Is 2011 the year Chrysler turns it around.. Again?

[RPD]

The only product of theirs I've been remotely interested in is the Jeep product. I've decided my next purchase is going to be something with a small diesel engine for better mileage and looks like the newest Cherokee Jeep I keep seeing.

Everything else. Pass.

 

[ShawnD1]

The only product of theirs I've been remotely interested in is the Jeep product. I've decided my next purchase is going to be something with a small diesel engine for better mileage and looks like the newest Cherokee Jeep I keep seeing.

I think I started a thread about this a while back. If diesel has way more energy than gasoline, then why doesn't every car have a diesel engine? Ignoring the technical issues with diesel engines, it mostly came down to cost. The difference between a gasoline engine is a diesel engine is roughly the same as the cost difference between a gasoline engine and a gasoline-electric hybrid. The difference is large enough that it's not worth it in most cases..... unless you live in UK where fuel is crazy expensive.

 

[KentState]

Both Ford and GM have a handful of cars each that I like and would consider owning. Chrysler currently doesn't sell a vehicle that I would want to own. They really need a halo car that they can hang the brand around. Every other manufacturer has one car that they can advertise the hell out of.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Mercedes got involved because chrysler was having financial trouble after the first go round of redesigns failed to penetrate the market, nobody wanted a sebring or stratus, people only bought a neon because they were cheaper than an import, the PT cruiser and Ram trucks carried Chrysler through the 90's, after Daimler got involved and we saw the introduction of vehicles like the Pacifica, Caliber and Nitro was when things got really bad. Daimler jettisoned the Chrysler brand when it failed to make money, if they were able to harvest technology for their own purposes is an entirely different topic.



You're right I do base my own personal opinions on perception and anecdotal evidence. I don't do market research and customer satisfaction surveys during my free time, and I don't inherently trust "research" that is paid for by a customer to make the customer look good.

No they weren't.

"Eaton panicked," Lee Iacocca, said. "We were making $1 billion a quarter and had $12 billion in cash, and while he said it was a merger of equals, he sold Chrysler to Daimler-Benz, when we should have bought them." And Daimler was an all-too-willing, if uninformed, partner, analysts said. The company underrated the competitive forces that would invade the North American car market and take market share from the domestic carmakers.

Read more: http://www.articlesbase.com/automot...ysler-merger-failed-149797.html#ixzz1EqEx8ffT
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

In fact, at the time, Mercedes might have been in a worse position as their reputation had taken a pretty big hit (reliability had really fallen a lot) and they needed money to develop new products and get competitive again, which is one of the reasons why Chrysler was so appealing, they had plenty of money. Mercedes was supposed to help Chrysler by supplying them with a lot more than they did, but Mercedes balked and so Chrysler got little in return (an old RWD platform that's underpinned the 300C and others, which helped in the short term but also played a role into the situation they ended up in). The reason Chrysler fell off so quickly is that the merger upset their management. It was a mess, and while Daimler didn't set out to ruin Chrysler, they made a lot of major mistakes, so it wasn't intentional, but the result was the same, and at the end, they just were leaving them to die. They only dropped them because it was good for their books and it would save them from having to deal with what happened at Chrysler.

Er...ok?

 

[NoCreativity]

No they weren't.



In fact, at the time, Mercedes might have been in a worse position as their reputation had taken a pretty big hit (reliability had really fallen a lot) and they needed money to develop new products and get competitive again, which is one of the reasons why Chrysler was so appealing, they had plenty of money. Mercedes was supposed to help Chrysler by supplying them with a lot more than they did, but Mercedes balked and so Chrysler got little in return (an old RWD platform that's underpinned the 300C and others, which helped in the short term but also played a role into the situation they ended up in). The reason Chrysler fell off so quickly is that the merger upset their management. It was a mess, and while Daimler didn't set out to ruin Chrysler, they made a lot of major mistakes, so it wasn't intentional, but the result was the same, and at the end, they just were leaving them to die. They only dropped them because it was good for their books and it would save them from having to deal with what happened at Chrysler.

Er...ok?

Don't let facts get in the way of his baseless rants. I think he got lost on his way to P&N.

Back OT, I would consider a chrysler if I were looking at a new car, partly because I would get the employee discount so it ends up being cheaper than other cars. I have had good luck with Chrysler in the past, I have had bad luck with them too. Same goes for GM and Ford.

 

[RPD]

I think I started a thread about this a while back. If diesel has way more energy than gasoline, then why doesn't every car have a diesel engine? Ignoring the technical issues with diesel engines, it mostly came down to cost. The difference between a gasoline engine is a diesel engine is roughly the same as the cost difference between a gasoline engine and a gasoline-electric hybrid. The difference is large enough that it's not worth it in most cases..... unless you live in UK where fuel is crazy expensive.

I never said it had more energy, not sure where that came from. I said I want a small suv with a diesel engine. Only one I know of is made by BMW, thier x3/5 line, which I'm not crazy about

 

[RPD]

I should clarify my "better mpg" statement. It seems with trucks and SUVs when you compare gas vs diesel the diesel models fare better, now whether this is simply a better engine or more engineered product I'm not sure.

 

[Lotheron]

I should clarify my "better mpg" statement. It seems with trucks and SUVs when you compare gas vs diesel the diesel models fare better, now whether this is simply a better engine or more engineered product I'm not sure.

It's primarily because diesel has more energy for the same volume.

 

[ShawnD1]

It's primarily because diesel has more energy for the same volume.

They also benefit by detonating from compression rather than spark plugs. That means more turbo! Adding a turbo to a gasoline engine often requires expensive premium gasoline that won't knock, but using self-exploding fuel is the whole point when using a diesel engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbodiesel

Turbodiesel refers to any diesel engine with a turbocharger. Turbocharging is the norm rather than the exception in modern car and truck diesel engines. As with any turbocharged engine, turbodiesels can offer higher specific power outputs, lower emissions levels, improved efficiency and higher refinement levels than their naturally aspirated counterparts.

A few days ago I started a thread about the Chevy Cruze having a turbo. The turbo model had better torque characteristics while at the same time using less gas. Almost every diesel engine is designed like that. That's also part of the reason diesel vehicles are so expensive. On VW's website, the cost difference between a 4 door Golf using gasoline and a 4 door Golf using diesel is something like $4,000. Better always seems to cost a hell of a lot more 🙁

 

[SyndromeOCZ]

Honestly I've never thought myself a Dodge fan, I've always liked Chevy the most. But right now I don't see myself buying any new chevy, except maybe a Colorado or Duramax for the Allison. But I would get many of the different Dodge vehicles, the 5.7L Hemi isn't THAT bad of a motor. And the V6 they put in the mini-van's isn't half bad either, my bro has two of them with over 250k miles on them, and he uses them for work vehicles(hauling tools, always loaded past max capacity I'm sure).

I think the new styling of the dodges is great. I'd love to have a Charger in my drive way, if only the police didn't taint the look of that vehicle. And the 2500/3500 RAM is the most beautiful full sized truck on the roads right now. Only Rivaled by the Tundra or Titan.

And the Dodge trucks, the cummins they put in the heavy duty is the best diesel engine out there. My old 94 dodge ram 3500 had 400k miles on the original motor and tranny, still ran great when I sold it.

And as for the durability of fords, lol, thats funny to even put those two words in one sentence. I've used them for work(new trucks not used and abused) and after a few years we had to take it back and get a dodge, which is even in my book, less durable than a chevy.

 

[Sinanju]

Not when superior products are coming out overseas.