Latest Chrysler News

[mjs]

Pesky rule of law.

Alex, What is the phrase heard most often in the Bush White House?

[mjs]

Pesky rule of law...it will take Obama and his cronies some time to break them and get away with it.

Not if they use the attorneys that Bush and Cheney carefully selected from thousands of entries.

[MoparDan]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fiat-c...n&asset=&ccode=

Fiat commits to Chrysler deal despite court delay

Fiat says it won't walk away from Chrysler deal despite US Supreme Court delays

[MoparDan]

It's a go!

http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php...-this-morning/

Chrysler sale to take place this morning

June 10th, 2009
by Bill Cawthon
With the last legal obstacle overcome, Chrysler plans to close the sale of its “good� assets to NewCarCo Acquisition LLC by 9:00 AM Eastern Time today, clearing the way for it to exit bankruptcy.
To finalize the deal, Chrysler first must transfer $2 billion supplied by the Treasury to its creditors. The Supreme Court’s decision rejecting the challenges by the Indiana pension funds and consumer groups came after the deadline for making the necessary wire transfers had passed, requiring the sale to be put off until today.

[Papasito]

I heard Ferrari bought Chrysler, is that true?
Better them than the Libyans in my opinion

[MoparDan]

I heard Ferrari bought Chrysler, is that true?
Better them than the Libyans in my opinion

Chrysler is being sold off to Fiat. I believe Ferrari is majority owned by the Fiat Group.
I figure the Italians can't do or be any worse than the Germans or Cerberus.

[ccbatson]

Ownership is/will be Obama, then the UAW, then Fiat. Doomed unless the first 2 are ousted, and on shaky ground even then.

[Papasito]

Cerberus Capital Management beat out Magna International and Blackstone Group to buy 80.1 percent of Chrysler from Daimler for $7.4 billion. Cerberus is the private equity firm that hired Wolfgang Bernhard to help set up the deal. Look for Bernhard to head the new Chrysler Holding LLC. The deal leaves the remaining 19.9 percent of Chrysler with the German automaker, which announced the deal today in Stuttgart. Chrysler Corporation - not the new company, Chrysler Holding - retains the pension and health care obligations. And DaimlerChrysler changes its name to Daimler AG [[no "Benz").



We'll see how Cerberus handles the ups and downs of the auto industry, an anathema to Wall Street investors. The "merger of equals" between Daimler and Chrysler cost Daimler about $36 billion nine years ago.

http://blogs.motortrend.com/6208520/...ion/index.html

Interesting. I clicked on their website, and it shows they invested in GMAC.
Either these guys have money to burn, or they are really like companies that have been run into the ground.
http://www.cerberuscapital.com/

[Stosh]

Ownership is/will be Obama, then the UAW, then Fiat. Doomed unless the first 2 are ousted, and on shaky ground even then.

It's inconcievable that someone supposedly well-educated can be this obtuse. Really.

[MoparDan]

From AllPar.
http://www.allpar.com/cars/adopted/f...-alliance.html

Chrysler-Fiat Alliance: Chrysler Group Reborn
by David Zatz, Organizational Change Consultant
The new Chrysler Group

Chrysler Group LLC now exists, 55% owned by a pension fund, 20% by Fiat, the rest by the U.S. Treasury and Canadian government. Contrary to published reports, Fiat will not own more than 20% of Chrysler at first, and will receive a maximum of 35% of equity unless they choose to buy more on the open market. The pension fund, which has no voting rights, plans to sell their equity as soon as it is economically feasible. These facts must be emphasized due to unreliable pundits’ hysteria over “union to control Chrysler� and “tax dollars spent to give Chrysler to Fiat.�
================================================== ======
That was the opening paragraph. More information in the article after that.

[ccbatson]

55% by the UAW pension fund [[heavily beholden to the government), 25% by the government, and 20% by Fiat....Obtuse, am I?

[MoparDan]

http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php...-leaves-dodge/

Petty leaves Dodge

June 11th, 2009 by DaveAdmin
Richard Petty Motorsports has, according to the AP, laid of nine employees and cut salaries of the remaining staff, due to interruptions in payments from Chrysler related to its bankruptcy. The article noted that Petty “is widely believed� to be negotiating with Toyota for 2010.
Kasey Kahne, Elliott Sadler, A.J. Allmendinger, and Reed Sorenson race on the Petty team in the Sprint Cup series.
================================================== ======
While being a solid Mopar fan, for some reason this doesn't surprise or disappoint me so much. For starters NASCAR instituted their Car of Tomorrow [[COT) program & the cars are almost indistinguishable from each other. There really is no "stock car" in Stock Car racing anymore. Another is that Richard Petty Motorsports[[RPM) is in disarray to begin with. They haven't been competetive for years; Kyle Petty is a fan favorite & does a lot of charity work but he rarely finished in the top 20 of any given race. After the merger of GEM Racing & Petty Enterprises was Kyle finally pulled from the seat of #45. Penske Racing uses Dodge & has Kurt Busch in the top 10 with Sam Hornish breaking into the top 25. One reason is the use of Dodge's R-6 engine which Petty Motorsports only recently started using; that would explain Kasey Kahne's sudden improvement. But Kahne has made it clear he isn't happy with RPM & may jump ship to another team. Why RPM is looking at Toyota is a good question. The only real solid Toyota team is Joe Gibbs Racing[[JGR) & that's primarily due to it being a well run organization. Although I can't stand Kyle Busch, he makes JGR look even better. RPM is not in the same league with JGR & will probably have a serious learning curve with the "Camry". Despite GM's bankruptcy, the majority of teams use Chevy; I find it surprising that RPM isn't talking to them. Then again, Toyota may be willing to cough up $$ just to secure the contract & use the Petty name.

[ccbatson]

Government Motors and Chrysler are not going to be involved in racing for very much longer...a shame.

[MoparDan]

Without the stickers, could you honestly say the "Avenger", "Impala", "Fusion" or "Camry" bear any true resemblance to the actual
car coming off the line?
NOTE: Dodge currently runs the "Charger".



We use Impalas as fleet cars; trust me, the COT version looks nothing like it.

[ccbatson]

Very little resemblance, if any. However, developments like efficient and high performance engines, durable suspension and drivetrain components, etc, most definitely derive from, and/or are enhanced by involvement in racing.

[MoparDan]

Very little resemblance, if any. However, developments like efficient and high performance engines, durable suspension and drivetrain components, etc, most definitely derive from, and/or are enhanced by involvement in racing.

I'll give you points for that. However, to the casual NASCAR fan, they don't see any of that. What they see is the wrapping & if there is nothing distinctive, all the engineering underneath is a moot point. GM & Chrysler will still be involved in racing to a certain extent. It doesn't help Dodge that Chevy has dominated for the past 25+ years & they weren't actively involved during most of that time. Ford put a lot of money towards racing but their overall success in that same time frame is mediocre at best despite fielding good teams & drivers.
My take with the RPM situation is, no matter who the manufacturer is, they're an organization in chaos. For too long, Petty Enterprises relied on the legacy of Richard Petty & fell to the wayside. To be honest, I feel the switch to Toyota will not give them the instant rewards they expect. In the long run, perhaps, but that means Toyota spending a huge chunk of money towards a team that is basically starting from scratch. Maybe they think they'll get the same results they did with JGR, but comparing the two organizations is laughable at best. Tony Stewart jumped from JGR because he did not like racing Toyotas & wanted to go back to Chevy, which he has done with his own team[[Ryan Newman being the other driver). The two have had tremendous success so far this season.
A sticking point with a lot of us in Mopar Nation is how NASCAR changes up the rules that basically put Dodge/Plymouth at disadvantages back in the 70s. If you made a certain number of a production vehicle, it could be raced. Mopar put that 426 Hemi in the Daytona/Superbird & dominated...the France family had a fit so they altered the rules to prevent the 426 from being employed in those bodies. A few years back when Dodge introduced the new Charger, they were still working out the bugs. One problem was the rear spoiler which they were able to resolve. After the season started, NASCAR changed the spoiler rule which then affected the aerodynamics of the car. While they worked it out, a few of the Dodge teams pulled out their old Intrepid cars & used them in the meantime.
Ok, that's enough writing for the time being. I have a yard that needs to be mowed.

[MoparDan]

http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php...-dealer-myths/

Jim Press attacks dealer myths

June 12th, 2009
by DaveAdmin
Jim Press attacked several "dealer myths� in front of Congress, defending Chrysler’s actions:

Despite completing a painful restructuring, the New Chrysler will retain 86% of Chrysler dealers by volume, and 75% by location.I can empathize with the dealers who were not brought forward into the new company, and can understand their disappointment. This has been the most difficult business action I have personally ever had to take.

He answered four questions which he claimed he heard most in Washington:

1. Was discontinuing these dealers really necessary to Chrysler’s survival? Press noted that the company’s sales had fallen dramatically, that the dealer channel as a whole was losing money, and that without profits, dealers could not invest in training, people, or facilities, hurting customer satisfaction. He noted that they needed a realigned, new dealer network on the first day of the new Chrysler Group. Judge Gonzalez endorsed the move, saying it was “an exercise of sound business judgement� and “appropriate and necessary.�
2. Do dealers really cost anything? The answer is, yes, primarily due to extra marketing,advertising, and administrative costs [[together, $183 million per year according to Press), as well as the need to have “sister vehicles� [[Dodge and Chrysler or Jeep and Dodge versions) which he claimed added $1.4 billion in product engineering costs over four years.
3. My dealer said he was profitable, why not keep him? Press said that in general the dropped dealers were the least profitable in the network. Those that were profitable were often losing money on their new car business and making it up from used cars.
   1. Many were in poor locations
   2. 555 were standalones, not viable in the future without all three brands
   3. Half sold fewer than 101 vehicles per year
   4. 44% sell competing brands in teh same showroom; of those, Chrysler is only 12% of their business [[as an example, on dealer is profitable, but sold only 24 new Dodges, with 210 used vehicles; he also sold Buick, Pontiac, Subaru, and Isuzu, and Dodge was only 3% of his new car total).
4. Are you leaving your dealers “high and dry?� Press answered that every dealer was contacted; financing was arranged to redistribute inventory, including parts and tools; buyers for every unsold vehicle were found; dealers have commitments for 80% of their parts inventory already.

[ccbatson]

So reform the manufacturer's role in dealerships and allow these private business owners to decide what they should do by themselves.

[MoparDan]

http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php...welcomes-fiat/

Iacocca welcomes Fiat, retirees volunteer

June 12th, 2009
by DaveAdmin
Former Chrysler chairman and CEO Lee Iacocca has signalled his approval of the Fiat-Chrysler alliance, and co-write a welcome letter to Fiat and Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne. The 19,000-retiree-strong National Chrysler Retirement Association publicly offered its assistance as volunteer advisers in a Detroit News advertisement, which stated, “we would be willing to meet with the Chrysler human resources team to determine where help is needed and to identify historically top-producing volunteers to assist you. Just put us to work.�

[ccbatson]

FIat isn't the problem...Obama and the UAW are.

[turkeycall]

mjs, June 4 : Its because the manufacturer needs to service the dealerships.

Is this something like when a farmer takes his bull to a neighbor and says, "I'm here to service your cow"?

I see some similarity there.

[MoparDan]

http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2009/0...-dealer-story/

Two sides to the dealer story

June 4th, 2009
by DaveAdmin
On the one hand, dealers employ large numbers of mechanics and salesmen, and more dealerships means more choices for customers. If you’ve been burned by one Chrysler or GM dealership, you can try another nearby, in most of the country. If you need to get something fixed, the proliferation of shops means you can usually find a repair shop nearby – unlike, say, a Subaru owner.
But the dealerships being dropped are ingenuous when they try to rely on their reputation as honest small-town businessmen who have deep roots in the community. Sure, some of them are. As far as I can tell. None of the ones I personally know of which are being booted can make that claim. Some of them have been around for a long time, but they’re run by sleazy characters and make life hard on their customers and employees.
Honest mechanics have told me stories about how they’d charge a customer for parts and never install them. How they’d charge each customer for fluids and supplies that were spread across dozens of people. Stories of untrained kids botching warranty repairs that Chrysler had to pay for. Then there’s the parts markup of 100% – 300% above list price, at least according to the parts counter guy at one of the dealerships losing their franchise.
Of course, there are also the customer stories. Dealers pretending the warranty didn’t cover something so they could charge an outrageous fee. Constantly-botched jobs. High-pressure sales pitches. Stealing customers’ keys. Contracts that change or don’t reflect the verbal deal. Far too many dealers engage in these sleazy tactics. The ability for dealers to be profitable without them is a big reason why Chrysler is dropping so many dealers.
I’m sure there was some politics involved, though not the conspiracy-theorist type of politics. Internal Chrysler politics are much more likely to be an issue. Did the dealer scoff at the idea of carrying another Chrysler marque? Did they stand up and demand higher quality product during the Daimler years? Did they protest the wrong program or refuse to buy extra stock when the company was pushing it? I suspect those are potent issues.
It would probably have helped if Chrysler had made every dealer’s customer ratings, including the fix-it-the-first-time scores, public. I haven’t heard any stories [[yet) about five star dealers being closed down.
In the end, it’s hard to say whether every decision was right and proper. I doubt it, but I think the majority probably were. The news media don’t have time to really investigate the stories of each individual tearjerker, to find out whether the sobbing or angry dealership owner really was a pillar of the community – or a guy who’d be should’ve been turned into a pillar of salt.
Dealers are exceedingly important, and I think Chrysler and GM know that. Customers don’t know anything about Chrysler or GM; they know about the dealer they have. If the dealer treats them like dirt, they don’t say “my Chevy dealer treats me like dirt.� They say, “Chevy treats me like dirt.�
If a dealer repeatedly fails to fix a problem, or breaks a car when fixing something else, the customer blames the manufacturer, not the dealer.
Chrysler and GM have had poor communications around the dealer franchises, but they have good reasons for wanting to be able to cast off the dealers that give them a bad rep. I, for one, am hoping they are actually casting off those dealers – and only those dealers.

[MoparDan]

http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php...ion-announced/

MultiAir system production announced

June 15th, 2009
by DaveAdmin
Fiat will be fitting the Romeo MiTo with MultiAir engines and a start-stop system to increase gas mileage by shutting the fuel supply to the engine when the car is stopped, and seamlessly restarting the engine when needed. The 1.4 liter engine will be available in 105, 135, and 170 horsepower versions.
MultiAir engines have 10% more horsepower and 15% more torque than standard gasoline engines of the same design; they also reduce particulates and nitrides of oxygen dramatically.
MultiAir is a trademark for an electro-hydraulic valve control system currently used on gasoline engines, and planned for Fiat diesel engines.
Fiat is planning to share key technologies with Chrysler in the near term, and MultiAir is very likely to make it to mid-sized Chrysler Group vehicles as well as Fiats sold in the US [[regardless of branding).

[ccbatson]

Big brother Obama shuts off your engine...like it, or not.

[MoparDan]

http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php...-on-car-loans/

More defaults on car loans

June 15th, 2009
by DaveAdmin
The Detroit News reported that the rate of car payments 60 days or more late has risen 28% in the first quarter, compared with the first three months of 2008. The rate continues to be fairly low, at 0.83% [[eight loan payments out of a thousand). Customers seem to have a larger problem making mortgage payments, with 60-day nonpayments rising 62% to 5.22% – five people out of a hundred failing to make payments for at least 60 days.
The hardest hit states for car loans are Mississippi [[1.5%), Louisiana [[1.4%), California [[1.3%), and Nevada [[1.3%). Michigan, despite numerous layoffs and factory closures, had a much better rate of 0.55% – better than the national average. These figures predate Chrysler’s two months in bankruptcy, but do reflect the tightening of credit which started in 2008.
The data comes from TransUnion, from random samples of 27 million credit reports. The company expects the number of late payments to get higher, hitting the 1% level experienced during the recession of 2001.