What ARE we going to do, Chrysler?

C/D even featured the ship in its Intrepid road test back then, comparing
cargo capacity, as I remember.

Magnum was a model in 1977-78, remember?

 

There's a condom named Magnum? I'd say that's the dumb name.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

And its original meaning, double-size bottles of champagne! Not
really such a dumb name; I think it's associated with big&powerful,
which seems to be the look they were going for with it (that the
vehicle looks like it was styled by DC's Little Tykes division is a
whole 'nother can of wroms).

 

They had a very short 2003 run and then called them 2004 so they would
have something to sell before the new vehicles were available.

 

They were certified as 2004 model year vehicles the same as any other that
is/will be available on the market. They didn't '[call] them 2004' in the
sense that they really were 2003 vehicles somehow being misrepresented as
something other than that, which is what your post clearly implies. There
are quite a few 2004 model year vehicles in production; I daresay most that
will be available as such have been being built since late summer, when the
last LHs came off the line.

It is fair to say that it was a shortened model year run.

--Geoff

 

Magnum is a Latin adjective. It is the NEUTER form of magnus, which means great,
large.

 

Yes, my sister owned a white '78 Magnum. One of my co-workers had a
Midnight Blue Magnum GT with T-Tops I lusted after.

Who can forget the use of Magnum as an engine label? 440 Magnum? The
Magnum series of truck engines?

As I said, No problem with me and Magnum. I like Intrepid too.

 

Lloyd, Chrysler had never been in better financial shape or product shape as
in 1998. They entered the merger with a hoard of cash. Quality was rising.

I hope you enjoy your Daimler 300C.

 

As far as the Daimler quality myth, read this. Stuttgart's cost cuts are
coming home to roost:

J.D. POWER AND ASSOCIATES SURVEY RESULTS: GM makes quality strides; Japanese
still dominant
Lexus is best; Mercedes slips; Focus glitchy
July 9, 2003

FREE PRESS NEWS SERVICES

While Japan's largest automakers dominated an annual vehicle quality survey
released Tuesday, General Motors Corp., scored high and DaimlerChrysler AG's
Mercedes brand stalled.

The benchmark J.D. Power and Associates survey of long-term vehicle quality
polled 55,000 owners of 3-year-old vehicles and found that some automakers
are not living up to their promises -- or reputations -- for better quality.

"About half of new car buyers say longer-term dependability is a key factor
in choosing which vehicle they want," said Joe Ivers, J.D. Power's executive
director of quality and customer satisfaction research. "This is becoming
the next major issue in the auto industry, and a much more consistent focus
from automaker to automaker than it has been in the past."

As it has for the past several years, Toyota Motor Corp.'s Lexus luxury unit
topped the brand rankings with 163 problems per 100 vehicles, followed by
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.'s Infiniti brand, GM's Buick unit, Porsche AG and
Honda Motor Co. Ltd.'s Acura brand.

"The Lexus brand has become one of the bulletproof brands out there," said
Mike Wall, an industry analyst with CSM Worldwide. "In terms of quality,
efficiency and overall manufacturing, I think Toyota's been head and
shoulders above the rest."

Among manufacturers overall, Porsche led the list, followed closely by
Toyota. Honda, Nissan and BMW AG rounded out the top five.

GM was the only one of Detroit's three automakers to rank above the industry
average of 273 problems per 100 vehicles, with its Buick, Cadillac, GMC and
Chevrolet brands all performing above average.

"GM's quality has been improving, and I think this reinforces that," Wall
said. "Their biggest challenge has been getting consumers to recognize that
and bringing them back in the fold from the Hondas, Toyotas and Nissans of
the world."

Ivers noted that GM had never performed above the industry average in prior
surveys and that the survey backed up claims from GM executives that they
were matching the quality of Japanese automakers.

This year, we see GM "sort of turn a corner," he said. "They've begun to
show evidence of closing that gap" with foreign automakers.

This spring, GM began a national advertising campaign acknowledging quality
lapses of the past to underscore progress it's made in recent years.

Ford Motor Co.'s Lincoln brand scored just above Honda and its Mercury brand
did better than the industry average. But the Ford brand was below average,
with 295 problems per 100 vehicles, dragging down the company as a whole.

While Ford's F-Series pickup topped its class, the survey was the first to
include the Ford Focus, which was plagued with quality problems when it was
launched in 1999.

"Since the 1997 model year, Ford vehicles have been improving on a
consistent basis. This year is a bit of an exception," Ivers said. "The
Focus is one of those vehicles that hasn't aged gracefully."

Perhaps the study's most shocking results involve DaimlerChrysler. Since the
1998 merger, Daimler executives have contended that Mercedes-Benz's
knowledge of how to build quality vehicles would be used to improve the
Chrysler brands.

But Chrysler, Dodge and the now-defunct Plymouth brand all outranked
Mercedes, which had 318 problems per 100 vehicles. Ivers said Mercedes'
troubles were concentrated in its M-Class sport utility vehicle and its
E-Class sedans, which accounted for roughly half its sales.

"The M-Class has had a lot of problems since its launch," Ivers said. "The
rate of deterioration on the E-Class is greater than on any other vehicle in
the industry."

Long-term quality often translates into money won or lost for automakers.
Ivers said Honda's reputation for durability translates to a $1,500 premium
in the new-car market, with an even larger premium in used vehicles.

Some of the most common problems in the new survey were excessive brake
wear, wind noise and the replacement of components not called for under the
normal maintenance schedule.

This year's survey is not directly comparable to previous studies because
J.D. Power lowered the age of the vehicles it was monitoring to catch
problems earlier.

 

Abridged version with most important section only:

Perhaps the study's most shocking results involve DaimlerChrysler. Since the
1998 merger, Daimler executives have contended that Mercedes-Benz's
knowledge of how to build quality vehicles would be used to improve the
Chrysler brands.

But Chrysler, Dodge and the now-defunct Plymouth brand all outranked
Mercedes, which had 318 problems per 100 vehicles. Ivers said Mercedes'
troubles were concentrated in its M-Class sport utility vehicle and its
E-Class sedans, which accounted for roughly half its sales.

"The M-Class has had a lot of problems since its launch," Ivers said. "The
rate of deterioration on the E-Class is greater than on any other vehicle in
the industry."


"

 

Would that people could look at endangered species the same way.

Again, relate to endangered species (survival of the fittest).

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Sold and built are two different things of course.

Check out this thread titled "Last 300M Special" over on the 300M
ezBoard:
http://pub88.ezboard.com/f300menthu...sageRange?topicID=1502.topic&start=61&stop=80

Further down in that thread, you'll see that one of the factory workers
claims that the workers signed the floor pan, and the poster himself
claims to have written "LAST LH CAR EVER" - that was on a white
Intrepid.

Earlier in that same thread, the same factory worker posted on Aug. 28
that the last M was built that day.

In other places in the thread he posts serial numbers of the last M
Specials and of the last Intrepid built incase people were interested in
purchasing a "special" Special or Intrepid.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Lloyd, Chrysler was the most efficient and profitable of the former Big
Three when it was taken over in 1998. This is a fact that can easily be
verified by going back to the business publications of the day. Both
efficiency and profitability have suffered under Daimler. Look at the stock
price alone!!!!!

No, I am not one who thinks everything was junk after the '68 Fury. I think
the current crop of LH cars were about the best overall vehicles to ever be
produced. By any manufacturer. Their balance between room and power set
standards in my opinion, but they have been scrapped.

Juergen and Dieter would like us to forget the successes of Chrysler in the
1990's. They would like to reference the dark days and they act like they
bought the company in 1980. Makes sense, everyone wants to be a hero. But
the Chrysler that had evolved into the 1990's was something special and
something we're not likely to ever see again. No car company was ever so in
tune with what the public would move toward. I felt like I had my own
personal design team in Detroit. Chrysler had a base, contrary to Daimler
Belief, and they are in the process of alienating it with the new product.

I would argue that what Dieter and Juergen are doing is more like the
Riccardo Era of Chrysler, if you want to use Chrysler History as a reference
point. You know, when green Newports with brown interiors were being built
and put into the sales bank, then force fed down the dealers throats. That
led to 1979-81. I hope I'm wrong, but the market is not asking for what
they are making. We will see.

 

That's its etymology (which I actually didn't know until you posted --
thanks!); it's original meaning in English is a noun referring to
a specific size champagne bottle.

 

did you just get shitcanned from d.c???

 

Unfortunately, this merger is turning two companies that were fit to survive
into one that will end up struggling to maintain. Chrysler for the first
time ever losing it's sales position to Toyota even if only for one month so
far this year should have been impossible at any point past November 17,
1998, if the Daimler promises held out would have been truths.

Instead of being like the Studebaker-Packard merger, which was characterized
by many to be like two drunks trying to help each other across the street,
this is turning out more like a marriage between two parties that was set up
with lies. Instead of going to divorce court, the dominant member is
smothering the other. The course was laid out when Robert Eaton turned
submissive in the final stages of negotiations. Read the book "Taken for a
Ride, How Daimler Drove Off With Chrysler"

When Chrysler bought AMC in 1987, there's no doubt that many AMC fans were
alienated. I still know a few that will never forgive the former Chrysler
for that. The stakes were much larger with this merger, and it was handled
just as if not even more poorly. And it shows no sign of improving.

 

No. I spent my teens, twenties and thirties driving and defending Chrysler products because I felt they were superior to anything offered by anyone else, especially for the money. I was a Chrysler guy before Chrysler was cool, I used to say. I talked my parents into buying a 1981 Dodge Aries because I knew Chrysler would make it. I wanted to give the merger every chance, and I most recently purchased from DCX a new 2000 Plymouth Breeze and a new 2001 PT Cruiser (both post merger cars, but designed and developed by the former design team). I'm sick and tired of the new regime trying to bury the story of the 1990's success of Chrysler. I'm the kind of guy who would choose a 300M over a 300SEL. I love my '69 Road Runner. I'm sad that the merger has turned out the way it has. I am not currently employed in the automotive industry in any form. I am in sales. I was a Chrysler Dealership Salesperson from 1985-1991. I have never been employed by Chrysler Corp. or DaimlerChrysler AG themselves.

I've spent over 15 years in sales and marketing. I've seen the coming product from DCX. I'm glad I don't depend on DCX for my livelihood, and I feel sorry for those who do. I really mean it when I say I hope I'm wrong. But when my fellow Mopar fans ask me what I think is going to happen, I say "This is the Big One". I believe that Daimler has squelched the creative soul of Chrysler, and that is what differentiated Chrysler from the pack. The products are proving it.

Some Mopar guys will like what DCX brings out. Some won't. Whether they admit it or not is another issue. Whatever the case, it's my opinion the new DCX products don't have the broad appeal to bring the non "car guys" into the showroom like they used to. And, to manage the Chrysler brands like Mercedes is suicide. Textbooks of the future for marketing classes will be written on that.

When I was driving my 2000 Breeze (which I drove 150,000 troublefree miles before trading it - so much for Dieter's recent claim that Chrysler's were never tested beyond 100K miles in the past!) and I saw the new Stratus/Sebring, I felt like my Breeze was a newer, fresher design. I knew things had gone terribly wrong. The final approval of that design was one of the first that Daimler put it's mark on (fender ridges make it look like a VW from the side).

To top it all off, I've been offended by some of the marketing, especially immediately following Dieter's rise to power. Wife swapping minivan ads, then an attempt to tie the merger to Werner Von Braun and the Apollo space Program (Which Chrysler Corporation helped make reality!). That went too far!

I've stayed away from Mopar discussion groups for a year or so because back then what I was saying was almost universally unpopular. But the press has more or less been supporting my opinions recently, and I came back to see if we had woken up yet or if we were still expecting Prowler, PT Cruiser, and Viper type home runs from the new regime. Ain't gonna happen. Chrysler dealer sentiment toward the future has reached it's lowest ebb since they started keeping track in the early 1980's (I still have friends in the business). How would you feel if you only had a station wagon to replace the Intrepid at Dodge, the B Van was replaced with something already sold by Freightliner, PLUS it looked like a school bus, and what ever else was coming looked nothing like what you had been selling for years? Either it's gonna work or it isn't. That's for sure!






did you just get shitcanned from d.c???
Kevin Wolford wrote:

RE: So what says Chrysler Corp.?
Chrysler Corporation is and will be forevermore silent. Chrysler
Corporation ceased to exist on November 17, 1998. Chrysler can't say
anything because Daimler-Benz AG bought it, ran off the bulk of it's design
and management talent, and replaced it with "superior" German talent. What
bricks and mortar that haven't been closed or sold off are still there, but
what was Chrysler is now just part of a five year old enterprise named
DaimlerChrysler AG. (Note who's name is first in the GERMAN headquartered
company's name!) Auburn Hills, kind of a branch headquarters if you will,
lives and dies by and MUST conform to the wishes of Stuttgart. Many names
responsible for the product resurgence at Chrysler in the 1990's are gone
because they chose not to live like that.

Instead of attempting to maintain and preserve what had made Chrysler
successful, Daimler has swept through the company as if they had bought a
basket case in need of a rebuild. It has taken this long for the total
effect of the new ownership to present itself in the showroom because of the
lead time from concept to production in the auto business (which is much
longer under the European methods of management than by those pioneered by
the FORMER Chrysler Corporation), and the year or two Daimler took to
wrestle control in an attempt to make it look like the "Merger of Equals"
they claimed it was. Of course, doubters of that will point to the early
"financial losses", and the need for Daimler to do something. If that
argument is pursued though, one could say they have thrown the baby out with
the bathwater. Also, if you are not prepared for economic cycles, then why
are you in the auto business?

What can we do? We could buy what is made for us and ask no questions. But
that is why I was a Mopar Man in the first place. I didn't fall for the
Ford or GM line of old. And I just couldn't bring myself to buy an import.
That left me only one choice. And now that choice is gone. Those distinct
Chrysler design cues are soon to be forever lost. Oh sure there were big
changes at times in the past, but never before were they made by people
outside of the Chrysler Corporation, let alone from another existing
European automaker (One who thinks what the USA needs a good lesson in
Diesels, boxy bodies, and Station Wag, er, uh "Sport Tourers" (excuse me!).

One little thing I hate about the new products is that the interiors are
distinctly European, all squared off with the hazard lights button on the
center of the dash. Not what I expect in a Mopar. And RWD? What FWD
Mercedes could they have shared parts with? Even though older Mopar nuts
like me loved the old 1980 and prior RWD's, FWD saved the former company,
and the bulk of the former Chrysler's base (particularly in Northern
climates) love FWD Mopars. Remember, the merger was justified by economies
of scale through parts sharing (remember who's name is first!).

Anyone who has been cruising along thinking the landscape hasn't changed
will have to do some real self examination over the next few years. I wish
all of you luck in your personal journey into future. If you like what
Daimler likes, you're in luck.

 

Wrong. Chrysler was losing money big time -- they hid this from the Daimler
folks until after the deal was struck. Chrysler had also become the least
efficient of the Big 3 -- most hours and most employees to make a vehicle.
And quality was rising? I guess you could say so, just like if your fever
drops from 103 to 102, it's coming down.

I hope you enjoy your Daimler 300C.

 

Brand new model. Often have problems first year. The old adage "never buy a
car in its first year" ring a bell?

 

I've looked at the data, all the stories, Lutz's book. Chrysler had become
the least efficient of the Big 3. It had "lost its way," according to Lutz.

Because rwd offers better ride and handling for a big car.

Success for a year followed by misery for 3 years, just like in the 1980s.
Chrysler was always feast or famine. They'd finally make some money, and then
they wouldn't plow it back into R & D (remember how long everything was based
on the K car?), so they started losing money again. Chrysler seemed to lurch
from one financial crisis to another. By 1998, the Chrysler management was
desperate -- they knew Chrysler could not survive alone; it was losing too
much money. BMW was approached, but since the company is privately held, the
stock swap would have run afoul of German tax laws. Honda was approached, but
nothing came of that. Finally Daimler approached Chrysler, and management
jumped at what they felt was a life preserver.

Like Stratus? Cirrus? Neon? Want to talk about their sales?

What people said when the formal roof cars were replaced with cab forward.