Angel H. wong says:

“Seems to me there was “a plan” when they bought Chrysler in the first place. What ever happened to that?”

The same thing that happened to The Supremes, there were way too many high level Divas from both sides and all plans went down the toilet because of it.

RSweeney says:

As far as the EV1 electric car’s demise. GM was probably thinking that an electric car that had a 50 mile range with the a/c on, had environmentally unfriendly batteries that cost many thousands of dollars to replace every few years, and cost twice as much to make than it could be sold for not a great idea.

They didn’t realize that all they needed was a religious icon for the greens to embrace, not a real electric car.

Tom says:

The Neon?! It was a total price of crap! I remember the bumper stickers “Friends don’t let friends buy Neons” Chyrsler builds nice looking cars but their engineering sucks. Terrible reliability records across the board.

edwinrogers says:

It took weeks, not nine years, for Daimler to find out the extent of the fraud perpetrated upon their shareholders. Rather than address the issue they focussed their efforts in trying to put the s**t back inside the bull.

moss says:

I think 6 & 7 got a lot right on the button.

The DOT, in fact, says the average roundtrip commute/ errands in town, etc. is 40 miles. Many of the electric and/or diesel short haul designs use that as a target. I’d add another 20 miles as a practical cushion figuring the purchaser of such vehicles to also have brains enough to plan their travels.

Unlike the dweebs still stuck with planned obsolesence and turnover the way GM always loved it. The patriotic car buyers looking at the new SUV Chrysler introduced last month, fer cripes sake!

I’ve been close to a couple of comparable international and national-class sales. You always make your sell look good. That’s true of most packages; but, especially what you hope to be a one-time killing. I think Daimler didn’t do a good enough job on their due diligence.

Now, they’re going to cut their losses and kick the garbage off the stern of the boat. Something American investors (and maybe voters) have yet to learn.

Odyssey_67 says:

@ Ron Larson: The thing is, who’s going to buy Chrysler? There aren’t many established car companies out there who would touch it with a ten foot pole, and those who might consider it probably can’t afford it (read, Ford or GM).

There’s only one place to go if Daimler insists on selling (and not spinning them off as an independent), and that’s China. There are a few companies there who would LOVE having even Chrysler, as crappy Western engineering is still a step up for them. And they, IMO, would be making a bad situation a total disaster.

First, in all likelihood, the majority of Chrysler’s manufacturing capability would be shipped to China, and even more industrial jobs in the US would be lost forever. Second, whatever manufacturing they did keep here – assuming it to profitably sell anything – would result in even more of our money (in the form of consumer & investment dollars) going to China, instead of being used here where it’s desperately needed. Last, the government of China would love nothing more than to have an ‘in’ to the US political system, and as anyone paying attention for the last 2 decades knows, the best way to get that access is to have a domestically-based economic concern in the US. Some company that can claim they have an ‘interest’ in lobbying Washington is the perfect cover for all sorts of foriegn espionage mischief.

When it comes right down to it, the US should never have let a major manufacturing corporation like Chrysler be sold to a foreign company in the first place. Now that it’s no longer a US company, the FTC has a lot less say in what happens to billions of dollars in technology and tens of thousands of jobs. Whatever Daimler wants to do – even breaking the company up & ‘parting it out’ for the cash – if the EU says ‘ok’, there’ll be little we can do about it.

I wonder; is Paul Allen interested in the car business …?

moss says:

They already had an SUV platform. They just had to dumb it down for the US market. The Gelandevagen has always been one of the toughest 4WD.

Frank IBC says:

Another failed Clinton-era megamerger, along with Viacom/CBS, AOL Time-Warner, and Citigroup.

osmodious says:

#12 – Actually, the idea was that Benz could help Chrysler with engineering and Chrysler could help Benz with design…the design of Chrysler product from the 90’s through today has been quite good, it’s the execution that sucks. Post ‘merger’, a lot of Benz engineering has found it’s way into Chrysler product…most notably the Chrysler 300/Dodge Magnum/Dodge Charger line (which use, essentially, the platform from the last generation E-Class Mercedes).
The Merc SUV’s have nothing in common with any Chrysler product, neither does their R-Class (which they call an SUV but is really more like a mini-van).
As to design, well, I think that might have just been what they stated to the public…I’ve never been able to figure out just what they thought they were buying when they got Chrysler (the highly profitable Jeep brand, maybe?).

Tom says:

My wife and I have bought 7 chryslers since 1991. The Shadow lasted from 1991 to 2000 with no major problems, just regular maintenance. Ditto for the 1998 Avenger my wife drove until 2004. Every single Chrysler car I’ve bought since the merger has had some pretty major issues. Two transmissions, a heater blower, and a variety of nit-noid nickel and dime issues later, I can safely say I’ve bought my last Chrysler unless something major changes.

I agree, they look great, they’re comfortable, but their reliability and engineering isn’t very good. I feel bad walking away from our dealer, who is one heck of a great human being and a personal friend, but I can’t see spending $25K on a vehicle that I’ll have to dump $5k into in the first 5 years of ownership.