Daimler-Chrysler Divorce Negotiations Underway

Gordon Hudson wrote:

You're trying to compare a Mercedes to a Ford Taurus? The two cars are
not in the same market at all. One of the problems is the more
stringent emission and mpg standards in the USA.

Which engine are you referring to? The 2006 ML350's V6 is rated at
268hp. I'm finding the American engines generally have more torque than
their European counterparts.

None the less the American designed and built Nissan VQ-series V6 puts
out 306hp.

GM's 2007 L32 V6 produces 260hp and 280ft-lb torque compared with the
ML350 V6's 250ft-lbs.

 

Most people don't drive like you do.

For them, reasonable ride and handling combined with greater interior
and trunk space makes FWD a better system.

What control do you have when the rear wheels spin and the rear
fishtails? Look at what they've spent on ABS to prevent this from
happening under braking. Yet you think its OK under power.

 

Whereas a BMW shows that the owner is still trying to get there...

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

 

Haven't the rubber mixes changed?

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

 

I thought the main reason was that Mercedes buying its way into the US
market and tripling its car output. (Chrysler sales were already double
Mercedes's worldwide.)

Crossfire is made in Germany, at the Karmann factory (a contract
manufacturer) in Osnabrück, or was when I visited it just as the Crossfire
was being launched.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

[...]

[...]

 

I dont get it. RWD Chryslers were (and still are) hot. Everybody seems
to dream of a hemi. And if you can afford a hemi you can surely afford
snow tires. The Dodge Rams sell very well too. Ford and GM have nothing
on Chrysler IMO. So WTF is going on? The snow theory is just dumb.

 

More stringent mpg standards ?

You have to be joking !

Graham

 

Anyone that believes they "have arrived" probably didn't know where they
were going to begin with...

 

It is very difficult for me to believe that anyone interested in the
ability to travel during limited traction conditions such as Snow, Ice
or Mud would even consider buying a vehicle that is not Four Wheel
Drive.

In my life, it is either 4X4 or Rear Wheel Drive. A front drive
vehicle is totally unacceptable for a person that loves to drive and
knows how. There are none parking in my garage and there won't be in
the future.

Bruce

 

This is a REALLY good question. In 2005, Mercedes lost money, but Chrysler
paid their bills. This year, the media are all reporting that Chrysler is a
drag on Mercedes and how bad Chrysler's problems are and blah blah blah, as
if Chrysler was in the same shape as Ford. If anything, Chrysler's problem
is that Mercedes took their money. It's a strange situation, but you just
never know what the media will say. They can say whatever they want.

I also think it's funny that a post on the whole breakup situation spawned a
100-post cross-posted thread in which EVERY POST except yours was about snow
tires. What's next, ash trays? turn signals? Can't you guys find something
interesting to post about?

 

I got a Lincoln Towncar that says different.

 

Sorry, no, they weren't. They were just crappy bias-ply tires with big
knobby treads.

Big nobby things... I'll take modern compounds and tread design, thanks.

 

In that I make an effort to drive properly, yep.

Properly designed, trunk space and interior space differences are negligible.

I have no problem with proper tires. And what control do I have? It's
called a throttle and a clutch. How do you control the rear of a FWD car?
The only control system over the rear wheels of such a car is the parking
brake.

 

Generally speaking, you want separate wheels for steering and power
anyway. What's the point of having one axle do everything and the other
axle just holding up half the car?

 

I bet Chrysler will rebound once they are separated from Mercedes.

Ken

 

The BHP varies depending how they set it up.
The one in my SLK350 is 285 BHP.

The reason American cars use so much more petrol is that they run them
inefficiently like we used to back in the 80's.
Because fuel prices in Europe got so high all the manufacturers had to look
at using the engines more efficiently.
My 1.8L Kompressor is about 143BHP from a 1.8L engine.

American cars are cheap in the US but over here are expensive.
The Chrysler 300C is about the same price as a bottom end E Class Mercedes
and they are often sold through the same dealers.
As a result the Chrysler does not sell.
I have seen two on the road here yet I see many more new Mercedes E Class
cars on the road round here.
The dealers can't sell the Chryslers.

 

Yes, thats a serious problem especially if you can't turn the traction
control totally off for a reverse hill start in the snow.
Two years ago I couldn't get out of my driveway because of the ESP stopping
me reversing up the drive out of the house.
Meanwhile my wife got off to work in her 1L Nissan Micra with no problems.

I spent the moprning digging and gritting.
All i succeeded in doing was mocving the car 15 feet sideways!

 

Now that IS a good American car.

 

I hope you're joking.

 

Why would he be?

Have you ever owned or driven one?

That is a nice car. It drives nice and looks good.
It sure does drive better than most of the Mercedes-Benz I have driven and
the V8 is has can really get that car moving quick. The Continental had only
a V6 and has since been discontinued.
Though I have the older model which is the most popular due to its larger
size and nicer looks, and the trunk space is huge. [4 body size? ;-) ] I
also get lots of compliments on it. It looks almost new.
The newest ones are too rounded and much smaller than the previous
generation.
Gonna keep this one a long time.