Hyundai in talks to buy Fiat Chrysler

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: loneryder
Why would anybody want that company. Even Daimler couldn't make it work.


Daimler didn't want it to work. All Daimler wanted to do was bleed the money from Chrysler.


By the time DB bought Chrysler, there was no more than dust to bleed.
Chrysler proved to be a deep money pit for DB which is the reason that they were anxious to part with their billions of dollars in investment in this loser for literally nothing.
A Canadian VC firm did make a few bucks and Fiat now finds itself stuck to this tar baby.
It might be that Fiat will get dragged down with this anchor around its neck and any potential buyer might just pick up the desired pieces on the cheap after bankruptcy.
Yes, it really is that bad for FCA and just wait for the next recession.
Of course, when that happens, there may be more valuable and viable entities available on the cheap.


Chrysler was doing great in 1998 when Diamler took them over, Diamler was the company that has a cash crisis.

Interesting little read -

https://www.mapartners.net/insights/what-really-happened-daimler-chrysler
 
Yup, always interesting to see people assume that it was Chrysler that needed saving from Dimler, when it's a cold, hard fact that Dimler needed desperately Chrysler's money. Dimler bleeder them dry and bailed out.

Chrysler foolishly thought that the merger would open up the EU market to them. They got none of that with the exception of some old Mercedes platforms.

It actually quite an accomplishment what Chrysler was able to achieve with these outdated platforms Dimler "generously" shared with them. Instead, they get constantly criticized for it, when the likes of Toyota get praised for using old platforms.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Silverado12
I would like to see American ownership, but that's wishful thinking as this country is being parted out.


I agree, i'd love to see it american owned, you just have to keep the unions out to keep them from running the company into the ground.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dishdude

Chrysler was doing great in 1998 when Diamler took them over, Diamler was the company that has a cash crisis.


From a different perception....Chrysler made a lot of that money selling substandard passenger cars.

LHS
Concorde
Sebring
Intrepid
Cirrus
Neon

These cars are pretty much extinct 20 years later, I see more 1957 Chevy's than I do 1998 Chrysler LHS's.

Please don't take this as a bash against all things Chrysler
 
Originally Posted By: clinebarger


From a different perception....Chrysler made a lot of that money selling substandard passenger cars.

LHS
Concorde
Sebring
Intrepid
Cirrus
Neon

These cars are pretty much extinct 20 years later, I see more 1957 Chevy's than I do 1998 Chrysler LHS's.

Please don't take this as a bash against all things Chrysler


I had to Google what a Chrysler LHS even was! It's the one that looks like a catfish. Had to double check the Cirrus too, couldn't remember them either. Same as a Stratus!
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
The Jeep and Ram brand is making a lot of money for Chrysler. I just wish it was Ford or GM in a bidding war for them.
Totally agree.
 
Originally Posted By: Jimzz
Originally Posted By: nthach
At one point in time, Hyundai and Chrysler shared a common bond via Mitsubishi.


Yea that is when Hyundai/Kia was junk. Why go back.
smile.gif

How can you know you are going forward without knowing what is behind you.
 
When I was working in the automotive supplier role, Hyundai and Chrysler were my least favorite OEM's to work with.
Sounds like a match made in Hades.
 
Originally Posted By: clinebarger
Originally Posted By: dishdude

Chrysler was doing great in 1998 when Diamler took them over, Diamler was the company that has a cash crisis.


From a different perception....Chrysler made a lot of that money selling substandard passenger cars.

LHS
Concorde
Sebring
Intrepid
Cirrus
Neon

These cars are pretty much extinct 20 years later, I see more 1957 Chevy's than I do 1998 Chrysler LHS's.

Please don't take this as a bash against all things Chrysler


I agree with you there. I always thought the LH platform cars were cool (Concorde, LHS, front drive 300, Intrepid, Vision) but they were not good cars.

The Cloud cars were too generic and had a lot of problems with suspension components falling off, and transmission problems.

Neon ... a complete joke of a car. That's why Chrysler has a bad reputation. They really did try with these cars, but just couldn't make them work
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
The Jeep and Ram brand is making a lot of money for Chrysler. I just wish it was Ford or GM in a bidding war for them.


They don't have any cash either.
 
Originally Posted By: Yah-Tah-Hey
Who in their right mind would want anything with Chrysler's name on it?


Quite a few of us....
 
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Neon ... a complete joke of a car. That's why Chrysler has a bad reputation. They really did try with these cars, but just couldn't make them work

GM and Chrysler have been the King and Queen of badge/name engineering for many years.
Take the Chevy Cavalier (and it's other GM siblings) for example, after it earned such a bad reputation that they had a hard time selling them, when they updated the car they renamed it Cobalt, and then Cruze. Chrysler has done the same thing, for example, what started out as the Omni became the Neon, then Caliber, and then Dart. Ford has only done this one time when they renamed the Escort to Focus. All basically the same cars under the skin with new styling but different names... hoping that the buying public would forget about the previous name and assume that the newly named car is a different car.
In the mean time, Toyota has had the Corolla for 50 years and Honda has had the Civic for 45 years. When your cars earn a good reputation, you don't have to keep renaming them.
 
Originally Posted By: Miller88

I agree with you there. I always thought the LH platform cars were cool (Concorde, LHS, front drive 300, Intrepid, Vision) but they were not good cars.

The Cloud cars were too generic and had a lot of problems with suspension components falling off, and transmission problems.

Neon ... a complete joke of a car. That's why Chrysler has a bad reputation. They really did try with these cars, but just couldn't make them work

Chrysler has IMO one of the better engineering teams in Detroit - it's the bean counters and the C-suite that made them a mediocre company. Yes, it took many TSBs and tweaks from the aftermarket but Chrysler was revolutionary in the 1980s with the K-Cars/minivans, the first American-built automatic transmission with adaptive controls and a few other things. I think they were the first American automaker to adopt multi-point fuel injection, despite the fact it was a Mitsu engine that was used.

But with that said, I had the misfortune to look at a friend's Sebring, while it was a joint Chrysler-Mitsu product, it and their efforts in the 1980s-1990s is what left a sour taste in many mouths. The Prowler, Viper and a revived Dodge in the 1990s were good efforts, but you can still see the cheapness in those designs.
 
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: loneryder
Why would anybody want that company. Even Daimler couldn't make it work.


Daimler didn't want it to work. All Daimler wanted to do was bleed the money from Chrysler.


By the time DB bought Chrysler, there was no more than dust to bleed.
Chrysler proved to be a deep money pit for DB which is the reason that they were anxious to part with their billions of dollars in investment in this loser for literally nothing.
A Canadian VC firm did make a few bucks and Fiat now finds itself stuck to this tar baby.
It might be that Fiat will get dragged down with this anchor around its neck and any potential buyer might just pick up the desired pieces on the cheap after bankruptcy.
Yes, it really is that bad for FCA and just wait for the next recession.
Of course, when that happens, there may be more valuable and viable entities available on the cheap.


Chrysler was doing great in 1998 when Diamler took them over, Diamler was the company that has a cash crisis.

Interesting little read -

https://www.mapartners.net/insights/what-really-happened-daimler-chrysler


LOL!
So a German industrial behemoth needed Chrysler for its little horde of cash and its aging product line in serious need of investment to bail it out?
This smacks of the same sort of smack you'd see on a Studebaker or Rambler site.
Chrysler did make some nice cars after they finally moved on from the K car, but they were not notably durable in typical ownership as compared to almost anything else.
The LH platform cars put any FWD car from GM or Ford on the trailer in appearance and driving dynamics and the Stratus did the same while the Neon had a lot of promise left unrealized by junk construction.
We had a rental Intrepid back in the day and it was a very nice driving and roomy car.
Were it only a more durable machine we might have actually bought one.
By the time DB acquired Chrysler, the company needed serious investment in new product as well as serious investment in improved mechanicals, something Chrysler's little checking account couldn't cover.
 
Do it Hyundai! And please integrate the parts with Hyundai the way GM does their brands. I'd love to have Jeep and RAM added to my parts catalog.
 
DCX was clearly not a result of a "merger of equals," and Schrempp was playing a game that Eaton didn't even know he was in.

Pawning off the carcass to the clueless vultures at Cerebrus, because no one else would take it, was the coup de grâce.
 
Those of us old enough to remember the slant 6 motors (one of the very first long runners), 383's, etc. know what great vehicles the Dodge Brothers used to make.
I loved those cars...
 
Originally Posted By: nthach

Chrysler has IMO one of the better engineering teams in Detroit - it's the bean counters and the C-suite that made them a mediocre company. Yes, it took many TSBs and tweaks from the aftermarket but Chrysler was revolutionary in the 1980s with the K-Cars/minivans, the first American-built automatic transmission with adaptive controls and a few other things. I think they were the first American automaker to adopt multi-point fuel injection, despite the fact it was a Mitsu engine that was used.

But with that said, I had the misfortune to look at a friend's Sebring, while it was a joint Chrysler-Mitsu product, it and their efforts in the 1980s-1990s is what left a sour taste in many mouths. The Prowler, Viper and a revived Dodge in the 1990s were good efforts, but you can still see the cheapness in those designs.



They were also the first with Bi-Directional controls built into ECM's & it worked fantastic! Though....The ECM's were not very durable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

eljefino
How to buy a car on Facebook Marketplace
Replies
16
Views
822
Elkins45
Shel_B
Cars might be making a comeback in an SUV-Dominated Market
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
5K
JHZR2
A
Sold car 5 years ago, buyer just had it picked up today.
2 3
Replies
49
Views
3K
John105
GON
Many passionate American CEO's in office today like Lee Iacocca?
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
2K
John105
Finklejag
Tried to buy a Mitsubishi Mirage yesterday
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
6K
97prizm
Back
Top