Comments on: Canadian firm considers acquiring Chrysler

By: maddawg0

maddawg0 — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:04:12 +0000

“MB is the gang that put Chrysler in the ****ter. When MB bought Chrysler, MB was in the ****ter and MB used the cash on hand Chrysler had to finance MB’s return. Now that they have totally screwed Chrysler, MB wants to blame someone/something else. No matter what happens in a corporation (any), good or bad, it all comes down from the top brass and in this case that would be MB. MB’s top management is TOTALLY responsible for Chryslers slide. Who else had total control? Hum?
gbb”

gbb, you may want to recheck what you just said, at the time mercedes was doing fine, chrysler was in the crapper, then the Dr.Z, went in there a couple years later, and made chrysler go from filing bankruptsy to profitable within 2 years, but now hes back in charge of benz right now because benz was suffering. Soon benz will be back to where they were, chrysler will be back to where it was before MB had anything to do with it.

By: Togo

Togo — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 04:23:03 +0000

golf4mAIDS, the comment was directed to those that feel that the platform is nothing more than an antiquated e-class which it is not. As for the wiring harness and switchgear, hardly something that is antiquated… And for the transmission, last time I checked chrysler was forced to use it- for the royalty factor despite other cheaper and better alternatives being available.. lol..

By: shumpy

shumpy — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:51:36 +0000

bahahahaha! 13.6 billion… funniest thing I heard all week.

Net losses – the 8 billion in cash… They still have money from the warchest leftover in theory. The gerries shat the bed.

As for the Mercedes top brass, look at the transplanted Joe Eberhardt and his fall from grace. Comes from mercedes, ****s the bed at chrysler and is now running a couple of dealerships. Maybe if he’s lucky he’ll be changing tires.. Yeah and Dr.Z, all american.. was he the head of mercedes car division too? Just wondering…

Futhermore look back in time and see what effect Jurgen Shrempp had on the company. Garbage management.

The merger of equals was never such.

The germans could get over themselves in order to exploit the potential synergies of the company.

Finally in terms of car companies being passion driven.. Look at the top selling cars in volume.. They are not passionate.. they are appliances.

We know how their german engineering commercials went over. Cut the cord. Someone gets the company and the credit arm back, and the gerries lose their phantom engineering income source.

As for it being old news. the magna deal and dollars was not announced long before this was originally posted. It came out the day it was posted on autonews who are typically current. :TARD:

By: TOZO

TOZO — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:48:42 +0000

Magna didn’t bid high enough Aston Martin (under a billion dollars). How the hell is it going to bid high enough for Chrysler Group?

By: Stuart

Stuart — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:32:52 +0000

Unless they put a bid alot closer to 13.6 billion it doesn’t seem likely the deal would happen. They may just sell a share of Chrysler

By: Jon Luc

Jon Luc — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 03:42:47 +0000

Magna will destroy what is left of Chrysler, you don’t have to worry about that. Magna is run by a bunch of pseudo-intellectual professional laymen, that had to be bailed out twice by the governtment.

By: F451

F451 — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:33:01 +0000

Seems to be a lot of jockeying for companies:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=%7BAA9EB72F%2D892C%2D473C%2DB164%2D259B32FF5829%7D&dist=rss

By: golf4me

golf4me — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:58:20 +0000

Togo – This IS old news. Been in Detroit newspapers for at least 2 weeks. Only “news” is the dollar figure, which has also been in the papers for about a week. Get a clue. Also, you retarded 3yr old sloth with aids, the LX also inherited a transmission, foundation brakes, and most of the electrical harness and switchgear with the older E Class.

By: Stuart

Stuart — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:02:43 +0000

These are some of the stupidist comments I have heard in a long time. Some of you really need to do some research.

For everyone saying that Chrysler was a cash cow, do some calculations-

$36 Billion – $4.6 Billion = $-31.4 Billion

On top of that you can even minus the $8 billion chrysler had before the take over

$-31.4 billion + $8 billion = $-23.4 billion

Thats a loss of $23.4 billion without including how much daimler payed out for contract buyouts, plant closures and money to cover the huge losses and small profit. So anyone saying chrysler was a cash cow needs to go back to school. Thinking like this also makes sense why most american companies are doing so badly.

For anyone blaming Mercedes Benz top brass seem to forget that Daimler is the parent company and not mercedes and that the top brass was replaced last year with the new top brass coming from Chrysler.

Finally anyone who is saying that Daimler doesn’t give a **** needs to read the article done a week ago by a Daimler exec. The company will try only to sell to another automaker if it can. They will vote against any offer made by a equity firm because they still want Chrysler to succeed even if they can’t do it themselves. So anyone saying they don’t give a **** needs to learn how to read before they pass judgement.

Magna should really get ready to lose some serious money and the UAW to lose a **** load of job. All the while Mercedes will probably find its roots and become the best by miles again.

By: Aston Martin

Aston Martin — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:04:11 +0000

The previous posters are right. If any company has no people wha are passionate aboot their products, the company will fail. Ferrari is doing very well these days; their cars are carefully designed, and built with the finest care. The same can be said for Aston Martin and, to some extent, Porsche. The only exception is VW, which builds biblically dull cars.

If Ford was to reintroduce the same magic that we had we had a few decades ago-and I’ve said this for all the American car industry-then they would be successful again. What happened to the days when Detroit was humming to the sound of the factories, and the GT40’s were kicking ass at Le Mans, and everyone had a Mustang or Charger or Camaro. These cars have gone, and their spirituall successors, the hot hatchbacks, are also being killed off. I want a Mustang and a Focus RS2000 Cosworth please Ford. Chrysler, please follow suit.

By: 55amg

55amg — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 05:46:22 +0000

Chrysler is better than GM and Ford

By: Richard

Richard — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 04:39:36 +0000

Verticale, Like F451, I am a Mac user. Unlike him, I disagree with you. The background of any one person serving on the board of directors are relatively unimportant. Each director's job is corporate oversight. In their role, it is important that directors come from diverse backgrounds. Having everyone coming from the ranks of automotive engineers would be a very bad thing. You want engineers serving as top management, such board chairman and president, because they are the people who run the company. Your directors should different perspectives to the company.

By: LamborghiniZ

LamborghiniZ — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 04:31:09 +0000

haha then chrysler would be owned by a canadian company, so much for the GRR TOUGH ALL AMERICAN RAM!

By: F451

F451 — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 03:47:16 +0000

Vertical, I am not disagreeing with you at all. Since I am Apple user, since 1984, I entirely agree with your Apple analysis. This is the reason HP is now going downhill—the CEO is salesman, and an idiot. GM is waaaaaaaay too top-heavy in its executive branch who's only purpose is to try to line their pockets. GM puts very little on the people who can actually make it happen. Ford, if you study its history has made many a fatal error, and it started in the beginning. At this point, I doubt that Ford will survive, and it saddens me. GM still has some resources that can be shuffled around whereby it can hold on longer; Ford is treading water these days.

By: Vertical

Vertical — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:49:50 +0000

… I’ll restate that last sentence; If Ford had some people who are passionate about cars on its board it might be allowed to build cars that reflect that passion. We know the company is capable of producing exciting vehicles, but how many of those projects have been killed by board members who have no passion for cars?

By: Vertical

Vertical — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:45:54 +0000

F451, most publicly traded companies have people with a variety of backgrounds on their boards. But my point is that Ford and GM have NO car people (other than Bill Jr. and Wagoner). Why no heads of suppliers, or auto design people, or at least people in manufacturing? Even if it is typical to stack boards with accountants and, say, bankers. I view Apple as a company with a board that suits the company – it has 7 peole on its board; a chairman of a computer parts maker (Intuit), a chairman of a biotech company (Genetech), the chairman of a clothing hip, successful clothing company (J. Crew) (and this IS related – J. Crew knows style, and style certainly helps sell iPods), the CEO of Google (how is that for a great fit?), and ONE guy in an industry not directly related to computer technology – chairman of Harwith Capital. Who is more successful these days, Apple or Ford?
If Ford had some people who are passionate about cars on its board it might build some cars that reflect that passion.

By: 1c3d0g

1c3d0g — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 23:49:44 +0000

This is great news. From the Big 3, I still see Chrysler as the best. The Ram 0wnz with it’s I-6 Diesel, and the Viper, well, it just leaves ANYTHING else behind with proper tuning.

By: Menace

Menace — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 23:40:55 +0000

This is a good thing. Keep Chrysler in North America. Those German bastards don’t give a **** about Americans or Canadians. Chrysler has lots of history and made some bad ass cars in the 70’s. If they can get off the ground early with entry level cars (like they did with the K car) to get buyers interested in a cheap and not too bad product, maybe – given revenue increase – they can put out products that differentiate themselves from the rest of the boring out there in bland land.

I’d like to see some Mopar Muscle return – and not the old Hemi technology…get something new going…may new technology beyond cast iron and aluminum…porcelain and plastic…just something new and better and faster and lighter.

By: PrimeGTP

PrimeGTP — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 23:03:11 +0000

GM should buy Dodge, replace the GMC name with Dodge and reinforce it with Dodge truck products, and let someone else have the rest.

By: F451

F451 — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:51:37 +0000

Vertical,
“Toyota doesn’t release that type of info, but I have no doubt their board is stacked with engineers.” You are correct, but they also have various other entities that are stacked with Accountants, et al. Essentially whatever the department should be specializing in they will place their brightest and best into said positions. When you are speaking of automobiles, then the leads are the engineers—and for good reasons.
.
The Canadian bid on Chrysler is not that bad of an idea. GM could still partner with them in the future, and both could develop what is worth saving/salvaging, including capital assets.

By: Vertical

Vertical — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:30:36 +0000

Has anyone who visits this site ever looked at who’s on Ford’s or GM’s board of directors? The ONLY people on either board with any automotive background are Bill Jr. and Wagoner. It’s no wonder they have so many problems. These people might be smart, but I don’t see a shred of evidence of anything automotive in their backgroungs. They’re accountants, drug pushers (drug companies), and other “business” people. Toyota doesn’t release that type of info, but I have no doubt their board is stacked with engineers.

By: Madcapp

Madcapp — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:02:03 +0000

I bid…4.8 billion.

By: LJ

LJ — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 21:20:55 +0000

My 2 cents. We, at my household, like the PT Cruiser. I wish they would use a hybrid to get, say, 40 MPG avg/combined, and sell one for 20K, slightly updated, etc…maybe use a GEMA engine( there ya go.GEMA..Chrysler/Mitsu/Hyundai)!
Hyundai is saying for 2009( either MY or CY) they should have a Elantra Hybrid(probably under cut even Civic, etc, by a grand or two)…since they work with Chrysler…why not share costs for the hybrid, use some on PT, some on Elantra.
Maybe if someone else controls Chrysler, we will see that decent PT Coupe concept, or the Jeepste concept, down the road?
I’d buy a 35-40 MPG PT Coupe( or cruiser).
Sorry 2 ramble…carry on.

By: maximus

maximus — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:38:23 +0000

I thought it was funny how MB treated Chrysler as a solution for their old parts bin. What a waste of life.

By: CTS DRIVER

CTS DRIVER — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:25:23 +0000

mercedes just got revenge on chrysler for making tanks to blow their asses apart in ww2.

By: europerspective

europerspective — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:01:53 +0000

Long cold winter must have affected their judgement…

By: gbb

gbb — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:45:00 +0000

German cash vaccuum…..LOL pretty much exactly what happened. I hope MB get bought and liquidated by some corporate raiders. Then those German assholes would know how Chrysler employees feel. Not likely to happen, but it would be a nice touch.

By: cknoff

cknoff — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:42:26 +0000

Togo is right, it has a similar suspension geometry, that it. And what about other successful Chrysler products? Like the PT Cruiser and Minivans? I’m not seeing any Mercedes parts there…

By: Togo

Togo — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:28:28 +0000

this is not old news, the news of a potential 4.7 billion offer came out today.

Either way, good riddance to the ethnocentric german ****stains.. They are done with the cash vaccuum.

Let them go or spin them off, and give them their credit arm back and let life go on.

p.s. even a retarded 3 toed sloth with AIDS knows that chrysler invested 1 billion on the lx platform which bears little resemblance to the old e class other than what.. suspension geometry?

By: gbb

gbb — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:27:17 +0000

MB is the gang that put Chrysler in the ****ter. When MB bought Chrysler, MB was in the ****ter and MB used the cash on hand Chrysler had to finance MB’s return. Now that they have totally screwed Chrysler, MB wants to blame someone/something else. No matter what happens in a corporation (any), good or bad, it all comes down from the top brass and in this case that would be MB. MB’s top management is TOTALLY responsible for Chryslers slide. Who else had total control? Hum?

By: RSPINAJR

RSPINAJR — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:18:07 +0000

gbb – serious player without MB? I highly doubt it! I’m sure that if this goes through Dailmer will retain some sort of technology deal similar to that of the Aston Martin purchase

By: golf4me

golf4me — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:04:03 +0000

Old, Old, news…must be a very slow news day.

By: gbb

gbb — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:59:24 +0000

If Magna gets Chrysler at that low ball price, I look for good things to come of it.With some tweaking and quality improvements, Chrysler would be a serious player.

By: Aston Martin

Aston Martin — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:46:05 +0000

^Well said.^ The SLK underpins the crossfire as well.

By: Madcapp

Madcapp — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:41:59 +0000

This whole Chrysler thing is crappy. The only reason Chrysler has any good product today is the use of old M/B platforms like prior E-class that underpins the 300C. What’s gonna happen to Chryslers product line when they no longer have an association with M/B?