right now on a 5-year-old 2002.
They used the same truck cab from 1973 for 25 model years, and it was ugly
in 1973 when it came out. They canceled the 3500 trucks in 1980. Now,
they've restyled twice since then, and they're introducing a 4500 and a
5500. All the while losing less money and suffering less than GM and Ford.
They have actually driven GM and Ford out of the minivan market, and made
them admit it. They've made some good choices. Management was apparently
better. Maybe some guys in engineering just had more brilliant ideas per
person. You can overcome the effects of scale some days. One thing I feel
sure of, if so many experts didn't agree the Chrysler minivans were the best
for the last 20 years or so, Chrysler would have gone broke. That has
really helped, that they had one product that was the leader, even back when
the paint all flaked off.

Today's product lineup from Chrysler is debateable. I think time will judge
it. Resale value is still bad, and that is a really clear indication of
Chrysler's product shortcomings of years past. I think it'll improve (the
products did), or at least Ford will drop down and get under it.

"Duncan" > wrote in message
. ..

> 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!'

Haha hahha a hha aaah. Whew! There's somebody that's /hard/ to insult.

This wasn't the first time I've heard somebody say the modern Hemi isn't
"the same" as the Hemis built 40 years ago. Gosh, we know that. Everybody
knows it. Don't worry, there's not any sane person that thinks that's the
same motor. Calling that a "hemi" just empty marketing with lots and lots
of horsepower. We all get it. Trust me.

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.
>>
>
>

In article >,
"Duncan" > wrote:

> and two cars from the '90s - an Intreped & a Concord, both
> disappointing junk..
Strange you say that as my '95 Concord is still the best car I've ever
had. The A/C was junk, but Chrysler at their cost finally repaired it
just before their 7 year warranty extension.

> I want an American Car
> built BY Americans FOR Americans.
Whoops the LH cars were built in Canada, but as with many vehicles using
parts from many countries.
The 300 is Canadian as well.

However BMW, Mercedes and Toyota produce some nice cars in the USA.

So, no disrespect intended, but educate me on this. Just how have they
changed them and cheapened the design?
I was there in the 60's &70's but spent a lot of that time working for
Uncle Sam in far off lands. My best friend in those days had a
Plymouth Superbird that to this day, I still consider as one of the
most awesome vehicles ever built.
>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 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>