If Dodge Disappeared Would Anyone Notice?

The Challenger is great, and so is the viper, but neither of these are mainstream vehicles. Even the Charger/300 is a bit to large to really be mainstream. The Ram is quite good, but pickups have fallen out of favor a bit now. Pretty much everything else Dodge makes is crap. The Avenger is horrendous, the Calibur is goofy and pretty awful. The Caravan is very practical, but the build quality is inexcusably poor. Other than that you've got a bunch of generic SUVs.

I'd be sad to see them go, but not suprised. They need a well-built, well-designed mainstream car to do that, and with the budget cuts and UAW labor thats just not gonna happen.

"The Caravan is very practical, but the build quality is inexcusably poor."

you sit in the new Routan? Thats the way dodge should have made the caravan...but now if you want a caravan, buy a Routan.

+1 regarding the latest Caravan. The seats look and feel like they were thrown into the design at the last second. Whoever "designed" them should be flogged. :-/

I would miss the in-your-face brawny American style that Dodge has embraced over the past few years. The Ram has always been one of my favorite trucks. The Viper was just insane. It would be hard to imagine the roads not populated by Caravans.

Like jjacquot said...they have personality. I would like to see Chrysler survive and improve and continue offering its distinct American personality.

I will miss having some additional choice when I shop for a new vehicle, but I will not miss the current line-up (Wrangler and Viper excluded).

Chrysler needs some serious commitment to product, but the current product doesn't sell, so they trim work force, then the new product is worse and doesn't sell either, they trim more work force. Seems like a viscous cycle. What's needed is some long term investment money from Ceberus and commitment to the cause.

Merging with Daimler was the worst thing they could have done. They got pillaged.

If you really think about it, the Dodge of the past that the Challenger echos has been dead for a long time now. With Daimler-Benz and now Cerberus gutting the company for what little it's still worth, Chrysler's best shot for the future is becoming FIAT's new US dealer network. As a child of the mid 80's, I can't remember a time Chrysler products weren't poorly built, unreliable pieces of junk struggling for a corporate identity - something that seems to get worse every day.

After Isuzu finally finally left the U.S. market, I had to sit down and re-evaluate who my new most-hated automobile manufacturer selling the U.S. would be (Isuzu previously proudly held that title for the unique distinction of killing people and actively attempting to cover it up) and, while Chrysler isn't guilty of such shameful corporate behavior as far as I'm aware, they took position as my new number 1.

If Dodge disappeared would anyone notice? I would, I'd have to pick a new number 1 again...

Dodge/Chrysler died in 1979, when it could not continue in business without government loans. If it disappeared tomorrow, taking its cute but low-reliability abortions, I would not shed a single tear.

We've already thrown too much good money into this pit. Let them die, and let the people and resources they're sucking up get channeled into far more productive ventures.

As an Ameican, it does hurt to see a US Car company go out of business...You can't compare it to Oldsmobile, because Olds were just re-badged Buicks, mostly.

That being said, they really shot themselves in the foot with such poor products and quality. My father has a Pacifica, with 98K Trouble-free miles. BUT...it has the worst, poorly-constructed interior I have ever seen. So maybe their powertrains are reliable, but the interiors are horrible and the designs are really bad.

What do they have to counter the Accord and Camry? Those are what are selling. The Avenger/Sebring? Terrible products..whoever designed them should be banned from designing cars for a living. The Charger?? RWD (impractical in many places in the US),too big and thirsty. I mean, I could go on and on.

So Im sad to see it go, but can clearly see why it has failed as a company. I don't see another K-Car coming to save them this time.

Chrysler paid back all of their loans by 1983 and the US government made $663 million off of $1.5 billion dollars in loans...what killed Chrysler was Daimler and their "marriage of equals" that turned into the Germans making off with the cash Chrysler had socked away from the Ram, Neon, Intrepid, Cirrus/Stratus, Durango, Jeep, and Dakota in the '90s...and using it to prop up Mercedes-Benz.

At the Vancouver Auto show I was accosted by salesmen while looking at the Dodge booth. That didn't happen anywhere else. It made me think that they must be really desperate to sell these things. As the salesman was talking about the car, A Challenger, I felt really sorry for him. Here was a nearly fifty thousand dollar car with interior and detail finishing worse than fourteen thousand dollar Korean cars. Sure it has lots and lots of power but really, other than affluent Mopar fans and blind old men re-living some missed opportunity from their past, who's gonna buy this thing. I hope Dodge/Chrysler sticks around, we need cars to make fun of and some of them look really cool, from a distance.

As far as most of the car-buying public is concerned, it already has.

I think Chrysler needs to take a look at the Dodge brand and severly cut back its product. I think the Dodge brand could be cut back to Trucks and a few niche cars (i.e. Challenger, Charger) Leave the mainstream cars to Chrysler and the SUVs to Jeep. There is no need for the Dodge brand to have SUVs (Nitro and Durango) The Nitro is just a rebadged Liberty and the Grand Cherokee could easily be redesigned into a three SUV...there for filling the hole left by the Commander AND Durango.

Since these three brands are be brought together in one dealership there is no need for each brand to have a full line up of Cars, Trucks, SUVs.

I don't think it's completely fair to blame Daimler or even Cerberus, for that matter. Were the LH and JA cars ahead of the competion? Well, when they came out they were. But the redesigns for the 2nd gens didn't keep up nor were there any interim improvements. And that was before Daimler. That's been Chrysler's SOP for decades: come out with a good design, then rather than improve it, decontent it to get the price down. That just won't work any more. Chrysler has never recovered from its poor quality reputation from the '70's. Unless there's a dramatic change soon, I just can't see any hope. CNW says Chrysler's consideration rate is down by a third; Hyundai's and Kia's are both up by at least 50%. Chrysler's minivan sales are down; Sedona & Entourage are both way up so far this year. Think there's a relationship there, maybe? Hopefully the Fiat deal is almost done because it looks to be about their last hope.

I'm with jaguar36. The herd would never be culled if you myopically focus on the strongest and totally ignore the weakest. Survival of the fittest, folks.

"Isuzu previously proudly held that title for the unique distinction of killing people and actively attempting to cover it up".

Unique? You have GOT to be kidding. So not only do you give Ford a pass on determining it was cheaper to settle lawsuits over people burning to death than putting a $2 fuel tank axle shield in Pintos, but you give Ford another pass on the same basic flaw that still exists in Crown Vics on the road today? Utterly appalling, particularly since we just had another police officer burn to death in a Crown Vic a few months ago because of fuel tank rupture. But hey, who cares? Check out that new Shelby!

Help me Obi Wan Marchionne, you're my only hope.

Dodge had a big void to fill with the departures of their Neon, Stratus & Intrepid.

I never really liked these cars, but they sold pretty well during the early to mid 90's. When sales for these vehicles started to dip in the early 2000's they replaced these vehicles with new lines that didn't meet expectations.

Now that I think about it...I see way more Neons, Intrepids and Stratus's on the road than their newer replacements.

The only reason I'd be sad to see them go is because my uncle and his wife have owned nothing but Chrysler vehicles since 1994 when the first Neon came out. The wife bought it brand new, drove it to 135,000 miles before she sold it to a friend for cheap.

Uncle bought a 2000 Dakota Quad Cab new. By the time it hit 50,000 miles it had had at least two recalls. Twice in as many months he was stranded side of the road coming home from work because the front brakes were hanging and they overheated red-hot (it's hard not to notice when you drive home at night). The paint on the roof has peeled off so it has streaks of gray. He said he won't buy another Dodge.

Aunt replaced her Neon with a 98 Caravan (used); drove it to 130,000 miles and sold it because the rust around the front suspension scared her.

Replaced it with a 2006 Town & Country, new. Wanted an Odyssey but $24,000 was too much for her. Spent nearly the same amount on a van that doesn't even have a tachometer. Fortunately has had no problems.

My cousin came to visit them one day, and he showed off his new Hyundai Entourage. Boy was she jealous.

I can't remember the last time I've seen a stand-alone Dodge dealer. Remove all the cars from Dodge. You could rename the trucks to Chrysler if you wanted, but that's just a badge. The reverse would work too; slap Dodge labels on the current Chrysler lineup.

Either way, get rid of the redundancy. I don't think anyone would care if their new minivan says Dodge or Chrysler (or VW).

I also agree with thegrocer. Chrysler may have other issues, but Daimler played a monstrous role in their destruction.

VW ranks lower in reliablity than Dodge.

Dodge has not been dead for a long time now. The k-cars and minivans were popular in the 80's. The LH cars and the Ram trucks were popular in the 90's. The LX cars are popular now.

Chrysler paid back the loans it received in the early 80's with interest ahead of schedule. Couple that with the fact that they have remained in business and provided thousands of jobs for another 25+ years and I would say the government did the right thing.

According to JD Powers 2009 Dependability study, Chrysler was above average and the highest ranked van was the Dodge Caravan.

It will be a very sad day if any of the American manufacturers disapears forever.

"Dodge/Chrysler died in 1979, when it could not continue in business without government loans"

Read a little more. They didn't borrow money from the government then, congress only guaranteed the loans. Since all the money was paid back, the government spent nothing.

They also paid all the money back ahead of time.

Through the 80's they did very well with a line of cars based on the K-car.

By the 90's they had let that line run too long so they came out with a lot of really good new products. Neons', Intrepids, Durangos etc. The 96 Caravan was easily the best minivan in it's day.

They've lost their way in recent years but that doesn't mean they should go under.

I'd like to see what they can do next.

Why does a minivan with an automatic transmission need a tach?

A relative's Odyssey was recalled before it was 2 years old for a transmission issue. If you are going to hold a recall against Dodge, you gotta hold a recall against Honda too.

"If Dodge Disappeared Would [I] Notice?"

Only if it meant that Fiat was no longer coming back to the states.

"What do they have to counter the Accord and Camry? Those are what are selling. The Avenger/Sebring? Terrible products..whoever designed them should be banned from designing cars for a living. The Charger?? RWD (impractical in many places in the US),too big and thirsty. I mean, I could go on and on. "

americans are so clueless that its pathetic. What "terrible" cars does Chrysler make? How did you come to that conclusion? Let me guess: Consumer Reports told you so. Consumer Reports has been on an anti Chrysler tirade ever since the possibility of bankruptcy has arisen. There are no terrible cars. An Avenger can commute from A to B as well as any dull Camry. The auto media exists in order to tell us what we are supposedly to dumb to figure out for ourselves. If they admitted there isnt a HUGE difference between the Sebring and the Camry they would be irrelevant. Chrysler also gets a lot of flack for fuel economy and yet the most efficient minivan is made by Chrysler, not Toyota. The Ram gets better mileage than the Tundra and Titan. The 300 gets better mileage than the Infiniti M. Even the much hated Sebring and Avenger are about as efficient as the Accord four cylinder. Does anyone bother with any facts anymore?

For the record, this failed American company was doing OK until they merged with geniuses in Germany. I never read about that merger in the US media. They act like there is no recorded history of Chrysler between 1998 and the Cerberus ownership.

I would notice if they vanished. Its never a good thing to have few options for vehicles. I also think that some of the designs from Dodge, specifically the Charger and Challenger, are some of the more interesting vehicles on the market. If only we could have the Dodge exteriors and some better interiors - that would be a winning combination!

It is ludicrous to blame Daimler for the serious financial woes that Chrysler is currently facing. Daimler was the only reason Chrysler was able to survive the '90's at all. Without them Chrysler never would have gotten the 300C which basically saved the company in 2004. The amount of money that Damiler pumped into Chrysler over the last decade is astounding. For every year that Damiler-Chrysler was in existance Mercedes-Benz was the only brand that turned a profit. It had to pay not only for its own R&D, but everything at Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep. If anything, it is Chrysler that almost destroyed Daimler. I would be really sad to see the company disappear, but they have no one to blame but themselves.

"As far as most of the car-buying public is concerned, it already has."

Most car buyers dont buy Toyota. Most dont buy Honda. Most certainly don't buy Hyundai. What is your point?

dg042:

You need to check your timeline. The 2nd gen LH cars came out in 1998 or 1999 which is around the time of the merger. The first gen cars came out in 1993 to their lifecycle was about 5-6 years. Daimler is completely to blame for what happened. They are the ones who decided Chrysler should abandone the neon and focus on the Cabliber. They are the ones who decided to give Chrysler a few components for the LX cars while ignoring the midsize cars. They are the ones who decided to allow Chryslers engines to stagnate while GM and the imports were adding hp with dual VVT and other technology. I know its inconceivable to most people here that Chrysler could have done ANYTHING right but they were OK before the merger. Its amazing that 9 years of GErman ownership is skipped over and people bring this back to "those idiot Americans ran this company into the ground". The government assessment said that German ownership hollowed out the company and its engineering/design resources. Once Cerberus bought it there wasn't much left.

"A relative's Odyssey was recalled before it was 2 years old for a transmission issue. If you are going to hold a recall against Dodge, you gotta hold a recall against Honda too."

Nonsense! It probably was a courtesy recall, not a real problem.

mercedes:

Shockingly you are wrong. Chrysler was making money before the merger. In the early days Daimler was losing money but chrysler's profits (probably from SUVs) carried the combined company. You are way off on your assessment of the 300/Charger. MAny Euro philes who think there is no capable engineering capacity in the US act like the 300 is a reskinned E class. That is incorrect. The 300 got some suspension and steering components and a tranny from the E class. That's it. Chrysler was planning on doing a RWD car before the merger but the availability of MB components saved money. The chassis, interior and engine were not engineered by Germans.

MB stripped the company of its autonomy and prodded Chrysler to produce more and more SUVs and crossovers. Germans were calling the shots when we got the Caliber, Patriot, Compass, Aspen, etc. There was no sharing of engines or engine technology from Germany and Chrysler fell to the back of the pack. Before the merger Chrysler was holding its own in powertrains. The 300M had a OHC V6 with 255hp at a time when comparable GM models had the 3800 and Ford really wasn't even competing.

You are correct that mismanagement of Chrysler did come close to bringing down Daimler. After they starved it for product and failed to allow development of smaller cars the company was ill prepared for the spike in gas prices.

@ 1487

I'd prefer driving a 300 or Charger over a Camry or Accord. I'd also choose a Ram over a Tundra, Highline or Titan.

But I'd buy a Pontiac G8 and a 2010 Taurus over a Charger or 300. I'd choose a F-150 or Silverado over a new Ram.

I test drove the Challenger R/T a few weeks back and thought it was a great car, but I'm leaning towards a Camaro SS.

doug,

For once I agree. It is amazing how many idiots are going aroung the internet celebrating the possibility of GM/Chrysler going under. What kind of consumer wants less options? I'm sure someone will respond with a foolish rant about "they need to go under if they are using my tax money to survive!". Typical American simple minded logic. If they go under the US and many state governments are going to end up paying big time. When people lose jobs and healthcare and stop paying taxes other taxpayers pick up the tab. There is no free lunch.

How ironic is it that the same people who will tell you that competition in the US market forced the D3 to make better cars are now saying "foreign cars are so good we don't need any domestic competition". I'm sure Toyota is LOVING that ridiculous line of thinking. Less competition leads to higher prices and inevitably less US production and less US employment.

I am confused, can any foreign company with enough money just march in and buy any American company they want? I was under the distinct impression that there would have to be some-sort of shareholder consent, shareholder's undoubtedly from the ole U.S. Everyone involved is responsible for Chrysler's demise, and it is directly attributable to the crap sitting on their dealer's lots right now. With the exception of a few select models there are only two types of people buying Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep/etc branded vehicles right now: 1.) the foolish/uninformed; 2.) those tacking up enough in incentives to justify the inferiority. This has NOTHING to do with where the cars are built, it would be foolish to buy an avenger over an accord, just like it would be to buy it over a malibu. P.S. the Dodge dealer here in Indy that my dad has worked at since he retired just closed its doors.

This sounds like a real problem to me:

NHTSA Campaign Number: 04V176000 www.nhtsa.dot.gov

Manufacturer AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.
Recall Date: 04/15/2004
Potential Number Of Units Affected: 1099796

Description POWER TRAIN:AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION
Summary ON SOME MINI VANS, SPORT UTILITY AND PASSENGER VEHICLES, CERTAIN OPERATING CONDITIONS CAN RESULT IN HEAT BUILD-UP BETWEEN THE COUNTERSHAFT AND SECONDARY SHAFT SECOND GEARS IN THE AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION, EVENTUALLY LEADING TO GEAR TOOTH CHIPPING OR GEAR BREAKAGE.
Consequence GEAR FAILURE COULD RESULT IN TRANSMISSION LOCKUP, WHICH COULD RESULT IN A CRASH.

337:
Ffrankly you sound rather ignorant but I will give this a try. No one said US shareholders didn't agree to this "merger of equals". If you actually read you would notice several of us have contended that Daimler did NOTHING for Chrysler and then sold the scraps of the company once they realized it was starting to drag down their financial performance. The "crap" on dealer lots was approved and engineered under Daimler, not Cerberus. It takes about 4 years to launch a vehicle- who ran Chrysler 4 years back? Here's a hint- they are from Germany. The leaders of a company (board of directors or something similar) decide where capital is invested. After the "merger" the decisions were made in Germany or by Germans sent to America to "fix" Chrysler. It was never a merger, it was a buyout and once you buy a company you take responsibility for the product decisions. I know that you probably think Germans are too smart and too efficient to make any product mistakes but the proof of what they did to Chrysler is very evident. Since the US media is trying to spin all of this as an example of bumbling American mismanagement they have chosen to ignore Daimler's role in any of this and chose to quote CR and say "Chrysler is in trouble because of low quality vehicles".

1487, you don't know me, or how much I read. I own two cars, both jeeps, you ASSUMING I am anti-American or anything else for that matter is consistent with the old saying. I have no doubt that Daimler called the shots on the current crap that is available (I never said I did not), and shame on them too, but nobody just handed them the keys to the "car", Americans made that decision, and they likely made a lot of money of the deal. Pushing the culpability off on a foreign mark changes nothing, the cars are crap and domestic big-wigs as well as foreign are to blame. Believe that! Again, "you sound rather ignorant", but let me reiterate my point, there should be blame on both sides of the pond, somebody had to authorize the "buyout", or can you do that hostilely, as you seem to be suggesting. Darn those Germans for ransacking our beloved car brands. How will we every stand up to them...

Indeed, the shareholders agreed to a merger...and subsequently sued when it became evident there was no merger... http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2005-04-07-daimlerchrysler-merger-lawsuit_x.htm

Money quote:

"While we are clearly disappointed in today's judgment, we are pleased that other DaimlerChrysler shareholders who followed Tracinda's lead and filed lawsuits based on our exact claims and key discovery were successful in reaching a settlement with DaimlerChrysler for $300 million," said Terry Christensen, attorney for Tracinda. In August 2003, DaimlerChrysler agreed to settle a $22 billion class-action lawsuit by other investors who claimed they were misled.

Hmmm, Former Chrysler CEO selling the deal to the shareholders as "merger of equals" then the company gets ran into the ground. Thanks Grocer, that basically made my point.

I agree with most of you the Mercedes ruined Chrysler- milking the SUV profits to stay afloat then dumping the company when SUVs lost their popularity. To save Chrysler (and GM and Ford for that matter) we need to STOP BUYING Hondas and Toyotas and sending our car buying dollars overseas. The US has a huge Trade DEFICIT, which means every year we bleed more and more money into other countries, gradually getting weaker. Chrysler products arent inferior at all, it just seems that people love to hate- people like 'youngdriver' who hates anything CJD just for the hell of it. The Avenger/Sebring are just fine. I drove my dads 2007 Sebring almost 2000mi last summer and guess what? It didnt break! wow! It was actually a great road trip car; quiet as anything, smooth riding, my butt never got sore, had stain resistant seats to spill things on (yes, tested, they work), GREAT Bos. Acoustic stereo, got 30mpg avg. Most americans would thing im talking about a Toyonda Camcord- nope, worst car of the year in 2007 (courtesy of CR).

1487, you are slightly mistaken. Daimler AG suffered huge operating losses in 1994 and 1995 due to a stupid Aerospace divison (Daimler Aerospace) that sucked the company dry. In 1996 the company turned a nearly record profit and has been in the black ever since. As I said before this has always been lead by Mercedes-Benz. Even when Daimler and all its divisions were in the red MB was turning a profit and keeping the company afloat.

In 1997 when the merger was being finalized Daimler was turning a record profit due to MB's all-new SLK and ML as well as a redesigned E. In 1998 the W220 S and CL were unvelied, which far exceeded projected sales targets. Daimler-Benz was solidly in the black when the merger was finalized and one division in particular (MB) remained that way throughout. It was Chrysler that became the weak link.

Initially MB and Chrysler were very autonomous companies, but as Chrysler profit started to tank Daimler got increasingly involved. They funded developement on the 300/Charger and when that was still inadequate started preasuring the company to build anything that might turn a profit. It was this desperation that led to a truck-heavy product line. Daimler did not funnel money or engineers away from Chrysler. It certainly became the controlling company, but only after Chrysler proved it was incapable of running itself.

Unfortunately for Chrysler, Daimler only cared about getting the company out of the red so they could sell it (they couldn't care less about its long-term viability). After the billions they spent keeping Chrysler afloat I cannot entirely blame them.

And for the haters out there, this has nothing to do with the fact that I am a Mercedes-Benz fan. This really doesn't relate to MB at all. It has turned a profit almost every year since WWII and did every year before, during and after the merger. I also have no specific love for Daimler, as they have made just as many dumb moves as Chrysler. For goodness sake who in their right mind suddenly decided to form an aerospace division?! And I have no doubt Chrysler's SUV profits were a driving force in creating the merger in the first place.

I just get tired of hearing people act like Chrysler is blameless for their current situation. They did as much to themselves as others did to them.

Recommended reading for this discussion:
"Taken for a Ride: How Daimler-Benz Drove off with Chrysler" by Bill Vlasic and Bradley Stertz.

A highlight includes how Daimler execs were watering at the mouth to get Chrysler's cash reserves. Also, the systematic way that Daimler drove out all of the talent that made Chrysler wildly profitable in the 90s.

Honestly, I don't think I'll miss the Whole Chrysler Group nearly as much as I would miss Gm.

When you think about it, Chrysler hasn't made an extremely good product in what seems like forever. Everything they make finds it's way into a rental fleet.

"Everything they make finds it's way into a rental fleet."

Oh I don't know. The last 3 rental cars I've had have been 2 Cobalts and an Impala.

I'd love to get a 300C next time.

BTW.. I wasn't saying anything against the Cobalt. I had a Corolla before that and I would take the Cobalt first anytime. Way better car.

@1487

No, YOU need to check your timeline and get your facts straight before posting, please. My '98 Intrepid was built by Chrysler Corporation, NOT DaimlerChrysler. The 2nd gen LH was ON THE ROAD by the time the merger when through, so there's NOTHING there can be blamed on Daimler. And I spent more than enough time in my friend's '94 Vision and ex-supe's '97 Intrepid as well as her '98 Concorde to know the 2nd gen was no big step up. Noise was as bad or worse and visibility went way down. Though I won't list all the problems it had, one was two failed horns. The original ones had the opening pointed straight down towards the road! You know, where the water stands. They'd been in business that long and didn't know any better than THAT? Oh, and during that 5-year cycle, most of the competition had a mid-cycle update. The 1st gen LH's didn't even get new tail lights.

By the way, "Consumer Reports" isn't the only one critical of the midsized cars. In fact, I've yet to see a single comparison among competitors where the Avenger or Sebring didn't finish DEAD LAST by a WIDE margin. If you know of one otherwise, please provide a link.

Just a couple of months ago, I was shopping for a new car. I had seriously considered the Dodge Magnum and Charger. (Even the Dodge Avenger back when I thought I couldn;t afford the other two models).

I took Dodge off my list, due to reading about how many Dodge owners were filing for Lemon Law protection on their new Dodge vehicles.

I'm sorry, but the brand isn't what it used to be.

337:

American shareholders do not make product decisions. You are saying Americans should be blamed for Chrysler's situation because shareholders benefitted from the merger. When the merger was proposed it SOUNDED good. I don't think Chrysler thought they were about to be run into the ground. I don't know what your position is on American cars, nor do I really care. All I do know is your points are invalid. Germans made the product decisions and allocated the capital- period. There is no way around that.

dg0472:

first of all I said nothing about the quality of the LH cars. I don't even like Chrysler that much. YOu said that the LH cars sat around for years and languished without any updates. There were two generations of the LH cars in a 6 year period. Most cars are redesigned every 5-6 years and German cars often go 7-8 years without a major redesign. The LH cars debuted in the '94 model year and were redesigned for the '99 modeel year. I don't know what enhancements were made in that 5 year span but most cars get nothing more than trim changes and minor tweaks during a lifecyle. I really don't care what minor changes were made to the competition during that span. When the 300M and other LX cars were debuted in 1999 they were competitive with other large FWD cars of the time. They had decent handling, better than average features and lots of space. They were actually seen as a positive development at chrysler and at that time most in the media probably felt Chrysler was the best of the D3 in terms of cars. You said the redesigns of the LH cars "didn't keep up" but provided no reasoning to support that. How was the 300M not competitive with the first gen TL or Aurora or Es300?

There is no way around American consent. It is all about choices, and there was a choice, they made a bad one, followed by several other bad ones by a foreign owner, but that doesn't change anything.

Mercedes:

What proof do you have that a) Chrysler was on the verge of collapse before being "saved" by Daimler or b) that Daimler was forced to intervene in Chrysler's affairs due to the incompetence in Michigan? Give me a break. When the merger happened no one said Daimler was taking over Chrysler to save the company. Analysts thought it was a good idea because Chrysler covered the lower end of the market and the two companies would be able to lower purchasing and development costs. Chrysler was not a distressed company back in 1998. I never said Daimler wasn't profitable in the mid 90s. I said that after the merger there were years when Chrysler was generating profits when Daimler was not due to issues with some European programs. Your excuses for Daimler are pathetic but not entirely surprising. According to you Daimler had no choice but to take over and fund the development of SUVs because Chrysler was so mismanaged. Can you explain how Daimler did any better than Chrysler? everyting that I've read suggests that the people in the US were frustrated with the GErman ownership and the lack of autonomy. If MB knows how to build great cars why would they NOT help Chrysler do the same? They encouraged Chrysler to cost cut and produce mediocre SUVs as a way to generate short term profits with no concern of the long term viability of the company. Their management was a complete failure and that's why they lost billions on their investment.

Also, how did you determine that Daimler alone funded the 300/Charger? Chrysler generated revenue and profit so I am unclear as to how you have come to the conclusion that Daimler is responsible for the 300's development.

Earler people were criticizing Chrysler interiors. Not only does the Ram interior look better than the interiors of the Tundra and Titan and Ridgeline- the new JGC has an interior that positively shames the Pilot and Highlander.

"There is no way around American consent. It is all about choices, and there was a choice, they made a bad one, followed by several other bad ones by a foreign owner, but that doesn't change anything. "

aside from agreeing to a merger what bad choice did the American management make after 1998? why don't you list them for me?

"By the way, "Consumer Reports" isn't the only one critical of the midsized cars. In fact, I've yet to see a single comparison among competitors where the Avenger or Sebring didn't finish DEAD LAST by a WIDE margin. If you know of one otherwise, please provide a link."

I have seen the Avenger in exactly ZERO comparisons. I believe I have seen one with the Sebring in C&D a few years back. Any vehicle that isnt sporty is going to do poorly in C&D and this is why the camry usually finishes 4th or 5th place in C&D comparos. I am not a huge fan of either chrysler midsize car but I have yet to hear any real reasons why I should believe they are terrible cars. They are affordable, have lot of tech (myGig, 6 speeds, AWD, nav, Uconnect) and their I-4 models get the same mileage as the Accord. Niether is a sports sedan but the same could be said for the Camry and Sonata. So why dont you tell me in objective terms why these cars are so terrible. Consumer Reports hates all Chrysler products and is lobbying for their demise on a weekly basis. In fact, I just read something in which CR's chief tester is warning people not to let discounts distract them from heeding CR's warnings and buying anything they dont recommend. According to him people could end up with a very "unreliable" car if they shop for price. It's a shame that his words are even printed in newspaper stories.

I never said there were more, that is the one I focus on. You can't let them off the hook completely is all I argue. Other than that, I agree (with you) that Daimler is to blame. I want them to survive as much as the next guy (have an extended warranty I would like to take advantage of), but am realistic that some exects (here domestically) made some bad choices, the merger was one of them.

As long as I can still get parts for my TJ, I'll be happy no matter what happens.

1487 you are arguing points that I never made. I never argued that Chrysler was in a bad position and needed to be saved by Daimler. At the outset they were both profitable companies, but Chrysler had huge operating losses in 1999 (the first year of the merger) and never regained solid profitability after that. There were years of bright sports (2001 with the redesigned DGC and 2004 with the 300), but overall Chrysler struggled and Daimler poured billions into the company to keep it liquid.

I agree completely with you that Daimler mismanaged Chrysler (Schrempp almost drove MB into the ground too because he was so awful), but Chrysler would have had serious financial issues with or without the merger. The worst legacy of the merger is not Chrysler's finances, but rather the fact that their top execs left because their style didn't mesh well with Daimler.

337:

My point is simple. Chrysler was moving in a positive direction before the merger and was making money. After the merger they were a wreck and devoid of up to date engine technology. Since the Americans had little to no say in how Chrysler was run for about 9 years I can't see how you can pin this collapse on them. I thought this new era of Detroit bashing was all about making people accountable? If that be the case make the GErmans accountable. Its amazing that NO ONE in the media even mentions Daimler anymore. Everything I read and see on TV paints a portrait of a pathetic Michigan based company that has been on a downward spiral for years losing billions along the way.

The merger was only a bad choice because the promises made were not fulfilled. If Daimler had improved Chrysler interiors and powertrains and allowed them to actually make anything other than SUVs and the 300 the merger may have worked out. Since they did nothing more than offer some suspension components and reallocate Chrysler profits into their European operations the merger was a failure.

Mercedes:

How did Chrysler go from being worth $47B to $7B in 9 years if it was unhealthy back in 1998? Chrysler actually has few less legacy costs than GM and Ford and has been more nimble historically. You are basically saying that the company was headed down the tubes anyway and Daimler simply slowed the decline. If what you are saying is accurate the marriage would have never been consumated in the first place. I'm sure the smart people at Daimler examined Chryslers operations in detail before the merger.

"but overall Chrysler struggled and Daimler poured billions into the company to keep it liquid."

Not just to keep it liquid, they also poured mind boggling amounts of money into Chrysler plants to increase the building quality.

BTW Mercedes gave the 3.0L diesel engine to be used in 300C and Jeep. 5-speed auto was also from Mercedes. Also the Crossfire was, as you may know, an SLK including the engine and transmission. Similarly the 300C was a reskinned E-class. Sadly the interior was made by Chrysler and it was the most awful part of the 300C. Horrendous plastics and shameful build quality was telling just one thing about the investment of Daimler: Money thrown out of the window...

Whoever puts the blame on Daimler for the collapse of Chrysler is just fooling himself..

Cyclone, The LX chassis was already under development when MB took over. This has been said 1928485 times. The only MB parts are some suspension pieces and the tranny. I would write more but I think 1487 is covering all my points nicely, good job.

"Whoever puts the blame on Daimler for the collapse of Chrysler is just fooling himself.."

I don't have any inside knowledge of what Daimler did or didn't do to Chrysler but one thing is obvious.

Chrysler had a competitive line up when Daimler took over and it didn't when they left. Since Daimler was running the company they must take some or all reponsibilty for that.

I've worked in product development for years and on major projects, someone high up has to approve everything. Someone at Daimler was shown those rubbermaid low grade interiors and said "Yes, the is the look and feel we are looking for".

You can't deny that.

1487, again I never said that Chrysler was weak at the time of the merger. It was the years directly after the merger was finalized when Chrysler suddenly and surprisingly tanked. Its products had been midly competitive in 1998 (although its lineup of sedans were always weak), but the products Chrysler had in its pipeline before the takeover (the redesigned minivans, redesigned Grand Cherokee, and redesigned Sebring/Stratus) were lackluster in build quality. Daimler should have forced Chrysler to change suppliers, but it was nonetheless Chrysler's decision to begin with.

My point is that Daimler didn't gain anything by having a Chrysler division that lost money nearly every year of the merger. Daimler made inexcusably bad decisions, but Chrysler set its own trajectory in the early days of the merger. They would have been in a bad position regardless of Daimler involvement; it just may not have been as bad a position as they are in now.

mopar424:
Mercedes-Benz did NOT take over Chrysler. I wish people would stop saying that. MB is a subsidy of the Daimler corporation just as Chrysler was a subsidy of Daimler-Chrysler. It was Daimler that took over Chrysler; MB was drug along for the ride and was actually hurt by the merger.

Next time it will be Daimler-Benz AG, apoligies.

"Its products had been midly competitive in 1998 (although its lineup of sedans were always weak)"

"the redesigned minivans, redesigned Grand Cherokee, and redesigned Sebring/Stratus) were lackluster in build quality"

The LH cars were highly regarded and extremely competitive. Their week point was drivetrain long-term reliability, but they were beautifully built and had rich elegant interiors (spent ~14 yrs with an LHS, great car). The 2002 minivans and 98-04 JGC were also well built. I have personal experienc to back up both those cars, and if I recall they were well liked by the auto press. The sebring/stratus were strong, but boring IMO (they are still all over the road). The redesigns that started under DAIMLER-BENZ AG (06 caliber, 07 sebring/aveng. 05 JGC, etc) entered cheapville for whatever reason DAIMLER-BENZ AG decided. I think it was to separate them from MB (they didnt want chryslers interiors anywhere near competitive with MB, so they picked the worst mats. possible- americans dont care about interior texture! ha.)

Just realized, at the time it would have been Daimler-Chrysler not Daimler-Benz as now.

"My point is that Daimler didn't gain anything by having a Chrysler division that lost money nearly every year of the merger. Daimler made inexcusably bad decisions, but Chrysler set its own trajectory in the early days of the merger. They would have been in a bad position regardless of Daimler involvement; it just may not have been as bad a position as they are in now."

Chrysler was profitable in
1998, 1999, 2000, 2004 and 2005. That is definitely not nearly every year of the merger. And lets not forget that some of those years Chrysler itself was carrying the company because the Mercedes Car Group was losing money(I believe that was 2003-2005).

Fact is that Daimler and its management is responsible for Chrysler's current lackluster product(not Cerberus). They are also to blame for the change in focus from cars to SUV's(seriously look at how many SUV's were greenlighted under their watch) and they are to blame for Chrysler not having a compact car when that market was really heating up last year for those vehicles.

To the original topic. Yea I would notice if Dodge went away. But lets be real. If its gone, I will just look at another brand and hope the people currently working for them can find new jobs.

"seriously look at how many SUV's were greenlighted under their watch"

How many are you counting?

I can only think of the Durango/Aspen clones and the Liberty/ Nitro clones and Grand Cherokee.

That's less then almost every other car company.

You're right about the lack of a compact car though.

""seriously look at how many SUV's were greenlighted under their watch"

How many are you counting?

I can only think of the Durango/Aspen clones and the Liberty/ Nitro clones and Grand Cherokee."

They greenlit the Nitro, Aspen and Commander, as well as smaller redundant models such as the Compass and Patriot(though I do like this model). Oh and the Pacifica(though I thought this was the best Chrysler product built during its time).

Now that doesn't look like a lot until you consider the fact that Chryco already had the Durango, Liberty, Grand Cherokee and Wrangler already in their lineup. I don't know about down in the States but up here all three DCJ brands are sold under the same roof. So all of these models are competing with each other. Does that really make much sense? Especially when their is a giant hole in your lineup where a compact car would fit? Or a more competitive midsized sedan? Or they could have just invested in better interior quality. All instead of wasting money developing products that only rental car companies bought.

preza-
I will admit I was mistaken about 1999 as Chrysler sales actually increased from 3.1 million to 3.2 million. However, in 2000 they suffered a 90% loss in operating profit and sales tumbled. Daimler initiated a restructuring plan to return Chrysler to profitability by 2002, but that failed. The next time Chrysler individually turned a profit was 2004 thanks to the 300. I think they may have also in 2005, but that's it. 5-6 out of 9 years of operating losses certainly seems to justify my claim. Make sure when looking at earnings reports that you are looking at the Chrysler subsidy, and not Daimler-Chrysler as a whole (I don't mean that to sound condecending, I was making that mistake as well).

Also, the Mercedes Car Group had a dip in profits in 2004-2005 because the value of the Dollar suddenly tumbled versus the Euro and the profit per car was down (and lets face it MB's huge dip in quality didn't help). However, the brand never lost money and still turned a profit, it was just less of a profit than the prior year. Sales were still up.

Lastly, look at my earlier post. I fully blame Daimler for Chrysler's SUV-heavy lineup, but after pouring so much money into the company can you really blame Daimler for trying to shove the most profitable type of vehicle (at the time) out the door? It was short-sited, but I can still sympathize.

"can you really blame Daimler for trying to shove the most profitable type of vehicle (at the time) out the door? It was short-sited, but I can still sympathize. "

Yeah it would have made a lot more sense to skip the big profits building what people were buying and instead they could have gone broke years ago building small cars that no one was buying then.

So what is the most profitable car these days?

Even better... What will be the most profitable car 5 years from now?

Even Toyotas line up is choked with SUVs. It's really tough to perdict market and economic conditions.

Daimler is to blame for the cheap interiors but the American public is to blame for the line up.

It's tough to convince management to spend a lot to design a good small car when Americans didn't like small cars. Much easier to design and build what sells.

Yes, but you stated that they were money losers nearly every year. That simply is not the case as they were profitable just about half the length of the merger. Sorry about beating a dead horse.

And I was looking at the Chrysler Group the whole time, I am going off of memory from the articles and as I said:

1998, 1999, 2000, 2004 and 2005. Even if 2000 was a 90% reduction it still ended up as a profit of Euro501M. That is five out of 9 years.

Not great but still far better than,

"a Chrysler division that lost money nearly every year of the merger."

Firstwagon, did any of those vehicles lead to meaningful profits? Cause from what I remember the Durango, Aspen, Commander, Compass, Pacifica amongst other Chrysler efforts all flopped in the marketplace. Despite some of them being pretty good.

The Durango was a big seller in it's 1st generation and the Grand Cherokee was a big hit in it's 1st and 2nd gen.

The rest, not so much. Daimler interiors mostly.

I never noticed that Plymouth was gone.

No joke.