Post bailout, who came out on top?

[KrisZ]

Forget the car lineup and instead focus on the management and in that regard Chrysler is way ahead of GM and by far improved the most. Sergio truly shook down the management at Chrysler, top to bottom mostly eliminating old dogs and buddy-buddy system.

GM, on the other hand, is exhibiting the same old tactics and old habits. The incentives are starting to rise up again above industry standards, as well as fleet sales. The old dogs were never weeded out of the company and are trying to bleed it dry yet again.

The way things are going now, I can't see GM succeeding. Their lineup is very good right now, but for how long? I constantly see new things in the pipe line for other auto makers, but GM seems pretty weak in that regard.

 

[Silverado12]

I like both Chrysler and GM, and it would come down to which one gave me the better deal. I really like the Ram truck with the 25 mpg, but it wasn't available when I got my Silverado.

 

[NHHEMI]

Both have done well. I think both companies have come out winners.

I am a MOPAR guy and overall like what I am seeing with Fiat runing things. Hope it continues.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: OtisBlkR1
Dodge gets the nod in styling for there cars and trucks, but i dont see any gas Dodge pickups in the fields around here.. trucks that WORK are Chevy & Ford. GMC's are nice and back in the day there may have been a real difference in Chevy v.s. GMC in quality.. if there still is i dont see it.


What do you say to something like that?

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
GM and I'm no fan of GM.

Chrysler should have died in the 80's, Never made quality cars (look at their ratings - dead last) and use lots of gimmicks. Outside of the Viper and Challenger, nothing Chrysler makes is that competitive. And even there, Corvette > Viper and Mustang>Camaro>Challenger.


Another ridiculous post. Worth 2

 

[Hokiefyd]

I say that it's too early to tell for Chrysler. Chrysler's really good cars (Charger, 300, etc) were already in place before the bailout. Chrysler's new Pentastar engine was already in development (and maybe in production) before the bailout. Chrysler's only new model since the bailout (the Dart) has not sold in large numbers yet. Chrysler's mediocre models (minivans and 200/Avenger) kind of soldier on mostly unchanged with the exception of interior fabrics and headlamp bling. Its exciting new model that seems to be selling well isn't a Chrysler at all (Fiat 500).

What I don't like about Chrysler and Dodge lately is its design "flamboyance". Many of their models are "in your face" about themselves, and are in many cases over the top to me. The Grand Cherokee is classy. The Durango, though, is like the over-confident high school jock with poor self esteem that has to make a lot of noise where ever it goes. Maybe they will find that that stuff sells. Maybe they won't. But something like the Durango has ZERO appeal to me, because it tries too hard to be something that I don't think it is.

GM seems to have done more since the bailout. Granted, much of its new car technology was co-developed with its other companies overseas. They have a number of new small cars that are class competitive and that sell well. They have a thriving sports car program and a very successful light truck program.

What I like about GM is they have a certain humility to their designs, especially compared with Chrysler/Dodge. The Traverse isn't in your face. The Cruze isn't in your face. Like backstage hands, they seem to go about their business professionally and without needing the spotlight. That's what I personally like in a vehicle. I don't need or particularly want attention on me. I prefer to go about my business without the spotlight (and without the red-and-blue lights). For that reason, GM's stuff appeals more than Chrysler's stuff does to me right now.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
They've sold a million LX cars worldwide (300, Charger, Magnum). Still selling like hotcakes. The LC (Challenger) is unique among the ponycars with its content at a good price, it also sells like crazy. Dart is actually a pretty nice driver, and with a lot more personality than most econo cars.


Keep telling yourself that. The fact is that Chrysler has been bringing up the rear for a long time. They really have not had an original idea since, well, forever. Minivan? Nope - Iacocca brought that from Ford. Hemi? Nope, that was done by everyone back in the day (and it's not a true Hemi). 300? Thank Bentley for the styling cues.

300 sells because it looks like a Bentley and has "gangsta cred". Challenger looks good but is outhandled and outperformed by Mustang and Camaro. It is a distant 3rd place in sales (http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/01/03/chevrolet-camaro-outsells-ford-mustang-in-2012/)

Viper is good, but the Vette is marginally better.

And then there's the little "quality problem" that puts Chrysler, Jeep, and Dodge at the bottom of the pack. Consumers Reports and JD Power bear that out. Even the most recent 3 year dependability from JD Powers has Chrysler with the exception of Ram occupying the bottom slots.

Quote:
Gimmicks? How about the idiotic Ford ad that claims the Egoboost burns AIR not FUEL?


Technically it does burn air - it uses the O2 for combustion.

Quote:
And ha ha the Camaro outsells the Mustang. The customers have voted with their wallets!


True but the Mustang in most forms out handles and out performs the Camaro in most tests. I'd wonder if the Camaro is selling so well because one never knows when GM will pull it from the market again.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
GM and I'm no fan of GM.

Chrysler should have died in the 80's, Never made quality cars (look at their ratings - dead last) and use lots of gimmicks. Outside of the Viper and Challenger, nothing Chrysler makes is that competitive. And even there, Corvette > Viper and Mustang>Camaro>Challenger.


That's just ridiculous.

Chrysler was the most dynamic design domestic company of the early-mid '90s.
Dodge forced Ford and GM to redesign their trucks from the inside and out.
GM and Ford weren't trying to compete with the Japanese in subcompacts. (we can argue the merits of the Contour but it was a compact with a subcompact rear seat.) The Neon handled and rode like a Japanese car and had something conspicuously absent on the Civics and Corollas of the day, torque.
Nobody but Chrysler went head to head with the Maxima (300M). Say what you will about the 300M not being a legitimate letter car but it did everything the Maxima did in a Euro size package.
And they took chances. The Prowler may have had shortcomings but no one else even tried until the SSR (and it had shortcomings)

And today, what competes with the Charger? Maybe the Taurus SHO but that is an AWD twin-turbo V6, not a RWD V8. What are you thinking? G8? Nope. Dead.

What competes with the Wrangler? The FJ Cruiser?...yeah, not so much. The Raptor? closer but that is a $45,000 pickup not a $20-$30,000 SUV

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd

What I like about GM is they have a certain humility to their designs, especially compared with Chrysler/Dodge. The Traverse isn't in your face. The Cruze isn't in your face. Like backstage hands, they seem to go about their business professionally and without needing the spotlight.

Except maybe the neon colored Spark with headlights up to the A-pillars.

My beef with GM used to be they'd shame the small car buyer with a simple oversight that wasn't really an oversight. Like getting leather seats in a cavalier required a $3000 option package. Same with cruise or AC or whatever. They'd do something bordering on sabotage to try and shame the buyer into at least a midsize.

This got better with the Cruze, but the Sonic and Spark are pushing it out of the "entry level car with room" segment. A poor family used to be able to get a CAFE subsidized bargain cavalier with room in the back seat for car seats and kids. Now not so much.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog

Chrysler was the most dynamic design domestic company of the early-mid '90s.


With what? The LH cars? PT Cruiser? Prowler was cool but the rest of the stuff was meh at best.

Quote:
Dodge forced Ford and GM to redesign their trucks from the inside and out.


Yeah, the leaders for the past 30+ years that sell 2x and 1.5x the amount of trucks as Ram really care about Dodge.

Quote:
GM and Ford weren't trying to compete with the Japanese in subcompacts. (we can argue the merits of the Contour but it was a compact with a subcompact rear seat.) The Neon handled and rode like a Japanese car and had something conspicuously absent on the Civics and Corollas of the day, torque.

Forgetting the Escort GT's (which handled well for the day), the Cavalier Z28, and the Focus prior to it's redesign in 2007 (which drove the best of the bunch).

Quote:
Nobody but Chrysler went head to head with the Maxima (300M). Say what you will about the 300M not being a legitimate letter car but it did everything the Maxima did in a Euro size package.


Guess you're forgetting the Taurus SHO of the 80's and 90's.

Quote:
And today, what competes with the Charger? Maybe the Taurus SHO but that is an AWD twin-turbo V6, not a RWD V8. What are you thinking? G8? Nope. Dead.


I the Charger can also be had with AWD so it is a fair comparison. They are both close on performance so I'd say it's a fair comparison. Don't forget the new Chevy SS in the segment too.

Quote:
And they took chances. The Prowler may have had shortcomings but no one else even tried until the SSR (and it had shortcomings)


Yeah, chances with a gorgeous, impractical car with a crummy drivetrain. Count me unimpressed.

Quote:
What competes with the Wrangler? The FJ Cruiser?...yeah, not so much. The Raptor?
closer but that is a $45,000 pickup not a $20-$30,000 SUV

Outside of the Jeep guys if the Wrangeler were to be discontinued tomorrow few would notice.

 

[RamFan]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
I say that it's too early to tell for Chrysler. Chrysler's really good cars (Charger, 300, etc) were already in place before the bailout. Chrysler's new Pentastar engine was already in development (and maybe in production) before the bailout. Chrysler's only new model since the bailout (the Dart) has not sold in large numbers yet. Chrysler's mediocre models (minivans and 200/Avenger) kind of soldier on mostly unchanged with the exception of interior fabrics and headlamp bling. Its exciting new model that seems to be selling well isn't a Chrysler at all (Fiat 500).

What I don't like about Chrysler and Dodge lately is its design "flamboyance". Many of their models are "in your face" about themselves, and are in many cases over the top to me. The Grand Cherokee is classy. The Durango, though, is like the over-confident high school jock with poor self esteem that has to make a lot of noise where ever it goes. Maybe they will find that that stuff sells. Maybe they won't. But something like the Durango has ZERO appeal to me, because it tries too hard to be something that I don't think it is.

GM seems to have done more since the bailout. Granted, much of its new car technology was co-developed with its other companies overseas. They have a number of new small cars that are class competitive and that sell well. They have a thriving sports car program and a very successful light truck program.

What I like about GM is they have a certain humility to their designs, especially compared with Chrysler/Dodge. The Traverse isn't in your face. The Cruze isn't in your face. Like backstage hands, they seem to go about their business professionally and without needing the spotlight. That's what I personally like in a vehicle. I don't need or particularly want attention on me. I prefer to go about my business without the spotlight (and without the red-and-blue lights). For that reason, GM's stuff appeals more than Chrysler's stuff does to me right now.


I think you've nailed it on the head. However, I think that the "in your face" styling about Chrysler is what is generating a lot of buzz among the younger generation (myself included). Forgive me for making an assumption but most of this board is an older group of males who have families and think from a different time period with a different set of priorities. It seems as though GM is marketing strictly to them and Chrysler is trying to do the complete opposite. I recognize how often I'm in my vehicle, and I want to get excited every time I see my vehicle and every time I'm in it. A Malibu just doesn't do that for me. The new 300 though? What an absolutely beautiful and aggressive looking vehicle.

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd

What I like about GM is they have a certain humility to their designs, especially compared with Chrysler/Dodge. The Traverse isn't in your face. The Cruze isn't in your face. Like backstage hands, they seem to go about their business professionally and without needing the spotlight.

Except maybe the neon colored Spark with headlights up to the A-pillars.

My beef with GM used to be they'd shame the small car buyer with a simple oversight that wasn't really an oversight. Like getting leather seats in a cavalier required a $3000 option package. Same with cruise or AC or whatever. They'd do something bordering on sabotage to try and shame the buyer into at least a midsize.

This got better with the Cruze, but the Sonic and Spark are pushing it out of the "entry level car with room" segment. A poor family used to be able to get a CAFE subsidized bargain cavalier with room in the back seat for car seats and kids. Now not so much.


I have never seen a cavalier with leather seats or ANY $3000 option package but I see the point you are making.

With that being said, I do agree there are options packages such as "sun and sound" etc that are $2-3,000 to get you a sunroof and uplevel radio. BUT, you can still get the sunroof and radio seperately in most all cases. All car makers bundle options in some manner, be it option packages or by trim level of the car. Doing it that way creates more effiecient manufacturing and improves quality with less configurations to tend to.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd

What I like about GM is they have a certain humility to their designs, especially compared with Chrysler/Dodge. The Traverse isn't in your face. The Cruze isn't in your face. Like backstage hands, they seem to go about their business professionally and without needing the spotlight.

Except maybe the neon colored Spark with headlights up to the A-pillars.

My beef with GM used to be they'd shame the small car buyer with a simple oversight that wasn't really an oversight. Like getting leather seats in a cavalier required a $3000 option package. Same with cruise or AC or whatever. They'd do something bordering on sabotage to try and shame the buyer into at least a midsize.

This got better with the Cruze, but the Sonic and Spark are pushing it out of the "entry level car with room" segment. A poor family used to be able to get a CAFE subsidized bargain cavalier with room in the back seat for car seats and kids. Now not so much.


I have never seen a cavalier with leather seats or ANY $3000 option package but I see the point you are making.

With that being said, I do agree there are options packages such as "sun and sound" etc that are $2-3,000 to get you a sunroof and uplevel radio. BUT, you can still get the sunroof and radio seperately in most all cases. All car makers bundle options in some manner, be it option packages or by trim level of the car. Doing it that way creates more effiecient manufacturing and improves quality with less configurations to tend to.


Yeah the cavalier came with A/C standard on all models, and cruise as well I believe... The cavalier had option packages? As far as my 97 went I believe the only options were a 3 speed auto, 4 speed auto, or 5 speed manual, and a 2.4L engine. Oh, you COULD get it in a convertible but...

 

[Spazdog]

The LH cars were far more advanced in layout and design than the Taurus and W-bodies. Most cars now have "cab-forward" elements first seen in large scale production in the LH

As far as the trucks. Yes. Ford and GM did notice. Dodge went from .9% of fullsize truck sales to 20%. That is a substantial chunk of the market. Less than 1% to 1/5th? You'd be an idiot to not notice. GM was the idiot. A spokesperson for GM said, " Ford and Dodge had to redesign their trucks. We do not..." Within 2 years the GM was a complete redesign with a more Ram like interior. He was wrong.

Escort GT was essentially a Mazda Protege'. Mazda B-platform. Mazda B engine. Nice job Ford. You built an Escort that is almost as good as the garden variety cars from Hiroshima. The 2.3 Z24 was still a crude car but had about 20 more horsepower than the regular variety Neon (same as the R/T)

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
The LH cars were far more advanced in layout and design than the Taurus and W-bodies. Most cars now have "cab-forward" elements first seen in large scale production in the LH

As far as the trucks. Yes. Ford and GM did notice. Dodge went from .9% of fullsize truck sales to 20%. That is a substantial chunk of the market. Less than 1% to 1/5th? You'd be an idiot to not notice. GM was the idiot. A spokesperson for GM said, " Ford and Dodge had to redesign their trucks. We do not..." Within 2 years the GM was a complete redesign with a more Ram like interior. He was wrong.


It's easy to take for granted today the way that Dodge literally drove the market in the mid-1990s. The "cab forward" cars weren't necessarily more durable than any other car, but the concept they pushed was relatively new at the time (at least in mainstream America) and you see elements of that design today. Take some of the angles off a Pontiac G6 sedan and you have a Chrysler LH car. Look at the wheels pushed to the corners with a cabin in the middle. Today, an original LH car probably runs as well as any 20 year old car...so it's not necessarily impressive to look at. But the way those cars influenced the market shouldn't be overlooked.

Same goes for the trucks. Wow...to go from the older D-series trucks to the '94 Ram in one iteration was huge. They absolutely did force a design reset on Chevrolet and on Ford. It's easy again to take for granted how modern the Ram was back in 1994, and how it really introduced the concept of a "white collar pickup". Today you see F-150 Lariats and King Ranches and Chevy Z71s driven by white collar professionals or sales people on the road. Most of the newer pickups around here ride on chrome 20s and do less work than my Honda does on a weekend. One of the design features of the '94 Ram was that it had multiple power outlets to charge phones and laptops, and could hold a laptop in its center console. Nobody else at the time was doing anything like that.

 

[SteveSRT8]

See how the story changes when you look beyond the latest issue of Consumer Reports? Remember this magazine gave a bad report on the 300 before it was even sold!!!

Chrysler has a long history of innovation. They just don't get the media buzz that Ford does. So you "ragazine regurgitators" have been warned that some here do not buy into the idea that all good comes with a Blue Oval on it.

There are good cars from all the major automakers. But the reason there is more than one car is there are lots of different tastes.

 

[dishdude]

Chrysler was on top of their game in the late 80's and really up until Diamler bought them. The later K-cars and their spawn were reliable, great values. Throughout the 90's they had the most solid line of any American manufacturer with the Caravan, Grand Cherokee, LH cars, and Ram trucks.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
Chrysler was on top of their game in the late 80's and really up until Diamler bought them. The later K-cars and their spawn were reliable, great values. Throughout the 90's they had the most solid line of any American manufacturer with the Caravan, Grand Cherokee, LH cars, and Ram trucks.


Really everyone had great lineups. (And no bailout!!!) Ford had the Taurus (SHO), GM had the LT1 Caprice/Impala, the Syclone/Typhoon. I'll give mopar the minivan segment. Ford hatched the Explorer. The Northstar Caddys were fast and stylish, before we heard they were turkeys. Saturn was promising. Cars had pep but were lightweight and good on gas. OBD-I fuel injection was reliable, CELs rare.

Only downers of the era were goofball mechanical automatic seatbelts or giant 1st gen airbags that blocked gauges and swallowed steering wheels. (Ford "chicklet" horn buttons?

)

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
See how the story changes when you look beyond the latest issue of Consumer Reports? Remember this magazine gave a bad report on the 300 before it was even sold!!!

Chrysler has a long history of innovation. They just don't get the media buzz that Ford does. So you "ragazine regurgitators" have been warned that some here do not buy into the idea that all good comes with a Blue Oval on it.

There are good cars from all the major automakers. But the reason there is more than one car is there are lots of different tastes.


Beautifully said. I will add that some are pushing Ford simply because they are misinformed in thinking they did not take any buyout money.

Consumer Reports is a complete joke when it comes to car reviews and all the flawed and skewed reliability data. You don't even have to prove you own the model you are rating! They need to stick with testing toasters.

 

[2Fast4U]

Only modern day vehicles I see with paint fade are Chrysler. Dodge charger to be exact. Disgusting. Maybe it was a 2005 at oldest?