Mercedes, Not US, To Bail Out Chrysler

In article <fpcgnd8qst37.taje6ypns1y5.dlg DeleteThis @40tude.net>,
Comments4u <comments4u DeleteThis @nospam.mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:
>Mercedes announcement that these changes can be accomplished in a six to
>twelve month time period and at a cost of a mere $1.6 billion initially
>baffled industry observers. "I wondered how Chrysler could produce three
>new lines of roomy and economical front drive cars - cars that are right
>for America - so quickly and for so little money" said Joseph Camel of the
>Brand Research Institute.

"Joe Camel", eh?

--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress
 >> Stay informed about: Mercedes, Not US, To Bail Out Chrysler 

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:39:35 -0500, Comments4u
<comments4u.DeleteThis@nospam.mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:

>In a huge surprise, Chrysler has decided to decline US government help and
>instead accept help from Mercedes, which still owns 20% of Chrysler. Under
>the plan, Chrysler will introduce competitive platforms starting in June
>2009, with a total of three new platforms available by December 2009.
>
>The V6 versions of the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger will be replaced by
>front drive models with better fuel mileage and more interior room. The
>Hemi powered rear drive 300 and Charger will be retained to fill their
>proper role as specialty models built mostly for status rather than for
>wide market appeal.
>
>In the midsize segment, the current Mitsubishi sourced Sebring and Avenger,
>awkwardly styled in the theme of a brick set on edge, will be replaced by
>lower, sleeker, and more aerodynamic models. In the compact segement, the
>PT Cruiser will be retained since it has proven appeal as a styling
>curiousity. The Dodge Caliber, also curiously styled but without a retro
>look to work in its favor, will be replaced by a conventionally styled
>small car which will have wider appeal.
>
>Mercedes announcement that these changes can be accomplished in a six to
>twelve month time period and at a cost of a mere $1.6 billion initially
>baffled industry observers. "I wondered how Chrysler could produce three
>new lines of roomy and economical front drive cars - cars that are right
>for America - so quickly and for so little money" said Joseph Camel of the
>Brand Research Institute.
>
>But then came the surprising answer. The solution to fixing Chrysler's
>current unsaleable car lineup is merely to replace the current cars with
>the cars they replaced: 2004 Concorde/Intrepid, the 2007 Sebring/Stratus,
>and the 2002 Neon.
>
>"This is an investment in the future" said Mercedes spokesman Heinreich
>Tungensheek. "By spending this money, we expect the value of our 20% stake
>in Chrysler will eventually rise to zero!"

You should be ashamed of yourself... Now I have to clean *another*
keyboard. I'm going to get a water/coffee proof keyboard, this is
getting to be too much trouble!
 >> Stay informed about: Mercedes, Not US, To Bail Out Chrysler 

Don't understand the maths

"...we expect the value of our 20% stake in Chrysler will eventually rise to
zero!"

FALL to zero maybe?

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Comments4u" <comments4u RemoveThis @nospam.mindspring.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:fpcgnd8qst37.taje6ypns1y5.dlg@40tude.net...
[...]

> "This is an investment in the future" said Mercedes spokesman Heinreich
> Tungensheek. "By spending this money, we expect the value of our 20%
> stake
> in Chrysler will eventually rise to zero!"
 >> Stay informed about: Mercedes, Not US, To Bail Out Chrysler 

(Dori - it's satire)

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

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> Don't understand the maths
>
> "...we expect the value of our 20% stake in Chrysler will eventually rise to
> zero!"
>
> FALL to zero maybe?
>
> DAS
>
> To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Comments4u" <comments4u DeleteThis @nospam.mindspring.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:fpcgnd8qst37.taje6ypns1y5.dlg@40tude.net...
> [...]
>
>> "This is an investment in the future" said Mercedes spokesman Heinreich
>> Tungensheek. "By spending this money, we expect the value of our 20%
>> stake
>> in Chrysler will eventually rise to zero!"
 >> Stay informed about: Mercedes, Not US, To Bail Out Chrysler 

Bill Putney wrote:
> (Dori - it's satire)
>
ok
 >> Stay informed about: Mercedes, Not US, To Bail Out Chrysler 

The is funny and makes some sense, but is it really a time to poke more
fun at Chrysler robber Mercedes?

In article <fpcgnd8qst37.taje6ypns1y5.dlg.DeleteThis@40tude.net>,
Comments4u <comments4u.DeleteThis@nospam.mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:

> In a huge surprise, Chrysler has decided to decline US government help and
> instead accept help from Mercedes, which still owns 20% of Chrysler. Under
> the plan, Chrysler will introduce competitive platforms starting in June
> 2009, with a total of three new platforms available by December 2009.
>
> The V6 versions of the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger will be replaced by
> front drive models with better fuel mileage and more interior room. The
> Hemi powered rear drive 300 and Charger will be retained to fill their
> proper role as specialty models built mostly for status rather than for
> wide market appeal.
This is quite smart, but sorry Chrysler the 300M I recently purchased
for a few songs should last me for 8+ years.
Of course keep the RWD 300C for the police who like dangerous chases.
>
> In the midsize segment, the current Mitsubishi sourced Sebring and Avenger,
> awkwardly styled in the theme of a brick set on edge, will be replaced by
> lower, sleeker, and more aerodynamic models. In the compact segement, the
> PT Cruiser will be retained since it has proven appeal as a styling
> curiousity.
I guess if it sells, why not. IMO it's styling is worse than the Caliper.

>The Dodge Caliber, also curiously styled but without a retro
> look to work in its favor, will be replaced by a conventionally styled
> small car which will have wider appeal.
Too bad his will come too late for me.
Actually the Compass would be easier to change for my liking, simply
replace the Jeep front end. Chrysler doesn't need two Jeep front end
cars in this class.
My dealer told me they just don't know how to sell the split personalty
Compass. (true story!)
>
> Mercedes announcement that these changes can be accomplished in a six to
> twelve month time period and at a cost of a mere $1.6 billion initially
> baffled industry observers. "I wondered how Chrysler could produce three
> new lines of roomy and economical front drive cars - cars that are right
> for America - so quickly and for so little money" said Joseph Camel of the
> Brand Research Institute.
The changes would be relatively minor, if they haven't sold the tooling
to Russia and China.
>
> But then came the surprising answer. The solution to fixing Chrysler's
> current unsaleable car lineup is merely to replace the current cars with
> the cars they replaced: 2004 Concorde/Intrepid, the 2007 Sebring/Stratus,
> and the 2002 Neon.
Nope, a slight revision of the mid 90s LH and the 91+ Sebring, with the
current drive trains (less the 2.7L V6) would have done it.
Too late for me again Chrysler.
>
> "This is an investment in the future" said Mercedes spokesman Heinreich
> Tungensheek. "By spending this money, we expect the value of our 20% stake
> in Chrysler will eventually rise to zero!"
It might even rise a bit above zero, but Mercedes just doesn't know how
to make a longer term hit with Chrysler. They don't understand NA.
 >> Stay informed about: Mercedes, Not US, To Bail Out Chrysler 

**DO NOT TOPPOST!**

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 00:05:32 -0000, "Dori A Schmetterling"
<nobody.TakeThisOut@spam.co.uk> wrote:


>"Comments4u" <comments4u.TakeThisOut@nospam.mindspring.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:fpcgnd8qst37.taje6ypns1y5.dlg@40tude.net...
>[...]
>
>> "This is an investment in the future" said Mercedes spokesman Heinreich
>> Tungensheek. "By spending this money, we expect the value of our 20%
>> stake
>> in Chrysler will eventually rise to zero!"
>
>Don't understand the maths
>
>"...we expect the value of our 20% stake in Chrysler will eventually rise to
>zero!"
>
>FALL to zero maybe?
>
>DAS
>

*WOOSH*

Missed that one completely, didn't you!
 >> Stay informed about: Mercedes, Not US, To Bail Out Chrysler 

,,,,,, yes, but the math is probably stil correct.... rise to zero

cheers guenter

In article <6pjdcmF8do7kU4 RemoveThis @mid.individual.net>,
Bill Putney <bptn RemoveThis @kinez.net> wrote:
>(Dori - it's satire)
>
>--
>Bill Putney
>(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with the letter 'x')
>
>Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>> Don't understand the maths
>>
>> "...we expect the value of our 20% stake in Chrysler will eventually rise to
>> zero!"
>>
>> FALL to zero maybe?
>>
>> DAS
>>
>> To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
>> ---
>> "Comments4u" <comments4u RemoveThis @nospam.mindspring.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:fpcgnd8qst37.taje6ypns1y5.dlg@40tude.net...
>> [...]
>>
>>> "This is an investment in the future" said Mercedes spokesman Heinreich
>>> Tungensheek. "By spending this money, we expect the value of our 20%
>>> stake
>>> in Chrysler will eventually rise to zero!"
 >> Stay informed about: Mercedes, Not US, To Bail Out Chrysler 

"Josh S" <Josh.RemoveThis@clean.spam> wrote in message
news:Josh-5DCEF2.22590201122008@news.telus.net...
> The is funny and makes some sense, but is it
> really a time to poke more
> fun at Chrysler robber Mercedes?
>
> In article
> <fpcgnd8qst37.taje6ypns1y5.dlg.RemoveThis@40tude.net>,
> Comments4u
> <comments4u.RemoveThis@nospam.mindspring.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> In a huge surprise, Chrysler has decided to
>> decline US government help and
>> instead accept help from Mercedes, which still
>> owns 20% of Chrysler. Under
>> the plan, Chrysler will introduce competitive
>> platforms starting in June
>> 2009, with a total of three new platforms
>> available by December 2009.
>>
>> The V6 versions of the Chrysler 300 and Dodge
>> Charger will be replaced by
>> front drive models with better fuel mileage and
>> more interior room. The
>> Hemi powered rear drive 300 and Charger will be
>> retained to fill their
>> proper role as specialty models built mostly
>> for status rather than for
>> wide market appeal.
> This is quite smart, but sorry Chrysler the 300M
> I recently purchased
> for a few songs should last me for 8+ years.
> Of course keep the RWD 300C for the police who
> like dangerous chases.
>>
>> In the midsize segment, the current Mitsubishi
>> sourced Sebring and Avenger,
>> awkwardly styled in the theme of a brick set on
>> edge, will be replaced by
>> lower, sleeker, and more aerodynamic models.
>> In the compact segement, the
>> PT Cruiser will be retained since it has proven
>> appeal as a styling
>> curiousity.
> I guess if it sells, why not. IMO it's styling
> is worse than the Caliper.
>
>>The Dodge Caliber, also curiously styled but
>>without a retro
>> look to work in its favor, will be replaced by
>> a conventionally styled
>> small car which will have wider appeal.
> Too bad his will come too late for me.
> Actually the Compass would be easier to change
> for my liking, simply
> replace the Jeep front end. Chrysler doesn't
> need two Jeep front end
> cars in this class.
> My dealer told me they just don't know how to
> sell the split personalty
> Compass. (true story!)
>>
>> Mercedes announcement that these changes can be
>> accomplished in a six to
>> twelve month time period and at a cost of a
>> mere $1.6 billion initially
>> baffled industry observers. "I wondered how
>> Chrysler could produce three
>> new lines of roomy and economical front drive
>> cars - cars that are right
>> for America - so quickly and for so little
>> money" said Joseph Camel of the
>> Brand Research Institute.
> The changes would be relatively minor, if they
> haven't sold the tooling
> to Russia and China.
>>
>> But then came the surprising answer. The
>> solution to fixing Chrysler's
>> current unsaleable car lineup is merely to
>> replace the current cars with
>> the cars they replaced: 2004 Concorde/Intrepid,
>> the 2007 Sebring/Stratus,
>> and the 2002 Neon.
> Nope, a slight revision of the mid 90s LH and
> the 91+ Sebring, with the
> current drive trains (less the 2.7L V6) would
> have done it.
> Too late for me again Chrysler.
>>
>> "This is an investment in the future" said
>> Mercedes spokesman Heinreich
>> Tungensheek. "By spending this money, we
>> expect the value of our 20% stake
>> in Chrysler will eventually rise to zero!"
> It might even rise a bit above zero, but
> Mercedes just doesn't know how
> to make a longer term hit with Chrysler. They
> don't understand NA.

You didn't understand that this was a satire and
likely has no basis in fact.
 >> Stay informed about: Mercedes, Not US, To Bail Out Chrysler 

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 08:29:59 -0500, "NapalmHeart"
<olsonfamNOSPAM.DeleteThis@iserv.net> wrote:


>>> "This is an investment in the future" said
>>> Mercedes spokesman Heinreich
>>> Tungensheek. "By spending this money, we
>>> expect the value of our 20% stake
>>> in Chrysler will eventually rise to zero!"
>> It might even rise a bit above zero, but
>> Mercedes just doesn't know how
>> to make a longer term hit with Chrysler. They
>> don't understand NA.
>
>You didn't understand that this was a satire and
>likely has no basis in fact.
>

Its a fact Chrysler LLC has negative value. Its worse off now than
when Mercedes sold it. And if you review the "sale" transaction,
you'll find that despite saying they got something for Chrysler,
Mercedes covered enough other expenses that their net from the "sale"
was negative. None of which changes the humor of the original
article! <G>
 >> Stay informed about: Mercedes, Not US, To Bail Out Chrysler 

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:44:26 -0800 (PST), Lloyd <lparker.DeleteThis@emory.edu>
wrote:



Strange "facts" you're using here Lloyd.

>Interestingly, it was the Chrysler people who talked the Daimler
>people out of buying into Nissan (and let Renault snap it up
>instead). The Chrysler people said, Hey, we've worked with Mitsubishi
>in the past, they're good, buy into them instead.
>
>So instead of Nissan platforms, we get Mitsubishi platforms for fwd
>Chryslers. Daimler bought into Mitsubishi, and found they were
>covering up warranty problems (Mitsu gave Daimler MitsubishiFuso
>trucks in compensation, which they still own). Can't blame the
>Daimler folks for having it in for the Chrysler people after that~

I don't know who talked Schrempp out of buying Nissan (you're talking
like you were a mouse in the corner during the meetings). Nissan was
on the brink. There was nothing to "snap up". Taking on Nissan was
taking on a huge risk. Oh, yea, Ghosen did well, but would Schrempp
have?

Chrysler already had money in Mitsubishi. They didn't put more into
Mitsubishi as an alternative to buying Nissan. When Mitsubishi got
into trouble, and Schrempp wanted to invest more, the Mercedes board
stopped him.

You say Chrysler people had confidence in Mitsubishi, but the actions
they've taken over the years don't show that. Their involvement with
Mitsubishi was usually to fill a need on a temporary basis.

When Chevy and Ford started selling the Vega and Pinto, Chrysler
sourced the Colt and then the Arrow from Mitsubishi. But then when
they were able to build their own small car, the Omni/Horizon, they
cut out Mitsubishi in that size class. But even smaller cars had
become popular, so they, again unable to build one, sourced a smaller
Colt from Mitsubishi, one down in the Ford Fiesta/Toyota Starlet
class.

When they needed a larger 4 cylinder in the early 80s, they bought
Mitsubishi engines, but only until they could expand the 2.2 into the
2.5. When that happened, the Mitsubishi 2.6 was gone. When gas
stayed cheap and they needed a V6 in 87, they bought the Mitsubishi
V6. But only until they could develop their own V6.

Chrysler bought small trucks from Mitsubishi, but again, only until
they could build their own. Interestingly, Mitsubishi now buys the
Dakota from Chrysler to sell under their name.

With the Neon, Chrysler made a decision yet again to build their own
small car rather than buy something from Mitsubishi to sell. And so
after having had a lot of Mitsubishi products in the showroom for
years, they were down to a couple of specialty coupes, with the rest
of their product range populated by their own products.

Then under Mercedes, it was decided all the midsizes, not just the
coupes, would be bought from Mitsubishi. The standard small car went
away, replaced by the Cruiser and Caliber, and Mercedes didn't even
bother to plan for a normal small car at all.

And what's this fixation with wagons? The Caliber as a Neon
replacement? The Magnum as an Intrepid replacement? (Remember there
was initally to be no Charger.)

I don't see that Mercedes missed anything by failing to "snap up" a
decimated Nissan. After all, they took a healthy company, Chrysler,
and ran it into the dirt. And the actions over the years indicate a
consistent effort by Chrysler people not to rely on Mitsubishi.
 >> Stay informed about: Mercedes, Not US, To Bail Out Chrysler 

In article
<U--dnZSku6dBFKvUnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d.DeleteThis@posted.eaglecomputertechnology>,
"NapalmHeart" <olsonfamNOSPAM.DeleteThis@iserv.net> wrote:

> "Josh S" <Josh.DeleteThis@clean.spam> wrote in message
> news:Josh-5DCEF2.22590201122008@news.telus.net...
**************
> > The is funny and makes some sense, but is it
> > really a time to poke more
> > fun at Chrysler robber Mercedes
*************
> >
> > In article
> > <fpcgnd8qst37.taje6ypns1y5.dlg.DeleteThis@40tude.net>,
> > Comments4u
> > <comments4u.DeleteThis@nospam.mindspring.com.invalid>
> > wrote:

>
> You didn't understand that this was a satire and
> likely has no basis in fact.

You should READ, before you post.
 >> Stay informed about: Mercedes, Not US, To Bail Out Chrysler 

"Josh S" <Josh RemoveThis @clean.spam> wrote in message
news:Josh-F5D769.00544704122008@news.telus.net...
> In article
> <U--dnZSku6dBFKvUnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d RemoveThis @posted.eaglecomputertechnology>,
> "NapalmHeart" <olsonfamNOSPAM RemoveThis @iserv.net> wrote:
>
>> "Josh S" <Josh RemoveThis @clean.spam> wrote in message
>> news:Josh-5DCEF2.22590201122008@news.telus.net...
> **************
>> > The is funny and makes some sense, but is it
>> > really a time to poke more
>> > fun at Chrysler robber Mercedes
> *************
>> >
>> > In article
>> > <fpcgnd8qst37.taje6ypns1y5.dlg RemoveThis @40tude.net>,
>> > Comments4u
>> > <comments4u RemoveThis @nospam.mindspring.com.invalid>
>> > wrote:
>
>>
>> You didn't understand that this was a satire
>> and
>> likely has no basis in fact.
>
> You should READ, before you post.

So you both TOP and BOTTOM post. How retarded.
 >> Stay informed about: Mercedes, Not US, To Bail Out Chrysler