I just read on blue oval news.com that Daimler spinning off chrysler is a real possablity. They stated the rasons being decreased sales and increased cost from the union contracts, mostly the retiree sector. It could get interesting here in the near future. I know ford is looking for a partner, but I don't know if chrysler would help much if thier looseing money as well, of course they talked with gm and thier in the red. I for one would like to see ford and chrysler get together, I've allways been a jeep fan and that would put my 2 favorite vehicles together, ford and jeep. Wishfull thinking, but it would be cool !!!

 

I believe I heard them say on NPR that Ford is in the worst shape on paper but, they have hired a first rate design team (some of Chryslers best among others) and owned up their financial condition and that they will recover quicker than GM or Chrysler. They also said Daimler was not going to spin off Chrysler.(we know how that goes)
I did not hear all of the broadcast so there may be more to it than what I heard.

 

Big management at it's best. They charge $25K + for a truck then wonder why no-one can afford to buy it. If Ford (or any auto maker) built a base model pickup, no frills, They'd fly off the lots. Come to think of it a friend bought a brand new Focus not that long ago. It cost less than a used car. That can not be good for Ford's bottom line.

 

My ex-wife was a sales manager at both a Ford and Toyota dealership in the mid 1990's. Internal corporate documents at both showed the low end cars like the Escort and Tercel were loss leaders. In the case of the Escort, Ford really lost almost $500 per unit and Toyota loss about $200 or broke even on the Tercel's. They were meant to get first time buyers into the "family" so future sales would include higher margin models.

Hootbro

 

I'll take the blame I suppose as forgot to mention that marketing that base vehicle is also a factor. You are not going to sell a geo to a millonare and your not going to sell a jaguar to a hog farmer. A $500 loss. Okay what did they sell for aproximatly? (not trying to put you on the spot either) If the demand was reat the could easily have been risen $500 to compensate for this loss. Here's what I see in America. Everybody wants a top of the line luxury for base price. This is where marketing steps in. I would sell this base truck to the govt. Be it local, state or federal. The govt. sells off it's old vehicles every so often once enough of these '"ovt. surplus" vehicles were on the streets it would start to build a consumer base. Also the local govt. workers driving around in a vehicle with your name on it would be a very powerful marketing tool. There are alot of people who want luxury there are also alot of people who are just happy they do not have to walk. Union labor does not help the cost any either

 

Daimler really only wanted Jeep anyway, they had to take Chrysler Dodge and Plymouth (which they killed) as part of the bargain. The good things that came from the merger for North American customers are the Dodge Sprinter turbodiesel van and a return to RWD cars, like the 300. For some reason, Dodge truck sales tanked worse than Ford or GM this summer.

Jim

 

I paid about $13k for a base-model 1995 Mercury Tracer (basically same as an Escort) and around $15.5k for a 1999 Escort wagon with about every option that you could get.

I think Chrysler may still be suffering from the same problem Ford is--too many people got burned by the junk they sold before. I had the joy of watching my mom fight with the same electrical and mechanical problems on a 1986 LeBaron GTS, a 1990 Plymouth Sundance, and a 1994 Dodge Shadow. You would think, in seven years, that they could have fixed at least some of those problems....Thanks to those three, some issues with a 1986 Dodge W-100 I owned myself, and experiences with a couple Chrysler dealers when I decided I wanted a new car, I have not even considered a Chrysler since. Ford's in the same boat. The trouble (for them) is that there's so many different brands of cars available today that people don't have to buy one that they have gotten screwed by before, and the American car companies don't get many second chances to make up for a lemon they sold someone earlier.

 

And a base model (make no money) truck would be good for fords bottom line?

 

To sell to the govt. you have to be the low bidder and the vehicle has to be to their specs. What do you do it you build a bunch planning on selling them to the govt. and you are underbid by another manufacturer? Ford had a lock on police cars here in Virginia because they had the only car available that met the specs. However, the state changed their specs. and suddenly the contract was with GM for FWD Impalas. You can go from Hero to Zero with the stroke of a pen.

 

Okay let me elaborate. Those option put on trucks cost extra money both to manufacutre and it costs ore for pkeep as there is one more machine to maintian. In the case of outsourcing work the contracting company has to keep up the equipment and then passes the cost on to the OEMs. By eliminating these fancy option it would cost the automaker less to make the truck. It would sell for less and more people would buy it. Here's a real world example. Why is it that the base model GM pickup sells for $12K and the Base model Ford pickup sells for $15-16K(based on local dealer prices)

 

I can believe that- and here's why. These are the Chrysler vehicles I've owned over the years:
87 Dakota 2WD
87 Jeep Wrangler 4x4
89 Ram Charger 2WD
92 Shadow
92 Dakota 2WD
93 Spirit RT
93 Daytona
93 Dakota 4x4
93 Ram 4x4 CTD
94 Dakota 4x4
03 Dakota 4x4
03 Ram 4x4 Hemi

All were bought new (with the exception of the Jeep Wrangler) and all were exceptional vehicles in quality and reliabilty (also with the exception of the Jeep Wrangler) except for two; both of the Daimler-Chrysler vehicles (03 Dakota 4x4, 03 Ram 4x4 Hemi) were absolute junk. Build quality on both was poor, both suffered constant breakdowns, SES lights, etc. Both suffered from poor gas mileage, which indicates poor programming in the ECM and both also exhibited poor electronics in the transmissions resulting in a lot of excess shifting and hunting while towing. Both vehicles developed leaky axle seals and had multiple fuel-injector failures.
Poor quality control, poor design, poor electronics.
It's no wonder GM & Ford posted better sales than Dodge.

IMO it's a shame what Daimler has done to (what used to be) a fine automobile...

 

Catdave is right on the money. I've own many Dodges thru the years with not much problem. Then I bought a 2001 Jeep Wrangler 60th Anniversery edition. The Jeep looked great but it was the biggest piece of EDIT ever. After several visits to the dealership for the problems they finally told me that they were not going to fix it anymore do to the fact that I didn't buy it there (I moved to Kansas City MO shortly after buying the Jeep) I said "fine I want to trade it in". They said "great go pick out what you want from the lot and we'll deal". I said "Hell no" and went to the Dick Smith Ford lot next door. I made the guys from Dick Smith go and get my old Jeep. I've owned Ford's since. So far I've had no problems out of them.

Didn't mean to rant.

 

Catdave, your 87 jeep wrangler was an american motors vehicle still, but I get your point. Chyrslers biggest down fall the way I see it is, they want to stuff a hemie in every vehcle with gas at 3.00 bucks a gallon, thats hurt them, they also have had a lot of quality control problems as far back as 04 when I was still selling them, I don't know about now. I didn't have any problems from jeep, my 02 wrangler, or my present 06 liberty, but I haven't owned it long. Fords problems started with the firestone feasco and has been down hill ever since. Ford bet the bank on truck and suv sells while doing little with thier car lines so to speak, now they are caught with thier pants down, or were, they are on the mend. Truck sells will rebound, folks will allways need trucks as they allways have, maybe not the yuppies, but real truck people. The suv craze is history, crossover's will take thier place and awd cars. Ford is positioning itself well in this market with the escape, freestyle, edge and the awd fusion and 500. They have suffered the worse looses in 20 years last quarter, but they expected it and expect more because of reconstructioning costs. It's gonna be painfull, but I believe thier on the right trac. The 08 superduty will be awesome with the new 450 version and 6.4 diesel for real truck users, the f-150 will be fine, more so when they get that inhouse diesel v6, the focus and ranger need a good redesign, not just a make over. The focus was really a hot car for years, but it's getting long in the tooth, the ranger could stay the same, I love it, but the buying public has a whole doesn't see it that way. An all new trail worthing bronco is upcomming, may be able to get some of the wrangler crowd, things look bright as far as product. Now as far as the union and health care + pension costs, I don't have a clue as how to go about addressing those issues. How would some of you guy's go about fixing that expect, I'm clueless (opinions) ?

 

Now as far as the union and health care + pension costs, I don't have a clue as how to go about addressing those issues. How would some of you guy's go about fixing that expect, I'm clueless (opinions) ?[/QUOTE]

Can a company just throw out a union if they are hurting competion? Just curious. I've never been in a union before.

A union from my neck of the woods went on strike last February at a Steel factory and they are still on strike. It was on the news today that that same steel company had a 5 billion dollar loss last year but has a 126 million profit so far this year with so called "scabs" making $16.00 a hour.

I'd kill for $16.00 an hour.

 

Me too. Unions have a tendency to kill companies. Just like Homecrest (local company) They demand big wages and the company has to past he cost on, consumers quit buying and the company goes belly up.