Maybe we should bail out GM and let Chrysler fail

This brings me back to an article I had read a year ago in some financial magazine(Forbes, Fortune, not sure). It was an interveiw with the heads of Cerburus talking about how they are running this better than Deimler did. They basicly summed it up as the germans not giving a E36 M3 about the american cars.

One example is Deimler heads prevented phasing in LED brake lights. The given example being the Grand Cherokee finally getting them this year or next(IIRC). Much sooner than Deimler had planned on. The next was quality control. Deimler did little about QC concerns, partly do to logistics. Now the heads of Cerburus go out and do QC based demos once a week to continuely address the issues.

I willl admit it was rather one-sided, comming off as "We are trying to save Chrysler from the damage the Germans did" Only down side is the saviors know little to nothing about cars.

Jensenman wrote: Unfortunately, the old 4.0 reached the end of the road, it would just cost too much to make the thing meet ever tightening emissions standards and still perform decently. Not to mention it's a heavy cast iron pig that takes up way too much longways space. The 3.8 pushrod and the 3.7 OHC may not be the best replacement for it but they are better than nothing. The old Cherokee body wouldn't meet the newer rollover and airbag standards without a massive rework. BTW, that's what killed the Isuzu Axiom and Rodeo too. So we got the much reworked Liberty in the Cherokee's place (they still call them Cherokees in Oz, BTW but that's not PC up here).

I guess there is no chance the Jeep will have the money to re-do the Cherokee with a new straight six anytime soon.

Jensenman wrote: The Caliber is a much more harmonious design.

that harmonious design reminds me of a dog fart

Maybe, maybe. But it's a dog fart as compared to the Compass' dog turd.

Very true, and you just cant argue with the truth

Jeep, as a brand, will be sold from Chrysler just like it was bought from AMC. Mark my words. Jeep is an American icon that will not die with whatever company it's a part of at the time.

wouldn't it be great if ford bought jeep? ecoboost wrangler anyone?

Strizzo wrote: wouldn't it be great if ford bought jeep? ecoboost wrangler anyone?

I like the idea of a 3.0+ liter 4 cylinder with turbo.... It's called torque bitches..

4cylndrfury wrote:

Jensenman wrote: The Caliber is a much more harmonious design.

that harmonious design reminds me of a dog fart

Why does Chrysler try to make everything they build look like a Dodge Truck? Even the last Neon had a brutal truck like grille.

benzbaron wrote: That is a very good observation that Daimler gutted chrysler, since mercedes only lost money on the merger. Chrysler is junk and mercedes wrote down the last 20% so it won't drag down future earnings. If you only lose money how did you gut the thing for short term profits? Mercedes did try to bring chrysler upmarket and tried using shared platforms(crossfire uses slk platform), but it failed. Mercedes should be recognized for it's failed attemps at mergers and acquisitions, mercedes also had a 30% stake in mitsubishi.

You do realize that Daimler just blatantly transferred several billion dollars in cash and assets from Chrysler to Mercedes in the year or two after the "merger", right?

And Daimler management also forced Chrysler to use common parts with Mercedes, then backcharged Chrysler for the engineering costs! They didn't try to use "shared platforms" for efficiency's sake. They did it because they could force Chrysler to buy 5-year-old Mercedes engineering, and set the price of it, too.

So let's not hear any sympathy for Mercedes's noble ideals. It was rape, pure and simple.

The Compass seems to have been a good idea with really, really bad execution. The original idea was to have a rally car inspired Jeep. If they'd taken a Caliber like thing, put EVO X running gear in it, back a couple WRC entrants, they'd have exactly that, and it would be pretty cool. But the Compass wasn't that at all.

I don't have any faith in Chrysler's recovery plan - a merger with Fiat? They've learned nothing from the AMC-Renault deal.

The Caliber SRT was supposed to be 260hp + AWD. Given how easy it was to bolt horsepower onto the Neon SRT, that would have been 300hp for the cost of a couple extra car payments. With AWD that would have been almost cool enough to overcome the looks.

MadScientistMatt wrote: The Compass seems to have been a good idea with really, really bad execution. The original idea was to have a rally car inspired Jeep. If they'd taken a Caliber like thing, put EVO X running gear in it, back a couple WRC entrants, they'd have exactly that, and it would be pretty cool. But the Compass wasn't that at all. I don't have any faith in Chrysler's recovery plan - a merger with Fiat? They've learned nothing from the AMC-Renault deal.

The original Compass Concept Car was AWESOME!

It was pretty clear that Daimler was done sucking what it could off of Chrysler. Otherwise, why would they have paid $37 billion and sold it for $6 billion?

As far as the Compass, here's the original concept:

And here's what they actually built.

What was that about a camel: it's a horse designed by a comittee?

Both of them look like they were designed by Disney for use by Mickey Mouse.

Duke wrote:

benzbaron wrote: That is a very good observation that Daimler gutted chrysler, since mercedes only lost money on the merger. Chrysler is junk and mercedes wrote down the last 20% so it won't drag down future earnings. If you only lose money how did you gut the thing for short term profits? Mercedes did try to bring chrysler upmarket and tried using shared platforms(crossfire uses slk platform), but it failed. Mercedes should be recognized for it's failed attemps at mergers and acquisitions, mercedes also had a 30% stake in mitsubishi.

You do realize that Daimler just blatantly transferred several billion dollars in cash and assets from Chrysler to Mercedes in the year or two after the "merger", right? And Daimler management also forced Chrysler to use common parts with Mercedes, then backcharged Chrysler for the engineering costs! They didn't try to use "shared platforms" for efficiency's sake. They did it because they could force Chrysler to buy 5-year-old Mercedes engineering, and set the price of it, too. So let's not hear any sympathy for Mercedes's noble ideals. It was rape, pure and simple.

"So let's not hear any sympathy for Mercedes's noble ideals. It was rape, pure and simple."

Amen Brother!!! That's how I referred to it 6 months after the Germans tried to exact revenge for WWII by "merging" with Chrysler. M/B had no cars coming down the pike and no money to do anything about it. They saw BMW running (farther) away every day and knew Chrysler had $$$. They lied to us "dumb americans" by telling us it was a "merger of equals" and proceded to introduce new M/B models and screw Chrysler every step of the way. For anyone to defend them is beyond me. Even auto writers will tell most of the truth about the "merger" right after climbing out from under Deter's desk.

Jeep makes Jeeps.

When the sales are good, they make bigger Jeeps. When they are bad, they go back to making Jeeps.

Jeep don't make small crossovers and bad excuses for a Cherokee.

Look at the Benz G-Wagon, it hasn't hardly changed in 20 years and it's still selling like hotcakes at over 100 grand. Why does Jeep need a damn crossover and 4-door Wrangler (ugly).

yes, I remember hearing how the german side of question was very much against Chrysler have ANY access to the new stuff. So much for shared platforms.

Best thing that came out of that merger was the crossfire.

And honestly, I have hope for the fiat chrysler merger.

mad_machine wrote: And honestly, I have hope for the fiat chrysler merger.

I would really, really like to see the 500 sold here. The Abarth tuned edition even more so.

The Mercedes influence in Chrysler's designs: look at the '05 and up Grand Cherokee headlights.

Then the C Class headlights:

Overlapped big n' littles. Tell ME there wasn't some heavy handed Mercedes employee standing over the design team.

Anyway, the trannies in most of the RWD stuff is now a Mercedes unit. Ditto the rear diffs on the 300's. The CVT transmission is a JATCO (Japanese made) unit and a lot of the powertrain stuff on the Compass/Patriot comes from Getrag. A whole bunch of the electronics is Mercedes stuff as well and no that does NOT mean it's reliable.

PHeller wrote: Why does Jeep need a damn crossover and 4-door Wrangler (ugly).

I agree wholeheartedly that Jeep doesn't need crossovers... That being said, the reason that Jeep needs the 4-door JK is because it accounts for well over half of all Wrangler sales. Which, by the way, for February were up over 25% compared to last February.

the 4 door is still a capable offroader.. unlike the crossovers

In 2007 (the launch year) the 4 door accounted for 83% of all JK sales. I'm not sure what the ratio is these days.

Also, the JK 4 door is in NO way a crossover. Full frame, solid axles front and rear (available with lockers in the Rubicon) a real transfer case (4:1 Low in the Rubicon), etc. It's the real deal. If I were buying a new one, I'd get the 4 door, and I don't even have kids to tote around. The long wheelbase makes it much better on hill climbs than the 2 door.

The #1 complaint I hear about 4 door Wranglers: they are underpowered. But there's Hemi swap kits available to fix that.

The 4 door has been a sales success for sure. There were plenty of people pre- '07 who liked Wranglers but needed more room for kids etc. which shows that yes there are some people in marketing and design who can make things work.

I wouldn't mind seeing Jeep become a stand alone brand, not affiliated with anyone. I doubt that will happen, though.

Duke wrote: You do realize that Daimler just blatantly transferred several billion dollars in cash and assets from Chrysler to Mercedes in the year or two after the "merger", right? And Daimler management also forced Chrysler to use common parts with Mercedes, then backcharged Chrysler for the engineering costs! They didn't try to use "shared platforms" for efficiency's sake. They did it because they could force Chrysler to buy 5-year-old Mercedes engineering, and set the price of it, too. So let's not hear any sympathy for Mercedes's noble ideals. It was rape, pure and simple.

Thats not rape.. Thats standard practice in the auto industry.