|
18 Dec 08 - 08:19 AM (#2518774) Subject: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: Bobert Stranger things have happened but word on the street is that GM and Chrysler are talkin' about mergin'... I donno why GM would have any interest in a company that brought US the Gremlin and the Horizon and the Aries and that dreaded Imperial... Okay, they got luck with the Dodge Dart but that's when their luck ran out... Don't do it, GM... Whadaya'allthink??? B~ |
|
18 Dec 08 - 09:07 AM (#2518804) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: Rapparee It'll make the bankruptcy easier if GM doesn't change it's ways.... |
|
18 Dec 08 - 09:16 AM (#2518814) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: catspaw49 Yeah Bobertz, GM has such a great track record with the Corvair, Corvan, Vega, Monza, all those wonderful 5.7 Diesel models ......not to mention the Chevette............... Actually, I find it pretty weird myself but if you're not a car guy, what's the big deal? Two fat companies getting their comeuppance at last to a lot of folks............For the car guys, the days of the muscle cars are long gone and any type of return to those days is out of the question so does it really matter? Spaw |
|
18 Dec 08 - 09:23 AM (#2518821) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: Amos GM would be better off buying Chevrolet and funding the now-deferred Volt engine factory. A |
|
18 Dec 08 - 09:25 AM (#2518823) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: catspaw49 What? |
|
18 Dec 08 - 11:41 AM (#2518952) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: frogprince What? is right. Spaw, I think Amos just lost it totally! (In case any catter's in Timbuktu don't know, Chevrolet has been a division of GM since just after the American Civil War. |
|
18 Dec 08 - 11:44 AM (#2518955) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: pdq The Gremlin was an American Motors product, although Chrysler did eventually buy AMC. They did it largely to get the Jeep name. |
|
18 Dec 08 - 11:49 AM (#2518961) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: Rapparee I miss the Studebaker -- the only car for a Stud like me! |
|
18 Dec 08 - 12:04 PM (#2518987) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: Ebbie You and my father both, Rap. Dad owned a succession of Studies (Studees?). He never had much trouble with them but I never saw their appeal, myself. |
|
18 Dec 08 - 12:07 PM (#2518990) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: pdq One Studebaker model, the Avanti, is still in production: Avanti Motors |
|
18 Dec 08 - 12:31 PM (#2519016) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: PoppaGator Chrysler came up with a couple of really good concepts for cars back in the 80s, just after their last bailout. The invented the minivan, which I thought was brilliant, and the "K-car" was a pretty decent "American-size" economy car. At the time, the fuel-efficient Japanese cards were all considerably smaller than US-made cars; not like today, when the most popular Toyota and Hondas are just as big as similar models of American cars. The Chrysler K-cars were precursors of today's Camrys, Accords, Sonatas, etc. If the transmissions in those vehicles weren't so prone to failure, Detroit might not be in such bad shape today. ************************ My grandfather had a wonderful, big, comfortable 1952 Studebaker Land Cruiser. It's the first car I can remember riding in, and I still have fond memories. The Studies of those years were the most futuristically designed of all American cards. Later on, as the company was fixing to die, their designs became very boring and boxy (except for the Avanti, which continued the tradition of radical streamlining all by its lonesome). |
|
18 Dec 08 - 01:06 PM (#2519049) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: catspaw49 P-G, I love ya' like a brother but in what alternative reality was the K-car even "decent?" LOL.....At best you have to give the Mopar boys an "atta' boy" for the attempt but the actual product was several notches downscale from "Totally Pathetic." Where all of them went wrong was back in the late 50's and early 60's when they put so little real effort into the small car program. The Falcon, Corvair, Dart/Valiant models were all pretty poor but the needed to hang in with them and stay te course, so to speak. The Japanese cars of the same era were complete trash and damn near useless in this country, but they DID work on them and pretty soon............and here we are. All of them though.....the world over........NONE have heavily invested in true alternate fuel vehicles that are solutions and not just stopgap models. Spaw |
|
18 Dec 08 - 02:20 PM (#2519102) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: Bee-dubya-ell The only really valuable asset GM is gonna get in a merger with Chryler is the Jeep name. First thing they should do after merging is push the entire Chrysler passenger car line off the nearest cliff. Then they should incorporate some of the design ideas from the HUMVEE into Jeeps so they won't be deathtraps. The basic suspension of today's Jeep has remained pretty much unchanged since the first one rolled off the assemply line almost 70 years ago. How Chrysler has been able to continue selling them without a major safety redisign is a mystery to me. Dodge trucks? I dunno. Does a merged GM/Chryler really need three truck brands? If they keep the Dodge truck line alive, either Chevy or GMC has to go. |
|
18 Dec 08 - 02:26 PM (#2519107) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: Leadfingers Mercedes burnt their fingers with Chrysler ! I dont think GM will do any better . |
|
18 Dec 08 - 02:37 PM (#2519116) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: gnu B-W-L... "How Chrysler has been able to continue selling them without a major safety redisign is a mystery to me." Yuppies. Yup. Lots of cash and no brains. How anyone can(could) pay the price they want(ed) for a sardine tin like the Jeep is amazing innit? And, when I was investigating the "new" Jeep Wrangler, the dealership just up the street had 21 of them on the lot, of which only one had auto tranny. Apparently, yuppies don't know squat about 4 wheelin. Nor about flies... not one had air conditioning. Like I wanna be messin with a clutch while swattin skeeters and blackflies and bite-em-no-seeums and deer flies and... of course, most had Serious Stupid Satellite Radio and a CD changer and a half dozen speakers and.... |
|
18 Dec 08 - 02:50 PM (#2519130) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: Ed T I owned a 1969 Plymouth Barricuda....liked it...and would like another....cheap that is. (I believe it was the first pony car in 64, released a few weeks before the Mustang. They also had some good muscle cars (Charger, Challenger, Swinger, Super Bee). I also had a 85 Dodge 600 Turbo convertible and liked it. Valiants were OK (but the early ones looked odd). The Hemi engine was awesome. They never seemed to refine the smaller 4 cylendar front wheel car. Jeeps and Mini vans helped them....but only for so long. |
|
18 Dec 08 - 02:56 PM (#2519135) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: heric If GM is "too big to fail" and Chrysler is "too big to fail" and Ford is "too big to fail" and several insurers and umpteen banks are "too big to fail" then you should pause for a moment and ask why does the government encourage their consolidation, using public money at that, thereby making them "even too bigger to fail." |
|
18 Dec 08 - 02:58 PM (#2519136) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: PoppaGator Well, I suppose I misspoke, or mis-typed. The K-car was a decent concept for a car. I once owned a used K-car, briefly. It was a little larger and comfier than the Datsuns I was used to at the time, but not nearly as reliable. When I finally unloaded it as a trade-in for my next used car, it broke down on the way to the dealership and had to towed onto the lot! I disagree that the early Japanese imports were "just trash." They were economical and reliable ~ just awfully small compared to what most of us were used to, and comfortable in. (They weren't really any worse than a VW "Beetle" in that regard.) |
|
18 Dec 08 - 02:59 PM (#2519139) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: Genie You read my mind, heric. What we need is fewer mergers and more splitting up of the huge corporations into smaller companies. |
|
18 Dec 08 - 03:11 PM (#2519151) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: GUEST,beardedbruce Shame, Bobert! The GREMLIN was an AMC ( American Motors) model. Like most of their innovations, they were about 10 years befor the market wanted them. The original Gremlin was a two door, two seat sedan, with a small engine, designed for gas economy. Of course, in 1970 no-one wanted it. The model that everyone makes fun of was the "station wagon " version, seating 4 and with a rear hatchback. Of course, if you find a Gremlin X give me a call... ( Big V-8, high performance suspension). It would make a great car to tow my 68 AMX to shows. |
|
18 Dec 08 - 03:19 PM (#2519160) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: Amos Yeah, I lost it; these are confusing times, and I got disoriented. Mea culpa. Chalk it up to too much time spent on the MOAB trying to induce Rapaire to write better stuff. A |
|
18 Dec 08 - 03:20 PM (#2519161) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: GUEST,beardedbruce As for Chryslert, they also brought us the Challanger, Hemi 'Cuda, Dodge Charger and a number of other great vehicles. Both the slant six and 318 V8 engines were standards of the Chysler line that are far superior to what GM offered. And neither GM nor Ford have ever come up with any competition for the Torqueflight automatic transmission. |
|
18 Dec 08 - 03:46 PM (#2519192) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: Ed T Good or bad, I believe Chrysler introduced the unit body first in NA. Seems like all the big three NA had really good rear wheel drive cars...but lost it when they moved to front wheel drive. As for the Japanese, they got much better in the 1990s. Plenty of problems before,,,,especially rust. I personally find VW's much too expensive to maintain...but they really had one of the best small diesel engines. If you buy a VW brand van, best to get a parts van to avoid bankrupsy. |
|
18 Dec 08 - 05:13 PM (#2519256) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: Bobert Yeah, okay, the Gremlin was an AMC car... But as ugly as it was I'm sure that some MoPar designer was involved... Now, Spazer... The Corvair was a great car... Much better than either the Fowlcon of the Valiant and the 185 HP Monza would scoot purdy good... I think I was coming 'round Mudcat when I sold by '66 Corsa (110 Hp) but I loved that car... And not all Vegas were bad... The Cosworth Vega was pyrdy spunky... And unless you want my Couzin Rufus to come fir a little visit ya' better not be dissin' no Chevettes... I kinda liked them... Okaym the floor pans rusted out on the drivers side purdy bad but nuthin' is perfect... As for Mopars??? Other than the Dart the rest sucked and the K-Car's all sucked... Might of fact, no matter what MoPar monel you bought underneath it is was a danged K-Car... And junk... So like I said, "Take a pass, GM"... B~ |
|
18 Dec 08 - 05:23 PM (#2519266) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: pdq "Seems like all the big three NA had really good rear wheel drive cars...but lost it when they moved to front wheel drive..." That seems to be one of the most astute statements so far on this thread. I know at least three Ford "Taurus" owners who had serious transmission problems. The transaxle was a mystery that no American maker could figure out. |
|
18 Dec 08 - 06:14 PM (#2519318) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: Ed T Who knows who the NA car companies are today. Many of the parts in NA cars come from around the world...some in partnership with so called competitors Ford owns a big part of Mazda. Chryler unloaded its share of Mitsubishi, and had other vehicle partnerships. GM has ties with Suzuki, Dawoo, and Isuzu and (to some degree) Toyota. More emphasis should be placed on quality, fuel economy, amd yes jobs...not where the company has it's head office. It may be more efficient and cheaper to require all cars be made (ssembled) in the country where they are sold. Two problems that seems to recur in NA cars (especially some Cryslers) is automatic transmissions and air conditioners. Give me a break, get this right...the technology for both have been around for decades....why can't they get these two simple technologies right. |
|
18 Dec 08 - 06:20 PM (#2519321) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: Riginslinger I wonder what Big Mick thinks. I suspect he would have an opinion on this. |
|
18 Dec 08 - 07:47 PM (#2519389) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: DougR I don't see much advantage to either company, Bobert. Merge one sick company with another sick company and you still get a sick bigger company. DougR |
|
18 Dec 08 - 07:55 PM (#2519398) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: catspaw49 Should have kept reading Bobertz..........I agree about the Corvair. It had all the makings of exactly what was needed but Mr. Nader pinned his crusade to it and the rest is a sad history. The Japanese cars of that same period were in fact trash by any comparison. Buzzy and underpowered, they accelerated like fog, broke down with a regularity usually only found in English marques, and rusted faster than a soup can at the dump. I worked on lots of them and English and French cars as well. Only the Germans had it going but the Big 3 had a lot of potential to do it right and they knew the market. The Japanese as always were fast learners and by 1970 had most of their act wholly together. There were still some problems but it was obvious to anyone in the field that those guys were good! During the same time period we proved here that the Big 3 may have known too much as they gladly went off in the wrong direction because we'd buy it! I know I did! Vettes, a 442, a couple of Goats, a Shelby.....even my pick-ups had 454 engines in them. This stuff would pass anything but a gas station. Bobertz will love that I had a very plain blue and blah looking Dodge Coronet sedan with the complete police package underneath---Ran a 12.9 quarter on F78-14's..........oh yeah...They had me right where they wanted me. AMC tried a few small cars but the manufacturing process was so bad and their designers were obviously smoking some bad shit. The Gremlin may have been bad but the Pacer took weird to a new level. Meanwhile no one was addressing the mileage market in this country and why should they? Gas was 40 cents a gallon for HI-Test even and regular a paltry 35! Even in the past few years they haven't been concerned becasue they knew we'd buy the crap. Why the hell does anyone need a Hummer as a personal vehicle? Ferchrissakes there are product lines with over a half dozen SUV models with each available in various configurations.......For what? So they merge or they don't......The chance is they fail either way....................................unless we still want what they sell. Spaw |
|
18 Dec 08 - 09:19 PM (#2519457) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: Bobert Yo, Spazer... You'll love this but in 2000 I'd be willing to bet that my Corvair was the only Corvair in the country with a "Nader for Prez" bumper sticker on the back bumper... B~ |
|
18 Dec 08 - 10:15 PM (#2519468) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: catspaw49 lol......Didja' paint it green too? Ralph was okay but I wish to hell he'd have picked some other car as there were plenty that were truly "unsafe at any speed" but the Corvair was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Spaw |
|
19 Dec 08 - 12:14 AM (#2519508) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: PoppaGator "The Japanese cars of that same period were in fact trash by any comparison. . . The Japanese as always were fast learners and by 1970 had most of their act wholly together." Geez, how early are we talking about, when the Japanese cars were so crappy? I was not really aware of them at all before the very late-late 1960s, by which time we seem to agree that they were OK. I got a '72 Datsun B210 station wagon, used, sometime in the mid-70s. That was a very successful model that was unchanged for a number of years. I read that it was their first car to sell successfully in the US; for they first few years, Datsun (Nissan) was only able to sell the small pickup trucks. Here in the deep south, rust is much less of an issue than for northerners. We never dump salt on the roads, so susceptibility to rust damage is not much of a factor hereabouts, and those early Japanese auto bodies held up well enough. Some folks have just never been able to accept a little car that didn't provide a nice hefty "ka-chunk" upon slamming the door, but that never bothered me. I was always glad to spend as litle as possible on gas, and get from point A to point B, with no concerns about how prestigious or sexy my vehicle may have been considered according to anyone else's "mainstream" standards. |
|
19 Dec 08 - 12:28 AM (#2519514) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: Seamus Kennedy All very well, but will we ever see a return to the Wankel Rotary engine? I had a 1973 Mazda RX-3 wagon, the size of a Toyota Corolla but could do 140mph with no problem. Oh, she was a gas-guzzlin' little mother but she could move. Seamus |
|
19 Dec 08 - 12:42 AM (#2519520) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: catspaw49 LOL.....By 72 things were improving and Datsun had even brought us the 240, a poor man's Jag that still tended to rust but was one helluva' car. No, I'm talking about the winners that came to us as just a few in the late 50's and thru the middle 60's when it began to slowly improve. Those early Datsuns wouldn't get out of their own way. They barely reached 55 mph in a quarter mile! 64 1200 And man did they ever break down!!!! Bikes were the same way but they matured faster. Honda's first attempts much beyond the MoPed level were hilarious. Do you remember the "Dream 305?" It was a lot more like a nightmare with pressed bars, whitewall tires, and plastic fenders. If you wanted a real bike you bought Brit or Harley. Then first Kawasaki made it big with the 500 and in 69 the Honda Four revolutionized motorcycling and I, just like a ton of others, have been riding the rice-burners ever since. Spaw |
|
19 Dec 08 - 06:59 AM (#2519667) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: JohnInKansas About 1968 - 1970 was the period when the US makers actually were forced to start looking seriously at reduced emissions, and their need to make "bigger" cars compliant faced somewhat larger obstacles than for the little riceburners. EGR took some of the snap out of typical engines then, but the thing that really hurt performance - for models for a few years - was the intake manifold preheat, used to get a constant inlet air temperature so that the relatively crude mixture controls available in mass production quatities could achieve a true "lean burn." I had a 1970 Impala with 350 engine that was such a dog that I traded it off for a 1971 Chevy wagon with 400. The rated horsepower for the two engines that year was almost identical; but my thinking was that the 30% higher max torque from the 400 would help - even if the car was 600 pounds heavier. The prediction worked as expected, and "performance" was much improved, but both cars hovered at around 10.1 mpg. Running with inlet air at 140+ degrees (F) just doesn't let you get the same efficiency (or the power) as with colder air. Fuel economy was traded off for reduced hydrocarbon emissions. EGR mixed "mostly burnt" gas back into the inlet which theoretically "finishes the burn" but also gives the appearance of richer mixture and suppresses knock, so the compression ratios could go up a little bit while still using leaner mixtures. I learned - almost by accident - on long trip on a road where all the stations were closed and my tank was getting really low - that just flipping the lid on the air cleaner upside down, to leave a crack that let in cold air, converted my '71 wagon from a 10 mpgh "gas sucker" to a 15 mpg road runner. (Not impressive now, but a pretty spectacular difference back then.) That was on a rather cold night (10F ~= -12C), and results might be less obvious at more normal temperatures. I did do some "controlled tests" later and confirmed the "fuel economy effect" of the reduced inlet air temp. Since with a cold inlet you stuff more air into the cylinders, you get higher compression peak pressures, and with the lean carburetors of the era you do risk getting more knock than is good for things. Several people I know who "disconnected the EGR crap" to "make it all better" did experience a few blown gaskets and warped/cracked heads that I heard about. Of course they refused to believe that their "modifications" had anything to do with it. The flipped lid on the air filter, and colder inlet air, on the night when I first tried it also had the "side-effect" that the engine ran so cold that the temp gage stayed pegged at the bottom. Since the thermosat never opened, the heater didn't work - at all. (This produced some really objectionable noises - from the passenger seat areas). John |
|
19 Dec 08 - 08:47 AM (#2519739) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: Ed T The big three could learn from Nissan and Hyunda. They converted their entire fleets (that were mediocre, IMO) to an attractive and quality alternative to Honda and Toyota in just a few years. |
|
19 Dec 08 - 10:31 AM (#2519809) Subject: RE: BS: GM/Chrysler Merge??? From: SINSULL Well now they have just a few months. baby bush has dodged the other shoe as it fell by funding the automotive giants until Obama takes office. |