VenSeattle

Chrysler Cuts Will Bind It More to Benz Deeper integration on tap as Daimler tries to fix Chrysler. by Joseph Szczesny (2007-02-05) DaimlerChrysler intends to tie together the company's German and American wings more tightly than ever under the new plan for reviving the fortunes of the ailing Chrysler Group. The Financial Times reported the rescue plan would include greater use of common components and systems by both the Chrysler Group and Mercedes-Benz Group. The use of common components has been a contentious issue since the merger was first proposed in 1998 but it has gradually become more acceptable as both groups have faced intense cost pressures. The Wall Street Journal also reported more common platforms will be developed - citing, in particular, the new plan to merge the Dodge Durango, Jeep Grand Cherokee and Mercedes ML-Class into one product architecture. The plan could move Chrysler and Mercedes-Benz closer than ever to sharing of engineering platforms, engines and transmissions, though company officials continue to insist nothing will be done to compromise the identity of the company's core brands particularly Mercedes-Benz. The move, however, could make it harder in the future to separate the two groups if dissident shareholders ever gained the upper hand and called for spinning off the Chrysler Group. In recent weeks, reports have circulated through Europe again DaimlerChrysler was thinking of spinning off the Chrysler Group to boost the price of the company's stock. The rumors reflect the sentiments of a vocal group of German shareholders, including some institutional shareholders, which have been opponents of the 1998 merger that created the German-American automaker. Roughly 80 percent of DaimlerChrysler's outstanding common stock is owned by German citizens and institutions. Dissident German shareholders, in fact, were instrumental in forcing Juergen Schrempp, then DaimlerChrysler chairman, to back out of merger deal with Mitsubishi three years ago. Meanwhile, Chrysler employees are bracing for another round of cuts on St. Valentine's Day. At least three plants now appear vulnerable, including an assembly plant in Newark, Del.; a stamping plant in Twinsburg, Ohio, that feeds parts to the Newark plant; and an engine plant in Detroit that builds V-8 engines. DaimlerChrysler also builds the same engine in Mexico, Chrysler sources said. DaimlerChrysler managers have been working on the new turnaround plan since the end of October when the German-American automaker disclosed the Chrysler Group had posted an operating loss of $1.5 billion. The loss was blamed on an unforeseen build up of inventory of unsold vehicles that CEO Tom LaSorda and other executives have described as temporary. As at General Motors and Ford, the plan is expected to include the permanent shutdown of the company's assembly plant in Newark, Del. Both GM and Ford have closed East Coast assembly plants but the Newark plant probably wouldn't close until 2010 under the most recent version of the plan. The end-of-the-decade closing date would give Chrysler time to shift new versions of the products currently built in Newark-the Dodge Durango and Chrysler Aspen sport-utility vehicles-to other Chrysler Group plants and platforms. Other cuts are also in the works, though in a conversation with reporters in December, LaSorda appeared to rule out employee buyouts similar to those launched by General Motors and Ford last year. More than 75,000 General Motors and Ford blue-collar workers wound up accepting the buyouts. DaimlerChrysler also continues to press the United Auto Workers for healthcare concessions. The union rejected the idea of concessions last fall and hasn't shown any indication yet that it is willing to change its position. The union did agree to study DaimlerChrysler's request again but relations between the company and the union have come under stress of late. Link to article

You can't necessarily go off the listings for GM... GM controls the new-inventory feeds for their dealerships. The car shows up in the dealer's inventory once the VIN is allocated to that dealer... regardless if it's at the plant, in transit, or on the lot.

Uh... I thought they accepted very lucrative buy-out packages... Why would this bother them? Beside that, when was the last time the Media or US public cared if GM's factory workers were employed or not? - If anyone should take notice it should be the workers that are still with GM... produce quality products or you're out the door.

I love the "Robot" GM Quality ad.

I don't personally consider a continent as a single car market. The UK is very different than the mainland, not to mention all the language and cultural barriers that a company has to individually market to in each European country. Not all brands are available universally throughout Europe like in the US.... But yes, laws are now much more accommodating since the EU... and it really can be viewed as an equivalent to targeting the US market. Thank you very much for the reply on my comments... very informative and interesting.

Yeah... I thought that as well. But, once again... Trade-in time

I did take that into consideration in my posts... I, too, was just referring to the US market... Mazda would be perfect sold as re-badged Mercuries... However, Ford could also just phase out Mercury and consolidate Mazda franchises in with Lincoln dealerships. My thing is, if the CX-9 was badged as a Mercury replacing the Mountaineer, it would sell like CRAZY. However, as a Mazda, I predict its sales will be average at best. Part of that has to do with the amount of dealerships and their location... but why isn't that viewed as a positive for Lincoln-Mercury? Mercury could peddle Mazda's line-up far better than Mazda does in the US. Jaguar & LR's sales in the US are horribly low, as I'm sure they are in the rest of the world. I don't think their global presence really justifies their existence (or investment)... unless you have global volume numbers (or profit numbers) to back it up? If LR & Jag were to continue overseas, I'd just use them as platform donors for the next-generation of Lincolns. Jaguar's aluminum platform should have supplied Lincoln with a truly competitive Towncar to compete against large Mercedes like it did in the 1980s... but no, Ford decided against that. It could still happen though. It would sell better in the US as a Lincoln than it does as a Jag also(how could it not) A version of the Range Rover would make an excellent next-gen Navigator (once again, selling better.) Volvo... yes. Globally is a strong brand and manufacturer, however, as you said earlier, Ford has already integrated their technology into Ford vehicles... so there's really nothing to stop Ford from continuing to use Volvo R&D & platform sharing with future global Fords while selling Volvo vehicles overseas. All in all, Ford would continue to benefit from its global investments, but wouldn't be spread so thin in the US market supporting a dwindling market share(which numbers include PAG sales) Once again, we're talking about 4 brands and 280,000 annual sales... if their global presence is that significant, it shouldn't hurt them much. My opinion is those 4 global brands only sell 280,000 cars in the largest car market currently in the world. F-L-M could easily absorb and exceed that type of volume locally with competitive products provided from overseas. The volume would benefit them all, while reducing the amount of brands in the US significantly.

Bravo! Congrats GM! Another substantial step to raise the resale value of GM vehicles. This could actually increase the trade-in on my 2003 Park Avenue...

You've seen them... you just didn't notice they were the new body style. Honestly, I wish Nissan well: STEAL SALES FROM TOYOTA! However, the Maxima is now pointless with the new Altima. Nissan needs to come up with something original in order to justify remodeling the Maxima.

It looks like a step-in arcade game that I'd see at Gameworks... where do you swipe your gamecard?

Where is your logic?? You want to know mine? The expense of supporting three separate dealership networks, individual brand marketing, R&D, and production of these small 'niche' brands are hazardous to Ford's US health while contributing to the brand gluttony in this country's market. Volvo: Independent dealer network 2006 annual sales: 115,807 (down 6.3%) (8 models) Mazda: Independent dealer network 2006 annual sales: 97,074 (down 14.9%) (9 models) Jaguar & Land Rover: Mostly consolidated Joint Dealership Network 2006 annual sales: Land Rover: 47,774 (up 3.5%) (3 models) Jaguar: 20,683 (down 32%) (4 models) Three separate exclusive dealership networks, roughly 24 separate models between 4 brands... all for what? 281,338 annual sales?!!? GM's sacrificial lamb Buick sold 240,657 alone last year with 5 separate models while sharing a dealership network with Pontiac and GMC. Ford's sacrifical lamb Lincoln-Mercury division sold a combined 301,324 with 13 separate models while sharing the same dealership network. Mercury could easily sell rebadged Mazdas while allowing Euro-Fords to be sold here as US Fords. Buick and the rest of GM would benefit from the additional resources that are currently being spent on SAAB. MMNA... well, DCX has done everything it can to severe corporate ties for when it goes belly up. You can say "Brand Appeal" (or allure/high regard) is the important factor in saving Mazda, Volvo, Jag, & LR... but the "exclusiveness" of the Ford niche brands actually means no one is buying them! With the proper models, Mercury & Lincoln would be competitive like any other manufacturer and sell more too. Look at what they're currently doing with re-badged Fords (and less models)! Those are my reasons why.

The article is about reducing the amount of dealerships... not nameplates. But I agree... The domestics need to drop/kill the following brands in the US: Volvo, Land Rover, SAAB, Jaguar, Aston Martin, & Mazda. DCX has all but severed ties to MMNA (Mitsubishi), which should be gone soon enough. Right there alone are 7 nameplates that the Domestics can assist with getting rid of in the US market to help cure the current gluttony of makes. Ford could use Fords from Europe as Fords. Mercury could sell rebadged Mazdas. Lincoln won’t feel suppressed by Volvo, Land Rover, & Jaguar. Not what you wanted to hear... but oh well

Exactly... most SUVs/CUVs already have an upright seating configuration. It won't be missed in the Enclave. However... a $52,000 import luxury/sport sedan... hmmmm.

As for the G-Coupe artist interpretation... yeah... it actually made me think of a Hyundai Tiburon. Hopefully it will look better in the flesh.

Heh... I see Buick Lucernes regularly in Seattle. Not rentals either. Buick sponsers Tiger Woods... and is mentioned just about every time Tiger's name is mentioned in the News or Media. Promos on the Enclave have been extensive.

No it doesn't. The last Regal (and current LaCrosse) do not offer full-power seats. The Driver and Passenger backs have to be manually adjusted.

The 2nd gen Infiniti Q45 was nothing more than a Japanese Buick:

You guys wonder why my favorite brands are Buick and Infiniti... Infiniti does not actually copy Buick styling, but has tastefully interpreted and used several interior and exterior styling traits that have shown up on Buicks over the years. The current Q45 with a waterfall grille would make a perfect Buick flagship: Even now... If the spy pic of the new Buick Statesman/Lucerne from downunder is any indication... I'm going to get my wish of a Buick Q45 equivalent: They're not even close to being identical. They are different interpretations of a similar vision. You can tell they would appeal to the same type of buyer.

Regardless... I still want a new Jag some day

Mitsubishi's literal sales increases are marginal at best. The US network can't continue starving on 10,000 sales a month. Nothing is really coming down the pipeline for Mitsubishi that'll change that... not even the new Lancer. The new underpowered and ugly Outlander will be forgotten as soon as the new VUE arrives.

Between the exaggerated overhangs and cheap interior pieces (just sit in it and touch, feel, & use (not look)... you'll know what I mean) I'm not surprised. It's terribly overpriced and the reliability is horrid compared to the competition.

Acura... but then you have to damn the other Enclave Competitors (direct(CUV) or indirect(SUV) - same price range) that I mentioned: Honda, Subaru, Toyota, Jeep, Chrysler, Mazda, Nissan, etc...My point was... This isn't a blatant circumstance where GM is being "cheap." Most of Buick's "Premium" competitors are similar. Some people just need to realize that the "bar" set by the competition isn't as high as you might think. GM is matching its competitors feature for feature and in some cases offering more (articulating headlamps) but you're still disappointed and act as if GM isn't competitive (or leading) in a market they were practically non-existent in.

OUCH! And this was with some of the highest incentives in the country to boot! http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006...incentives.html Chrysler can't apparently give their cars away.

Mine is similar: Prepare for the worst, and you have the best made (covered). x2 --------- A few others: "Always surround yourself with people who are smarter and more successful so you can learn from them." - "Life is a bowl of cherries, but I'm looking for nuts." - "Seek loyalty. Avoid trust."

Grrr... I didn't think to ask. Thankfully April isn't that far away. We'll know soon enough!