WELCOME MY FRIEND, TO THE "FRIENDS WITH JACKBOOTS" EXPERIENCE. YOUR TOUR GUIDES WILL BE A LOUTISH, ANTHROPOMORPHISED CANDELABRA AND HIS FRIEND, THE TIGHT-ASS CLOCK. PLEASE BUCKLE YOUR SOUL TIGHTLY AND PREPARE TO GO OVER THE CLIFF.
Looks like Fiat will be designing it's new vehicles too.
As excited as I am about the prospect of Chrysler turning around (and Fiat's return), it has yet to be proven that Fiat's engineering is any better than Chrysler's. The current offerings' suckage can all be traced to interfering external accountants, not poor engineering.
In other news, the White Star Line announced that it would install a state-of-the-art iceberg detection system on the Titanic, after it returns from its maiden voyage.
Who should we listen to, the CFO of the company in question, or some random dude on the internet (you)?
Since GM and Ford are both planning on breaking even or turning a profit in 2011, why is it inconceivable that the much smaller Chrysler would be able to return to profitability in the same time frame?
Quote, originally posted by uniseriate »
Are we taking the CFO's words as gospel now? His expectations of future earnings are a far cry from certainty.
Quote, originally posted by justanotherusername »
There are plenty of existing technologies that produce emissions free electricity. There isn't one single technology in the world that produces emissions free gasoline.
Who should we listen to, the CFO of the company in question, or some random dude on the internet (you)?
Since GM and Ford are both planning on breaking even or turning a profit in 2011, why is it inconceivable that the much smaller Chrysler would be able to return to profitability in the same time frame?
I'll bite:
1)because they're selling far fewer cars 2)because with but a few notable exceptions, all of their cars are the worst in their segment in execution, quality and reliability 3)because there is nothing in the pipeline except for the GC which looks even halfway decent 4)I owned a Chrysler once... once.
Seriously, I'm just speculating. But for the most part the Chrysler lineup is a terrible joke. It's hard to see them selling any product to anyone with hands, eyes, or long-term memory.
, it has yet to be proven that Fiat's engineering is any better than Chrysler's.
Fiat's small cars are all at least competitive in their respective classes and offer unique and attractive features. In terms of engines, Fiat diesels are for the most part on par with the best in class. Fiat Multiair is on the leading edge of gasoline engine tech and seems to be a great product from early reviews of the Punto Evo Multiair and MiTo multiair.
Chrysler... not so much.
Quote, originally posted by StattlichPassat »
Light cars suck. As long as it's got the power to move the heft, they feel much better in solidness. My answer: "who cares?"
Since GM and Ford are both planning on breaking even or turning a profit in 2011, why is it inconceivable that the much smaller Chrysler would be able to return to profitability in the same time frame?
Chrysler has a much bigger challenge, given that GM and Ford are gaining market share and Chrysler is currently losing it. They need to bank on the updated 300/Charger and Grand Cherokee to bolster sales - the GC is a long ways out, and 500 sales probably won't add much to the coffers.
Tom
"Can't we restrict the kids to Vortex Jr. or something?" - MEIN_VW
Raptor Jesus, please provide us with hella sluts clad in pork garments, and whiskey of sufficient proof to kill off any trichinosis. PAH be your name, whatever and ever, amen.
I think everyone will be a lot less skeptical once the new product rolls into the showrooms and we can start seeing how the public takes to it. Similar skepticism of the sames news from GM and Ford was only quieted when their new product started to really take off sales-wise. All we've seen from Chrysler is the 500 (and who knows how the public will take to the FIAT name), attractive pics of the GC, and a few blurry pics of the 300 interior and a photoshopped-looking exterior.
Some of you dumbasses that are dying for Fiats are really annoying. They are near the bottom of reliability studies in Europe. I'll just say, be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.
I wish Chrysler luck, but I think Fiat's gonna let Chrysler die on the vine and just bring over a bunch of Fiats and give it another go in the land of the free.
For the most part. If memory serves, it's also the cucumber capital of Japan. Hence the home-market ads for the FT-86 featuring Takeichi-kun, the cartoon cucumber whose meteoric rise through the underground drift world has shamed him in the eyes of his school-master.
Damned, I don't want to be the only defender of Chrysler's future around here! You guys seem to be finding every reason why they are going to fail, instead of looking at their current strengths and soon to be released product. I am speculating, as we all are, but to armchair quarterback their estimates (when they have access to REAL business and financial data) seems stupid. Marketshare cannot be viewed as a sign of a company's financial health. Apple is MUCH smaller (marketshare) than Microsoft, but that does not mean that it is not healthy. Chrysler CAN be profitable with a smaller market share than GM or Ford (this has always been Chrysler's lot in life, anyway). Chyrsler currently strong to average selling products (Ram, Wrangler, Caravan/T&C, Journey, Charger, Patriot, and Liberty) probably generate more sales and revenue than Nissan, Hyundai, and Kia (in North America). I believe that Chrysler is currently battling with Nissan for the number 5 spot in overall sales in America. If Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, Subaru, Mazda, and Suzuki can be profitable selling less cars/trucks than Toyota, GM, Ford, and Honda, why not Chrysler?
Quote, originally posted by mutcth »
Chrysler has a much bigger challenge, given that GM and Ford are gaining market share and Chrysler is currently losing it. They need to bank on the updated 300/Charger and Grand Cherokee to bolster sales - the GC is a long ways out, and 500 sales probably won't add much to the coffers.
Tom
Quote, originally posted by justanotherusername »
There are plenty of existing technologies that produce emissions free electricity. There isn't one single technology in the world that produces emissions free gasoline.
Damned, I don't want to be the only defender of Chrysler's future around here! You guys seem to be finding every reason why they are going to fail, instead of looking at their current strengths and soon to be released product. I am speculating, as we all are, but to armchair quarterback their estimates (when they have access to REAL business and financial data) seems stupid. Marketshare cannot be viewed as a sign of a company's financial health. Apple is MUCH smaller (marketshare) than Microsoft, but that does not mean that it is not healthy. Chrysler CAN be profitable with a smaller market share than GM or Ford (this has always been Chrysler's lot in life, anyway). Chyrsler currently strong to average selling products (Ram, Wrangler, Caravan/T&C, Journey, Charger, Patriot, and Liberty) probably generate more sales and revenue than Nissan, Hyundai, and Kia (in North America). I believe that Chrysler is currently battling with Nissan for the number 5 spot in overall sales in America. If Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, Subaru, Mazda, and Suzuki can be profitable selling less cars/trucks than Toyota, GM, Ford, and Honda, why not Chrysler?
You are right in everything you have said about Chrysler, but like I said this skepticism isn't going to pass until the products are in the showroom and people can see the sales data. Had you mentioned back in Jan that come Oct. GM would be posting increases and with 4 brands have a 20% market share you would have met the same reaction. Mention Ford and profitability back in Jan and the people with the white jackets would have been knocking at your door. Then you get to sit back while everyone eats crow pie.
Damned, I don't want to be the only defender of Chrysler's future around here! You guys seem to be finding every reason why they are going to fail, instead of looking at their current strengths and soon to be released product. I am speculating, as we all are, but to armchair quarterback their estimates (when they have access to REAL business and financial data) seems stupid. Marketshare cannot be viewed as a sign of a company's financial health. Apple is MUCH smaller (marketshare) than Microsoft, but that does not mean that it is not healthy. Chrysler CAN be profitable with a smaller market share than GM or Ford (this has always been Chrysler's lot in life, anyway). Chyrsler currently strong to average selling products (Ram, Wrangler, Caravan/T&C, Journey, Charger, Patriot, and Liberty) probably generate more sales and revenue than Nissan, Hyundai, and Kia (in North America). I believe that Chrysler is currently battling with Nissan for the number 5 spot in overall sales in America. If Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, Subaru, Mazda, and Suzuki can be profitable selling less cars/trucks than Toyota, GM, Ford, and Honda, why not Chrysler?
I don't wish to see Chrysler fail, but you have to just look at the facts. To use your Microsoft/Apple analogy, Apple commands a premium for its products, and gets it while having a favorable view by most mass-market consumers. Meanwhile, Chrysler has a mediocre product line (at best), has to heavily discount and incentivize to sell them and doesn't have a very favorable reputation with consumers. They have a lot of challenges to overcome.
In an industry that is all about product, Chrysler is barren of any all-new products for the next 12 months save for the new 300 and Grand Cherokee. However, if gas prices continue to increase, those could be the wrong products at the wrong time.
Will consumers notice the new Chrysler products when they finally arrive? Will it be too little too late?
Damned, I don't want to be the only defender of Chrysler's future around here! You guys seem to be finding every reason why they are going to fail, instead of looking at their current strengths and soon to be released product. I am speculating, as we all are, but to armchair quarterback their estimates (when they have access to REAL business and financial data) seems stupid. Marketshare cannot be viewed as a sign of a company's financial health. Apple is MUCH smaller (marketshare) than Microsoft, but that does not mean that it is not healthy. Chrysler CAN be profitable with a smaller market share than GM or Ford (this has always been Chrysler's lot in life, anyway). Chyrsler currently strong to average selling products (Ram, Wrangler, Caravan/T&C, Journey, Charger, Patriot, and Liberty) probably generate more sales and revenue than Nissan, Hyundai, and Kia (in North America). I believe that Chrysler is currently battling with Nissan for the number 5 spot in overall sales in America. If Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, Subaru, Mazda, and Suzuki can be profitable selling less cars/trucks than Toyota, GM, Ford, and Honda, why not Chrysler?
I'm no expert in the car bidniz, but those other manufacturers are successful because they sell a significant amount of cars around the world. Chrysler's global presence isn't all that large.
Car companies have to take advantage of a certain economies of scale due to the high capital requirements. Comparing them to Apple is like comparing... Well, Apples and cars. Apple is little more than a boutique brand that relies on specific features and functionality to sell to a specific segment of the population. I just don't think a car company can do the same thing anymore.
Hell, not even companies like Porsche, Ferrari, and Lamborghini are truly independent anymore.
I don't want to see Chrysler fail either, but I don't see any compelling reason for Fiat to keep them around in the long term.
"People just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
I'm no expert in the car bidniz, but those other manufacturers are successful because they sell a significant amount of cars around the world. Chrysler's global presence isn't all that large.
Quote, originally posted by justanotherusername »
There are plenty of existing technologies that produce emissions free electricity. There isn't one single technology in the world that produces emissions free gasoline.
Fiat's small cars are all at least competitive in their respective classes and offer unique and attractive features. In terms of engines, Fiat diesels are for the most part on par with the best in class. Fiat Multiair is on the leading edge of gasoline engine tech and seems to be a great product from early reviews of the Punto Evo Multiair and MiTo multiair.
Chrysler... not so much.
Gee, thanks for selectively quoting me.
Chrysler's engineering has been severely stunted by the Daimler takeover, and I alluded to that in the part you left off. Chrysler is also very good at offering unique and attractive features in their cars and minivans particularly, and their small cars would have been at least competitive had it not been for severe cost cutting during development. For whatever reason, people forget that the same basic platform for the Caliber, Compass and Patriot underpins the Mitsubishi Lancer and Outlander, which last I checked are both considered to be quite competitive.
The devil is in the details, but you can't do much about that if one or both of your hands are tied behind your back.
Yep. Fiat. Not Chrysler. Do you think for even one split second that Fiat is going to hand over any market share around the world to another brand?
The companies you compared Chrysler to are closer to Fiat's model line. They all sell small, efficient cars. Chrysler is known mostly as a seller of mid and full size cars and trucks. Whatever global presence Fiat gives the Chrysler brand will be minimal.
Like someone else already said, Fiat wants Chrysler's NA distribution infrastructure. The end.
"People just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
Like someone else already said, Fiat wants Chrysler's NA distribution infrastructure. The end.
I don't think it's quite that simple. Fiat has some gaps as a full-line manufacturer that are nicely filled by Chrysler (LY platform, Ram trucks, US-sized minivans, etc.), and even the Pentastar V6 is being retained. The stuff that's going away was stuff that Chrysler was collaborating on (or outright relying on, in the case of the GEMA engines) with other partners. Those ties had all been broken prior to Cerberus, even, so it makes sense that Fiat fills those gaps with in-house product.
You are right! I am done with being the lone blogging optimist, concerning Chrysler, for now. I will continue to happily show my support for the company, with my car payment on the 15th of every month!
Quote, originally posted by GTRaavv »
You are right in everything you have said about Chrysler, but like I said this skepticism isn't going to pass until the products are in the showroom and people can see the sales data. Had you mentioned back in Jan that come Oct. GM would be posting increases and with 4 brands have a 20% market share you would have met the same reaction. Mention Ford and profitability back in Jan and the people with the white jackets would have been knocking at your door. Then you get to sit back while everyone eats crow pie.
Quote, originally posted by justanotherusername »
There are plenty of existing technologies that produce emissions free electricity. There isn't one single technology in the world that produces emissions free gasoline.
I don't think it's quite that simple. Fiat has some gaps as a full-line manufacturer that are nicely filled by Chrysler (LY platform, Ram trucks, US-sized minivans, etc.), and even the Pentastar V6 is being retained. The stuff that's going away was stuff that Chrysler was collaborating on (or outright relying on, in the case of the GEMA engines) with other partners. Those ties had all been broken prior to Cerberus, even, so it makes sense that Fiat fills those gaps with in-house product.
Modified by xdre at 10:30 AM 11-5-2009
Didn't MB make a very similar claim? They had a huge gap in the mid-priced market around the world, and especially in NA; the largest car market in the world at that time.
"People just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
The companies you compared Chrysler to are closer to Fiat's model line. They all sell small, efficient cars. Chrysler is known mostly as a seller of mid and full size cars and trucks. Whatever global presence Fiat gives the Chrysler brand will be minimal.
Like someone else already said, Fiat wants Chrysler's NA distribution infrastructure. The end.
I wonder though. If Chrysler can get the larger products up to snuff (read: sell without massive incentives), they do have the potential of providing much more profit per unit than the smaller Fiat-based stuff. The Wrangler is also likely rather profitable.
So you use the Fiat synergies to save money on developing the loss-leader and break-even small and mid-sized sedans, and then add in the profit from selling the bigger Chrysler-platformed stuff. And Fiat gets the dealer distribution network to bring in Fiats and Alfas.
But. That assumes buyers are willing to reconsider Chrysler, and that they survive the next few years without strong players in big markets (small SUVs and mid-sized sedans.) It also assumes that Chrysler is successful with the GC and 300/Charger in a pair of crowded segments.
"Can't we restrict the kids to Vortex Jr. or something?" - MEIN_VW
I wonder though. If Chrysler can get the larger products up to snuff (read: sell without massive incentives), they do have the potential of providing much more profit per unit than the smaller Fiat-based stuff. The Wrangler is also likely rather profitable.
So you use the Fiat synergies to save money on developing the loss-leader and break-even small and mid-sized sedans, and then add in the profit from selling the bigger Chrysler-platformed stuff. And Fiat gets the dealer distribution network to bring in Fiats and Alfas.
But. That assumes buyers are willing to reconsider Chrysler, and that they survive the next few years without strong players in big markets (small SUVs and mid-sized sedans.) It also assumes that Chrysler is successful with the GC and 300/Charger in a pair of crowded segments.
Perhaps, but with the new 35mpg mandate looming along with the eventual return to high ($4+) gas prices, I have my doubts.
"People just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
Didn't MB make a very similar claim? They had a huge gap in the mid-priced market around the world, and especially in NA; the largest car market in the world at that time.
They did, and if they'd done it right it likely still would have worked. But then they walked away from Mitsubishi and worried too much about Chrysler moving too close to Mercedes ( ), and screwed the pooch on cost-cutting.
They did, and if they'd done it right it likely still would have worked. But then they walked away from Mitsubishi and worried too much about Chrysler moving too close to Mercedes ( ), and screwed the pooch on cost-cutting.
So not only do we have to hope that Fiat is sincere with their intentions, we also have to hope that they'll actually -manage- it well. Is that fair to say?
"People just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
Well sure--if one also takes into account that there's no warchest to distract them and the very real potential loss of a US dealer chain if they don't.
Well sure--if one also takes into account that there's no warchest to distract them and the very real potential loss of a US dealer chain if they don't.
As I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong), they don't have too much skin in the game. They didn't have any capital outlay to get what they got.
I wonder if they see that US dealer chain maintained with Fiat-only products in the future. I think that's the point that some have been making.
Bear in mind, I don't have a dog in this fight. I neither love, nor loathe Chrysler. I just enjoy the speculation game.
"People just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
As I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong), they don't have too much skin in the game. They didn't have any capital outlay to get what they got.
I wonder if they see that US dealer chain maintained with Fiat-only products in the future. I think that's the point that some have been making.
Bear in mind, I don't have a dog in this fight. I neither love, nor loathe Chrysler. I just enjoy the speculation game.
Oh, understood.
The thing is that Fiat would be stupid to throw out all or even most of Chrysler, just for the sake of the dealer chain. Daimler could afford to be "stupid" if you will, because they move nearly as many cars as Fiat but with bigger profit margins, and they already know and understand the US and Canada. That's a big reason why I believe Fiat is aiming more for the more symbiotic Renault-Nissan model than the rather parasitic DaimlerChrysler one.
For advertising information Click Here
)
Apple is little more than a boutique brand that relies on specific features and functionality to sell to a specific segment of the population. I just don't think a car company can do the same thing anymore.
), and screwed the pooch on cost-cutting.
