Chrysler should NOT GET A PENNY of our money.

GM is another story, as is Ford, but not the same story -- Ford actually has been doing fairly well and has some cash on hand, but is obviously being screwn by the current financial crisis. Chrysler, otoh, is a privately-held company whose owner has tons of cash but refuses to invest any more of it. So fuck them. If Chrysler's own holding company doesn't even have enough faith in it's investment to pony up some cash, then why should we? This angle really pisses me off. Chrysler really does make crap, penis-mobiles for insecure men, that's about it. They don't sell anywhere but in the US. They don't make any small cars. Why on earth should our money go into a privately held company whose owners don't even want to contribute? I don't get it.

:shrug:

.

Not really much of a "penis mobile"

:-)

:-)

That was a few years ago. Recently we wound up with one of their sedans as a rental. I forget which nameplate -- because the car was utterly forgettable. I was a big, hulking dick-mobile (a 300 or something along those lines). It was brand new, only a few thousand miles on it, but the interior was the cheapest, flimsiest pos I've ever seen. Knobs were already falling off, trim didn't fit. And the equipment, for a supposedly higher-end car, was very lacking.

When you stepped on the gas -- which it consumed copious amounts of -- it growled. But not in a good way. Not like the sound of power, more like Carol Channing eating thumbtacks with a whiskey and sand chaser. It was the first time I actually wanted to get back to my own car after renting a new higher end car.

But all that is completely beside the point of my post. Chrysler's owners have LOTS of cash on hand. They could easily bail Chrysler out all on their own without our help. But they refuse to contribute a penny. Why should we? That's all I'm asking -- never mind the quality issues or styling issues, we've discussed them ad nauseum. I'm just talking about a company whose ownership doesn't even have faith in them. Again...why should we care about them?

.

Misplaced criticism of Chrysler's product line aside, won't this be like Chrysler's third or fourth bailout in as many decades? Maybe we should quit giving the junkie drug money?

If the owners want the company to continue, they can stop using it as a cash cow and reinvest. If not, let them sell it off to Toyota or somebody else who's willing to run it and work on increasing the fuel efficiency.

I actually considered a PT cruiser but the mileage sucked. Cargo room was great, but I didn't want to have to overfeed a car to get where I'm going.

And you're also right about the number of bailouts that company has had. At some point, these guys need to be allowed to fail as an example to others out there who are doing the same things to their companies.

The mileage turned out to be better than the rated mileage. A little surprised by that. My wife doesn't put too many miles on it, but even with mostly small town driving on it, (plus doctor visits out of town) she gets about 26 or 27.

It's got the same engine as my Sebring Convertible, but i get much better mileage with the ragtop. So, i'm thinking the difference must be the taller, boxier shape of the Cruiser.

But, she does love that car.
GAC

as is weight. In fact, it's more economical to drive at high speed with the windows closed and the AC on--Mythbusters did that one. At city speeds, it's more economical to have the windows open and the AC off.

I've liked the feel of their cars when I've had them as rentals, but I'm terminally cheap.

My Kia has nearly as much cargo room and gets 40+ on the highway, AC on.

Fortunately, at 27 or so, since she only puts 4500 miles a year on the car, she only uses about 160 gallons all year. But, 40 is superb.

The ragtop is much lower, much more aerodymanic, and with the top down, and with the highly raked windshield, there is even zero resistance on the roof line. (Of course, since there is no roof!)

But, you're Kia performance is outstanding.
GAC

When I donated my 94 Jeep Cherokee, it had over 250k miles on it with almost no problems. My 07 Jeep Wranger is also a good vehicle. Neither are crap penis mobiles.

Are Jeep Wranglers all Chrysler sells? Please re-read my post. It's not an issue of quality or how far you drove your Jeep.

.

Why should we pay when they have the means to save themselves if they really want to be saved? Obviously it is a lot easier to get a handout, but really.... the brazenness (is that a word?) of some of these companies is amazing.

both with way less than 100,000 miles. They build crap and pretty much always have. One is a '03 dodge truck with 60,000 thousand miles that blew a water pump and got really hot before he noticed it getting hot and now it runs like it is going to quit him any day, when its setting and idling it shakes like a dog shitt'n a peach seed. The other is a '01 durango with about 90,000 miles and they've had to replace most of all the front end parts, ball joints, tie rod ends etc. Plus over the summer they had to replace the transmission at the tune of a little over 1500 buxs and its still loosing fluid. I run from Chrysler products, wouldn't keep it if I was given one. We have two fords and both are 10 years old with better than 120,000 miles on them and I've replaced the plugs and a vacuum line on each, thats it. They both still look and act like they did when new, seats still look like new where as the dodges my friends have on both of them the driver side seat covers are in tatters. Other than the workers there I have no symphony for Chrysler.

In fact, I've been happy with all of them.

Some of them are re-badged, e.g. Town and Country is known as the Voyager but they actually recently introduced the Dodge brand to the UK, and been selling Chrysler and Jeeps for years. Chrysler had a presence in Europe in the late 60's and much of the 70's but Peugeot bought those operations out in 1979.

But yep, if Chrysler are going down, their parent company should go down too.

Mark.

My apologies for my misstatement about Chrysler's overseas sales. I was actually just repeating what I had heard on one of the so-called "news" programs the other day, and it was obviously wrong.

.

Just sayin'...

...that thousands of jobs would disappear overnight? Mine included. How about the fact that even though Cerberus Capital Management has investments in other companies that if pulled away from the rest of those companies would put those companies into near bankruptcy as well? Meaning more job loss? Were all for that around here though, right? How about the fact that you over generalize the customers that buy the vehicles that we build? "Penis crap mobiles?" Why is it that you ultra neo liberals seem to think that insulting people is the best way to get them on side? You talk about people you don't know and make these snap value judgments when you don't get your way not realizing that you are just as bad as some of the people you talk about. Don't make any small cars? Gee, I don't know about that one sunshine. The Caliber, the Compass, the Sebring, the Avenger these all seem very small. Don't sell anywhere but in the U.S.? Hmmm. That might surprise the people working at Chrysler U.K, Chrysler Europe, Chrysler Australia, Chrysler Mexico and of course our CAW covered brothers and sisters at Chrysler Canada. "Crap,penis-mobiles". What about all of those families buying all of those minivans? Yeah, THERE is a crap penis-mobile. Maybe you'd be happier if we built vehicles for "self-important,sanctimonious-holier than thou" people as you seem to be. You know, i take this very personally. For 13 years i've been doing this. It is hard work. Sometimes mind numbing work. But theses are good hard working people. And i'm proud to be one them. I'm proud to be someone who works with his hands and actually build things. Tangible things. Not asset backed paper bullshit. SO FUCK YOU.

I understand why you're upset. I also acknowledge that a lot of Chrysler's products are not exactly mobile symbols of manhood, and I apologize for the over-generalization. Chrysler practically invented the minivan market, and the Town & Country luxury version we rented for a trip to Ohio a few years ago was one of the nicest vehicles I've had the pleasure to drive.

But just as GM cannot sustain itself with one specialized success (I'm not even sure what the would be!), Chrysler is much more than minivans. The trend toward toy-truck styling with the massive, imposing grills and chopped and channeled look was clearly designed to appeal to a that "manly" customer. Same with the trucks. Whether they're actually rugged or not -- I'm struck by the thinness of the seats, for instance, compared to other trucks -- they've been designed to look like giant toys. All the extra crap just makes them heavier, less efficient, more likely to be sold to people who actually have no use for such a vehicle beyond the cool-toy factor. Look, I don't know where you fit in the Chrysler food chain...on the line? In the front office? In the design department? Unless you're the one actually designing the things and speccing out inferior materials or responsible for QC, I think your rage at me is at least partially misdirected. You can only build what the engineers create, from the materials you're provided.

It's certainly my own fault for adding editorial commentary regarding my personal opinion of Chrysler's products to a post which was meant to be more about Cerberus's seeming total disinterest in the success or failure of it's own holding. They're a holding company, and you're way over-simplifying it to say that they'd simply be taking the money away from their other holdings. I suggest you channel some of the anger towards the huge private company who already funds stuff like this. I sure understand why they'd rather hold out for a handout, but I think it's wrong.

I feel badly for you that your job is at stake, truly. It must be terrifying, and I sincerely hope this all works out for you and your family.

.