What will happen to Chrysler now?

[Matt Harwood]

www.AutoExtremist.com has some insights this week (read it before next Tuesday May 22 before it's gone), and Peter DeLorenzo seems to think it'll be the UAW that ultimately decides if Chrysler lives or dies. We'll know in 8 months...

[West Peterson]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yesterday i saw a perfect example of why chysler is going down the drain.a new charger passed me.it was a 4 door !it it had a charger name on a 4 door.to me thats like putting mags on your moms car. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> </div></div>

I'm a former owner of a 1969 Charger, and I, for one, think the current Charger does the name proud. I highly doubt the Charger is one of the reasons "chrysler is going down the drain."

[mrpushbutton]

Have you noticed that EVERYONE stopped making cars with two enormous 4 foot long 350lb doors? The Asian and German brands most admired today never did.

The new Challenger will have two long doors when it comes out. I told my co-workers that the company should put in a digital sound module to reproduce the original E-body sound of the glass and hardware rattling around inside the door after you shut it!

[Clipper47]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The new Challenger will have two long doors when it comes out. I told my co-workers that the company should put in a digital sound module to reproduce the original E-body sound of the glass and hardware rattling around inside the door after you shut it! </div></div>

Chrysler should patent that sound like Harley did with it's exhaust note for us purists of the Chrysler genre. How I remember with nostalgia my 60's and 70's Mopars with than glass and tin rattle whenever the doors shut! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[West Peterson]

Actually, you patent an invention, you register a sound for "trademark." That said, I believe Harley actually withdrew their registration of the sound as a trademark.

[R W Burgess]

Pushbutton, the long doors are necessary for "us" with large bellies from all of those burgers! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> The wife just picked me up in our '88 Conquest. It was all I could to get out of it. I complained about old age. She looked at me and complained about my big "belly" <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> See, I told you I was fat! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Those Japs and Germs were always small and skinny. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The new Charger, I like it. It looks better than anything GM has now except the Corvette. A real pity that those "directors" sold out to Daimler in the first place. Greedy ba%$^&! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Wayne

[mrpushbutton]

It's almost universally acknowledged that Iacocca screwed the pooch when he chose Bob Eaton over Bob Lutz for the head job when he finally retired. Eaton took care of Eaton in the "merger of equals" and retreated to Naples Fl. (Detroit south) to count his loot. Bob's still in the business, kickin' A__ and taking names.

[Clipper47]

Those Japs and Germs were always small and skinny.

I'll say that one reason I don't particularly like Japanese cars is because of the tiny pedals and seats etc. but I have owned several German cars and like them because of the ample seats and doors for the wide butts of herr and frau. Ditto my Ford Crown Victoria and of course the Packard. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Guest Skyking]

I don't understand the American people............

A few years ago all the whiners here were moaning & groaning why the auto industry doesn't make rear wheel drive & V8's anymore. Well Chrysler did what people wanted. Rear wheel drive & V8's with a Hemi.........well here we are %itching again. What do you people actually want??? No matter what they build, the people will still find a way not to buy one. Pretty soon everyone will be happy with their rice burners...........

[Dave@Moon]

Skyking 2007:<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't understand the American people............

A few years ago all the whiners here were moaning & groaning why the auto industry doesn't make rear wheel drive & V8's anymore. Well Chrysler did what people wanted. Rear wheel drive & V8's with a Hemi.........well here we are %itching again. What do you people actually want??? No matter what they build, the people will still find a way not to buy one. Pretty soon everyone will be happy with their rice burners........... </div></div>

Henry Ford II, 1957 (well, paraphrased anyway <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />): <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I don't understand the American people............

A few years ago all the whiners here were moaning & groaning why the auto industry doesn't make flashy luxury and near-luxury cars any more. Well Ford did what people wanted. Edsels are as flashy as they get.........well here we are %itching again. What do you people actually want??? No matter what they build, the people will still find a way not to buy one. Pretty soon everyone will be happy with their VWs........... </div></div>

Anybody can plan today's car. Planning tomorrow's is what separates the men from the boys. (And planning for more than one future is why the wise car companies are raking it in right now.)

[Guest Skyking]

I was quoting Ledsled above complaning about the Charger he spotted and you changed everything around as normal......... <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

[R W Burgess]

Dave, I think we, the older generation, should take some blame for what our children buy. We love old cars. We understand how they are different. It's hard to explain to them what we like the most about them.

My own personal preferences;

1. I like chrome (if plated, metal, not plastic)

2. I like performance

3. I like that grunty V-8 sound

4. I like the handling of a rear drive car (with a light steering touch,

not heavy like a front driver)

5. I like a style that is different from the rest

6. I like bright colors (I'm sick of these greys, whites, and dull "off colors")

7. I'd give up a little gas milage for these cars, and even pay a little more

for them

Two related experiences here; I took my oldest daughter for a ride about 2 years ago in my injected '65 Vette. She had no idea of the response of a mechanical fuel injection system.

A year before that, my middle daughter had an accident in her 2003 Cavalier. she had to use our '88 Conquest (I know, it's a rice burner, but a rear driver). She was shocked about the speed she could go around turns, and the acceleration of a turbo. Her Cavalier has forever been just a car to her.

The point is, that as long as our kids don't know any better, they'll continue to buy these lackluster automobiles. As West Peterson has offered for our next Hershey, "Drive my Packard! and see why they were the best cars of their time."

<img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Sorry about the tirade. Like I said before, Chrysler was on the right track, now I'm afraid it may be over. I don't trust Management, Beancounters, and Lawyers, sorry Dave B. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Wayne

[6219_Rules]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dave, I think we, the older generation, should take some blame for what our children buy. We love old cars. We understand how they are different. It's hard to explain to them what we like the most about them.

My own personal preferences;

1. I like chrome (if plated, metal, not plastic)

2. I like performance

3. I like that grunty V-8 sound

4. I like the handling of a rear drive car (with a light steering touch,

not heavy like a front driver)

5. I like a style that is different from the rest

6. I like bright colors (I'm sick of these greys, whites, and dull "off colors")

7. I'd give up a little gas milage for these cars, and even pay a little more

for them

Two related experiences here; I took my oldest daughter for a ride about 2 years ago in my injected '65 Vette. She had no idea of the response of a mechanical fuel injection system.

A year before that, my middle daughter had an accident in her 2003 Cavalier. she had to use our '88 Conquest (I know, it's a rice burner, but a rear driver). She was shocked about the speed she could go around turns, and the acceleration of a turbo. Her Cavalier has forever been just a car to her.

The point is, that as long as our kids don't know any better, they'll continue to buy these lackluster automobiles. As West Peterson has offered for our next Hershey, "Drive my Packard! and see why they were the best cars of their time."

<img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Sorry about the tirade. Like I said before, Chrysler was on the right track, now I'm afraid it may be over. I don't trust Management, Beancounters, and Lawyers, sorry Dave B. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Wayne </div></div>

Ah Wayne, you said it so gracefully. My family likes cars, most of them at any rate, but until I rode in something special I did not realize that a car could be anything more than a car. Then I got to drive, at the tender age of 16, a 1962 Imperial, black on black, out at the NJ shore. The man, a friend of a family friend, was very nice to let me do it. And I was stunned at the power, grace and sheer elegance such a beast could put forth. I was once again in love. First with the 1950 Buick Roadmaster my Uncle had, then by this Imperial sedan. Wow. My Father prefered small (now Japanese) cars that were cheap, and efficient. What can you do? He's a Scot and 6'6"... there is something in the rules that say really big people like little cars. We would never have a car like that Imperial. Heck, we only got A/C in 1977 when he bought a Toyota off the lot with it. So I understand the difference, and appreciate the difference. And while I have owned both Japanese and American cars, I will never be as satisfied or as happy with anything with more plastic than glass. There is just something special in that full sized rear wheel drive sedan for me.

I did not follow my Father's trend, or my Brother's... or any family member except my Uncle, now deceased. When I saw the 300c, I was surprised and mightly pleased. The new Imperial was a bit to get used to, but I loved the suicide doors and the styling.... because it was different. I like the Crossfire, and the Magnum... a station waggon with guts. So I am very unhappy to see this turn of events too. No bean counter, especially a super conservative one like ex-Treasury Head Snow, to give a rat's patootey for cars or the American Automobile Industry. They just want to bleed it dry.

I guess time will tell.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was quoting Ledsled above complaning about the Charger he spotted and you changed everything around as normal......... <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> </div></div>

That wasn't meant as a dig at all, Sky. I've admired the rwd Mopars of late as well. They're attractive, reasonably well made, and (from all reports) have the best road dynamics this side of a BMW. For a world of $1.30/gal. premium they're the best products out there.

That day is gone, however. Just like the mid-50s demand for flashy luxo-boats, it vanished without a trace almost overnight (by product planning standards). You and I might not have changed our perspective on the available market, but the public in general certainly has. Failing to prepare for that by also developing an Omni or Duster (both hopefully better than the last iteration) for the next millenium has been Chyrsler's downfall.

Even the latest Caravan/Voyager looks like old news (to me). Instead if trying to maximize it's efficiency they made is as massive and SUV-like as they could, de-emphasizing the best advantage a mini-van has in a tight fuel market like now (or in 1984 for that matter).

There's a reason why a company gets caught with the wrong products at the wrong time. Ford got caught with it's pants down on the Edsel, but at the same time was developing the Falcon, which was the biggest hit in automotive history until the Mustang eclipsed it. If today's Big Three hadn't spent their collective wad developing as many SUVs as all other vehicles combined over the last 10 years they could at least make the argument that they didn't have the resources to prepare for a fuel crisis and the <span style="font-style: italic">status quo</span> simultaneoulsy. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Honda and Toyota (which was smaller at the time) had the resources, though. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

[R W Burgess]

I've never owned a van, mini or otherwise, so I can't understand how you can spend years redoing something that is undoable. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />???

You've seen one you've seen them all. Wait, Pontiac tried something different, didn't they?? <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I rode in a friend's recently and could appreciate the power rear slide doors, but gee, what does it take to design that. My garage door goes up and down...from my house. And, sometimes my neighbor's house. (Got change the codes???) <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

At any rate, Chrysler, as Randall stated, has come out with the newest in design that I can appreciate. Maybe that's it, I'm too far behind the times to recognize really great new ideas?? <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Heck, I read Autoweek each week, and the special new year's Manufactors Big Shows, but I haven't seen a darn thing that I would buy in the last 3 years that's really different.

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

At any rate, Chrysler, as Randall stated, has come out with the newest in design that I can appreciate. Maybe that's it, I'm too far behind the times to recognize really great new ideas?? <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

</div></div>

I guess that really sums it up for me too. I'm old school and to see companys that I grew up with and companys that I've owned quite a few cars from going down the tubes bothers the heck out of me. It's just fustrating to see this country handed over to every other nation on a silver plater because of greed.

[Steve Braverman]

Actually, I think that the auto industry gives us what we want, not what we really need. When I was in college (not too long ago)I owned two of the best vehicles I have ever known. The first was a VW Vanagon Diesel. It was small outside and huge inside. It got 28mpg all the time. It was the evolution of 30 years of building real minivans. But VW succumbed to the pressures of building what everyone thought they wanted, a front engine, front-drive copy of what was selling. VW people didn't want it, and the people who buy Caravans didn't even look at it. My 2007 Caravan is not a real van in comparison to the Vanagon, it's a bloated SUV or wagon.

The other car I loved was a 1984 BMW 325e. It had an inline six, manual transmission, performed better than anything else from 1984, and consistently got 34mpg! It had a 2.41 rear end and was tuned for torque. The car still drove like new with 200k miles on it when I foolishly sold it. It was soon replaced by a 325i, which was much quicker but only got 20mpg. I bought a 2003 MINI expecting the same type of vehicle, instead I got a slow car that only returned 32mpg. What happened? It's 20 years later. Where are the advancements?

We have the technology to build economical cars that perform, but instead we get either cheap crappy cars, or expensive land yachts. This must be what the American public wants. When I was last in Europe I rented a VW Polo. It was small yet had a quality feel. All the minivans and small SUVs I saw has turbodiesels in them. VW. new TDI gets over 45mpg and performs. But the great state of NY has decided I can't have one. Whatever. Maybe I should try to find another BMW 325e that doesn't have 200k miles on it.

<img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

[Guest Skyking]

American Motors gave us economy cars back in the fifties, actually they were the pioneers..........where are they today? <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Maybe they were too early with them.

[Matt Harwood]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">American Motors gave us economy cars back in the fifties, actually they were the pioneers..........where are they today? <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Maybe they were too early with them. </div></div>

Yeah, bring back the Met! I'd buy a 2008 Metropolitan. Small, economical, sporty and with a top that goes down. Perhaps the time has come for its return! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Guest Skyking]

Matt, if you've been keeping an eye on ebay, most sell with multiple bids. People add disc brakes and change the rearend for 65/70 mph highway speeds. Alot of the members use theirs for daily drivers. The car was differently 40 years ahead of it's time.

[6219_Rules]

Ah if I had the money... where have we heard that before? ... I would love a car along those lines.

The Metropolitan, the Isetta (BMW-Fiat), Renault Dauphine, 1950s-60s VW bug or bus, Corvair, Falcon...

these are all great small cars, fun to drive and should make reasonable gas mileage. I may end up doing it when my pickup dies. A VW Bus would fit the bill perfectly, or a 1962 Falcon Ranchero...

Even the new Smart. I kind of like the Aveo, but without income to afford it, it aveos me not. (ROFL) <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">American Motors gave us economy cars back in the fifties, actually they were the pioneers..........where are they today? <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Maybe they were too early with them. </div></div>

My father and I were just having this very discussion coming back from the Indy time trials today. What happened to AMC is they got greedy. In 1961/62 they were on top of the world, building high quality efficient cars that weren't stripped or austre. I believe they actually outsold Chrysler those years.

Then they decided to take on GM with both barrels, building mid- and full-size cars, a pony car, buying a truck line (Jeep), and ignoring the small Rambler that got them there. When they finally replaced the circa 1964 body Rambler with the 1970 Hornet it was really a restyle of the old car, and <span style="text-decoration: underline">that body was still in production 15 years later</span>! Meanwhile they spent all of their development capital on a disasterous pseudo-Riviera Matador design in 1974 which killed the company. (The Pacer actually made money, but not enough to pay for more lines.) After that is was a toy for Renault to play with.

If there had been a cutting edge design Rambler Classic on the market in 1974 and 1979, the kind of "economy car" that people weren't embarrassed to drive (i.e. Corolla/Accord), AMC would've been reborn as a true contender. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

If there had been a cutting edge design Rambler Classic on the market in 1974 and 1979, the kind of "economy car" that people weren't embarrassed to drive (i.e. Corolla/Accord), AMC would've been reborn as a true contender. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> </div></div>

Dave, you're 110% correct..........they should've kept George Mason's ideas. They'd still be around today.

[Guest leadsled1953]

yes i also love old cars.new cars to me are like toasters.no attachment just use them and get rid of them.rarely are there stories about a newer car[even after owning it for several year].when they stop on the road you will not get them going.unlike countless times with my old cars where you got them running and got home.and what does this have to do with chrysler?well it means that now thier new car line up holds about as much interest to me as a toaster.show me a new chrysler and i yawn.but if i see a ratty 66 newport i can spend an hour looking at it <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />