Schrempp next to go

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&sid=acTJjfRDoI54&refer=columnist_lynn

 

It is an interesting article, even if there is nothing new in it.

Two comments:

1) I am always amused when people try to class Mercedes-Benz as a niche
manufacturer. With 1 m cars p.a. it is definitely in the mass-production
league already, certainly outside the US. (IIRC Chrysler makes 2.2 m cars
p.a. approx.)

Schrempp, I suppose, wanted a faster 'in' into the US car market, though
buying an existing manufacturer with a checkered financial record may be
more a matter of megalomania than good business sense.


2) Claiming that Ford's foray into the 'luxury' end by buying Jaguar is
similar to DB's purchase of Chrysler in the sense of combining 'mass' with
'luxury', then failing is, IMO, rubbish. Perhaps there IS a similarity.
Both (i.e. Ford and DB) bought a pig-in-a-poke.

Jag cars were terribly unreliable when Ford bought the company, made in an
outdated factory with outdated plant. Buying Jag was great for Jag; it's
just that the price paid by Ford was far too high. However, now we have a
decent car, but it took years and billions of dollars to get here. I have
no special insight but I wouldn't be surprised if there were many internal
debates at Ford to drop the enterprise.

DAS

 

Still, wildly successful ones usually aren't for sale. And sometimes things
turn out right -- Renault's purchase of Nissan looks like a good move.
(Ironically, Schrempp wanted to buy it for DC, but the Chrysler people in DC
management opposed it, so DC bought Mitsubishi instead.)

BMW's purchase of Rover comes closer.

 

But also recognizable as cars on a par with BMW, Audi, and Jaguar. Heck, in
most of the world, trucks with the 3-pointed star outnumber cars with it, but
the cars are still highly esteemed.

Not at the time of the merger, as the DB folks found out only after the
merger.

Sorry, it did. Their employees per car were higher than Ford or GM, as were
their man-hours per car and cost per car.

The cars "responsible" for the quality problems are the E-class introduced in
96, the first model to try to answer Lexus by building to a price instead of
letting engineers control things, and the M-class, the first SUV and first
model made in the US.

ohv IL-6 and solid axles? Are you kidding?

Daimler will not ditch ailing Chrysler
Sunday July 27, 12:57 pm ET


FRANKFURT, July 27 (Reuters) - German autos giant DaimlerChrysler AG
(XETRACXGn.DE - News) remains committed to its ailing U.S. Chrysler unit and
has no intention of selling it, a company board member told a German
newspaper.

"Chrysler belongs to us, just like Mercedes-Benz," DaimlerChrysler board
member Ruediger Grube told Die Welt newspaper, according to an advance copy of
an article to be published on Monday.

"The strategy that DaimlerChrysler has been following since the 1998 merger
needs time, because we are dependent on the product cycles in the auto
industry," Grube was quoted as saying.

The world's fifth-biggest carmaker said last week its core profits sank by
nearly two thirds in the second quarter, hit by losses of 948 million euros
($1.1 billion) at Chrysler.

Chrysler's woes have fuelled questions about the strategic logic of its 1998
merger with Daimler-Benz, since when the group's stock has lost nearly three
quarters of its value.

Grube also said DaimlerChrysler was confident of sealing a planned trucks
joint venture with Korean manufacturer Hyundai Motor , with union negotiations
the final hurdle.

DaimlerChrysler planned to form a 400-million-euro joint venture in the first
half of 2003 with Hyundai, South Korea's top automaker, but tough labour
demands have been delaying the deal.

 

Curious to know where they went, if known? To the Big Two?

Another point: I am not so familiar with Chrysler US designs of, say, 10
years ago (don't see that many US cars in Europe, and I am excluding the
cars produced by Chrysler in Europe many years ago) but, in general, I can
say that in west-European eyes the 'ordinary' saloons/sedans in America did
not appear to be that good-looking on the whole. Recently I made a point of
going into a Chrysler showroom (in Germany, in fact) to get a look at the
range and the cars are quite good-looking. Also when in North America I
feel that appearances in general have improved. Of course there are
exceptions and there are fine examples of pleasing shapes twenty years old
or more.

Last April in the US I hired a Sebring convertible and, for the few days I
had it, was pleased with it. Just the combination of white paint and a
beige top jarred a bit; black would have been so much sexier. (I never did
find the person at the rental company who made that purchasing decision...)

This is in reference to the "bright stylists" you mentioned.

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
.................................

..................................

 

I was thinking more of US-company cars in general, but I take your point
about Chrysler designs being pre-takeover. I wasn't intending to suggest
that Chrysler's design improvements were due Merc ownership.

Interestingly, a recent Crossfire review in a respected national UK Sunday
paper, while mixed on technical matters, came out quite strongly in favour
of the appearance. It did, however, add that this may not be enough to lure
drivers away from their BMWs and Mercs etc.

Regarding staff moves, I knew about Bob Lutz, but I did not know he was a
designer 'by trade'.

DAS