Post bailout, who came out on top?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chrysler has an R&D problem. I don't know if it's a lack of talent (doubtful) or a lack of budget (more likely), but Chrysler R&D has gone missing.

Since Daimler took the reigns, Chrysler innovation has gone AWOL. Daimler took all their R&D to Germany, Cerberus just didn't care, and Fiat is in no financial position to give anything back to Chrysler, given the state of their at-home economy.

That leaves Chrysler to outsource all their innovation.

Chrysler doesn't have the capability to cast aluminum engine blocks in any meaningful volume on their own. In 2013, a major automaker has to *outsource* the casting of their aluminum blocks to a supplier in Mexico? This isn't high tech stuff. Some of the Pentastar castings are done in Trenton, the rest are contracted to Mexico. All the 4 cylinder castings were contracted to JL French in Wisconsin... who was promptly bought out by a Mexican conglomerate and moved to Mexico.

Chrysler transmission development is gone. All the new transmissions are coming from ZF (autos) or Fiat (dual clutch). Not that ZF makes a poor transmission, quite the contrary, but it is less profitable to buy your transmissions than it is to develop and produce your own. The European luxury marques can get away with it because their transaction prices and profit margins are much more lucrative. If you don't have the budget to develop you own transmissions anymore... well, you still need a transmission. Have to buy them from someone.

Does Chrysler even make a direct-injection engine? Something with a turbocharger? There was big talk about the Pentastar: Smaller 2.8L and 3.0L versions, direct-injection, turbocharging. None of that has come to fruition. Where is any form of powertrain innovation? The Pentastar engine is good, but it's early 2000's tech. In the past 10 years, the Koreans have leapfrogged Chrysler in the powertrain department. Especially worrisome since their last 4 cylinder, the one Chrysler is still using, was co-developed with them. Diesels you say? Purchased from a company that is half-owned by General Motors. I'm sure the General doesn't mind collecting that check.

Where is a competitive mid-size sedan? For all the talk of the lukewarm reception of the new Malibu, at least it gets included in the comparison tests. The Sebring/200 hasn't been in a magazine since the name change. I just had to go look at the Dodge website to see they were still selling the Avenger.

Where is the small car savior? The Dart is a dud. People are buying small cars! Ford, Chevrolet, and Honda are all reporting good sales. The Dart has been out long enough to straighten out the supply mix and get iron on the dealer's lots. Where are the sales?

Full-size trucks. While Ford and GM are duking it out over power and fuel economy on powerful V8 and turbo V6 trucks, Dodge (sorry... Ram) introduces an uber-expensive... naturally aspirated V6? It got them a few day's press, but their mix will still be 75% V8.

Speaking of Ram... adding brands while the rest of the world is shedding them? Make Ram it's own brand, then sell them out of the same Dodge dealers? Be so cheap when you change the brand that you don't update all the logos in the interior because retooling would cost too much (airbags and dash trim still said Dodge while the rest of the vehicle was logo'd Ram)? Make SRT it's own brand... again, to be sold in the same Dodge and Chrysler dealers they were sold at before.

About the only thing Chrysler has done right is Jeep... until they showed pictures of the new Cherokee.

Chrysler still has a long, LONG ways to go. Hopefully they keep turning a profit and aren't dragged down too bad by Fiat's lack of profit.
 
I see I aroused the Chrysler Apologists. The fact is Chrysler has never really innovated, in the 80s they used VW and Renault engines in the early Omni. Then they turned to Misubishi for V6s and then to Hyundai and Mitsubishi 4s. We won't discuss their transmission debacles which has them sourcing them from ZF.

As far as design, again the minivans came out of Iacoccas time at Ford (started as a Ford project but was abandoned). LH may have had innovative packaging but no better than what Ford and GM were doing at the time.

Ford and GM have more true innovation than Chrysler. Styling wise,you have the Taurus which influenced auto design for years after it came out. Like it or hate it, even the Tempo was a better car than anything at Chrysler. And it sold like hotcakes.

The trucks, well, I think that was an evolution of the SUV trend not because of Dodge. Since the platforms were the same it made sense to upscale trucks. Heck,the Dodge trucks were generally of very poor quality. I was said by most that the Cummins was a great engine in junk truck.

So yeah, Chrysler should have died in the 80s. We would have not missed them and perhaps a good competitor could have emerged. I'm not a GM fan but they at least have lots of good innovation
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
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)


I was thinking the 80s Escort GT, not the Mazda one. It was a decent car in its day.
 
Originally Posted By: itguy08
I see I aroused the Chrysler Apologists. The fact is Chrysler has never really innovated, in the 80s they used VW and Renault engines in the early Omni. Then they turned to Misubishi for V6s and then to Hyundai and Mitsubishi 4s. We won't discuss their transmission debacles which has them sourcing them from ZF.

They did use the Mitsubishi 4G54 in a few cars but the 2.2/2.5 K-engines were neither VW nor Renault engines. There are some VW design influences but it is a unique engine.
Similarly, the Neon 2.0/2.4 has some design similarities to the 4G63, but they don't match. It's not a copy.

Originally Posted By: itguy08
Like it or hate it, even the Tempo was a better car than anything at Chrysler. And it sold like hotcakes.

Tempo?
Tempo?!!!
What was better about the Tempo?

I mean the Aries/Reliant weren't very good cars, But Tempo?
Okay, first lets start with the HSC. They sawed off two cylinders from the venerable 3.3 200 6cyl cast a head that was as likely/more likely to crack than a Pontiac OHC 1.8/2.0 and ruined it. The engine was only used in one other car (Taurus MT5) By comparison, the K-car engine was in virtually every FWD car Chrysler made and the Pontiac 151 lowTechIV was in everything from S10s to Fieros to Lumina(s) Lumina is the plural isn't it? If it was a good engine, wouldn't it have migrated to other models?

Rear suspension was junk. No surprise. It was based on the substandard American version of the Escort. I'm not even sure where it fit in the lineup. Seems like it would have been easier to just make a 4 door sedan Escort.(like they did with the Mazda B platform) Then they would have an excuse for being more cramped inside than the Accord/Camry/Stanza....or K-Chrysler or A-GM.

Electrical components were suspect.

Ford made over 2 million Tempons. You can still find running K-Cars and A-body Celebrities and 6000s. Not nearly as many Tempos.

I've driven 4cyl Celebrities, 6000s, K-cars, and Tempos. None are pleasant to drive. But if I was forced to drive one, I would take a Celebrity or Aries over the Tempo. It was a miserable car. Actually, I'll take the Shadow/Sundance. It was better driving car
 
Tempos ate tie rod ends, ball joints and engine mounts. The entire car was totally miserable. Of all the cars from the 80's, this is probably the worst of the worst. Maybe the Renault Encore/Alliance was worse.

At least the Yugo was humorous.
 
Originally Posted By: KrisZ

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.


I won't argue with the rest the thread but I have a couple of questions.
Where are your numbers for fleet sales?
What does everybody else have coming down the pipe? Ford, Toyota, Honda? I really don't see much from any of them either.

GM has some decent stuff set to hit next year.
Cadillac ATS with 420 hp
Impala
Chevy SS
Regal GN
2014 half ton truck with a 11,500lbs towing capacity.
Please explain?
 
Fox body fairmont and mustang from 1978 were pretty revolutionary. So was the downsized RWD GM A-body that came out then. The press thought the X-body Citation was the bee's knees at the time, though history maligns it as "FWD, beta testing."

Tempo? Seems like "what we learned (stylewise) from Fox, part II."

Though they did make a mazda engined diesel tempo. That was kinda cool.

I'd still take a K-car, Fairmont, or Cutlass Ciera just so I can SEE OUTSIDE. They all had great greenhouses and lots of interior room to go with downsized exteriors.
 
Make sure it's not a Fairmont Futura to see outside. Those had huge B-pillars. Good looking coupe though. Lot's of overhang, big trunk.

It can be argued that the Fox-body design was inspired by the Volvo 200 series.
21.gif

It was structurally a big departure from previous Fords in design.
 
Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
Just GM and Chrysler?

"Ford Motor owes the government $5.9 billion it borrowed in June 2009, the same month GM filed for bankruptcy. By Sept. 15, Ford needs to start paying that money back. In a government filing, the carmaker said $577 million is due within the next year, and the full amount must be paid off by June 15, 2022."

--Forbes, 8/29/2012.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/...t-surprise-you/


Department of Energy loan, the government set aside $25 billion under Bush for the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program.
Ford, along with Nissan, Tesla and Fisker, took part in the program.
The reason GM didn't partake is because they were going through bankruptcy at the time, probably didn't do it after because of public perception.

Regarding the actual bailout, the government is still nowhere near to breaking even with the GM bailout. For the government to recoup its investment GM stock would need to sell at $52 a share, not the $27 it is selling at.

That's also totally ignoring the $17.2 billion Uncle Sam poured into GMAC (Ally Financial) bailout. Last time I checked the Federal gov only recouped about 1/3 of that $17 billion.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-ne...-the-gm-bailout

Uncle Sam is going to end up billions upon billions in the negative with the GM bailout.

I would have loved to ignore that intentionally misleading bait post, but I just couldn't let a stinker like that slide. Context is important but was conspicuously missing, unsurprisingly.

As to the thread, I'll go with Chrysler.

IME, they have seen more of a general improvement relative to the market post bailout. GM is still the "better" auto maker overall, IMO, but Chrysler has some legitimate offerings outside of the Ram, Charger, 300 now. Their product line was in really rough shape back in 2008.
 
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Like it or hate it, even the Tempo was a better car than anything at Chrysler. And it sold like hotcakes.


Now you are just being flat out ridiculous! The Tempo( and it's Mercury cousin the Topaz )was a piece of dung! I worked at a Ford dealer and they were always breaking down. No power, horrible ride, cheap interior, and on and on. Total JUNK!

You CLEARLY have a major Chrysler bias and nothing they will ever do will satisfy you.
 
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Like it or hate it, even the Tempo was a better car than anything at Chrysler. And it sold like hotcakes.


Now you are just being flat out ridiculous! The Tempo( and it's Mercury cousin the Topaz )was a piece of dung! I worked at a Ford dealer and they were always breaking down. No power, horrible ride, cheap interior, and on and on. Total JUNK!

You CLEARLY have a major Chrysler bias and nothing they will ever do will satisfy you.


Where I work someone still drives an old school tempo. No joke! It looks to me like it is still the original red and has that old ford red paint look.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Now you are just being flat out ridiculous! The Tempo( and it's Mercury cousin the Topaz )was a piece of dung! I worked at a Ford dealer and they were always breaking down. No power, horrible ride, cheap interior, and on and on. Total JUNK!


Compared to what, an Aries K, Reliant or LeBaron? Or a Shadow or Spirit? Those were worse cars than the Tempo. Look at the sales #'s. To put it in perspective:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Tempo

Quote:
The Ford Tempo was a massive sales success for Ford. It was one of the top ten best selling cars in the US, usually in the top five, during its entire production. In 1984, Ford sold a total of 531,468 examples of the Tempo and Topaz,[5] nearly 100,000 more units than the best-selling Toyota Camry (2006) of today.


If the Tempo were that bad it would have never sold in the #'s it did. You still see a few of all them around. Not many but a few.
 
GM sold over 800,000 Citations in 1980. That doesn't mean it was a good car. However, it was still better than the Tempo.
 
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
They did use the Mitsubishi 4G54 in a few cars but the 2.2/2.5 K-engines were neither VW nor Renault engines. There are some VW design influences but it is a unique engine.
Similarly, the Neon 2.0/2.4 has some design similarities to the 4G63, but they don't match. It's not a copy.


More than that. The Onmi launched with VW and Renault engines. You're forgetting the Mitsubishi V6 that powered many a Chrysler minivan and sedan in the 80's and 90's. (along with it's penchant for burning oil). And let's not forget the GEMA World Engine which was Chrysler, Mitsubishi, and Huyndai doign a 4 banger.

Look at this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chrysler_engines

There are more non Chrysler engines than Chrysler engines on that list.

Contrast this to these lists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ford_engines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GM_engines

Notice there are no Non-Ford and Non-GM engines....


Quote:
Okay, first lets start with the HSC. They sawed off two cylinders from the venerable 3.3 200 6cyl cast a head that was as likely/more likely to crack than a Pontiac OHC 1.8/2.0 and ruined it. The engine was only used in one other car (Taurus MT5) By comparison, the K-car engine was in virtually every FWD car Chrysler made and the Pontiac 151 lowTechIV was in everything from S10s to Fieros to Lumina(s) Lumina is the plural isn't it? If it was a good engine, wouldn't it have migrated to other models?


Perhaps it was because of the packaging and design cycles? The Pinto 2.3 was already being used in the majority of the lineup (Mustang, Ranger, Fairmont, Aerostar) and was/is a different package than the 2.3 HSC. The only new cars at the time were the Tempo and Taurus which used the 2.3/2.5. And when they went to the Contour to replace the Tempo it was a European design which meant the 2.3 HSC would not fit. Yeah it was a unique powerplant. But it was decent for what it was and no better or worse than the others. If anything it was better than the K car engine as there was no timing belt.

Quote:
Ford made over 2 million Tempons. You can still find running K-Cars and A-body Celebrities and 6000s. Not nearly as many Tempos.


Here in PA I see few of any of them around. Still see the odd Tempo or K Car but few and far between.

If they were truly a horrible car it wouldn't have been the sales success it was. As much a I hate the Camry you can't say it's a bad car with the sales #'s it gathers...
 
I like to see everyone in the market. Competition brings out the best in everyone or they die. Sort of like Yugo did. GM cut some of its lines as well. Saturn, Pontiac, Olds are all gone. I did like and owned several of their vehicles so it is sad to see them go but if the market cannot sustain them then bring something else in better.
 
Originally Posted By: spk2000
I like to see everyone in the market. Competition brings out the best in everyone or they die. Sort of like Yugo did. GM cut some of its lines as well. Saturn, Pontiac, Olds are all gone. I did like and owned several of their vehicles so it is sad to see them go but if the market cannot sustain them then bring something else in better.


The only GM car that was even decent was the Pontiac G8...so they kept the Chevy Impala?? They are lost in space.
 
Sales numbers don't mean anything.

The MustangII is one of the best selling Mustangs of all time. Doesn't make it a good car.

Just the Aries and Reliant K-cars sold over 300,000 units a year between '81-'89.
If they were truly a horrible car it wouldn't have been the sales success it was... Your words.


The original US model Escort was a joke of a car. It shared the silhouette and CVH with the European model and virtually nothing else. They took a decent design with rattle trap harsh engine and meticulously went through it to make it worse. It sold well though.

The Tempo was an extended sedan and coupe version of that joke with a [child of an unwed mother] engine with no redeeming qualities. Circa 1984 the Accord and Camry were ugly UGLY cars and yet they went on to become the highest selling midsize cars because of cars like the Tempo.

I didn't forget the 6G72. I just didn't mention it. Chrysler just didn't have a 60° V6 at that time. They would later develop several. Hyundai used a variant of the 6G72 that was more Mitsubishi-like than Chrysler's. My point was that the overwhelming majority of 4 cyls in the '80s Chryslers were not Renault, Mitsubishi, or VW.

Quote:
Notice there are no non-Ford engines

except: 1990s Mazda F—Mazda-engine 2.2 L for Probe
2000– Duratec 8v/HE/20/23—(Duratec branded Mazda-engine used in Mondeo Mk.3, Focus Mk.2)
and then they left out the Mitsubishi, Mazda, and BMW diesels from the '80s, the F 2.0, the KL V6 from Mazda....
 
Originally Posted By: spk2000
I like to see everyone in the market. Competition brings out the best in everyone or they die. Sort of like Yugo did. GM cut some of its lines as well. Saturn, Pontiac, Olds are all gone. I did like and owned several of their vehicles so it is sad to see them go but if the market cannot sustain them then bring something else in better.
And they croaked SAAB.
 
Originally Posted By: 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.
Does the thriving sports car program include the Saturn/Pontiac two seater?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom