Comments on: Nardelli says Chrysler was close to bankruptcy

By: Madcapp

Madcapp — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 04:24:53 +0000

Hey, great thinking on that Jack Welch stuff. Based on that theory, there should only be 2 car makers, 2 truck makers, 2 SUV Makers, 2 motorcycle makers, 2 television makers, etc. I’d say Jack Welch needs a King Kong sized glass of STFU.

By: 1c3d0g

1c3d0g — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:15:10 +0000

Duh! When you’ve got folks at DaimlerBenz looking after their own German brands instead of the whole merged company, of course things would go haywire with the black sheep of the corporation, in this case Chrysler.

By: Veda

Veda — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:46:58 +0000

“Jack Welch at GE used to say that if you can’t be number one or number two in any given business, you probably ought to get out of it.”

Not if you’re number 3 and is still making 80% net profit of the number 1.

By: TomF

TomF — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:51:45 +0000

I didn’t say Jack wasn’t / isn’t a major prick. But GE works and Chrysler doesn’t. I’m looking for great products that earn great profits and inspire great loyalty, not a pool-shooting buddy.

By: F451

F451 — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:27:55 +0000

@TomF, Jack Welch was, and still is, an effing prick—and little else. I like how he married his daughter, err, I mean his latest wife. The inner circle of execs that had to deal with Jack-off will tell you he was nothing more than an effing prick. I had breakfast with one of them, and heard an earful.

By: TomF

TomF — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:57:04 +0000

JJT, you’re right about the PT debacle — another modest hit that they let coast along unchanged for an entire decade (during which there have been THREE generations of Civic brought to market), and now they’re assassinating it because it’s obsolete. Well, it’s their own damn fault. They could have built a franchise there. Like it or hate it, the car drew interest and sold well at launch, but they chose not to maintain interest.

Jack Welch at GE used to say that if you can’t be number one or number two in any given business, you probably ought to get out of it. Apply that wisdom to Chrysler and they’d sell minivans, a Jeep, and that’s it. Everything else in the entire lineup is most peoples’ fourth or fifth choice.

By: jackjimturkey

jackjimturkey — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:42:24 +0000

TomF: good history, but you failed to add the big PT screwup

By: Z06ified

Z06ified — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:35:37 +0000

The biggest issue is the lack of new product pipeline, and a relatively weak current model lineup. With the exception of the Challenger and a revised Ram, there is basically no new product planned. And both of those vehicles were planned before the Daimler sale. No new product = no future. It’s clear Cerberus has no long term intentions for this company. It’ll be interesting to see what concepts and new models Chrysler will show at the Detroit Auto show. My guess is not much.

By: hateful83

hateful83 — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:30:39 +0000

TomF, that paints a pretty grim picture when you think about it…. On the up side, I read a pretty interesting article about Chrysler. Apparently one of the restructuring idea’s is to make Dodge just trucks, Chrysler cars, and of course Jeeps’, suv’s. They’d eliminate the ****ty Compass, Patriot, and even the Commander. Gone also is the Aspen, and that new dodge suv w/20’s that I can’t remember the name of. That’s just some of the cuts, which I think are already in the process of happening. (No more magnum) But, I think the idea of separating the names like this is a good idea. Maybe they’ll focus their engineering a little better, and create a better product.

By: TomF

TomF — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:51:05 +0000

It is NOT true that Chrysler was fat, happy and successful pre-Daimler and is now a rape victim. The DC merger was a to-the-lifeboats action for Chrsyler; they had nothing in the pipeline then, either. The fact that the outlook is just as bleak now says more about Chrysler management than the avarice of the Mercedes-Benz guys.

Chryco has a 30-year history of developing one hit product per decade, then resting on its laurels lighting cigars with $100 bills until they’re nearly bankrupt.

Chrysler used to have a rep for the best engineering of the Big Three. Unfortunately that was back in the mid-1970s. I still recall a circa-1975 magazine ad with Neil Armstrong, first moon man, endorsing Chrysler engineering. Soon the late-’70s gas price crisis hit and Chrysler was near bankruptcy. Iacocca arrived and engineered the K-Car (modest, asterisk hit) and more importantly the minivan (monster hit).

That saved Chrysler for ten years, but the vehicles remained not-updated and essentially the same until the company was on its knees again. Now come the cab-forward sedans (Concorde / Vision / etc.) which are monster hits and save the company again.

But those vehicles remain non-updated and essentially the same until the company is on its knees AGAIN, at which point Daimler buys ‘em.

But nothing happens in the product pipeline except the 300 (modest hit) and a bunch of **** (Compass, Caliber, etc.) so Daimler realizes, essentially, there is no there there, and drops ‘em.

Now they are on their knees AGAIN.

They can’t go on like this. No car company survives this way.

By: Madcapp

Madcapp — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:06:20 +0000

There goes my plan to buy a Challenger R/T. Bankrupt companies don’t honor lifetime powertrain warranties.

By: sharpie

sharpie — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:41:55 +0000

Bankruptcy = not having to pay back their creditors. Look at United, Delta, Delphi. They are all still around. Chrysler will be around. They probably will have an edge over Ford and GM under bankruptcy. Remember, UAW’s contract then can be voided by the bankruptcy court in a heartbeat!

By: LP640

LP640 — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:39:57 +0000

now there’s a ****ing surprise (!)

By: F451

F451 — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:05:31 +0000

@ Catiadesigner, some damn good posts on your part! I would love to see more by you.

By: RicardoHead

RicardoHead — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:38:48 +0000

Arbiter, you’ve got a lot of nerge picking on LLN’s writing staff.

By: SwerveEarly

SwerveEarly — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:36:30 +0000

right?

By: SwerveEarly

SwerveEarly — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:36:05 +0000

But everything is good to go now.

By: Arbiter

Arbiter — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:27:08 +0000

The “Verve” of BK? Is that anything like the “Verge”?

By: CA36GTP

CA36GTP — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:14:12 +0000

“Was”?

By: F451

F451 — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:11:31 +0000

Nardelli navigating Chrysler out of the woods…good luck Chrysler…you’ll need it with Nardelli at the helm. The best 2007 Christmas gift Chrysler could give themselves is to sack Nardelli before it is too late.

By: autonut

autonut — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 01:21:18 +0000

I don’t understand why this putz talks: as a private company they don’t own disclosure to anyone, but IRS.

By: Catiadesigner

Catiadesigner — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 22:59:05 +0000

I was assuming the fact that the companies that were bought by non european companies are not european anymore ie. they haven’t survived. You omit two of the most successful companies that I had in mind, BMW and Mercedes-Benz.
BMW were in deep trouble at the end of the seventies with a pretty outmoded lineup, the E30 3 series virtually saved the company. Fiat realised that if they were to keep building cheap nasty cars they too would go out of business, the Fiats of today are light years ahead in terms of quality then their predecessors. Peugeot have been a similar story, the cars now are on a par with virtually anyones. As for those bought by other companies, Ferrari and Maserati were gobbled up by the Fiat empire, admittedly Maserati were broke at the time but they are doing well enough now.Rolls were building vehicles that were in no way representative of their sale price, the Silver Spirit was a pretty horrible car, I personally managed to break one whilst working on its successor, the Silver Seraph, and we all know how well that car sold.
Aston Martin were saved by building a Jag XJS clone, the DB7, I know, I worked on it.
Land Rover were the victim of the exact sort of management shortsightedness that I see every day in the US auto industry, they built the same vehicles for nearly 45 years, Range Rover aside, and complemented it with a low grade vehicle, the discovery, I worked on that as well, the first cars were awfull.
SAAB went from being a quirky company producing quality automobiles to a run of the mill GM company in less than ten years, just try comparing a 1980’s 900 to the current crop of badge engineered GM’s, they used to have a brand loyalty that made even mercedes weep, not any more.
I worked there as well, If it wasn’t for GM, maybe I still would be…
I don’t think Porsche have ever been bought by another company, they own most of Volkswagen after all. The same Volkswagen that have owned Audi since 1964. Audis of the late 60’s and 1970’s were nothing more than Volkswagens with an Audi badge but they manages to create their own unique brand through superior engineering.
Seat and Skoda were all but dead, they were nothing more than local novelties, Volkswagen bought the names and proved that badge engineering could be successful if done correctly.

By: Get Real

Get Real — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:56:22 +0000

No wonder the banks can’t unload the paper-loans they made for Chrysler to be bought.

Junk value loans and junk cars, they go together.

Lady at work here has an 8K mile rental van with a jerky transmission. She likes the looks, but hates what hides under the metal skin.

By: Jazz

Jazz — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:16:13 +0000

That’s it Chrysler no more credit for you. Join ord in junk bond land. oops guess you don’t care as you don’t have to report to the market anymore.

Catiadesigner – please elaborate on which euro companies engineered themselves out of trouble? Because I can’t think of one that didn’t survive by being purchased by another company- Jaguar, Lotus, Saab, Volvo, Rover, Lambo, Ferrari, Maserati, Porsche, Mini, Rolls Royce, Aston Martin, Audi, Seat, Skoda – all victims of that statement.

By: 1c3d0g

1c3d0g — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:44:57 +0000

jackjimturkey: I fully agree on that! Damn cash-gobbling CEOs!

By: global_lightning

global_lightning — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 01:43:26 +0000

This was expected. Honestly, it’s not that bad. A lot of that $64B is probably restructuring, shutdowns, and buyouts, which will then return the company to profitability. The weak dollar will also boost their exports as well.

By: jackjimturkey

jackjimturkey — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 01:15:49 +0000

Stig: I say if the company loses money, the CEO should get minimum wage

By: Catiadesigner

Catiadesigner — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:12:11 +0000

As a person with some internal experience at chrysler this comes as no surprise.They have a terrible product line up, and absolutely nothing new in the pipeline. Nardelli is just a glorified accountant, he will just slash budgets and expenditure with no regard for the consequences, the first casualty is going to be engineering, the real creators of a motor companies wealth are always the first victims, big bad Bob wouldn’t know an engineering drawing if he was hit with one (I’ve no doubt he has a nice separation package already signed sealed and locked away, but then with the amount he ripped out of home depot, does he really care?). Look at the major euro automotive producers, all have been through this sort of trouble and all the ones who are left engineered their way out of trouble. Chrysler need to start thinking seriously about what they are going to be selling in 5 years time, at least both GM and Ford can bring in technology from europe, witness the saturn astra and in 2009 ford will be bringing in the fiesta to complement the focus. Chrysler have nothing.Instead they will rely on a Chinese company producing low tech, low quality vehicles, the only winner from that scenario will be the Chinese.
Some of the idiots in charge at Chrysler need to take a long hard look at what happened to British Leyland-Austin Rover-Rover, because the similarities are staggering.
Lazy workforce with over protective unions, inept management, everything about cost (cheapness) at the expense of all else including quality/reliability (anyone bought a leaky hardtop wrangler?).

By: The Stig

The Stig — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:27:04 +0000

No paycheck for Bob until he gets Chrysler back in the black. That may be a while.

By: DeansterTJ

DeansterTJ — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:37:20 +0000

1.6 billion doesn’t sound so bad when you look at the revenue and loss numbers. That’s almost dead even.

Anyways, don’t cry for them Argentina. Those ****ing swindling accountants write off all the losses. They’re all going home with fatass paychecks, don’t worry about a thing kids. They’re laughing all the way to the ****ing bank.

By: LP640

LP640 — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:59:00 +0000

Chrysler CEO predicts $1.6 billion loss, and he’s not wrong

By: SwerveEarly

SwerveEarly — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:52:53 +0000

He should double down.

By: johnnycanuck

johnnycanuck — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:20:56 +0000

I know it’s sour grapes but Chrysler was so strong before Daimler this just pisses me off even more. And with ‘08 predicted to be a slow year anyway they have an even tougher road ahead. They absolutely cannot afford to have any more dogs end up on the showroom floor. I wish I had more confidence in Nardelli but all I’ve heard are the Home Depot horror stories. The Challenger is off to a good start. They really really need to follow it with another home run.

By: hbcbob3

hbcbob3 — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:12:10 +0000

haha nice

By: jackjimturkey

jackjimturkey — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:09:28 +0000

Wall Street sucks