Chrysler Suicide Watch 37: No Lease on Life

Chrysler Suicide Watch 37: No Lease on Life
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/chr...lease-on-life/

Chrysler Financial has pulled the plug on new vehicle leases. Given
ongoing bankruptcy rumors, the automaker’s co-Prez immediately manned
the PR barricades. Jim Press reassured the world that Chrysler is simply
diverting lease subsidies into “traditional financing.” That way, “many
customers” could enjoy “about” the same monthly payment that they “would
have had” in a lease. Meanwhile, ChryCo spokeswoman Shawn Morgan sang
the same old song. "Despite the challenges, Chrysler continues to meet
or exceed its plan on all financial metrics." C’mon, really?

Talk about the smartest guys in the room! This statement assumes that
Cerberus Capital Management knew the U.S. new vehicle market was about
to implode when they bought Chrysler in spring 2007. If so, talk about
disinformation! At the time of Chrysler's purchase from Daimler,
Cerberus Chairman John Snow said: "Cerberus believes in the inherent
strength of U.S. manufacturing and of the U.S. auto industry."

Inherent maybe. But since that fateful day last August when Cerberus
took ownership of the Pentastar, the domestic auto market’s gone south.
South Pole in the winter south.

In fact, truck and fleet car-heavy Chrysler couldn’t be worse positioned
for the economic downdraft. Its cash cows are dead; the slaughterhouse
is backed-up with carcasses. Their revamped minivan is selling less
briskly than the model it replaced. The new Dodge Ram is scheduled for a
fall launch, but it won’t/can’t get out of the gate unless dealers can
get rid of the old Rams– which are stockpiled to fences. Many Dodge
dealers have trucks on the ground that have had birthday celebrations.

The numbers speak for themselves…

In the first half of 2008, ChryCo sales slipped some 250k units compared
to ’07. That’s roughly a 22 percent decline. Chrysler’s truck sales are
down 25 percent, the biggest loss of any major truck maker. The
automaker’s overall market share has dropped 1.8 percent; it’s now less
than 12 percent. We already know the impact of sagging sales and lost
market share on Ford’s financials. Does Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli really
expect us to believe that his employer’s been meeting or exceeding its
projections?

To accept that assertion we’d have to ignore Daimler’s Q1/08 public
financials. These stats suggest that Chrysler Holdings (including the
automotive ops and the finance arm) lost a staggering $2.9b in a three
month period.

Not at all says Chrysler. Daimler included a whole bunch of items which
cannot be used to make such a calculation. We lost only $509m. One of
those “excepted items” includes a $200m difference due to US and Euro
accounting standards. So Chrysler didn’t recognize certain expenses but
Daimler did?

You’d be forgiven for thinking that under a more "aggressively
conservative" accounting approach, Chrysler Holdings lost $700m in the
first quarter, maybe more. Any way you cut it, it;s bad. Yet all we get
from the CEO's office is an exhortation to ChryCo employees to “stick to
the course we have set for ourselves for a return to profitability.”

No one beyond Cerberus founder Steven Feinberg’s inner circle of
executives and bankers knows the exact truth about Chrysler’s
financials. In the absence of solid information from Auburn Hills about
the automaker’s financial health, speculation about Chrysler’s future,
or lack thereof, is running rampant.

And why not? It's clear that there ain’t no mo’ money available to the
company. The bankers have put down their ten-foot poles and run. If the
well runs dry, that’s it, the gig is up.

Lenders to Chrysler’s suppliers, vendors and dealers are getting
nervous. Extended payment terms, selective invoice discounts, and for
some, delayed payments, exacerbate the tension. We’re told that there’s
$7b in the kitty. But every dollar is precious. Prudent cash flow
management or an internal scramble to manage the cash drawer to keep it
from emptying? This could be the prelude to the “run on the bank”
scenario RF mooted for GM back in Delphi’s dark days.

The dominoes will start to fall if and when a lender to a Chrysler
supplier decides it doesn’t want to continue providing financing. Credit
gets cut off. Facing extinction, the supplier puts Chrysler on a
“payment on delivery basis.” The fire spreads. Every supplier insists on
cash on delivery. Word gets out. Dealers stop ordering vehicles.
Chrysler runs short of cash. Game over.

To forestall foreclosure, Cerberus needs to publish Chrysler’s
financials (including the financial arm). If the automaker’s doing
better than we think, that’s great. We’d like to share in the brilliance
of the turnaround. Chrysler’s camp followers will support Nardelli’s
public proclamations. Dealers and suppliers will have more confidence in
the company and the stewardship by Cerberus.

If the dark clouds of bankruptcy are hovering over Auburn Hills, well
Ford and GM aren’t doing so great either. At least it’s out there for
everyone to see. But Chrysler’s continuing drumbeat of plant shutdowns,
employee layoffs, sales declines and now a cut-off of leasing just leads
to speculation, none of it good. The question remains: how much of it is
right?


--
Civis Romanus Sum

On Jul 26, 7:17*pm, Jim Higgins > wrote:
> Chrysler Suicide Watch 37: No Lease on Lifehttp://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/chrysler-suicide-watch-37-no-lease-o...
>
> Chrysler Financial has pulled the plug on new vehicle leases. Given
> ongoing bankruptcy rumors, the automaker’s co-Prez immediately manned
> the PR barricades. Jim Press reassured the world that Chrysler is simply
> diverting lease subsidies into “traditional financing.” That way, “many
> customers” could enjoy “about” the same monthly payment that they “would
> have had” in a lease. Meanwhile, ChryCo spokeswoman Shawn Morgan sang
> the same old song. "Despite the challenges, Chrysler continues to meet
> or exceed its plan on all financial metrics." C’mon, really?
>
> Talk about the smartest guys in the room! This statement assumes that
> Cerberus Capital Management knew the U.S. new vehicle market was about
> to implode when they bought Chrysler in spring 2007. If so, talk about
> disinformation! At the time of Chrysler's purchase from Daimler,
> Cerberus Chairman John Snow said: "Cerberus believes in the inherent
> strength of U.S. manufacturing and of the U.S. auto industry."
>
> Inherent maybe. But since that fateful day last August when Cerberus
> took ownership of the Pentastar, the domestic auto market’s gone south.
> South Pole in the winter south.
>
> In fact, truck and fleet car-heavy Chrysler couldn’t be worse positioned
> for the economic downdraft. Its cash cows are dead; the slaughterhouse
> is backed-up with carcasses. Their revamped minivan is selling less
> briskly than the model it replaced. The new Dodge Ram is scheduled for a
> fall launch, but it won’t/can’t get out of the gate unless dealers can
> get rid of the old Rams– which are stockpiled to fences. Many Dodge
> dealers have trucks on the ground that have had birthday celebrations.
>
> The numbers speak for themselves…
>
> In the first half of 2008, ChryCo sales slipped some 250k units compared
> to ’07. That’s roughly a 22 percent decline. Chrysler’s truck sales are
> down 25 percent, the biggest loss of any major truck maker. The
> automaker’s overall market share has dropped 1.8 percent; it’s now less
> than 12 percent. We already know the impact of sagging sales and lost
> market share on Ford’s financials. Does Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli really
> expect us to believe that his employer’s been meeting or exceeding its
> projections?
>
> To accept that assertion we’d have to ignore Daimler’s Q1/08 public
> financials. These stats suggest that Chrysler Holdings (including the
> automotive ops and the finance arm) lost a staggering $2.9b in a three
> month period.
>
> Not at all says Chrysler. Daimler included a whole bunch of items which
> cannot be used to make such a calculation. We lost only $509m. One of
> those “excepted items” includes a $200m difference due to US and Euro
> accounting standards. So Chrysler didn’t recognize certain expenses but
> Daimler did?
>
> You’d be forgiven for thinking that under a more "aggressively
> conservative" accounting approach, Chrysler Holdings lost $700m in the
> first quarter, maybe more. Any way you cut it, it;s bad. Yet all we get
> from the CEO's office is an exhortation to ChryCo employees to “stick to
> the course we have set for ourselves for a return to profitability.”
>
> No one beyond Cerberus founder Steven Feinberg’s inner circle of
> executives and bankers knows the exact truth about Chrysler’s
> financials. In the absence of solid information from Auburn Hills about
> the automaker’s financial health, speculation about Chrysler’s future,
> or lack thereof, is running rampant.
>
> And why not? It's clear that there ain’t no mo’ money available to the
> company. The bankers have put down their ten-foot poles and run. If the
> well runs dry, that’s it, the gig is up.
>
> Lenders to Chrysler’s suppliers, vendors and dealers are getting
> nervous. Extended payment terms, selective invoice discounts, and for
> some, delayed payments, exacerbate the tension. We’re told that there’s
> $7b in the kitty. But every dollar is precious. Prudent cash flow
> management or an internal scramble to manage the cash drawer to keep it
> from emptying? This could be the prelude to the “run on the bank”
> scenario RF mooted for GM back in Delphi’s dark days.
>
> The dominoes will start to fall if and when a lender to a Chrysler
> supplier decides it doesn’t want to continue providing financing. Credit
> gets cut off. Facing extinction, the supplier puts Chrysler on a
> “payment on delivery basis.” The fire spreads. Every supplier insists on
> cash on delivery. Word gets out. Dealers stop ordering vehicles.
> Chrysler runs short of cash. Game over.
>
> To forestall foreclosure, Cerberus needs to publish Chrysler’s
> financials (including the financial arm). If the automaker’s doing
> better than we think, that’s great. We’d like to share in the brilliance
> of the turnaround. Chrysler’s camp followers will support Nardelli’s
> public proclamations. Dealers and suppliers will have more confidence in
> the company and the stewardship by Cerberus.
>
> If the dark clouds of bankruptcy are hovering over Auburn Hills, well
> Ford and GM aren’t doing so great either. At least it’s out there for
> everyone to see. But Chrysler’s continuing drumbeat of plant shutdowns,
> employee layoffs, sales declines and now a cut-off of leasing just leads
> to speculation, none of it good. The question remains: how much of it is
> right?
>
> --
> Civis Romanus Sum

What happens if an automobile manufacturer sinks? Are existing owners
left with no way to buy replacement parts that are not available on
the aftermarket?

-KM

ask folks driving Daewoo's



> wrote in message
...
On Jul 26, 7:17 pm, Jim Higgins > wrote:
> Chrysler Suicide Watch 37: No Lease on
> Lifehttp://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/chrysler-suicide-watch-37-no-lease-o...
>
> Chrysler Financial has pulled the plug on new vehicle leases. Given
> ongoing bankruptcy rumors, the automaker’s co-Prez immediately manned
> the PR barricades. Jim Press reassured the world that Chrysler is simply
> diverting lease subsidies into “traditional financing.” That way, “many
> customers” could enjoy “about” the same monthly payment that they “would
> have had” in a lease. Meanwhile, ChryCo spokeswoman Shawn Morgan sang
> the same old song. "Despite the challenges, Chrysler continues to meet
> or exceed its plan on all financial metrics." C’mon, really?
>
> Talk about the smartest guys in the room! This statement assumes that
> Cerberus Capital Management knew the U.S. new vehicle market was about
> to implode when they bought Chrysler in spring 2007. If so, talk about
> disinformation! At the time of Chrysler's purchase from Daimler,
> Cerberus Chairman John Snow said: "Cerberus believes in the inherent
> strength of U.S. manufacturing and of the U.S. auto industry."
>
> Inherent maybe. But since that fateful day last August when Cerberus
> took ownership of the Pentastar, the domestic auto market’s gone south.
> South Pole in the winter south.
>
> In fact, truck and fleet car-heavy Chrysler couldn’t be worse positioned
> for the economic downdraft. Its cash cows are dead; the slaughterhouse
> is backed-up with carcasses. Their revamped minivan is selling less
> briskly than the model it replaced. The new Dodge Ram is scheduled for a
> fall launch, but it won’t/can’t get out of the gate unless dealers can
> get rid of the old Rams– which are stockpiled to fences. Many Dodge
> dealers have trucks on the ground that have had birthday celebrations.
>
> The numbers speak for themselves…
>
> In the first half of 2008, ChryCo sales slipped some 250k units compared
> to ’07. That’s roughly a 22 percent decline. Chrysler’s truck sales are
> down 25 percent, the biggest loss of any major truck maker. The
> automaker’s overall market share has dropped 1.8 percent; it’s now less
> than 12 percent. We already know the impact of sagging sales and lost
> market share on Ford’s financials. Does Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli really
> expect us to believe that his employer’s been meeting or exceeding its
> projections?
>
> To accept that assertion we’d have to ignore Daimler’s Q1/08 public
> financials. These stats suggest that Chrysler Holdings (including the
> automotive ops and the finance arm) lost a staggering $2.9b in a three
> month period.
>
> Not at all says Chrysler. Daimler included a whole bunch of items which
> cannot be used to make such a calculation. We lost only $509m. One of
> those “excepted items” includes a $200m difference due to US and Euro
> accounting standards. So Chrysler didn’t recognize certain expenses but
> Daimler did?
>
> You’d be forgiven for thinking that under a more "aggressively
> conservative" accounting approach, Chrysler Holdings lost $700m in the
> first quarter, maybe more. Any way you cut it, it;s bad. Yet all we get
> from the CEO's office is an exhortation to ChryCo employees to “stick to
> the course we have set for ourselves for a return to profitability.”
>
> No one beyond Cerberus founder Steven Feinberg’s inner circle of
> executives and bankers knows the exact truth about Chrysler’s
> financials. In the absence of solid information from Auburn Hills about
> the automaker’s financial health, speculation about Chrysler’s future,
> or lack thereof, is running rampant.
>
> And why not? It's clear that there ain’t no mo’ money available to the
> company. The bankers have put down their ten-foot poles and run. If the
> well runs dry, that’s it, the gig is up.
>
> Lenders to Chrysler’s suppliers, vendors and dealers are getting
> nervous. Extended payment terms, selective invoice discounts, and for
> some, delayed payments, exacerbate the tension. We’re told that there’s
> $7b in the kitty. But every dollar is precious. Prudent cash flow
> management or an internal scramble to manage the cash drawer to keep it
> from emptying? This could be the prelude to the “run on the bank”
> scenario RF mooted for GM back in Delphi’s dark days.
>
> The dominoes will start to fall if and when a lender to a Chrysler
> supplier decides it doesn’t want to continue providing financing. Credit
> gets cut off. Facing extinction, the supplier puts Chrysler on a
> “payment on delivery basis.” The fire spreads. Every supplier insists on
> cash on delivery. Word gets out. Dealers stop ordering vehicles.
> Chrysler runs short of cash. Game over.
>
> To forestall foreclosure, Cerberus needs to publish Chrysler’s
> financials (including the financial arm). If the automaker’s doing
> better than we think, that’s great. We’d like to share in the brilliance
> of the turnaround. Chrysler’s camp followers will support Nardelli’s
> public proclamations. Dealers and suppliers will have more confidence in
> the company and the stewardship by Cerberus.
>
> If the dark clouds of bankruptcy are hovering over Auburn Hills, well
> Ford and GM aren’t doing so great either. At least it’s out there for
> everyone to see. But Chrysler’s continuing drumbeat of plant shutdowns,
> employee layoffs, sales declines and now a cut-off of leasing just leads
> to speculation, none of it good. The question remains: how much of it is
> right?
>
> --
> Civis Romanus Sum

What happens if an automobile manufacturer sinks? Are existing owners
left with no way to buy replacement parts that are not available on
the aftermarket?

-KM

On Jul 29, 1:31*pm, "rob" > wrote:
> ask folks driving Daewoo's

That's exactly my fear.

I have seen the news specials about how Daewoo owners are left with no
service or replacement parts.

-KM

>
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jul 26, 7:17 pm, Jim Higgins > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Chrysler Suicide Watch 37: No Lease on
> > Lifehttp://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/chrysler-suicide-watch-37-no-lease-o...
>
> > Chrysler Financial has pulled the plug on new vehicle leases. Given
> > ongoing bankruptcy rumors, the automaker’s co-Prez immediately manned
> > the PR barricades. Jim Press reassured the world that Chrysler is simply
> > diverting lease subsidies into “traditional financing.” That way, “many
> > customers” could enjoy “about” the same monthly payment that they “would
> > have had” in a lease. Meanwhile, ChryCo spokeswoman Shawn Morgan sang
> > the same old song. "Despite the challenges, Chrysler continues to meet
> > or exceed its plan on all financial metrics." C’mon, really?
>
> > Talk about the smartest guys in the room! This statement assumes that
> > Cerberus Capital Management knew the U.S. new vehicle market was about
> > to implode when they bought Chrysler in spring 2007. If so, talk about
> > disinformation! At the time of Chrysler's purchase from Daimler,
> > Cerberus Chairman John Snow said: "Cerberus believes in the inherent
> > strength of U.S. manufacturing and of the U.S. auto industry."
>
> > Inherent maybe. But since that fateful day last August when Cerberus
> > took ownership of the Pentastar, the domestic auto market’s gone south.
> > South Pole in the winter south.
>
> > In fact, truck and fleet car-heavy Chrysler couldn’t be worse positioned
> > for the economic downdraft. Its cash cows are dead; the slaughterhouse
> > is backed-up with carcasses. Their revamped minivan is selling less
> > briskly than the model it replaced. The new Dodge Ram is scheduled for a
> > fall launch, but it won’t/can’t get out of the gate unless dealers can
> > get rid of the old Rams– which are stockpiled to fences. Many Dodge
> > dealers have trucks on the ground that have had birthday celebrations.
>
> > The numbers speak for themselves…
>
> > In the first half of 2008, ChryCo sales slipped some 250k units compared
> > to ’07. That’s roughly a 22 percent decline. Chrysler’s truck sales are
> > down 25 percent, the biggest loss of any major truck maker. The
> > automaker’s overall market share has dropped 1.8 percent; it’s now less
> > than 12 percent. We already know the impact of sagging sales and lost
> > market share on Ford’s financials. Does Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli really
> > expect us to believe that his employer’s been meeting or exceeding its
> > projections?
>
> > To accept that assertion we’d have to ignore Daimler’s Q1/08 public
> > financials. These stats suggest that Chrysler Holdings (including the
> > automotive ops and the finance arm) lost a staggering $2.9b in a three
> > month period.
>
> > Not at all says Chrysler. Daimler included a whole bunch of items which
> > cannot be used to make such a calculation. We lost only $509m. One of
> > those “excepted items” includes a $200m difference due to US and Euro
> > accounting standards. So Chrysler didn’t recognize certain expenses but
> > Daimler did?
>
> > You’d be forgiven for thinking that under a more "aggressively
> > conservative" accounting approach, Chrysler Holdings lost $700m in the
> > first quarter, maybe more. Any way you cut it, it;s bad. Yet all we get
> > from the CEO's office is an exhortation to ChryCo employees to “stick to
> > the course we have set for ourselves for a return to profitability.”
>
> > No one beyond Cerberus founder Steven Feinberg’s inner circle of
> > executives and bankers knows the exact truth about Chrysler’s
> > financials. In the absence of solid information from Auburn Hills about
> > the automaker’s financial health, speculation about Chrysler’s future,
> > or lack thereof, is running rampant.
>
> > And why not? It's clear that there ain’t no mo’ money available to the
> > company. The bankers have put down their ten-foot poles and run. If the
> > well runs dry, that’s it, the gig is up.
>
> > Lenders to Chrysler’s suppliers, vendors and dealers are getting
> > nervous. Extended payment terms, selective invoice discounts, and for
> > some, delayed payments, exacerbate the tension. We’re told that there’s
> > $7b in the kitty. But every dollar is precious. Prudent cash flow
> > management or an internal scramble to manage the cash drawer to keep it
> > from emptying? This could be the prelude to the “run on the bank”
> > scenario RF mooted for GM back in Delphi’s dark days.
>
> > The dominoes will start to fall if and when a lender to a Chrysler
> > supplier decides it doesn’t want to continue providing financing. Credit
> > gets cut off. Facing extinction, the supplier puts Chrysler on a
> > “payment on delivery basis.” The fire spreads. Every supplier insists on
> > cash on delivery. Word gets out. Dealers stop ordering vehicles.
> > Chrysler runs short of cash. Game over.
>
> > To forestall foreclosure, Cerberus needs to publish Chrysler’s
> > financials (including the financial arm). If the automaker’s doing
> > better than we think, that’s great. We’d like to share in the brilliance
> > of the turnaround. Chrysler’s camp followers will support Nardelli’s
> > public proclamations. Dealers and suppliers will have more confidence in
> > the company and the stewardship by Cerberus.
>
> > If the dark clouds of bankruptcy are hovering over Auburn Hills, well
> > Ford and GM aren’t doing so great either. At least it’s out there for
> > everyone to see. But Chrysler’s continuing drumbeat of plant shutdowns,
> > employee layoffs, sales declines and now a cut-off of leasing just leads
> > to speculation, none of it good. The question remains: how much of it is
> > right?
>
> > --
> > Civis Romanus Sum
>
> What happens if an automobile manufacturer sinks? Are existing owners
> left with no way to buy replacement parts that are not available on
> the aftermarket?
>
> -KM- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

IF Chrysler "sinks", then the spare parts already in the warehouse chain
would probably be sold (liquidated) to some vendor group who would then
sell them to others. At various times over the years, Chrysler's MoPar
brand was sold through auto parts jobbers just as AC-Delco and
Motorcraft were, outside of the normal dealer supply chain. This could
well be how things transpire if Chrysler/Cerberus close.

Much of the lackluster product that's not selling well is what Cerberus
inherited from the Daimler involvment in Chrysler. For all of the
"quality" Daimler might have added to the mix, Chrysler had better sales
before that. Plus cars with better fuel economy, too. The Chrysler
3.5L V-6 was a great motor, but having to pull a 4K+ pound car around is
straining it a little. Even the first gen 217 horse versions did fine
in the first gen LH cars and the 250 horse versions in the 300Ms were
great too.

The way that Cerberus/Chrysler has told the dealers that they'll have to
get by with fewer models to sell, it's apparent to me that they are
buying into the "We'll sell the same number of vehicles with fewer
consumer choices" train of thought . . . right down to fewer sales. The
combination of stores to all of them being Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep will tend
to mask the fewer lines and choices, but that situation is still there.
Why this newer generation of marketing "guru" thinks that they'll sell
more with less is amazing! When the USA manufactures would build pretty
much anything the consumer might want, they sold LOTS of vehicles each
year. Now we have a restricted choice of exterior colors and usually
only TWO interior color choices! Whoopppeeeee.

The more I read about Cerberus, the more I see Chrysler's size shrinking
until it's not there any more. Trying to be a boutique or niche
manufacturer is a very treacherous route to try to take--period.
Chrysler might have been successful by finding niches no other
manufacturer was into and then capitalizing on that, but not at the
expense of customer choice of vehicles in those niches. Plus, back then
they were pumping out win after win after win, unlike now when the wins
have dwindled to one or two.

Just the way I suspect things might head, given the signals we've all
seen. I hope I'm wrong!

C-BODY

I also heard that the same thing will be happening to General Mortors.
They will only sell Chevrolet, Buick, and Cadillac.

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:11:54 UTC, "Pete E. Kruzer" >
wrote:

> I also heard that the same thing will be happening to General Mortors.
> They will only sell Chevrolet, Buick, and Cadillac.
Isn't Pontiac with the new G6 selling better than Buick?

On Jul 30, 12:41*pm, "Count Floyd"
> wrote:
>
> Isn't Pontiac with the new G6 selling better than Buick?

Wouldn't surprise me if it was. I was surprised when they dropped
Oldsmobile. My wife has a 2001 Alero that's still very much in style.
I personally think Pontiac has a much better choice of vehicles than
Buick. But then not I'm an old fart that's going to take my last ride
in a Buick.

On Jul 30, 1:50 am, wrote:
> IF Chrysler "sinks", then the spare parts already in the warehouse chain
> would probably be sold (liquidated) to some vendor group who would then
> sell them to others. At various times over the years, Chrysler's MoPar
> brand was sold through auto parts jobbers just as AC-Delco and
> Motorcraft were, outside of the normal dealer supply chain. This could
> well be how things transpire if Chrysler/Cerberus close.

Chrysler buys most parts instead of making them, so there'd still be
parts available.

>
> Much of the lackluster product that's not selling well is what Cerberus
> inherited from the Daimler involvment in Chrysler. For all of the
> "quality" Daimler might have added to the mix, Chrysler had better sales
> before that.

Up and down. Almost bankrupt in mid-70s, remember? And you've got to
look at much was low-profit fleet sales.


>Plus cars with better fuel economy, too. The Chrysler
> 3.5L V-6 was a great motor, but having to pull a 4K+ pound car around is
> straining it a little. Even the first gen 217 horse versions did fine
> in the first gen LH cars and the 250 horse versions in the 300Ms were
> great too.

Actually an LX 3.5 isn't that slow, from the road tests I've seen.

>
> The way that Cerberus/Chrysler has told the dealers that they'll have to
> get by with fewer models to sell, it's apparent to me that they are
> buying into the "We'll sell the same number of vehicles with fewer
> consumer choices" train of thought . . . right down to fewer sales.

Honda outsells Chrysler with fewer models.


> The
> combination of stores to all of them being Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep will tend
> to mask the fewer lines and choices, but that situation is still there.
> Why this newer generation of marketing "guru" thinks that they'll sell
> more with less is amazing! When the USA manufactures would build pretty
> much anything the consumer might want, they sold LOTS of vehicles each
> year. Now we have a restricted choice of exterior colors and usually
> only TWO interior color choices! Whoopppeeeee.

Again, note Honda. With only TWO platforms (not counting the very low-
volume S2000) -- Civic (used for CR-V, Element, and RDX) and Accord
(used for Odyssey, Pilot, TSX, TL, RL), it outsells Chrysler.

>
> The more I read about Cerberus, the more I see Chrysler's size shrinking
> until it's not there any more. Trying to be a boutique or niche
> manufacturer is a very treacherous route to try to take--period.
> Chrysler might have been successful by finding niches no other
> manufacturer was into and then capitalizing on that, but not at the
> expense of customer choice of vehicles in those niches. Plus, back then
> they were pumping out win after win after win, unlike now when the wins
> have dwindled to one or two.
>

I think Cerebus will sell Chrysler. They're not a car-making company;
they're an investor-profit-making company. I predict either:

1. Nissan-Renault will buy Chrysler. We've already got the Nissan
small car to Chrysler, Chrysler truck to Nissan deal. And Nissan-
Renault-Chrysler would give the company true global presence.
or
2. A Chinese company will buy Chrysler.

> Just the way I suspect things might head, given the signals we've all
> seen. I hope I'm wrong!
>
> C-BODY

On Jul 30, 12:41 pm, "Count Floyd"
> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:11:54 UTC, "Pete E. Kruzer" >
> wrote:
>
> > I also heard that the same thing will be happening to General Mortors.
> > They will only sell Chevrolet, Buick, and Cadillac.
>
> Isn't Pontiac with the new G6 selling better than Buick?

The G6 is selling poorly, from what I've read -- not up to
expectations. It's a very mediocre car. Are you thinking of the rwd
G8? It's just been introduced, and I doubt it's selling all that much
at first, especially since it's big and has a V8, with gas prices the
way they are.

I still hate it that GM dropped Oldsmobile allegedly to concentrate on
Hummer!