Daimler-Chrysler Profit down 30% World-Wide

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by Nomen Nescio, Apr 29, 2005.

  1. Nomen Nescio

    Nomen Nescio Guest

    Mercedes loss cuts Daimler's profit
    HERE'S MY TAKE ON ALL THIS. There are a lot of car companies in this
    world, all making similar quality products at competetive prices. When D-C
    is just another apple in the barrel, they have no market advantage.

    Chrysler used to advertise themselves as engineering being their
    strongpoint. But today, a Kia is just as good as a 300M or even a
    Mercedes. Soon, a Song will be their biggest competitor. Who doesn't want
    a new quality car for $7,500 instead of $75,000?

    To recapture the market, Chrysler has to offer something different than the
    other folks. Like in different I mean no more electric fuel pump in the
    tank where it goes bad and you are stuck. How about a direct
    engine-driven, all metal pump? As long as the engine runs, the pump runs.
    As long as the pump runs, the engine runs. Get the picture? How about
    making it a double impeller pump, with two fuel lines and two filters and
    check valves to make it a double pump system? If one system quits working
    for any reason, a check warning light goes on to signal the driver for
    service. In the meantime, the engine still chugs along like nothing
    happened. Use this kind of design philosophy to all the car's critical
    systems and D-C will have something unique to sell: a car you can depend
    upon.

    Engines shouldn't rev over 3600 rpm, tops. Anything faster is asking for
    fast wear out, thrown rods, melted bearings, or broken cranks. The fuel
    injection system should be all mechanical with electronic control override
    for smog control. If the electonics fail, the system defaults to
    mechanical and the driver gets the light, but still chugs along.

    No timing belt, no through holes in the head gasket (except bores and
    bolts), etc. etc. etc. If necessary, fire all the engineers and tell them
    to go back to work for American Standard. Hire some out of work Russian
    aerospace guys who can make a car reliable enough so the old lady doesn't
    say about your 20 year old Chrysler, "Will that car make it to San Diego?"

    In the old days, people dumped their cars after 3 years of service. A 3
    year old was already an old car. Times have changed. If United Airlines
    can use 20 year old jets every day of the week for fare paying public
    transportation, I see no reason why I can't use a 20 year old jalopy to go
    coast to coast without worrying the fucking CV joints might seize and snap
    off because D-C didn't install Alamite grease fittings to renew the grease
    every oil change. By the way, how many of you out there do an annual
    teardown and regrease of your u-joints? Not one in a thousand. Your
    joints are just like mine, 200,000 miles between grease jobs (and
    catastrophic, explosive dissembly).

    As long as D-C think you should always carry a cell phone with you to call
    for help when your Mercedes quits because a little wire came loose
    somewhere, they're doomed; they've got to build in 200% dependability in
    each and every one of their premium priced products. In the meantime, I
    can't hardly wait until the Song hits the showrooms.
     
    Nomen Nescio, Apr 29, 2005
    #1
  2. Nomen Nescio

    Bill Putney Guest

    Nomen Nescio wrote:

    The reason we now have tank-located fuel pumps is because under-hood
    temperatures got too high and things are too compacted. Vapor lock is a
    reality. Last car I had with a mechanical engine-driven fuel pump was
    an '80 Citation. Would vapor lock in the summer. Of course it didn't
    help that they designed the front manifold pipe to do a 4" radius 180°
    turn with the fuel pump located at the exact center of the radius.
    But earlier you were desiring a $7500 car. You can't have both.
    But from whence do you get power to pass safely. Right now, it comes
    from downshifting and high engine revs (torque x speed => horsepower).
    The only other way is thru displacement or forced induction which
    contrdicts your other goals.

    The fuel
    I go along with that one. It is do-able. If they could develop the
    CV-joint to be feasible for the consumer market, they can put a little
    development money into a reasonable initial cost, absolute zero
    maintenance gear-driven overhead cam.

    Bill Putney
    (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
    adddress with the letter 'x')
     
    Bill Putney, Apr 30, 2005
    #2
  3. Nomen Nescio

    soxinseven Guest

    Some moronic crap.

    I said months ago that this guy was nothing but a Troll who likes to read
    his own typing.

    Nomen, get a JOB. Get a LIFE. Honestly.
     
    soxinseven, May 2, 2005
    #3
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.