The recent talks between GM and Cerberus to swap each other's stake in GMAC and Chrysler makes sense and seems to be a likely reality (both companies want to shed what the other wants). But what will GM do with Chrysler? Could any of the existing Chrysler brands be merged with GM's? Would they? If GM's market position is such that they're already shedding brands and capacity, what would they be able to do with Chrysler's assets with or without the brand remaining?

Will any of Chrysler be left after such a merger? Or will there be another brief spate of Eagle brand dealers across the country? Will the Charger or the Caravan be in the Pontiac line? Who gets the 300? Who'd want the Durango?

Could anything automotive come of this that's positive?

The merger is about Cerberus aquiring the portion of GMAC that is still owned by GM so they would have all of GMAC

In this merger GM would aquire JEEP and a line of Chrysler Mini vans that they could use. My opinion the rest of the Chrysler portfolio is has little future in this merger. A hint was when GM said they were leaving the mini van market
earlier this year.

All this has been postphoned with the change in the stock prices of GM and the banking crisis. Also too many dealers on both sides and not enough money to buy them off, is a deal killer.

I think it could be a positive development. The Jeep 4-wheel drive tooling, parts, & designs are the most respected 4-wheel drive setup on the market, with the most experience. The Chrysler mini-vans are, arguably, the best mini-vans on the market--again, they have been doing those longer than anyone else. The PT Cruisers have a loyal following. GM would be foolish not to make good use of all of those and keep them. However, given GM and Buick's management decisions of the last 8-10 years, I don't have much confidence that they will do the right thing. They seem to be doing all that they can to kill off the Buick brand.

Pete Phillips

My best guess would be that GMC is gone; Chrysler (as a brand) might be; Chevy and Dodge continue on as truck brands, and probably cars too. Pontiac may be gone as well, or continues on as the "excitement" brand at the expense of Dodge. Cadillac is safe. Buick and Saturn are big question marks; I say Buick lives on if only so that the Chinese market success can continue to be tied to it. And Hummer is sold off. That's my thoughts.

To me it's quite unfortunate that Chrysler is dying a slow death. They don't deserve it...............

I agree Skyking. Chrysler was born from a Buick guy who really had a better vision then Ford when he (speaking of course of Walter P.) started building his multi division empire in the 1920's and 30's.

Chrysler has always seemed one step down when it comes to building volume into their organization. When Ford or GM had a hit, it seemed like they were able to build as many as America wanted.

Chrysler Corp lacks 'car guy' leadership. No reason it can't be smaller and leaner. Styling has really sucked of late and isn't progressive, but they don't deserve a merger with GM.

If there are any lessons to be learned from killing off Oldsmobile, then GM and Chrysler will work to KEEP products and markets as much as possible.

Chrysler brings minivans, a very popular line of trucks, Jeeps, and a sportier mid-size line (including convertibles) than GM has. GM brings parts suppliers, dealers, GMAC, Chevrolet and Cadillac.

If anything looks questionable, it would be Buick and/or Pontiac, but hopefully not both.

Yea but, Toyota and Honda both ate into that market too..............it just doesn't stop. Now I see Volkswagon coming on board with a new mini van.....so it's going to be even harder..............Keep flooding the market!!

If anything, Chrysler is the only company out there with great styling as of late.

Yep, Chrysler is trying to do something other than round off all the corners and make it look like an egg.

Oh no way Bob. The 300 is nice, but that's a 4 year old model now. The smaller cars, with names I can't even remember are throwaways. The Challenger is cool, but how many are they going to sell before they pull the plug on that - in 3 years?

They have already killed the Magnum and Sebring I think. These grocery getter cars are b-o-r-i-n-g. The cab forward cars are now 10 - 15 years old. The Neon looks dated. The badge engineering they have done with Jeep is laughable. Truly ugly small Hummer look.

Well, it looks like the "cut and slash" mentallity that has invaded Detroit has taken over with some in here! Olds gone, along with it 250,000 units/year . . . same when Plymouth was deleted (that's a huge lot of minivans, considering that's basically what Plymouth was in the end, other than the limited production Prowler). If the USA brands keep deleting products, they won't have an industry before long . . . self-destruction due to "cost cuts" or "product downsizing". What's WRONG with that picture???!!! Funny that when the next year's sales figures came out and the decreases paralleled what the deleted brands/products were in their prior full year of production, NOBODY seemed to cry out that Detroit's sudden sales decreases were of their OWN making rather than the marketplaces. I guess that if you work for a car company and can make your case, you can do dumb things that end up hurting the company you work for and nobody will publicly chastize you???

IF, and that's a big IIFF, Cerberus off-loads the Chrysler operation to GM in exchange for the rest of GMAC that they didn't get earlier, it's going to take volume rather than downsizing to keep GM as the largest vehicle manufacturer rather than cutting things down--period. Just as with the current GM product portfolio (as downsized as it might be), ALL of the current Chrysler portfolio would be needed to no alienate EXISTING Chrysler customers and send them to other brands when they can't buy the Chrysler Corp vehicles they might want to . . . and can't. In other words, for GM to come out ahead they would need to keep Chrysler intact and make it a separate operating entity (as Saturn used to be, before it got "Euro-ized" and lost all of its "American grown" orientation, with loss of another group of loyal customers in the process) and let it keep being "Chrysler" as it continues to work through the mess that Daimler left it in.

As Daimler still owns 20% of the Chrysler LLC, if their stockholders howled about the Chrysler deal, you can imagine what they'd do if GM got involved!

Having Chrysler as an operating entity in competition with GM products, as it is now, is really no different than a dealership group having GM and Chrysler and Ford and other brands in their franchise mix . . . all of which are competing for some of the same customers in the same market areas . . . with the end profits going into the same parent corporation. Not a whole lot different than the earlier days of GM when each GM division was competing with each other AND producing some of the most dynamic products in the automotive industry (MANY of which we are now restoring and treasuring in our own vehicle activities!).

It doesn't seem to be in the modern business model to GROW the business, only "cut and whack" it to what "some expert" claims it should be in size and volume and market segments. Perhaps modern management is more concerned with keeping fires "out" that they can't focus on the future and how to best get there AND be the dominant force as others shrink (as the experts claim they should)? OR buy competitors to "grow the business" artifically?

So, if more USA brands are cut or reduced in size or deleted, it'll just leave a HUGE hole that a boat load of import brand vehicles can be driven through. We saw that happen when Olds was deleted, when Camaro was put "on vacation", when intermediate-size GM cars were deleted (as Toyota and Mitsu seemed to have new similar products introduced in the next model year), and it will happen AGAIN if "the experts" keep talking about products being deleted from manufacturer's product portfolios.

Perhaps there's been too many "departures" over the years in the automotive industry that few people might remain who really know how to grow the business rather than aim for the short-term cuts which might boost profits but also set-up the company to flounder in the longer term? Perhaps the famous "brand management" orientation of the 1990s did enough damage to the USA brands that it caused them to lose the market momentum they might have previously had?

From the analysis I read today, the GM/Chrysler deal would require Cerberus to put a good bit of money into the deal for it to happen. I also see this deal as Cerberus covertly admitting that they got into something they didn't fully know what they were doing when they did it (even after a huge infusion of former Lexus/Toyota "talent"). Or that autotmotive product cycles swing much slower than stock price swings?

If you might think the Germans influenced things at Chrysler styling for the 300, you can access the old www.car-truck.com website via www.archive.com. In there, you'll find drawings of what was to become the current Chrysler 300 . . . drawings that were well in advance of the car's first debut . . . and seeming too close to what actually was produced for Chrysler management's comfort. So that product was already too far along in the design stages for the Germans to have influenced too much, but what they did influence (vehicle electronic architecture, chassis, transmission) have tended to make for expensive infrastructure changes where existing designs might have done just as well, or Delphi Electronics' designs. Yet what we see in the Chrysler Sebring/Dodge Avenger are probably more German-Mitsu-influenced in vehicle platform and drivetrain architectures . . . and generally lackluster styling.

So, lets please cut the "cut and whack" group-think mentallity and rather look at what possibilities for market place dominance that a potential GM/Chrysler alliance might bring.

To their credit, Chrysler has one of the best high performance parts programs in the industry--period. And it's been in place since the later 1960s! A program which Ford has somewhat copied and GM might wish was not there. This program has been run "in house" and has grown phenominally in the past 20 years. The MANY race manuals will tell you what combinations to use and how to set them up . . . basically leaving the last 15-20% of success to the individual driver's skills and expertise. ALL factory-tested and documented . . . fwd, circle track, 1/4 mile, engine families, etc . . . it's all there, plus restoration parts.

Some might have looked down on Chrysler products over the years, but in the presentation at the 1988 BCA National Meet Banquet, Ed Mertz's presentation of market research put Buick and Chrysler with the same owner demographics (with Dodge and Plymouth being closer to other GM brands). I found that highly intersting!

As Chrysler proved in the 1990s and ALL of their product lines, they might not have had the production volume to go head-to-head with GM or Ford in various market segments, BUT their products brought such buzz and popularity with them that GM had to adjust ITS products to compensate . . . in almost EVERY product segment, INCLUDING trucks. So, you don't have to be a production giant to get noticed by an intimidated giant who then adjusts things on their next product "refresh" or redesign.

Regards,
NTX5467

While at least in the case of Volkswagen's new minivan it's a re-branded Chrysler product so it's nothing but a net add to their bottom line.

Speaking of VW and Dodge, Was not the Dodge Omni of the mid to late 70's similer to The VW rabbit??? If I remember correctly, I think The Dodge Omni had VW casting marks on many of the engine castings, but things were just different enough that the parts would not interchage with the VW. Clearly this is not the first time VW and Chrysler have done business. Dandy Dave!

The initial Omni/Horizon did have VW cast blocks, complete with "VW" cast in. The car's design also owed much to the VW Rabbit/Golf.

The Omni was introduced in 1978 with a 1.7L VW engine. An optional 2.2L Chrysler built K-car engine was optional starting in 1981. In 1983 the 1.7L was replaced with a 1.6L Simca-Peugeot motor, with all automatic cars now mandated to have the 2.2. Beginning in 1987 the US-built 2.2 was the only engine available.

I think Jeep is bulletproof. It will be a stand alone brand no matter who owns it. It's the rest of the Chrysler line that's troublesome. GM can barely rationalize keeping Buick and Pontiac now. Add Chrysler and Dodge to the mix and how could any survive (without massive pruning)? Dodge trucks have no chance of survival against inhouse GMC & Chevy competitors (just think of the future planning that a comparitively healthy GM must have vs. whatever Chrysler might have).

Jeep and the Mopar minivans are the only cherries for GM in the whole company that I can see. Jeep is at best a marginal/niche brand unless huge new oil deposits and an easier cure to Global Warming are found. The minivans are a franchise that may survive the transition, if people can ignore the Chevy brand in front of the Caravan name when they buy one. Given GM's checkered minivan history that may be problematic. Imagine Yugo trying to sell the Prius.

I think the most likely outcome of this is GM buying out the competition and shutting it down. Except for adding Jeep, there's nothing here to gain. Chrysler might as well close it's doors now. It's being bought in the same sense that it bought AMC in 1987. Sad.

It occurs to me that there's an excellent example of this in the collapse of British Leyland. The last gasp at trying to save the Triumph marque was to lease the rights to build the Honda Civic in the U.K. under the name Triumph Acclaim.

It's hard to imagine going broke in 1981/1982/1983 selling Honda Civics, especially in the market and with the level of competition that was Great Britain at the time. However BL managed to do it. The car was an absolute dud as a Triumph. Honda did pretty well with it, I hear.

How's this for a mixed bag of names? Jeeatta, LeSabaron, Crosse300, GCM (General Chrysler Motors). Think of the possibilities. You guys got any other ideas?

Why not just Keep GMC for "General Motors Chrysler" It will save on retooling costs. And all of the signs and advertizing will just need a "C" added to the "GM" Dandy Dave!

Maybe the Dodge trucks could be influenced to be called the Silverado Ram, or maybe just the Silver Rams.

Of course, the real question is, can they get a Hemi into the Lacrosse?

Some on the PT Cruiser page think the PT will be gone after the 2009 model year, so maybe the HHR could be retrimmed for the 2010 PT Cruiser the way Silverados and Suburbans are changed into the Sierra and Escalade?

And, if Buick ever does get a hybrid/electric car, maybe it is time to call it the Electra? If it has a 225 mile range, it could be the Electra 225!

Just read a very interesting article on this subject:

GM-CHRYSLER, WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy

The headlines say General Motors is feverishly putting a plan together to take over Chrysler. From my standpoint, only two theories can explain why this is happening. Either the billionaire boys from Cerberus have a master plan to revamp the American auto industry, or they are in so far over their heads that they don't know what they're doing. More on that in a minute.

If GM does take over Chrysler, then Walter P. Chrysler will be turning in his grave. After all, Walter P. quit GM back in 1919 because he didn't like the direction in which the company was going, and later went on to start the company that still bears his name.

A takeover of Chrysler will be the kiss of death for the company. The only way GM can justify taking it over will be to take an axe to its operations. You think Chrysler has shriveled to a shadow of its former self over the last two years? You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Of course, you have to wonder why GM would consider such a plan in the first place. After all, just about every merger and acquisition in the auto industry has produced next to nothing. Ford's takeover of Jaguar, Land Rover and Volvo? An unmitigated disaster. BMW's takeover of Rover? An unmitigated disaster. Daimler's takeover of Chrysler? An unmitigated disaster. GM's takeover of Saab? An unmitigated disaster. I would also add that GM's stock holdings in Suzuki, Isuzu and Subaru did absolutely nothing for the company.

What in the world makes them think that it's going to work this time?

Even more telling, the Wall Street Journal reports that GM's Board of Directors was very cool to the idea of merging with Chrysler when management presented them with the idea. So if the history of these takeovers is littered with debris, and the board doesn't think it's a very good idea, why is GM pursuing it? Here are two theories.

First, two years ago the billionaire's club called Cerberus decided it was going to get into the auto industry and teach those mid-Western rubes how private equity can really run a car company. They were going to squeeze profits out of a bloated Chrysler, they were going to whip its suppliers into line, and they were going to bring the UAW to its knees. Then, by slamming GM and Chrysler together, they would force enough plant closings to greatly reduce the overcapacity that exists in the United States. And a new, bigger GM would emerge as the all-powerful behemoth that it used to be. Under this theory, all we've seen so far is a few pawns being moved on the grand chess board.

The other theory is pretty similar, except that it posits the Cerberus boys had no clue what they were getting into. The auto industry gobbles up cash, is a highly cyclical business, is extremely vulnerable to oil spikes and credit crunches, and takes years to put new products on the shelves. It's hard to point to any success Cerberus has had with Chrysler. In short, their foray into the auto business has blown up in their faces and now they gotta git out as fast as they can git.

But how to get out? So far no other automaker has come up to the counter to buy the Chrysler Corporation. So why not force GM to take it, whether it wants to or not?

Cerberus, which owns 51% of GMAC, moved some chess pieces around when it started tightening the screws on GM dealers, making it very difficult for them to floorplan their cars through GMAC. And then it ratcheted the game up another notch this week by saying GMAC wouldn't make loans to anyone with credit scores lower than 700, which effectively wipes out the vast majority of GM car buyers. Checkmate. Now Cerberus has GM by the throat.

If GM's customers can't buy cars, and if GM dealers can't buy them either, then GM does not run out of cash in the first quarter of 2010. It runs out of cash before Christmas.

GM responded to Cerberus's move with an unprecedented plan that incentivizes its dealers to not do business with GMAC. It will pay them a spiff to get financing from anywhere on the planet, but not from GMAC. Remember, General Motors still owns 49% of GMAC. GM is paying its dealers to avoid doing business with part of GM!

Publicly, we'll be told that this merger will produce all kinds of synergies and cost savings, and that it will be good for America. Privately, I've got to believe GM management is furious with Cerberus. But Cerberus is in the driver's seat. And it has the power to force Chrysler down GM's throat.

It's hard to tell where this is all going because every day seems to bring a new development. But there is one thing we all can be sure of. All the senior executives involved are going to reward themselves handsomely, no matter what the outcome is.

I seriously disagree with the author on this, and it's important to GM's actions today. There are 2 important exceptions to his premise, both for the same reason:

1. BMW bought Rover because it owned a number of brands. One of them is doing pretty well right now. The waiting list for certain Mini models is months long, and BMW is probably turning a BIG profit on this transaction by now.

2. Chrysler bought AMC because it owned one brand it wanted, Jeep. That brand comes with an automatic clientele and cache that Chrysler to that point couldn't touch, and GM couldn't fake with a dozen Hummer models. It also brings with it access to a market that is large and lucrative worldwide.

When GM does this, "Chrysler" and "Dodge" will be on death watch. The Mopar brands may be jammed into one cover brand like AMC became "Eagle" for a few years, but that'll be a holding pattern at best. A few of it's models might be saved (especially the Caravan), but the death spiral well begin the moment sister models are shared with Chevy, et al. Jeep will be saved.

If GM can be saved is the question. Whether this is a good save from the grave by GM or evidence or GM being too big for it's rapidly shrinking britches remains to be seen.

Either way, or any other way, it's the end of one of the most revered names in motor history.

BMW lost billions on the Rover deal, the resurrection of the Mini brand notwithstanding the merger was a colossal failure by BMW's own admission.

I guess history repeats itself as the only brand likely to survive will again be Jeep though if fuel costs stay high I'd speculate the the value and volume of the Jeep brand would be significantly impacted.

One bright spot would be that GM would end up closing the less efficient plants from both portfolios and would only be left with the best from both, but it comes down to how fast those gains can be realized before they run out of money which both companies are burning through at an alarming rate.

Not responding to anyone in particular, but just the (inane) notion of such a merger.

Both companies have excess plant capacities, but continue to build products that too few people want (even if only a matter of sticker price). Also, both companies have too many products that compete against each other - even after GM has whittled Pontiac and Buick down (the latter, next to nothing).

Over 100 years ago, philosopher, George Santayana wrote that "those who cannot remember the past are condemmed to repeat it".

In that light, then, consider Renault's "investment" in AMC, circa 1980, followed by Chrysler's aquisition of AMC in 1987. In each case, the end result was fewer models, plants, and employees, and dealers, but the merged company never really thrived.

I predict the same thing will happen with GM-Chrysler. About the only thing left of Chrysler will be the minivan (which nobody ever did better) and a few of the Jeep products. Except for the plants that build those products and the dealers that sell them, everything of Chrysler will be gone within a few years. Yet, the merger won't solve a thing for GM; few Chrysler owners will flock to GM's offerings, but many will have another a reason to look at the imports.

The biggest problem at GM is that no one has done anything about the people who bungled the product planning decisions - same people are stillpulling the worng strings. Whatever happened to accountability??? Don't bother answering; it's more of a rhetorical question - social commentary.

If you think I sound pessimistic, let me tell you that's my best-case scenario. Actually, this merger could be the worst thing to happen in automotive history since Packard acquired Studebaker.

What should happen, then? Well, color me unpatriotic, but Chrysler have a better chance at surviving (and with greater presence) if sold to an off-shore company (likely Asian) that would benefit from the truck and Jeep line, the nice larger cars (including the gorgeous "Challenger" coupe), and an extended dealer network (in spite of all the trimming in recent months).

Bottom line is that Chrysler has to get out from under the hacking and slashing of Cerberus Capital and GM needs a top down shake-up before anything will improve.