Here's my guess...Chrysler...dead, no more Chrysler. Mercedes tried to do it about 15 years ago and got the hell out, wisely. Now Fiat, who couldn't even keep their own ass in the North American market is going to salvage Chysler? I don't think so..so Chrysler is gone. Now GM..this goofy restructuring plan they have going with our government wherein they sell all of the 'good assets' off to the 'New GM' and leave behind the old 'bad assets' of the 'Old GM' such as liability for lawsuits and such is destined to fail as well. This will not work...suprisingly, I see Ford as being the eventual winner here. These other two schemes will not work and Ford appears to be steaming full steam ahead....good for them...they didn't take any money and are producing an American vehicle that people seem to want to buy....great, so say I.....

MB will still export models to CONUS (AND everywhere else on Planet Earth)

BUT,you can forget about what we used to call "Detroit Iron".

Funny,I've owned at least 4 or 5 Toyotas and still don't know what their local
(or anywhere else for that matter) parts counter looks like...

'Could THAT be why Detroit is spiraling the Drain?

__________________
'84 300SD sold
124.128

Agree, except I worry about Ford. With the government backing, meddling etc GM and Chrysler (The ex GMAC is government backed and providing loans for Chrysler customers) it could screw up the competitive landscape where Ford won't be able to survive w/o going into Bankruptcy too.

I HOPE I AM WRONG.

I still think the gov should have said you work it out and walked away.

__________________
KLK, MCSE

1990 500SL

I was always taught to respect my elders.
I don't have to respect too many people anymore.

After driving various SUVs from many of the companies (Ford, GM, Toyota, Nissan, Dodge, MB, BMW), I found that the quality of Ford SUVs are suprisingly good. While its not a Toyota, its definitely ahead of GM and Dodge.


Thing is, the Ford is priced better than the Toyota, and that right there would make me buy the Ford.

__________________
-Justin

91 560 SEC AMG - other dogs dd
01 Honda S2000 - dogs dd
07 MB ML320 CDI - dd
16 Lexus IS250 - wifes dd

it's automatic.

The closure of GM and Chrysler dealerships will likely result in some customer migration to Ford. Diehard Chevy loyalists are going to think twice about buying another Silverado 1500 when the nearest Chevy dealer is 25 miles away.

Ford is doing a good job.

They make a good truck thats for sure, I wish I spent a bit more and got an F150 insted. I can say for sure that my next truck will be a Toyota or Ford, probably an F150. The F150 is just a bit better than the Silverado in every area.

GM put themselves in this position. They couldn't fix the steering on any of these trucks, they all clunk. Every freaken one made in the last 7 years or so. GM should have had a recall since they screwed up the intermediate shaft. But no they just tell the customer your SOL, and sell them the same lame part that will go bad again. I told the GM dealer you guys deserve what you got. I mean come on I have to spend $60 plus my time to replace a GD steering shaft every 20k-50k miles? WTF that should last the life of the truck! My uncles SS has gone through one every 10k miles!

My dad has bought three new F150's since 1985. Not a single one ever had any steering issues. Ford can figure it out, but GM cannot.

GM is now reaping what they sowed for the last 30 years.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

reason i won't buy one is the govment has their hands in it.

If Mercedes wanted Chrysler to succeed, it would have done so at the risk of their own market share. Daimler took the reins and could have built a Lexus/Toyota kind of relationship but they didn't have the mass-marketing prowess to pull it off. Instead they saddled Chrysler with hand-me-down MB components and interiors that can almost make you vomit. Neither company had decent small car technology that Chrysler needed to compete. All those goof-ups had Daimler fingerprints all over them. Then of course theres the ME 412 concept that Mercedes brass made sure would never see the light of day.

__________________
1985 380SE Blue/Blue - 230,000 miles
2012 Subaru Forester 5-speed
2005 Toyota Sienna
2004 Chrysler Sebring convertible
1999 Toyota Tacoma

I agree with that sentiment. However, it is too late. Kinda like knocking up a girl and trying to disappear from the scene. We put too much money in which makes us now responsible. Instead, to use the girl story, we rode her bareback and now she is preggers when we should have wrapped our willy.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

I agree that in the end its just going to be Ford.....GM is a disaster, and Fiat is crazy for thinking they can keep Chrysler going.....or that anyone is going to buy rebadged Fiats....that's all a pipe dream, and will fail.

Ford trucks are pretty darn nice....I've been in a few, and I'd buy one. The only thing holding me back would be a more normal sounding/running diesel. The PowerSmoke sounds like it is grinding shards of steel inside itself....its a very unpleasant sound, and it intrudes into the cabin quite a lot during acceleration.......much noisier than even a W123 by far. The torque is pretty awesome though.

__________________
-diesel is not just a fuel, its a way of life-
'15 GLK250 Bluetec 118k - mine - (OC-123,800)
'17 Metris(VITO!) - 37k - wifes (OC-41k)
'09 Sprinter 3500 Winnebago View - 62k (OC - 67k)
'13 ML350 Bluetec - 95k - dad's (OC-98k)
'01 SL500 - 103k(km) - dad's (OC-110,000km)
'16 E400 4matic Sedan - 148k - Brothers (OC-155k)

There's no way I'd ever buy a GM product. Ford would get my dough, if I didn't believe in and drive a MB diesel. I'd love to drive an F150 - loaded, of course.

When benz bought chrysler I had such high hopes. I never could figure out why they continued to build heavy gas hog cars and never offered hardly any diesels in them. It seemed to me they didn't really try.

Perhaps their best effort was the rather nice little crossfire.

I actually bought a new magnum but the mileage was horrible and with the huge suv wheels and drive train it rode like a log wagon. I sold it after less than a year and felt lucky to have lost only about five grand on it.

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

I think what they were looking for is some place to dump their junk. In a way, it makes sense. They spent a lot of money to develop what they have and after so many years, it is phased out. Now, they have someplace to sell it to and it still can be productive.

You know, I have had my eye on such a car.

OUCH!!!

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

The present government will screw it up.

Case in point. The Admin. says close dealerships. Congress now balking.


Showdown brews in D.C. over plan to cut GM, Chrysler dealers
Bills challenge automakers
BY JUSTIN HYDE • FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF • July 9, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Congress and the Obama administration are colliding over General Motors Corp. and Chrysler Group LLC's moves to shed 2,100 dealers, which the House appears poised to reverse next week.

One version of a bill to save dealerships has nearly enough cosponsors to pass in the House, where dealers have focused their lobbying so far. A similar bill, which passed unanimously in a House committee late Tuesday, would restore the 789 dealers cut from Chrysler and 1,300 dealers GM is winding down. It would essentially turn back the clock, restoring the franchise deals that GM and Chrysler had before their bankruptcies.

Across the nation, the closing of dealerships struck a nerve on main streets that the rest of the turmoil in the auto industry has not. The nation's powerful dealer lobby has summoned its political might to press its case through legislation. A Senate version of the bill has only 15 sponsors, but dealers said they focused first on passing the bill in the House.

Automakers said the proposal could upset the complicated deals they made to move quickly through bankruptcy.

They argued that the dealer cuts are crucial to their survival, saving each company billions of dollars a year.

"This legislation, if passed, would put our long-term viability at risk," said GM spokesman Greg Martin.

While automakers and the Obama task force have defended the moves to shed dealers, the dealers have contended the closures arbitrarily slayed small businesses with little justification -- an argument that's won significant support in Congress.

General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC auto dealers left out of their companies' futures say decisions on who survived were made arbitrarily, slaying small businesses with little justification.

They've found a receptive audience for that case among many members of Congress.

"I think the closing of these dealerships was punitive and secretive, and it's the most un-American thing for the government to help force you out of business and deprive you of the American dream," said Rep. Steven LaTourette, R-Ohio, who sponsored the amendment to save GM and Chrysler dealers that the House Appropriations Committee approved Tuesday.

The bill reversing changes in GM and Chrysler's dealerships has more than 200 cosponsors and appears likely to pass the House next week -- where supporters include House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. Three Michigan Republicans -- Reps. Thad McCotter of Livonia, Pete Hoekstra of Holland and Vernon Ehlers of Grand Rapids -- have signed on in the House.

Jack Fitzgerald, a Maryland-based dealer who had seven of his 32 franchises on the East Coast targeted for closure by GM and Chrysler, said dealers will win more support on Capitol Hill next week -- including in the Senate where they have not pressed their case yet -- because they can explain their plight better than the automakers can explain the reasoning behind the cuts.

"The purpose of the bill is simply to put the dealers back to where they were back before bankruptcy," he said. "If the dealer can't open, he can't open. He won't be closed by some theory that some manager has in Detroit."

GM has noted that nearly all of the 4,100 dealers who were offered a revised franchise agreement to stay with the new GM signed it. But Fitzgerald said that was only because of coercion by GM, which now has more power to close dealers through 2010 with the new pacts.

"They can do anything they want to you under the new agreement," he said. "It's a master-slave agreement."

Because the U.S. government owns a majority of GM and 8% of Chrysler, Congress and the Obama administration have authority to dictate terms they couldn't to companies owned by private investors. (that'll be their undoing imo.)

The House and Senate bills offer no additional money for automakers or dealers. But those dealers who can't or don't choose to reopen could force GM and Chrysler -- under state auto franchise laws -- to pay them for part of the value of their businesses before the automakers filed for bankruptcy, money that's in short supply at companies surviving on $70.1 billion in government money.

"This legislation would seek to overturn the bankruptcy court decisions after the fact, to protect a single stakeholder group among so many that have had to sacrifice," GM spokesman Greg Martin said.

The bankruptcy cases orchestrated by the Obama administration allowed GM and Chrysler to escape state laws that dealers had shaped over several decades with their political clout that made it expensive for automakers to unilaterally cut dealerships. GM estimated that its decision to close the Oldsmobile brand cost at least $1 billion in payments to dealers.

Automakers contend they face several costs from having too many dealers, with GM saying that propping up its dealer network cost $2.1 billion a year, and Chrysler arguing that having too many dealers costs it $1.5 billion a year in lost revenue. GM, Chrysler and Ford Motor Co. dealers all have sold far fewer vehicles on average annually than Toyota, Honda and Nissan dealers, their main competition.

GM has set up its own lobbying offensive against the bills, giving dealers who support the changes a Web site with a form letter and talking points to contact lawmakers. But those arguments have made little headway against emotional appeals from closing dealers, many of whom have strong political ties with lawmakers and can point to jobs and tax payments lost in the cuts.

GM and Chrysler "have never made the case," LaTourette said. What dealers "don't get is why the guy on Main Street stays open and the guy on Elm Street closes. They've done a horrible job of advocating that."

more...

http://www.freep.com/article/20090709/BUSINESS01/907090570/Showdown-brews-in-D.C.-over-plan-to-cut-GM--Chrysler-dealers

It's a shame about the Magnum. That was so CLOSE to being a really good car and a really cool wagon.

I could deal with the poor fuel mileage as I wouldn't expect great mileage in a vehicle that big, heavy, and powerful. Americans by and large don't like Diesels so it's not surprising that motor option wasn't offered.

What was inexcusable was the interior by Fisher-Price, the 30" wheels, lack of suspension travel and acceptable dampening, and as you said, log wagon ride.