We've been reading a whole lot recently about the possible DaimlerChrysler breakupbut mostly from an American perspective. Here we now have a German perspective on the situation. This is an English version of a story that ran on the German Spiegel Online
. It gives further insight as to how the Germans view this mess...
One thing is very clear: The Germans don't see the marriage as being salvageable. They're absolutely convinced that Mercedes would be better off without Chrysler.
It goes without saying that Dr. Z's future is closely tied as to how this all turns out. A number of the vehicles that are not selling well at Chrysler were developed under Zetsche's watch. If he can sell off Chrysler, much of that may go unnoticed.
Full story here.
It goes without saying that Dr. Z's future is closely tied as to how this all turns out. A number of the vehicles that are not selling well at Chrysler were developed under Zetsche's watch. If he can sell off Chrysler, much of that may go unnoticed.
Full story here.
ateixeira says:
08:59 AM, 02/22/07
I think it's more a matter of letting good products go stale. The product cycles seem like an eternity, how old are the current vans for instance?
The Durango seems ancient, and the Aspen is the old Durango with a tux. It's no match for the Escalade, like Chrysler isn't even trying.
Their one big hit, the 300C, hasn't seen any significant updates since the launch. Why?
Caliber was a double, but the Sebring seems like a bunt at best, maybe even a pop fly.
Crossfire is a recycled old Mercedes that never met sales expectations.
Pacifica seems old. Instead of upgrades, they give us a downgraded base engine to cut costs. That's supposed to help the product succeed?
PT is so retro, how do you follow that up? They backed that one in to a corner.
Dakota and Ram also seem ancient next to the newer entries from GM and Toyota. Even Ford, actually. And pretty much all their trucks have lower then class-average fuel economy.
Chrysler seems to come out with great designs, and then rest on their laurels for 7 long years, some times longer. What was a great platform in 2000 is a mediocre also-ran in 2007.
rsholland says:
09:18 AM, 02/22/07
I think part of the problem is that there too many 1-night-stand offerings from Chrysler. I don't see many models that were there 20 years ago, or that will be there 20 years from now.
Take Honda for example: The Accord debuted in 1976, and the Civic even earlier. They have been in production ever since they debuted without interruption. Those model lines now have a history and heritage—and that's very important in customers minds.
How many midsize and small sedan "names" has Chrysler used in that same time span of the Accord and Civic? Each time they change model names it's because they want to forget the outgoing model—and that's killing them...
roar02ram says:
01:56 PM, 02/22/07
Chrysler needs a new design language, in short. Their cars, which, remember, were class-leading & award winning in the mid-90s, followed much the same design philosophy right up until the cars that were released last year. That's bad. The 300 should've been a halo-car, an uplevel vehicle that shouldn't have gone to fleets and shouldn't have been offered in cloth-upholstered, wheel-covers-shod, 2.7-liter anchor weight versions. The rest of the company's design language needed to draw on that, but tone it down for the mass market. So far, they haven't succeeded with that one.
estreka says:
04:20 PM, 02/23/07
Quality too. GM has fixed their interior problems (though I'm not sure the fritzy electronics are better). Ford has drastically improved since the '90s when I knew them as Fix Or Replace Daily. Now, Chrysler makes good engines (when they make them at all), but almost every product they make has some other flaw (trannies in trucks, auxillary equipment to include A/C across the lineup, bad fit'n'finish, etc). They are the only company I see no improvement from.
Past performance or not, they still don't produce quality materials required to compete in the market.
playdrv4me says:
06:53 AM, 02/25/07
It is a combination of all those factors. With GM improving everyday (though how long will the about-face last?), and Ford having a solid core of products, it is more than anything simply a case of product no one wants to buy.
It's all happened at least twice before. Most recently in the early 90's. Chrysler was on the verge of collapse following a stale and aging K-Car product lineup. This after riding the wave of success from it's minivans, and the much touted Jeep Cherokee it acquired via AMC as long as it possibly could. Still, It took beating death's door to FINALLY give us the "Cab Forward" generation... all the darlings of the news media until they just sat around collecting dust AGAIN into the mid 2000's. Now Daimler has taken over, and sprinkled bits of life here and there, but mostly in places no one cared about.
Outside of the 300 Series, what vehicle does Chrysler have now that is a "status" vehicle, the one you WANT to be seen in. Yes, the Jeeps are nice, but that brand has been diluted with the introduction of the Compass and Patriot; two vehicles answering questions no one asked. Cadillac has worked very hard for it's come-back... and at least for now, people WANT those cars.
I say, sell Jeep to an appropriate suitor, and do what you will with Chrysler. Say what you want about the jobs it creates... do those employed by this lumbering giant need to continue being "yo-yo'ed" for the rest of this company's forseeable future? The truth is Jeep is the only part of that relationship worth salvaging, and thats the harsh reality. Think about it... Outside of a few Jeeps, the only Chrysler products that people get excited about, are the overpriced muscle cars from the 1960's and 70's. That was Chrysler's only truly shining moment in the U.S. auto industry. Unfortunately, you can't live in the past forever.