Comments on: Analysts say 50/50 chance for GM-Chrysler tie-up

By: smelly

smelly — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:58:21 +0000

By: Get Real

Get Real — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 04:16:07 +0000

These are the funniest comments on this website in a long time. Excellent.

50-50? Does that mean my transmission in my Generaly Motored out Chrysler Corp car will now die 50% faster or 50% slower? Will my electronics short out and spark 50% brighter as the car dies on the road? Does this mean Chrysler has a 50% chance of living vs dying?

Damn I gave them $20K of my money for a brand new Intrepid, and they blew the money by giving me a piece of crap. I don’t like to say it, but I hope they die.

By: Blakkarr

Blakkarr — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:25:55 +0000

This is just getting out of hand. I’ll just keep watching and listen though not to many, if any, of you guys.

By: CTS DRIVER

CTS DRIVER — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:00:04 +0000

yaeh A4 i didnt even know how to reply to that one, i didnt want to sound biased, but the hemi is an american icon(although jaguar used hemispherical combustion chambers first). it would be like an amg tuned saturn, it would move but not quite be rite with all the mercedes fans. think about if nissan gets the hemi, would the mopar fans be buying a hemi powered maxima? probably not, its the same reason even when dcx had it it never was used anywhere else except in the chrysler group. And since it is better than almost every engine from GM it could be a great new powerplant for pontiac or high performance buicks.

By: Piablo

Piablo — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:52:40 +0000

Richard – Getting a little touchy? Believe what you want. It doesn’t matter if the Tundra was manufactured in DC. Toyota is a foreign coorporation. They are subject to they same foreign taxation whether they are manufactured here or not. They’ve negotiated a reduction because of job creation, but it has not been eliminated. Agree to disagree.

By: wiseassoffice

wiseassoffice — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:42:25 +0000

Ok who will buy Chrysler if the General doesn’t? Who else other than Lutz has any vested interest in doing anything other than shuttering Chrysler?

All of the people saying that GM cannot manage their brands, and adding a clearly defined brand such as Dodge or Jeep to their portfolio is clearly no marketing wiz. Imagine all Hummers renamed Jeep Hummer as in Jeep Rangler.

By: MyGodBeatsYourGod

MyGodBeatsYourGod — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:19:06 +0000

Walter Chrysler saved Maxwell Motors to be renamed Chrysler Motors, but I do believe he worked for Billy Durant at one time as well.

Chrysler would be a better historical fit with GM than with anti-semite Henry’s family business.

But I think Mitshi, Hyundai, and Chrysler should form for more than just engines and rename the whole company as such. All are scrappy corporate underdogs, and before flirting with the Germans, they all got along and created solid products.

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:35:19 +0000

@Piablo–

The profits go to Japan. That is not the issue. My point is that the Tundra is built in Texas. As such, it is not an import and not subject to import tariffs. Is this concept really that difficult for you to grasp?

By: Piablo

Piablo — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:22:48 +0000

Richard – Where do the profits go? Last I looked, Toyota was still based in Japan. You think Uncle Sam taxes Toyota the same as they tax GM and Ford just because they manufacture the vehicle here? If that were true, then we should have seen a price drop right? It’s widely known Toyota manufactures vehicles for less. So without any tariff or tax beyond what GM and Ford have, there should have been a price drop for competitive selling. Now, if there wasn’t a price drop, say due to higher manufacturing costs here in the States, wouldn’t that be a pretty dumb decision to move manufacturing here considering the US is not the only market they sell to?

By: Saud

Saud — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:16:05 +0000

I hope GM doesnt buy chrysler

By: 55amg

55amg — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:14:53 +0000

not too long

By: Stuart

Stuart — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:14:27 +0000

Was it me or did someone from GM and Ford say tha killing brand would cost more then to keep then running?

They said they couldn’t afford to kill any brands yet because lack of money yet by buying Chrysler they won’t have any left. Typical GM though it putting its life on the line for that extra couple of years of the number 1 spot. How long before GM are then brought out?

Daimler will be laughing when they have got rid of chrysler. They should then consider doing some sort of alliance (like renault-nissan) with Toyota.

By: snork

snork — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:11:42 +0000

I don’t get what’s the big deal with holding the #1 “volume crown”. From a personal standpoint, I’d much rather be in Toyota’s shoes and be turning massive profits in the #2 position…heck I’d even like to be a smaller company like Honda with their “disappointing” profits, LOL. I just don’t get why all these articles are so concerned with being the #1 volume leader…who cares really?

By: Sharif

Sharif — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:38:05 +0000

GMnumber1forhowmuchlonger

By: europerspective

europerspective — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:34:54 +0000

the article says that Chrysler would add approx. $9 billion in value, doesn’t that make it a bad deal when the asking price is $13 billion?

By: A4

A4 — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:27:12 +0000

uhhhh yeah me too cts driver…? that was irrelevant and it just looked like you were trying to make some arguement for an unbiased and rational point.

By: car-a-holic

car-a-holic — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:25:27 +0000

CAN YOU ALL HEAR THIS SHIP TAKING ON THE WATER? WATCH OUT TITANIC!!

By: toyota#1forever

toyota#1forever — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:01:38 +0000

Richard and chris2, good points both of you.
while this prospect stands to obliterate my one time perceptions of the big-three’s arch-enemy ambitions, i now realize theyre just companies trying to profit. cant fault that. personally i think it would work on the tech end, but not so much on the marketing and organization end

By: VDuv Kux Klan

VDuv Kux Klan — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:10:59 +0000

That would be bad, if Chrysler products arent very good right now, imagine in the hands of GM, they will kill more brands like oldsmobile and phymouth

By: Ricardo Head

Ricardo Head — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 03:47:22 +0000

I really hope GM buys and resurrects the great EAGLE brand.
.
LMFAO.

By: MC

MC — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 03:19:00 +0000

LOL Can we expect a hemi ss?

By: Kaizen

Kaizen — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 03:10:03 +0000

I also believe US regulators would be forced to allow the merger if rumors are true; Without it, Chrysler would undoubtedly fail alone, and a definite global recession would follow.

By: Kaizen

Kaizen — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 03:06:07 +0000

There is no point to combine two struggling, money-lacking companies only to maintain the #1 sales crown. Stupid.

By: chris2

chris2 — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 02:20:22 +0000

Does anyone know how much money GM made in the 4rth quarter? No? A lot.

GM is back.

Buying Chrylser has its good and bad points. If GM can get it w/o the dealers, the retirees fixed cost and most of the work force then it may be worth it. Keep what it wants and sell the rest. Toyota is looking for a few plants.

Dump all the nameplates except Jeep. Turn the minivans into chevies and Buicks. Keep the new mid sized Pick up trucks and SUV’s. Kill GM’s midsize SUV’s and Pickups.

By: thegoldenmackid

thegoldenmackid — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 02:18:40 +0000

yay…a daimler-benz return…it would benefit both companies, chrysler is innovative yet cant sell vehilces, gm sells but needs innovation…

By: Ricardo Head

Ricardo Head — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 02:06:41 +0000

If GM doesn’t buy it, maybe Lada will. Can’t hurt.

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 02:00:00 +0000

Piablo wrote “… So a Toyota Tundra that is manufactured for $4-$7k less than a Ram or Silverado will have a tariff matching that amount so Toyota can’t undercut Chevy or Dodge. …”

The Toyota Tundra is built in Texas. The last time I looked, there is no tariff on products imported from Texas.

S-60-driver wrote “as i said it before on other endless posts about GM/Chrysler—– GM is only looking to increase the volume of cars to stay #1, preventing Toyota from reaching that.”

Just because you said it doesn’t make it so. Whichever company buys Chrysler will do so out of its own corporate interests. If GM buys it without a compelling business reason for doing so, its management will face numerous lawsuits from stockholders.

For those concerned about GM’s financial resources to pull-off this purchase it goes through with it, don’t worry. Smaller companies with substantially fewer resources have made larger purchases. No money need change hands. It is all a matter of the financial arrangements.

By: Kaptain75329

Kaptain75329 — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 01:31:37 +0000

^^^ I can’t but agree with you Piablo.. The notion of GM buying Chrysler didn’t sit well with me from the beginning, and when examined from your perspective, I can’t help but feel worse about the whole idea, particularly when experience has taught me that the government would be very liable to act as you describe. I’m certainly no expert in the auto industry, but I don’t think I need to be one to know that this idea is entirely wrong.

By: Monte Carlo

Monte Carlo — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 01:30:54 +0000

Now, the question is, what Detroit crackpot came up with this? If anything, it would be Ford and Chrysler. GM has no reason to merge with Chrysler! It might have been different before Zeta, but not anymore!

By: Piablo

Piablo — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:00:26 +0000

stadt – You’re right, it wouldn’t be a straight up monopoly per se. But it would take on monopolistic characteristics. Prices of the foreign competitors are largely modified by tariffs. Tariffs are set to keep the domestic brands competitive. So a Toyota Tundra that is manufactured for $4-$7k less than a Ram or Silverado will have a tariff matching that amount so Toyota can’t undercut Chevy or Dodge. The vehicles don’t have to come in on a boat to be whacked with a tariff either. Now if GM, and Ford maybe, wind up being the only domestic competition, what happens to the price of domestic vehicles? With it, the foreign brands increase prices. Nobody wins. Then of course the door to more government regulation is opened up. As it is, that door is flapping in the breeze, something like this would rip it off from it’s hinges.

By: Madcapp

Madcapp — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:42:34 +0000

100% chance of that being a bad idea.

By: anyclearer

anyclearer — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:17:34 +0000

i think mymazdatribute had the right idea. Mergin the brands would bring alot more technology to GM. Jeep and Hummer would combine, offering low and upscale suv’s. If they combine technology it could benifit GM.

By: Fatstrat

Fatstrat — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:07:04 +0000

Good point about pricing Piablo.
I think we need at minimum the 3 manufacturers.
Here is some day dreaming for you…Dodge division and Jeep division decide to purchase themselves from the parent corp DC.
Two independant, smaller and hopefully more nimble corps. (and hopefully non union) producing fewer models of higher quality and desireable vehicles.
I know it’s not all that simple but a person can dream cant they?

By: Elvio

Elvio — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:05:20 +0000

Heck…Chrysler is not a major player anyway….

By: stadt

stadt — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:59:02 +0000

@Piablo:

Are you forgetting all the other car companies? Toyota, Honda, VW, et al? Even if GM did acquire Chrysler and Ford went under, it still wouldn’t be a monopoly.

Not saying I support the move, just saying it wouldn’t be a monopoly.