Print 81 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Apr 30 at 9:38 PM

Now that Chrysler has apparently escaped bankruptcy, car fans can look forward to its electric roadster in 2010, shown here.  (Source:
Chrysler finally has some good news to celebrate

The outlook for the domestic auto industry just became a bit brighter.  Chrysler, after weeks of deadlock with bondholders and union members, has patched through a deal which may save the company from bankruptcy.

In February, Chrysler's proposal for additional bailout funds was rejected by the U.S. government which was concerned about the company's viability.  Seeing that Chrysler had already developed a close relationship with Fiat, the feds decided to order Chrysler to merge with the Italian automaker, hoping that Fiat's learned lessons from its own turnaround could help Chrysler in its struggles. 

The merger proposal was fraught with difficulty, though.  Fiat refused to merge without concessions from the Canadian Auto Workers and United Auto Workers unions, and a settlement between Chrysler and its bondholders (mostly large banks).  The unions showed a great deal of resistance to the deal and even walked out of talks, prompting Fiat to threaten to walk.  The U.S. government grimly ordered Chrysler to prepare a bankruptcy filing, which was expected to possibly be filed this week.

However in the eleventh hour a deal was cut with both the unions and the bondholders.  The unions agreed to pay and benefit cuts.  Meanwhile, the bondholders, faced with being wiped out by a bankruptcy, agreed to cut Chrysler's loans of $6.9B USD to $2B USD in exchange for equity in the company, according to The Washington Post.

The move clears the way for Chrysler to escape bankruptcy.  States an official inside President Obama's administration, "The agreement from Chrysler's principal banks is an exceptional accomplishment in line with the President's firm commitment that all stakeholders sacrifice to make this deal succeed."

The union deal has to be approved by a vote on Wednesday, but it’s expected to sail through smoothly.  Looking to the future, like GM, Chrysler still has dire concerns.  With sales at all time lows, it’s still burning through a lot of cash and will need more to keep up with high-tech developments like direct injection and electric vehicle technology.

Chrysler, unlike GM, has little flexibility to cut brands as it only has 3 -- Dodge, Chrysler, and Jeep.  Nameplate cuts are likely, though, until a turnaround.  With help from the government, and an infusion of Fiat's cheap small vehicles, there's still hope for Chrysler and its dealers. 

Another bright spot will be the release of its electric roadster and other electric vehicles, the first of which (the roadster) land in 2010.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Keep up with technology
By InternetGeek on 4/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: Keep up with technology
By JasonMick on 4/28/2009 3:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
Efficient direct injection in gas engines is not as easy as you would think (and not as easy as diesel). For example, Ford just recently started rolling out its EcoBoost technology and is making a really big deal of it:

And really it is a big deal -- it allows V6 performance (w/ turbocharging) from a V4, while maintaining the V4's emissions profile -- likewise for a V6 to V8.

Chrysler (and GM) need to jump on this, as its equally, if not more important to the environment, consumers wallets, and performance than electric vehicle technology, though not as glamorous and flashy.

RE: Keep up with technology
By FITCamaro on 4/28/2009 3:27:31 PM , Rating: 3
It's an inline-4. They don't make V4s. The only 4 cylinders I know of that are not an inline design are Subaru's boxster engines.

RE: Keep up with technology
By Lord 666 on 4/28/2009 3:35:01 PM , Rating: 1
Guess you don't ride motorcycles

RE: Keep up with technology
By FITCamaro on 4/28/2009 4:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
I was referring to cars.

RE: Keep up with technology
By GreenEnvt on 4/28/2009 4:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
Even in the motorcycle world, there are far more I4's then V4's.
Motorcycles tend to be V2's or I4's for the most part, with some single cylinders and triples in there too.

RE: Keep up with technology
By JasonMick on 4/28/2009 3:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
Well you said "boxster engines" and I said V4 so I guess we both made a mistake. ;)

You meant boxer engines, and you're right, Subaru (boxer) and Honda are a couple of the only ones to make a V4.

The GM ecoboost engines (I4) give equivalent of V6 performance.

RE: Keep up with technology
By JasonMick on 4/28/2009 3:39:24 PM , Rating: 1
*make a v4 for cars that is...

RE: Keep up with technology
By Durrr on 4/28/2009 3:50:09 PM , Rating: 3
boxer engines are horizontally opposed, unless your V looks like this __ lol. V4s are common in motorcycle and 4 cycle boat engines.

RE: Keep up with technology
By teldar on 4/28/2009 4:11:41 PM , Rating: 1
Again, boxer engines ARE NOT V's.

And you should be able to add Porsche to that list as the BOXSTER uses a boxer engine. Or atleast it did. That was why it was the BOXSTER. Boxer - boxster....
I suppose it's possible they don't use the boxer engine anymore however, but that was what it started as.

RE: Keep up with technology
By afkrotch on 4/28/2009 4:27:09 PM , Rating: 2
The Boxster still uses a Boxer.

RE: Keep up with technology
By MadMan007 on 4/28/2009 10:56:04 PM , Rating: 4
Ffs why are you guys arguing over this stupid minutia, haven't you got anything better to say?

RE: Keep up with technology
By Amiga500 on 4/29/2009 4:26:20 AM , Rating: 2
Its a 180degree vee ;-)

RE: Keep up with technology
By zerocool84 on 4/29/2009 4:13:09 AM , Rating: 3
It's called an H4 or an H6

RE: Keep up with technology
By JasonMick on 4/28/2009 3:30:08 PM , Rating: 1

w.r.t. EcoBoost

...sorry, dumb error. But its a good technology, one which Chrysler should adopt.

Ford is also working on direct injection:

RE: Keep up with technology
By FITCamaro on 4/28/2009 4:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
EcoBoost is Fords name for it. GM currently hasn't given a marketing name for turbocharged powertrain options.

Both GM and Ford are quite well along with direct injection engine development. Ford already offers several models with it. GM offers several as well. Plus there's Mazda which Ford owns.

RE: Keep up with technology
By teldar on 4/28/2009 4:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, ford sold off most of its share in mazda. They don't own enough anymore to control it. I think they had owned just over 30%. They only own a few percent of it now.

RE: Keep up with technology
By sprockkets on 4/28/2009 4:15:25 PM , Rating: 2
They call their I4 turbo an Ecotec engine, though I do not think it is specifically referes to the DI part of it.

That engine was designed with help from Lotus.

RE: Keep up with technology
By FITCamaro on 4/28/2009 4:37:39 PM , Rating: 3
Their 2.0-2.4L I4s are their Ecotec line based off the same block just with different bores and strokes.

And yes that 2.0L turbo direct-injected I4 is one bad ass little motor.

RE: Keep up with technology
By djc208 on 4/28/2009 5:41:06 PM , Rating: 2
Chrysler was big on turbos in the late 80's early 90's because they didn't have the money to develop a new V6, so they turbo'd the 4s. They had some potent little cars in those years, though the chassis wasn't the best. The Neon SRT4 was a return to those days.

Problem was (and to some extent still is) that turbochargers are hot, hard working components. Poor driving and maintenance habbits tend to ruin the turbo and then you just have a low compression 4-cylinder NA engine or a very large repair bill.

Turbo/supercharging is a good idea but I hope they've improved the durability or automated the care of them (turbo timers, special cooling) otherwise 60-70k miles from now there will be lots of pissed off car owners. And the American auto industry cannot afford another black eye like that, even if it's not their fault.

FYI, the new Pentastar (Phoenix) series of V6 engines from Chrysler are to eventually be direct injected motors.

RE: Keep up with technology
By bryanW1995 on 4/28/2009 6:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
This seems like an eon ago, but in september at our southwest business center dealer meeting they made a big deal out of the new electric vehicles. Also, at NADA in january I was able to grab jim press for 3-4 minutes. He was pretty excited about fiat, he thinks that we'll be making fiats in the US for export in 6 months and be selling fiats with chrysler/dodge/jeep badges within 18 months in the US.

RE: Keep up with technology
By AEvangel on 4/28/2009 7:28:18 PM , Rating: 3
VW and Audi both make quite a few cars with turbo motors and while the Germans might have their electric gremlins the motors mechanically are solid as a rock, forced induction is not as hard as it used to be, and you can't really blame reliability issues of said motor on the company if the loose nut behind the wheel is the problem with lax maintenance.

RE: Keep up with technology
By Samus on 4/28/2009 4:14:52 PM , Rating: 2
They can say they get V6 performance from I4's and V8 performance from V6's all they want, turbo or not. But anybody who knows anything about the internal combustion engine knows there is no replacement for displacement.

Don't get me wrong, I love forced induction, but without antilag and pretty agressive intake cam timing, an I4 Turbo isn't going to win over anybody used to driving a V block.

RE: Keep up with technology
By afkrotch on 4/28/2009 4:34:08 PM , Rating: 2
Supercharger. No lag.

Twin turbo. Less lag.

Mitsubishi Lancer Evolutions have had stock anti-lag since I think Version 5. Course the US models never got anti-lag.

RE: Keep up with technology
By FITCamaro on 4/28/2009 4:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
With variable cam profiles and turbos than can vary the size of their blades (forget the name for these turbos), turbo lag is practically eliminated these days. I know my brothers 97 TT Supra doesn't have any turbo lag. The smaller one runs from idle to 4000 rpm and the larger one runs from 4000-redline. You definitely feel the 2nd one kick in though.

RE: Keep up with technology
By Daphault on 4/28/2009 5:05:03 PM , Rating: 2
Variable Geometry Turbo

RE: Keep up with technology
By Atheist Icon on 4/28/2009 5:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
3rd Gen RX-7s had the tech from the factory for the bi-turbo that worked rather well in stock form.

Only Supra/Soarers that, that I know of, had the twin turbos were the 2.0L I-6 and 2.5L I-6 with the CT-12 turbos stock.

Would love to see a Superturbo system that isn't cost prohibitive to own/maintain. Best of both worlds.

RE: Keep up with technology
By BailoutBenny on 4/29/2009 4:18:16 PM , Rating: 2
My 335i has full boost from 1400-5000RPM. I6 direct injected twin turbo is awesomeness.

RE: Keep up with technology
By Spuke on 4/28/2009 5:07:40 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, Solstice and Sky owners with the 2.0L turbo's commonly express their engines power delivery is the same as a small block. The turbo itself is borderline too small for the application and there is no lag. Although, the definition of lag seems to vary with people. If you graph hp and torque, a modern turbo 4 will look much like a NA V6 but with more torque on the low end.

NA cars don't make instant power/torque. It rises gradually over a specific rpm range. Compared to the Z06's engine, GM's turbo 4 doesn't make much torque but if you compare to Nissan's 3.5L V6, it makes more torque and delivers it quicker. And that's the point, you can make larger displacement power/torque with a lower displacement turbo engine. The idea is not to make every turbo car a big block equivalent. The big difference between the two types, IMO, is the feel of the delivery. Some turbo cars feel a little jerky in their delivery and others are smooth as silk (see BMW 335i).

RE: Keep up with technology
By FITCamaro on 4/29/2009 8:30:28 AM , Rating: 2

My cars dynograph. Bone stock btw. :)

Gotta love that torque "curve".

2006 GTO M6.

RE: Keep up with technology
By FITCamaro on 4/29/2009 8:32:28 AM , Rating: 2
And it's getting long tube headers and a tune here soon. Should give me another 30-40 rwhp.

RE: Keep up with technology
By theapparition on 4/29/2009 12:32:08 PM , Rating: 2
Go American Racing. Hands down best fit and overall power. Kooks are quality build but fit like garbage.

RE: Keep up with technology
By FITCamaro on 4/29/2009 8:08:46 PM , Rating: 2
Scored a deal on coated Kooks with catted mids for a grand. Couldn't pass on that. $400 saved.

RE: Keep up with technology
By Spuke on 4/29/2009 12:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
Very nice!!! :) Now that's what I call flat.

RE: Keep up with technology
RE: Keep up with technology
By DeepBlue1975 on 4/29/2009 9:57:24 AM , Rating: 2
Since when using turbo plus 4 cylinders is such a big deal?

The challenge lies mainly in hitting good pressure figures with the booster without risking engine failure by overheating or over stressing.

You don't need direct injection in a turbo-i4 to make it perform like an atmospheric v6. Look at small European cars featuring turbo and no direct injection, including Fiat's 1.4L Turbo with 155PS and 230NM of torque.

VW features 1.4L turbos having in excess of 170PS by using a turbo compressor and a roots type compressor at the same time.

Most of that high power density comes from the use of boosters, not from the direct injection which helps a bit more in the departments of consumption and emissions.

RE: Keep up with technology
By Spuke on 4/29/2009 12:46:56 PM , Rating: 2
The direct injection is for gas mileage and emissions mainly. Other side benefits are much higher compression and WAY leaner fuel ratios. Here's a good wiki on it.

RE: Keep up with technology
By rudolphna on 4/28/2009 8:28:35 PM , Rating: 2
You obviously havent heard about Chryslers upcoming "Pentastar" V6 engines. The first new V6 design from chrysler in over a decade. Apparently its been tuned, retuned, torn apart, and rebuilt and redesigned for smoothness, and quietness. There is no DI tech on the first generation, as according to chrysler, it induces more noise and vibration, but it will follow on following models.

RE: Keep up with technology
By Spuke on 4/29/2009 12:55:41 PM , Rating: 2
it induces more noise and vibration
There's no vibration and noise is dependent on the manufacturer. The noise I speak of is the clicking from the high fuel pressure solenoid. The DI LNF 4 cyl engines in the GM cars are noisy (relative as I only hear it outside the car and others can hear it when the car is running down the freeway) but there is a cheap part that quells the noise significantly so I'm told. BMW's DI motor doesn't make any DI related noises. I haven't heard a Mazda DI motor yet but from sitting next to one at a light, I couldn't hear anything but I couldn't hear mine either.

At what cost
By FITCamaro on 4/28/2009 3:29:22 PM , Rating: 5
Now the people who run the unions which helped create the situation Chrysler is in will have a say in the way the company is run. Great. Future negotiations with the union should go really well....

Whatever cuts they've made now will be eliminated eventually because of this.

RE: At what cost
By Motoman on 4/28/2009 3:47:55 PM , Rating: 5
...I give any automaker with unions in a controlling position less than 2 years to live.

No chance in hell.

RE: At what cost
By Oregonian2 on 4/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: At what cost
By m0mentary on 4/28/2009 5:42:29 PM , Rating: 5
Well the Unions did agree to certain concessions.

Still I just get the feeling that this "solution" was born out of fear and not careful planning. I hope they make it, but I doubt anyone is getting their hopes up. Im some ways I had felt a bankruptcy/restructure would have been a better idea.

RE: At what cost
By bryanW1995 on 4/28/2009 6:47:38 PM , Rating: 2
I was hoping for a bankruptcy. It would have completely wiped the unions out.

RE: At what cost
By afkrotch on 4/28/2009 7:45:03 PM , Rating: 2
Hell that. I'd love to see that.

RE: At what cost
By Hiawa23 on 4/29/2009 11:48:13 AM , Rating: 2
I was hoping for a bankruptcy. It would have completely wiped the unions out.

I wasn't hoping but it does still seem like the best option. Not that I am advocating anyone losing their jobs but Chrysler & GM I think both will still be headed to bankruptcy whether it be this year or next, cause for some reason, & I give em credit for trimming what they can, but it seems like the issues are still there that helped lead both of them to where they are, & throw in a bad economy, tightening credit, the auto industry isn't turning around no time soon. I would be surprise if the industry sold the 10ill marker of vehicoles they hope for. I give em 3 years.

RE: At what cost
By Spuke on 4/29/2009 12:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
Credit is not really that tight. You can still get a house with a 580.

RE: At what cost
By Oregonian2 on 4/29/2009 2:50:09 PM , Rating: 2
Would wipe out the union contracts and their power, but probably wouldn't wipe out the union. Chrysler would still need union people to build whatever number of cars they do build and I'm not 100% sure if they'd be able to hire an adequate number with no union affiliation and/or be able to keep those hired from joining a union. Maybe, but not sure of that. Primary thing I think is jettisoning of current contract obligations.

This is Chrysler's problem
By MScrip on 4/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: This is Chrysler's problem
By Daphault on 4/28/2009 5:19:16 PM , Rating: 3
Those are all Jeeps; of course they are going to have similar visual traits. It's called brand identity. It's no different that Aston Martin carrying design ques across their product line.

RE: This is Chrysler's problem
By MScrip on 4/28/2009 5:43:00 PM , Rating: 2
I guess what I'm saying is that Jeep could streamline their operation... and not offer different models that are so similar.

There is a big difference between the Grand Cherokee and the Patriot... but the Liberty and the Patriot are very similar looking. But the Commander and the Grand Cherokee are within $1000 of each other. And the Compass and the Patriot are within $1000 of each other too.

Why make 2 models that are only $1000 a part? That seems like waste to me. The Compass and the Patriot are almost identical, only differences in sheet metal.

RE: This is Chrysler's problem
By djc208 on 4/28/2009 6:15:53 PM , Rating: 2
Actually a lot of those probably will be going away. The issue is that the Liberty was a Jeep only chassis.

The Compass and Patriot are re-skinned Caliber chassis, the Patriot being a larger departure than the Compas. But the Patriot is larger and more SUV like than the Compass. Personally the Compass needs to go ,it doesn't belong and doesn't fit the Jeep brand, nor is it different enough to justify it's existance. Both are nods to people who wanted a Jeep but don't really need the capability of a Wrangler or even the Liberty. The "soccer mom" SUVs.

I think the Liberty and Nitro probably share DNA now but both are meant to be more rugged than the Patriot.

RE: This is Chrysler's problem
By MScrip on 4/28/2009 6:27:44 PM , Rating: 2
Wow... I totally forgot about the Caliber and the Nitro! It's sad that I don't even think about Dodge anymore... and that's probably part of Chrysler's problem. My roommate had a 2003 Dodge Ram and it was amazing! But I can't even use all 5 fingers on one hand to count how many people I know with Dodges...


RE: This is Chrysler's problem
By afkrotch on 4/28/2009 7:50:55 PM , Rating: 2
How about the Dodge Neon, Plymouth Neon, and Chrysler Neon? WTF was that all about? Too hard to make just one Neon I guess.

Well the Plymouth brand was dissolved a while ago, but we've still got two Neons.

RE: This is Chrysler's problem
By Spivonious on 4/29/2009 9:57:58 AM , Rating: 2
The Caliber replaced the Neon. Biggest mistake Chrysler made, IMO.

"Let's take a cute girl-car and replace it with a VW Thing."

RE: This is Chrysler's problem
By afkrotch on 4/29/2009 12:26:23 PM , Rating: 2
Not exactly sure how you replace a compact car with a 5 door CUV. That's definitely a big mistake.

So now they have nothing to go up against the Civic, Corolla, Impreza, Sentra, Cobalt, Focus, etc.

RE: This is Chrysler's problem
By Daphault on 4/28/2009 6:28:47 PM , Rating: 2
Saying it that way does make more sense, and I mostly agree. However, the Liberty and the Patriot are significantly different (3rd row seating, clearance, V6, etc) even if they look the same or are priced closely, but the Compass and Patriot do seem too similar to be worth the effort. I'm also not Jeeps target audience for these newer models, so I know I can't be entirely objective. To me real Jeeps have four wheel drive, solid axles, and definitely not CVT's. I think Jeeps biggest mistake was pussifying the brand by giving up its niche and going for the larger (admittedly) mainstream market already full of decent offerings.

RE: This is Chrysler's problem
By rudolphna on 4/28/2009 8:33:09 PM , Rating: 2
Amen, brother.

RE: This is Chrysler's problem
By jcbond on 4/29/2009 11:57:17 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure the Liberty doesn't have 3rd row seating. You'd probably have to get a Commander for that.

New Roadster
By monomer on 4/28/2009 3:15:54 PM , Rating: 5
I gotta say, I really like the look of the electric Roadster. Reminds me of the Dodge Stealth back in the mid 90s.

RE: New Roadster
By FITCamaro on 4/28/2009 3:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
The twin turbo version was awesome. Granted it was a Mitsubishi not a Dodge. I actually like the look of the Stealth more than the 3000GT though.

But yes I do like the look of the roadster.

RE: New Roadster
By PlasmaBomb on 4/28/2009 3:26:57 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like a Lotus...

RE: New Roadster
By teldar on 4/28/2009 4:07:22 PM , Rating: 2
That's because it IS a lotus.
It's a rebadged Lotus Europa (from the Elise family) with an electric power train. Look at the tesla roadster and you'll see some significant similarities.
Dodge didn't exactly out do themselves with the design. They're just taking a model that's not sold here and sticking in an electric drive system.

Good- Now we get pentastar
By rudolphna on 4/28/2009 8:52:01 PM , Rating: 2
I know a lot of people will be upset about this, as there is alot of animosity towards chrysler, and GM. Now, I think if Fiat and Chrysler merge, we will see alot of interesting, and good cars on the road from them. If its any indication, the 20111 Jeep Cherokee shows that Cerberus (which up until this point hasn't really had any design influence filter down) is committed to quality cars.

Now, I don't know how many of you have heard about Chryslers upcoming Pentastar V6 family, (formerly known as Phoenix), but it seems to be a golden ray of hope for Chrysler. Chrysler seems to have spend much time and R&D effort perfecting the Pentastar engine family, which will replace the old, outdated V6 engines used currently. (most of them date from the early 90s!) Chrysler seems to have done everything possible to make a smooth running, quiet V6. According to Chrysler, the first generation will NOT use Direct Injection, because it apparently creates more noise and vibration, but future versions will use it. It appears to be a 24V V6. The biggest engine will be a 3.6L that makes 280HP and 260lb ft of torque, with a redline of 6400RPM. I know this sounds like a brochure or something, but I'm quite excited for this new engine family, because I think it holds the best hope for chryslers future.

Now, this is what I feel Chryslers lineup should look like, complete with vehicles.

Chrysler- Base Model/Luxury Cars
-Chrysler Sebring (Sedan, Convertible, needs overhaul and price drop)
-Chrysler 300
-Chrysler Aspen (Hemi, and hybrid available, base on new demo'ed '11 cherokee platform)
- New luxury sedan, to compete with mid-level BMW/M-B/Lexus

Dodge- Sports division, trucks
-Dodge RAM Series
-Dodge Charger
-Dodge Challenger
-Dodge Avenger

Jeep- Off Road Vehicles Primarily
-Jeep Wrangler (Go back to old TJ style, guys. And add a CRD diesel option)
-Jeep Cherokee. (should have both trail-rated off road designed, and luxury version.
-Jeep Liberty- Small, should compete with Toyota matrix etc

Fiat- Current Fiat models should be brought to US under Fiat name only.

RE: Good- Now we get pentastar
By FITCamaro on 4/29/2009 12:26:39 PM , Rating: 2
280 hp out of a 3.6L V6 really isn't much to be proud of. GMs 3.6L direct-injected V6 puts out over 300 hp.

RE: Good- Now we get pentastar
By Spuke on 4/29/2009 1:03:47 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah but the Pentastar does it on 87 octane.

Sale-ing Smoothly
By rs1 on 4/28/2009 3:39:44 PM , Rating: 2
The union deal has to be approved by a vote on Wednesday, but it’s expected to sale through smoothly.

Surely you realize that the expression is " sail through smoothly", no?

RE: Sale-ing Smoothly
By Motoman on 4/28/2009 4:02:25 PM , Rating: 3
Freudian slip FTW!

By chmilz on 4/28/2009 7:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
And here I was hoping to be able to return my company-issued Dodge Journey. What a piece of junk. I want my car allowance back so I can drive my Fusion again.

watch the video
By amagriva on 4/29/2009 5:24:04 AM , Rating: 2
By Dgacioch on 4/29/2009 8:38:15 AM , Rating: 2
this deal was cut primarily to keep the "good news" flowing in the financial media. The governent no doubt has a heavy hand in this because with the economy as fragile as it is news that chrysler going down might sink the suckers rally going on right now in the stock market. People must be fooled into believing things are getting better, even though their not.

So how viable is chrysler...really. Do they have the billions in capital needed to invest in vehicle design and research to make cars people actually want? Do they have any attractive, fuel efficient, reliable and low cost vehicles that consumers seem to be flocking too? Has their company management shown that they have any idea how to run an automotive company whatsoever for that matter.

The answer to all of the above is no. The reason chryslers design, engineering and reliability is crap is because there was never intended to be any real reinvestment in the company by the folks who bought it from daimler. Cerebrus capital got chrysler for literally nothing. They paid very little in actual cash, but agreed to take on chryslers long term liabilities and debt obligations as part of the deal. They never intended to run the company, the plan was to come in and slice and dice it up into profitable parts and then resell it for a profit. Then, the housing market and economy tanked leaving them holding the bag on a company they had no idea or desire to run. I cringe every time i hear Nardelli talk about how commited cerebrus is to running chrysler, even though they've been trying to part out the company to anyone and everyone for the last year.

So at the end of the day, the company will be owned by a combination of the uaw, the government, some large banks, and an italian auto firm which has never had any meaningful success in this country. Fiat also has a well deserved reputation for making crap vehicles. This is a recipe for success? What business does our government have running a private company anyway? If I was Bill Ford Jr. i would be screaming to anyone who would listen how unfair it is to be competing against a company which is partially subsidized with Tax dollars that Ford motor company continues to pay to the federal government.

crazy isnt it.

Just the beginning of the end...
By Beenthere on 4/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Just the beginning of the end...
By Motoman on 4/28/2009 4:07:41 PM , Rating: 3
...which is failing from the forced bankruptcy mandated by Bama and friends. do realize, of course, that Chrysler and the rest of the US auto industry was teetering with 9 toes in the grave before Obama took office, right? As in...8 years of republican rule beforehand.

While the general financial collapse is perhaps the point of ignition in this bonfire, in the case of US automakers they clearly just simply had no chance to weather any kind of financial storm while having to bear the near-mortal wounds inflicted on them by the unions. It's a miracle they survived as long as they did. And it's a shame that the unions are going to continue to exist...because it's clear as night and day that so long as they do, US automakers will never be allowed to flourish...or likely even survive.

RE: Just the beginning of the end...
By teldar on 4/28/2009 4:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand how 8 years of republican "rule" could be at the root of their problems. The republican party is typically pretty supportive of big business.

RE: Just the beginning of the end...
By Motoman on 4/28/2009 4:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't say it was. The point I was making was to demonstrate that "Bama and his friends" had nothing to do with it, as the OP seems to believe.

RE: Just the beginning of the end...
By xti on 4/28/2009 6:29:04 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Just the beginning of the end...
By twjr on 4/29/2009 1:32:58 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah as far as I can tell they would have ended up in their current position irrelevant of who is in charge on the Capitol.

RE: Just the beginning of the end...
By Mathos on 4/29/2009 1:56:46 AM , Rating: 2
The person likely most directly responsible would be Greenspan, and he came into office either during H.W. Bush's time in office or during Clinton's time in office. Granted not that the guy that held his position during the Reagan Era was much less responsible.

Bush did have a hand in the direction the big 3 took during his time in office though... I don't think too many people remember about a year after he was elected, when he managed to spend the surplus that had been built up, one of his bills revolved around giving people a tax credit for purchasing a SUV or light truck style vehicle. Which is one of the big reasons why SUV's were so popular for a short while. I remember seeing that in the news......back in 02 or 03 I think it was.

RE: Just the beginning of the end...
By FITCamaro on 4/29/2009 12:24:13 PM , Rating: 2
You mean that fake surplus that never existed?

By mindless1 on 4/30/2009 9:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
Is that worse than a real surplus that never existed, or a fake surplus that did exist?

"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki