Built like a Mercedes (?)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Comments4u
  • Start date Start date
C

Comments4u

With job cuts announced on both sides of the Atlantic, its clear
Daimler-Chrysler is serious about cutting the fat. Even more,
it has announced plans for increased production at the currently
hot Chrysler unit without additional workers. That is truely
cutting the fat. But observers wonder if Daimler-Chrysler
has really identified all its fat. Its not just in the workforce.
It is in the cars and trucks.

At the Chrysler unit, the new Dodge Dakota, which, perhaps only
coincidentally, is selling poorly, picked up 600 pounds in its
re-design, all for a paltry additional 2 inches back seat room.
But it merely followed the example of the Pacifica: over
4000 pounds for a six passenger vehicle that has all the
luggage space - in both shape and volume - of a 78 Plymouth
Horizon. The Pacifica isn't even in the same league as Chrysler's
all time weight efficient 6 passenger vehicle: the (then)
downsized 79 New Yorker, Newport, and St. Regis, at under 3800
pounds.

The extra weight is generally not evident on the road, thanks to
Chrysler's potent engines. But it is at the gas station. And
it certainly takes a toll in increased wear of mechanical
parts.

It may not matter, however, if the Chrysler unit can convince
customers the extra weight means greater quality. Mercedes has
been quite successful, until recently, with this strategy.
Mercedes' economy car, the C230, makes its tires scream with
a hefty load of 3405 pounds. In contrast, a Honda Civic with
5 cubic feet greater combined capacity weighs 777 pounds less.

But there is always opportunity. With the added weight,
Lee Iacocca may be tagging Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep
commercials with "Built like a Mercedes". Of course, if
that turns out to be true, Chrysler Financial will soon
be in the business of offering car equity loans for the
repair bills.
 
Comments4u said:
With job cuts announced on both sides of the Atlantic, its clear
Daimler-Chrysler is serious about cutting the fat. Even more,
it has announced plans for increased production at the currently
hot Chrysler unit without additional workers. That is truely
cutting the fat. But observers wonder if Daimler-Chrysler
has really identified all its fat.
Click to expand...

No. It's about getting America off its lardy ass and competing at
world standard productivity levels.

Compete or die. The world is hungry for jobs and there's no space for
lazy weaklings.

Graham
 
No, it's about getting America to get off it's lard butt and take back it's
industry, but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the EPA being told
to shut up and suck on a pine tree.

If you want to buy American, it needs to be OWNED and built here.

Japan and Germany didn't lose WW II, they just waited and bought us off.

Budd
 
Budd said:
No, it's about getting America to get off it's lard butt and take
back it's industry, but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and
the EPA being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree.

If you want to buy American, it needs to be OWNED and built here.

Japan and Germany didn't lose WW II, they just waited and bought us
off.
Click to expand...

That's put me off Jaguar, Volvo, Saab, Land Rover, Ford, Vauxhall, and all
the other American owned brands we buy in Europe then. F*** 'um foreign
things. We'll buy European domestic products like Renault, Fiat and Peugeot
instead.

But wait, how does nationalism and protectionism help all those American
Ford and GM brands? Oh it doesn't, it guarantees even bigger losses for
them.
Perhaps Americans only believe in free trade when the going is good for
them? Yes that is probably it.

Fact is, there is only one way to stem those losses at Ford and GM and that
is for them to become more efficient and trade their way out. It can be
done. Just look at the example of Nissan which under French management has
been transformed from imminent bancruptcy to a modern success story in less
than ten years.

There is nothing magical about Japanese or German industry. Just look at the
present debacle at Mitsubishi which Daimler/Chrysler could not turn around.

If you want a global recession where you are absolutely guaranteed to have
fewer sales and total business failures then certainly go protectionist. If
you want continued relitive prosperity and employment then become
competitive and grow your economy.
There is no stopping China and other major competitors becoming more
prosperous because they are coming around to the American way of doing
business. If enough trade is done both ways then both economies win.
Obviously America has more to lose and China has more to win but what you
need is a win/win situation. It is inevitable though that China will become
a stronger economy than the USA in the medium term.


Huw
 
Budd Cochran said:
No, it's about getting America to get off it's lard butt and take back
it's industry, but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the EPA
being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree.
Click to expand...

How about we cut your pension or however you get paid. I'm so sick of
hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. Who the
hell here can afford a pay cut?

Roy
 
Yet not a word about GM whose entire Chevy lineup contained just three cars
compared to its six SUV's. One of those cars is the Corvette, not exactly a
best seller, given its small market share.

Nor any word on Ford, which was almost as guilty as GM in the bias towards
SUV's. Nor any word on how Ford just announced closure of > 14 < plants in
the U.S.

While DC is cutting jobs, one should note that those jobs will come off the
roster of executives. Addditionally, 75% of those jobs are being cut in DC
headquarters homeland, Germany. Further, while the weight of vehicles is
noted, what isn't noted is the fact that each of those vehicles was the ONLY
offering from that particular nameplate in each market segment. Dodge has
ONE SUV, not six like Chevy.

But I suspect none of that matters, as the author of the original post is
likely just another whiner in a long line of those concerned about oil
consumption. If you are that concerned sir, take up the cause of rail
transport with your congresssman. A good rail system will cut use of
personal vehicles and lower the number of tractor trailers on the highways.
This will save far more fuel than a Dodge Durango that weighs 600 pounds
less.

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
 
Max said:
But I suspect none of that matters, as the author of the original
post is likely just another whiner in a long line of those concerned
about oil consumption. If you are that concerned sir, take up the
cause of rail transport with your congresssman. A good rail system
will cut use of personal vehicles
Click to expand...

Yes it will do that but fuel use per passenger mile is higher by train and
passengers still have to get to the station and from the station to their
destination at the other end.




and lower the number of tractor
trailers on the highways. This will save far more fuel than a Dodge
Durango that weighs 600 pounds less.
Click to expand...

As above, the freight has to reach the station be handled onto the train,
offloaded and trucked to its final detination. Hardly efficient and not
likely to save a drop of oil. Could even be more expensive. In fact it is
more expensive, less efficient and less convenient with time delays as well,
otherwise business would still use trains as the primary means of transport
for goods, if not people.

Huw
 
Roy said:
How about we cut your pension or however you get paid. I'm so sick of
hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. Who the
hell here can afford a pay cut?

Roy
Click to expand...

Obviously, Roy, you have problems with cause-effect thinking. If you
apply for a commodity-type job and another guy is applying for the same
job and he demands less money to accept employment, which do you think
will get hired? If you can answer that question, then you have the
logic skills to address the above issue. If not, then...

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
 
Budd Cochran said:
No, it's about getting America to get off it's lard butt and take back
it's industry, but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the EPA
being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree.

If you want to buy American, it needs to be OWNED and built here.

Japan and Germany didn't lose WW II, they just waited and bought us off.

Budd
Click to expand...

I think america let them -- japan they gave technology to -- but japan was
already getting german technology -- BUT the americans bought from them -- i
agree it needs to be built here -- not assembled here -- and owned by north
americans -- actually in all industries here we need to be doing that
whenever we can -- canada too -- we all have plenty of resources but we sell
them cheap before we even look at using what we need first and then selling
them cheap to our neighbours

i think there are way too many fat executives at D-C who have forgotten
about the average guy -- especially the ones who are going hungry working on
their lines -- these guys are having a hard time buying gas or paying for
the bus pass -- they really don't care about performance as long as it runs.
the vw bug has had a great comeback. did D-C completely forget about the K
car? we haven't. Cheap and reliable, cheap parts, GUARANTEE all the body and
major parts will not change over the next 10 years unless there are faults
or necessary improvements to be made (hey they have been at this long enough
that 90's technology in something like that is a no-brainer -- and use
existing common parts already being manufactured here wherever they can.)
make it in 2 models with interchangeable body panels -- all with bench
seats -- 2dr 2 seater club with 3 belts, cab hatchback with fold-down seats
in the back (these should be equipped with lap belts with two sets of
hookups for baby carriers), auto trans, optional AWD unless they can do this
cheap on all models, no power accessories-- 4dr 4 seater with 6 belts
hatchback station wagon with rear fold-seats and optional identical
fold-down seats (with same belts) found in the 2dr with optional factory
roof rack with built-in extension bars, auto trans, optional AWD, optional
4WD, luxury editions can have power options -- and call it simply the
Chrysler K, K station wagon, K 4x4 -- gotta love those old AMC eagles

put their most reliable components in them AND BUILD THEM or begin moving
that way

this car helped build their reputation -- and how about designing them so
the driver can see all four quarters

i think minivans are on their way out -- at least in canada

they are doing this in other industries -- what about buy nine, get one
free -- business incentive -- lets see the police drive around in them
<grn> -- actually was thinking the parking police too but they don't deserve
vehicles at all except to get away when someone is trying to assault them
<vbgrn>

my dad drove his k-car until it turned from beige to pink. his buddys teased
him about his mary-k car while many drove expensive cars. he said he never
worried about someone dinging him in the parking lot, and his wife has the
new car so he doesn't have to worry about getting a call from her -- and
it's the gentlemanly thing to do -- most had no response having the
expensive cars for themselves. he always believed in driving a car into the
ground -- and get two of the same thing. unless you need to downsize quickly
or you are driving something soon to have problems or it's a real peice of
crap, you bought it because you wanted it, so look after it -- it doesn't
have to be new -- my 88 dakota is a real babe (waiting for motor
installation -- bought it with cracked block -- i call it a perfect girly
truck, but my male neighbours would like to have it too!
www3.sympatico.ca/rske projects

the poor dakota -- it is very unfair -- toyota did this too -- their
littlest trucks they upgraded in size to get more money for them and now
there is a big hole in the market that suzuki and the unreliable envoy are
filling

rach
 
Rail is a pipe dream as a Big Solution. I saw the results of a study in the
UK about getting freight onto rail. If rail freight were doubled (!)
overnight (a physical impossibility given the lack of capacity, so imagine
the HUGE investment) then road freight would go down by a mere 10%.

Most freight is not suitable for economic and efficient transport by rail.

On passenger traffic/cars, I wonder what diff it would make. I like to take
the train for city centre-to-centre journeys, but how may of those do I
make? Why is it that in major countries the only really viable routes are
the major ones like along the East Coast (Boston-Washington DC),
London-Glasgow or Edinburgh with only the cities on the route,
Munich-Hamburg up the east or west with cities on the way, Paris-Lyon.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

[...]
consumption. If you are that concerned sir, take up the cause of rail
transport with your congresssman. A good rail system will cut use of
personal vehicles and lower the number of tractor trailers on the
highways. This will save far more fuel than a Dodge Durango that weighs
600 pounds less.
Click to expand...
[...]
 
And I forgot to mention Huw's point about fuel per passenger mile. As
things are now many trains run at well below capacity so the unit use of
fuel can be high. Just because the power stations feeding the rail network
are out of sight does not mean they don't use fuel. Or the diesel engines
pulling the trains don't use prodigious amounts of diesel...

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

Dori A Schmetterling said:
Rail is a pipe dream as a Big Solution. I saw the results of a study in
the UK about getting freight onto rail. If rail freight were doubled (!)
overnight (a physical impossibility given the lack of capacity, so imagine
the HUGE investment) then road freight would go down by a mere 10%.

Most freight is not suitable for economic and efficient transport by rail.

On passenger traffic/cars, I wonder what diff it would make. I like to
take the train for city centre-to-centre journeys, but how may of those do
I make? Why is it that in major countries the only really viable routes
are the major ones like along the East Coast (Boston-Washington DC),
London-Glasgow or Edinburgh with only the cities on the route,
Munich-Hamburg up the east or west with cities on the way, Paris-Lyon.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

[...]
consumption. If you are that concerned sir, take up the cause of rail
transport with your congresssman. A good rail system will cut use of
personal vehicles and lower the number of tractor trailers on the
highways. This will save far more fuel than a Dodge Durango that weighs
600 pounds less.
Click to expand...
[...]
Click to expand...
 
Comments4u said:
With job cuts announced on both sides of the Atlantic, its clear
Daimler-Chrysler is serious about cutting the fat. Even more,
it has announced plans for increased production at the currently
hot Chrysler unit without additional workers. That is truely
cutting the fat. But observers wonder if Daimler-Chrysler
has really identified all its fat. Its not just in the workforce.
It is in the cars and trucks.

At the Chrysler unit, the new Dodge Dakota, which, perhaps only
coincidentally, is selling poorly, picked up 600 pounds in its
re-design, all for a paltry additional 2 inches back seat room.
Click to expand...


How did you determine that the 600 pounds were added solely to allow 2
inches back seat room.
But it merely followed the example of the Pacifica: over
4000 pounds for a six passenger vehicle that has all the
luggage space - in both shape and volume - of a 78 Plymouth
Horizon. The Pacifica isn't even in the same league as Chrysler's
all time weight efficient 6 passenger vehicle: the (then)
downsized 79 New Yorker, Newport, and St. Regis, at under 3800
pounds.

The extra weight is generally not evident on the road, thanks to
Chrysler's potent engines. But it is at the gas station. And
it certainly takes a toll in increased wear of mechanical
parts.

It may not matter, however, if the Chrysler unit can convince
customers the extra weight means greater quality. Mercedes has
been quite successful, until recently, with this strategy.
Mercedes' economy car, the C230, makes its tires scream with
a hefty load of 3405 pounds. In contrast, a Honda Civic with
5 cubic feet greater combined capacity weighs 777 pounds less.
Click to expand...

One question that should be answered before deciding that the weight
should cut is what the weight is used for.

But there is always opportunity. With the added weight,
Lee Iacocca may be tagging Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep
commercials with "Built like a Mercedes".
Click to expand...

Do you really think that Chrysler (or any other car maker) is simply
adding steel to push the weight numbers up? Come on!
 
How about we cut your pension or however you get paid. I'm so sick of
hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. Who the
hell here can afford a pay cut?
Click to expand...

Which would you rather have: your pay cut, or your job cut?

A lot of Ford and GM workers are about to wish they had taken the pay
cut...
 
Comments4u said:
But there is always opportunity. With the added weight,
Lee Iacocca may be tagging Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep
commercials with "Built like a Mercedes". Of course, if
that turns out to be true, Chrysler Financial will soon
be in the business of offering car equity loans for the
repair bills.
Click to expand...

Some of these companies just keep missing the point. They could sustain
some corporate fat if they produced leaner (i.e., energy efficient)
products. An SUV, for example, that gets 50MPG would sell like hot
cakes, as would a sedan that's as economical.

The price of gas is only going to go up as Asian nations consume more of
it and compete for it on the world market. Anyone who has any sense and
who's in the market for a new automobile is going to buy the most
economical vehicle that fits their needs.

Chrysler needs to produce more energy efficient cars that are safer and
more reliable. When it does that, its financial problems will go away.
Likewise for GM and Ford.
 
Scott en Aztlán said:
Which would you rather have: your pay cut, or your job cut?
Click to expand...
A lot of Ford and GM workers are about to wish they had taken the pay
cut...
--
Click to expand...
You folks continue with the same mantra. Cut the workers wages. It is damn
easy to say until it affects you. Also the same bs "it will be your job if
you don't take a pay cut" The jobs will go anyway.

Roy
 
Roy said:
How about we cut your pension or however you get paid. I'm so sick of
hearing cut the employees wages as part of the cure all end all. Who the
hell here can afford a pay cut?
Click to expand...

And the funny thing here is that all of these pay cuts come from the
workers, never from the owners or upper management. Perhaps if the salaries
of these big execs were brought back into reality we would also be far more
competitive but God forbid that ever happens.
 
Scott said:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 09:24:13 +0000, Pooh Bear



You mean like they do over in Europe, which has both shorter work
weeks and more vacation days every year than Americans do?
Click to expand...

Imagine how much worse their presently abysmal unemployment numbers
would be if they had the longer work week and less vacation time (i.e.,
they'd have to lay people off to achieve the same number of work
hours/productivity/output levels).

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest threads

Back
Top