Carmine
Old Man with a Hat
It was 15 years ago now, but the name rings a bell. I could be totally wrong, but was he a tall, lanky guy?
Insights into the Bailout of Chrysler and Who Really Saved It
- Thread starter saforwardlook
- Start date
I worked for Chrysler from 1969 through 1981. I was involved in vehicle engineering directly. Since 1981 I have been involved in the automotive industry working with all the manufacturers that sell vehicles in the U.S and I will leave my description of my work there. Even though Carmine and I are/were insiders (I still draw a retirement check from them, but it is direct deposit), I have a bit of a different perspective than some of his observations. His observations are specific and I agree with a lot of them, but not all.
Rather than be too detailed though, my observations boil down to a few general "big picture" observations about Chrysler over the years.
First, I believe they have lacked competitive management with other more prosperous companies worldwide for a long time. Sergio is the best CEO I have seen there since I started with them. And I share the concern expressed in one of the comments also posted in this thread about the future of FCA (Chrysler) when Sergio leaves. At least Sergio said that he will be judged by the quality of management he grooms and leaves behind him when he leaves, so he knows the possibilities after he leaves. I believe from what I have seen, that Mary Bara at GM now, is at least as capable as Sergio.
Second, I do not think Chrysler has built generally durable, reliable cars compared to the rest of the industry. The downhill slide started around 1974 and they never recovered. I had to do competitive analysis when I worked for Chrysler as part of my job, and I can fairly say the GM built much better cars in the middle 70s and early 80s that ran also so much better than the Chrysler products. And while some Chrysler vehicles can definitely go over 200K miles with proper care, I do not think this is or has been the norm until more recently. My 1970 Chrysler 300 went 205K miles with no major issues until needing to rebuild the engine due to a failed piston ring -otherwise, it was doing pretty well even then. I don't think my 1997 Chrysler Concorde will go that distance without more problems - but I love that car and driving it is a joy. So I keep it.
Third, Daimler pretty much killed Chrysler when they were really starting to get things right, and they only took them over to take their cash hoard at the time that was for vehicle development, and used that stash to engineer Diamler cars and then let Chrysler die.
Fourth, Chrysler is building world class cars finally since the bail-out, with Sergio at the helm, but even now their products are still at the bottom of every reliability survey out there still. That has to change.
Last, it has always been about building the best cars at a reasonable price, and while Chrysler has had some disadvantages, so have the other manufacturers. That is what good management must overcome. And I believe the current fuel economy standards are good for the industry, including Chrysler and especially the U.S. companies since it spurs innovation that is needed to stay competitive in this world. Otherwise, their focus on building big pickups (and their huge profits compared to other types of vehicles) would probably cause them to lose sight of the rest of the world's realities, which strongly favor good fuel economy. I have read the background on developing those rules, and they are certainly not arbitrary but based strongly on technical feasibility and pretty much every major manufacturer, including Chrysler has agreed they can meet them. The rules extend to 2025.
Steve
Rather than be too detailed though, my observations boil down to a few general "big picture" observations about Chrysler over the years.
First, I believe they have lacked competitive management with other more prosperous companies worldwide for a long time. Sergio is the best CEO I have seen there since I started with them. And I share the concern expressed in one of the comments also posted in this thread about the future of FCA (Chrysler) when Sergio leaves. At least Sergio said that he will be judged by the quality of management he grooms and leaves behind him when he leaves, so he knows the possibilities after he leaves. I believe from what I have seen, that Mary Bara at GM now, is at least as capable as Sergio.
Second, I do not think Chrysler has built generally durable, reliable cars compared to the rest of the industry. The downhill slide started around 1974 and they never recovered. I had to do competitive analysis when I worked for Chrysler as part of my job, and I can fairly say the GM built much better cars in the middle 70s and early 80s that ran also so much better than the Chrysler products. And while some Chrysler vehicles can definitely go over 200K miles with proper care, I do not think this is or has been the norm until more recently. My 1970 Chrysler 300 went 205K miles with no major issues until needing to rebuild the engine due to a failed piston ring -otherwise, it was doing pretty well even then. I don't think my 1997 Chrysler Concorde will go that distance without more problems - but I love that car and driving it is a joy. So I keep it.
Third, Daimler pretty much killed Chrysler when they were really starting to get things right, and they only took them over to take their cash hoard at the time that was for vehicle development, and used that stash to engineer Diamler cars and then let Chrysler die.
Fourth, Chrysler is building world class cars finally since the bail-out, with Sergio at the helm, but even now their products are still at the bottom of every reliability survey out there still. That has to change.
Last, it has always been about building the best cars at a reasonable price, and while Chrysler has had some disadvantages, so have the other manufacturers. That is what good management must overcome. And I believe the current fuel economy standards are good for the industry, including Chrysler and especially the U.S. companies since it spurs innovation that is needed to stay competitive in this world. Otherwise, their focus on building big pickups (and their huge profits compared to other types of vehicles) would probably cause them to lose sight of the rest of the world's realities, which strongly favor good fuel economy. I have read the background on developing those rules, and they are certainly not arbitrary but based strongly on technical feasibility and pretty much every major manufacturer, including Chrysler has agreed they can meet them. The rules extend to 2025.
Steve
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
"damn-liar"
hahahaha - It took me all day and then it came to me. LOL
hahahaha - It took me all day and then it came to me. LOL
70bigblockdodge
Old Man with a Hat
All vehicles need to get lighter. 4500# cars and 6000# SUVs and pu trucks are ridiculous. My 2 cents anyway.
The Fuel Economy Standards will force it. The new Ford F150 is a start, with its aluminum body and up to 700 lb weight reduction. The new Alfa Romeo also has a lot of carbon fiber - it is the next big step in light-weighting. BMW is specifically working hard to bring down the cost of carbon fiber, as are others.
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
Catch 22. Build what people buy or build what the gun'mint says you can build.
polara66hardtop
Senior Member
Aluminum cracks, it doesn't flex. You load up a truck, hit the load limits, eventually, crack. Aluminum car trailers are good examples. Aluminum is good in it's place. A car is fine, I'm all for less weight, as long as it is in a passenger car.
But I won't touch a heavy duty Pickup with an aluminum frame. Ford's warranty problems will be coming.
We also owned a 97' Concorde, and finally retired it at 196,000 miles. Original engine and transmission. it just couldn't handle my son running into things. I found another with 100k on it, and expect another 90k plus.
But I won't touch a heavy duty Pickup with an aluminum frame. Ford's warranty problems will be coming.
We also owned a 97' Concorde, and finally retired it at 196,000 miles. Original engine and transmission. it just couldn't handle my son running into things. I found another with 100k on it, and expect another 90k plus.
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
Next they'll be building them with those tubeless tires.
They'll kill you when they blow...
They'll kill you when they blow...
polara66hardtop
Senior Member
I remember that!Lol
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
The gas station I worked at would have old time customers immediately bring in their new car to have us put tubes in their tubeless tires.
Uh-uh. No way were they going to feel safe without them.
Uh-uh. No way were they going to feel safe without them.
polara66hardtop
Senior Member
That view was common then, Remember the Good year polysteel? Early 70's tires stacked high behind the Goodyear store, like new with the sides in shreds.
I know Ford tested the crap out of the latest aluminum F150 (the frame is still steel I believe, but the cab/body is aluminum). The F150 is their crown jewel and their cash cow - it had better hold up or they will be in big trouble.
What engine did you have in your Concorde(s)? Was it the 3.5L or the smaller V6? The smaller one tends to be more durable. Here in California, all we could get was the 3.5, which performs pretty well.
Funny, I was always told to stay away from the 2.7l V6. And I sold more parts for them when I was in the auto parts business. That could be because they were more common possibly.
I had a 97 LHS w/ the 3.5l. I really liked that car. It was out of California and a shop told my friend it needed all the front sub frame mounts replaced. I told him to find a different shop. He sold me the car for $400. Put a new tire and tie rods into it. Drove great for 2 years, then it ran like crap. The egr valve or wherever it is on the back passenger side of the engine was bad. Replaced it and the plastic component of it melted. Put the old one back on, and it ran great for 100 feet. I brought it to the junkyard (after selling $150 of parts off it to my neighbor) and got $265 for it. I really liked that car and the way it drove. I'm just a cheap *** otherwise I might have tried to fix it. Working on it outside in winter may have helped influence my decision. I've had a lot of older Mopars that werent the best, but they seemed to perform as well as any other make/model I neglected in the same way.
Actually, the only other engine used in the 93-97 Concordes was the 3.3L V-6 that I believe was an overhead valve engine - not an overhead cam engine like the 3.5L. It was a very durable engine and was also used in their minivans. The 2.7 L engine was a sound basic design except that the oil temperatures were generally too high, which led to problems with that engine if the oil wasn't changed right on schedule. It was used in the "Cloud Cars" - the Chrysler Sebring, Dodge Status and the Plymouth Breeze.
The EGR valve controller that you cite was also a part that frequently failed. I changed one around 100K for a friend's Eagle Vision, and it is still going strong. The subframe bushings are also a frequently needed part - the rubber bushings would deteriorate fairly rapidly, something that wasn't well accounted for in the specification of the rubber compound - chances were that they really did need replacement in your car. The front struts generally didn't make it much past 60K miles either but that might be typical of other cars too.
I have driven quite a few newer cars of various makes including those of Chrysler up through 2014 models, and none of them gives me the overall handling feel and total vehicle experience of my Concorde. Bob Lutz, who is well known in the auto industry (worked for Ford, GM and Chrysler in his career) had his hand in the design of the so-called LH cars (93-97 Concordes, Intrepids and Visions) and it showed.
According to my Driver- Mechanic friendz at the PG in Chelsea, the LH platform and last of the breed 300M were the best FWD carz that Mother ever marketed. We handed the Keyz from our '02 300M Special to our Daughter last fall with instructionz to hand them over to our Grand Daughter az a belated 16 BD present. I miss the Special but love the Grand Baby more. Think I hurt the Son-in-Lawz feelin'z tho'. He'z now seriously looking at a '15 R/T Challenger 'cuz Grand Baby'z got better wheelz then he doez, lol
You're a great Dad and Grandpa Jer......
Thankz Bob. We had one kid, she had one kid. I'm trying to convince my wife that My-Our, Son-in-Law needz an addition added to hiz 2nd building in their back yard. Room for ah couple toyz for me + what toolz I have left to play with so he haz room to expand hiz fleet after the funeral and auction iz held for this Ole' Dawg when the time comez. He'z already mentioned that if it happenz it should have 12" cellingz with re-enforced padz in the floor on each side for a big metal bridge thingy, lol. Wife iz vacillating and I keep telling her that the Humane Society iz only gettin' the crumbz, Jer
has300
Member
Carmine, Yea, that was probably Rick, dark straight hair. He moved out there from the Chelsea PG. I worked with his dad and brother at Chelsea, my brother was married to his sister. Great family!
Mornin' Howie! Where yeah been Man?
Carmine
Old Man with a Hat
Maybe just to refine a few points... Saying that I (and family) have had good luck with Chrysler products was not intended to spark a debate about good-bad-indifferent. I used Chrysler products as an example, but what I intended to convey was that painting with a broad-brush (Domestic Bad, Foreign Good) is stupid. Use the name of any manufacturer and then "problems.com" and you'll find weak links among all automakers. On a different tangent, launching an unsuccessful product, separate from quality problems, is often portrayed as another specialty of the D3. How many MSN.com or Cars.com internet articles are still crowing about the Pontiac Aztec, while stories about Toyota allowing dealers to drop their Scion franchises are page 53 in an automotive trade publication? I'm exposing the hypocrisy, but not minimizing the impact because the article's included chart is absolutely stunning, especially for GM/Ford. The effect on Chrysler is almost irrelevant.
Secondly, it was not my intent to debate the validity of CAFE standards but to explain how government interference on the SUPPLY side (vs. demand), coupled with an inability to sell small cars outside of the NAFTA region, created the dependence upon trucks/SUVs as profit centers.
For a moment, let's pretend that it's 1975 and GM/Ford/Chrysler are the only big players in the market. Imports don't even exist. Government comes along and says "You guys need to build higher MPG cars, so we're going to starting imposing fines if your car MPG average doesn't increase. However, the farm/construction/utility/municipal, etc. lobby says they still need capable trucks with 8' beds, V8s and heavy frames, so we'll leave trucks alone." The voters like this because they feel like they're saving mother earth, but they're not paying an extra dime... Leave that problem for the car companies and let's go to the disco! :yaayy:
The D3 comply (to say they accept/agree is like saying we all enjoy paying taxes). Cars get smaller and lighter, and for a while you're even competing against your own used cars from a few years prior because they're more comfortable, capable, faster, and all the other nice things that use more fuel. There is no reason for the consumer to adapt, because except for an occasional spike, fuel remains cheap (unlike Europe and Asia). In fact, people "adapt" by hoarding old full-size sedans and station wagons because they're the only vehicles which can pull a boat or haul a big family. (Um, anybody remember when that actually happened?)
Eventually, the D3 look at their sales charts and see the high-trim level of their 1/2 ton trucks show a 300% increase in sales... WTF? There can't be that many people who've taken up fishing as a hobby! So they send a market researcher into the field and he finds the mighty 4x4 Ramcharger and Laramie Brougham F-150 dropping kids off at school! Well that's damn good news, because that same platform that makes a $700 profit when sold to the county as a snowplow makes $5000 when trimmed with power windows, chrome wheels and a nice stereo!
But oh crap... You still have to build those damn small cars. Who buys those things anyways? 1) First-timers with bad credit. 2) The cranky old man who wants a radio-delete and manual brakes. 3) Pot-smoking communist college professors who hate cars anyway. 4) low-bid meter-reader contracts. That means you have to compete on price, so find the cheapest tires, cheapest interior, limit build complexity, and cut as much labor out as you can. $10 a month sways a buyer from Chevy to Ford. And like I said earlier, nicer used cars are also a competitor.
So who exactly created this problem by interfering with the supply side of the market, rather than demand as has been done in Europe/Asia? :sFl_america2:
What I'm saying isn't exactly a secret. Iacocca was telling congress about this 30-years ago when Chrysler was (practically) an all FWD 4cyl, 27 MPG. company! Now it's matured a generation and were still talking about those stupid people in Detroit building cars no one wants (and trucks that outsell the next 2-3 best selling cars combined).
Now let's add the Japanese and Germans into the market... Maybe one of those stupid Detroit product planners comes into a board meeting and pitches the idea of selling small cars all over the world to achieve some economy of scale... You know, like their competitors? He says "Even with the UAW, we've got them beat on labor costs... Especially vs. Germany and IG Metall (German auto union). We could go in there and on the low-price end, and if it works out, expand and better adapt to their market; just like the Japanese did here." Then that guy gets a quick lesson on Value Added Taxes and 25% tariffs. Let's say he makes the same pitch for Japan/Korea. He gets a slightly different lesson with the same outcome... You'll never sell as anything more than a high-priced curiosity. The closest you'll ever come is a car like the PT Cruiser, but the chicken vs. egg issue will prevent the kind of investment that makes your product more competitive.
But there is no such issue going in the opposite direction! Our market is basically wide open except a tariff on pickup trucks with beds from 1960 (This was supposed to send a message to Germany about taxing our chicken imports. That will stop those pesky VW pickups!) The Japanese got around that joke by simply attaching the beds once their trucks were sitting on US soil next to the port. So now you can operate from a protected home market, where the government creates demand for small cars via fuel taxes, AND you can import into the world's largest market. Let me sweeten the deal a little more... If you're from Japan, we'll give you a 0% loan to finance US consumers from the quasi-government Japanese Bank for International Cooperation. (I must give props for the nicest way of phrasing a giveaway to Japanese industry.)
And if you're building in Germany and exporting to the US, we'll even rebate your VAT! :yaayy:
In the end, all you're really supposed to come away with from my comments is a sense that it's very suspicious that the US government will involve itself to the micromanagement level of requiring Chrysler to sell a 40 MPG Fiat 500, yet there are systemic, decades old problems that not only go unresolved, but in the eyes of the general public are entirely unknown!!!
Also, do me a favor and at least look suspiciously and consider the only thing Obama and the newly elected Republicans can agree upon is another "free-trade" deal.
Japan's inclusion in this deal is opposed by GM/Ford/Chrysler and the UAW largely on concerns of import barriers and currency manipulation. Want to bet this deal gets done?
Who are your elected leaders really working for? Maybe there was just a little incentive for the authors of the scholarly paper to omit some of these systemic problems?
:ciao:
Secondly, it was not my intent to debate the validity of CAFE standards but to explain how government interference on the SUPPLY side (vs. demand), coupled with an inability to sell small cars outside of the NAFTA region, created the dependence upon trucks/SUVs as profit centers.
For a moment, let's pretend that it's 1975 and GM/Ford/Chrysler are the only big players in the market. Imports don't even exist. Government comes along and says "You guys need to build higher MPG cars, so we're going to starting imposing fines if your car MPG average doesn't increase. However, the farm/construction/utility/municipal, etc. lobby says they still need capable trucks with 8' beds, V8s and heavy frames, so we'll leave trucks alone." The voters like this because they feel like they're saving mother earth, but they're not paying an extra dime... Leave that problem for the car companies and let's go to the disco! :yaayy:
The D3 comply (to say they accept/agree is like saying we all enjoy paying taxes). Cars get smaller and lighter, and for a while you're even competing against your own used cars from a few years prior because they're more comfortable, capable, faster, and all the other nice things that use more fuel. There is no reason for the consumer to adapt, because except for an occasional spike, fuel remains cheap (unlike Europe and Asia). In fact, people "adapt" by hoarding old full-size sedans and station wagons because they're the only vehicles which can pull a boat or haul a big family. (Um, anybody remember when that actually happened?)
Eventually, the D3 look at their sales charts and see the high-trim level of their 1/2 ton trucks show a 300% increase in sales... WTF? There can't be that many people who've taken up fishing as a hobby! So they send a market researcher into the field and he finds the mighty 4x4 Ramcharger and Laramie Brougham F-150 dropping kids off at school! Well that's damn good news, because that same platform that makes a $700 profit when sold to the county as a snowplow makes $5000 when trimmed with power windows, chrome wheels and a nice stereo!
But oh crap... You still have to build those damn small cars. Who buys those things anyways? 1) First-timers with bad credit. 2) The cranky old man who wants a radio-delete and manual brakes. 3) Pot-smoking communist college professors who hate cars anyway. 4) low-bid meter-reader contracts. That means you have to compete on price, so find the cheapest tires, cheapest interior, limit build complexity, and cut as much labor out as you can. $10 a month sways a buyer from Chevy to Ford. And like I said earlier, nicer used cars are also a competitor.
So who exactly created this problem by interfering with the supply side of the market, rather than demand as has been done in Europe/Asia? :sFl_america2:
What I'm saying isn't exactly a secret. Iacocca was telling congress about this 30-years ago when Chrysler was (practically) an all FWD 4cyl, 27 MPG. company! Now it's matured a generation and were still talking about those stupid people in Detroit building cars no one wants (and trucks that outsell the next 2-3 best selling cars combined).
Now let's add the Japanese and Germans into the market... Maybe one of those stupid Detroit product planners comes into a board meeting and pitches the idea of selling small cars all over the world to achieve some economy of scale... You know, like their competitors? He says "Even with the UAW, we've got them beat on labor costs... Especially vs. Germany and IG Metall (German auto union). We could go in there and on the low-price end, and if it works out, expand and better adapt to their market; just like the Japanese did here." Then that guy gets a quick lesson on Value Added Taxes and 25% tariffs. Let's say he makes the same pitch for Japan/Korea. He gets a slightly different lesson with the same outcome... You'll never sell as anything more than a high-priced curiosity. The closest you'll ever come is a car like the PT Cruiser, but the chicken vs. egg issue will prevent the kind of investment that makes your product more competitive.
But there is no such issue going in the opposite direction! Our market is basically wide open except a tariff on pickup trucks with beds from 1960 (This was supposed to send a message to Germany about taxing our chicken imports. That will stop those pesky VW pickups!) The Japanese got around that joke by simply attaching the beds once their trucks were sitting on US soil next to the port. So now you can operate from a protected home market, where the government creates demand for small cars via fuel taxes, AND you can import into the world's largest market. Let me sweeten the deal a little more... If you're from Japan, we'll give you a 0% loan to finance US consumers from the quasi-government Japanese Bank for International Cooperation. (I must give props for the nicest way of phrasing a giveaway to Japanese industry.)
And if you're building in Germany and exporting to the US, we'll even rebate your VAT! :yaayy:
In the end, all you're really supposed to come away with from my comments is a sense that it's very suspicious that the US government will involve itself to the micromanagement level of requiring Chrysler to sell a 40 MPG Fiat 500, yet there are systemic, decades old problems that not only go unresolved, but in the eyes of the general public are entirely unknown!!!
Also, do me a favor and at least look suspiciously and consider the only thing Obama and the newly elected Republicans can agree upon is another "free-trade" deal.
Japan's inclusion in this deal is opposed by GM/Ford/Chrysler and the UAW largely on concerns of import barriers and currency manipulation. Want to bet this deal gets done?
Who are your elected leaders really working for? Maybe there was just a little incentive for the authors of the scholarly paper to omit some of these systemic problems?
:ciao:
Similar threads
