Chrysler Refinancing falls short: Sale rumors start

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim Prower
  • 23 comments
  • 1,180 views

Jim Prower

The Big Blue Ford.
Premium
Messages
10,620
Messages
gtp_jimprower
SME daily newsletter
Chrysler sale rumors arise after refinancing falls short.

The Financial Times (8/5, Bullock, Reed) reported that Chrysler "revealed it had only been able to refinance $24 billion of a $30 billion one-year credit facility that was expiring" because "some banks declined to extend additional credit to the vehicle maker. Chrysler also took a reduced amount...to account for its decision to pull out of the lease business." The automaker cited "plunging residual values of off-lease vehicles and the more difficult climate in the securitization markets" as its reasons for pulling out of the business. According to Tom Gilman, of Chrysler Financial, about "90 percent of all banks that were part of the original conduit participated in the renewal." The ones that did not "demanded higher interest rates than those Chrysler had paid in the original $30 billion facility."

Chrysler Financial spokesman Bill Porter told Bloomberg (8/5, Ramsey, Koenig) that "Chrysler Financial has a $70 billion portfolio..., so the renewed bank lines represent only a portion of the capital it can access to make loans." Chrysler said that "it had earned $1.1 billion through June, excluding interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization," and "had $11.7 billion in cash at the end of that period, of which $2.3 billion was restricted." Earlier this year, Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli said that the company "wouldn't have a net profit in 2008."

The AP (8/6, Krisher, Durbin) adds that since Cerberus Capital Management took Chrysler private, "little has gone right." The "weak economy" has "limit[ed] Chrysler's ability to borrow." And, "troubles are mounting. Chrysler's sales are down 23 percent so far this year, the worst drop of any major automaker, and it has stopped offering leases through its financial arm." This coupled with its inability to renew the full $30 billion in its credit lines have led Fitch Ratings to "downgrad[e] Chrysler further into junk territory." Fitch "expects the company's finances to fall to the minimum levels required to fund its operations as early as next year." Still, the company maintains "a positive spin on the headlines." Chrysler "says it's performing ahead of its own expectations," pointing to its cash on hand and its earnings. The company attributes its performance to "significant job cuts and asset sales." Some analysts speculate that the company is trying to make itself look "more attractive to buyers." If the company is not sold, some analysts say, "Chrysler has so few products in its pipeline that it's hard to see a turnaround plan."

The Detroit Free-Press (8/5, Higgins) quoted Aaron Bragman, "an industry analyst with Global Insight," as saying that Chrysler has "been getting a lot of criticism in many circles about just how are they actually doing. We keep hearing [Chrysler president and vice chairman] Jim Press stating: 'We're ahead of plan. We're ahead of plan. Everything looks great.' But their sales are down by a quarter for the year and 30 percent over the last two months. Those two statements don't mash up."

Links:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7bd15c44-624e-11dd-9ff9-000077b07658.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=au05zqFSzI2s&refer=home
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-ap-chrysler-cerberus,0,1974486.story
http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080805/BUSINESS01/808050316

Well, Chrysler has to spend money they couldn't get. Who do you think's looking at 'em? As far as "Expectations," sounds like they're expecting to have gone the way of AMC by now.
 
They're in a tough spot. Their corporate overlords at Cerberus are getting some things worked out (points to the new Jeep interiors that have debuted), but the problem is that with the cars sucking so hard for the past five years, no one wants to buy them. Any of them. Beyond that, for some reason, Chrysler is STILL riding on SUV/Truck sales.

They have got to cut cars and trucks, consolidate lineups, and cut costs as far as they can.
 
Beyond that, for some reason, Chrysler is STILL riding on SUV/Truck sales.
I can't figure this out either. In the late 90s Chrysler had 4 SUVs (counting Jeep) throughout their entire corporation when Ford/GM had a dozen, yet when gas prices started going up they decided it would be a good time to introduce 2-3 more per nameplate.
 
They are worthless in my book... so if they disappeared I wouldn't miss them. Well... I would for one car...
 
I can't figure this out either. In the late 90s Chrysler had 4 SUVs (counting Jeep) throughout their entire corporation when Ford/GM had a dozen, yet when gas prices started going up they decided it would be a good time to introduce 2-3 more per nameplate.

Small crossovers aside, the problem is, they aren't even class-leaders by any measure. They have stated publicly that they think the Ram could take a sales lead in the vacuum that is the "removal" of the Silverado and F150, but I doubt it. The Durango is no longer relevant. Nobody gives a crap about the Nitro and Liberty.

Keep the Wrangler, Patriot and Cherokee and kill the rest of the trucks (save for the Ram), and they'll be fine.
 
Solution: sell to Renault and let Nissan run it by completely gutting everything and starting over. Well, keep the 6.1L Hemi V8 just because it makes a great noise despite being decades behind everyone else's V8.
 
I still don't get why you say the Hemi is so outdated when it is better than everything but what Toyota and GM have for truck duty. And we have already gone over why anything involving Nissan that isn't a V6 engine deal wouldn't improve anything at Chrysler.
 
I still don't get why you say the Hemi is so outdated when it is better than everything but what Toyota and GM have for truck duty. And we have already gone over why anything involving Nissan that isn't a V6 engine deal wouldn't improve anything at Chrysler.

Its underpowered, thats why I don't like the Hemi for other than noise and name. GM's V8's are ok, I prefer Ford's and Nissan's but that's ok.

And if Renault/Nissan took it over and they completely clean house and start over I don't see how that's a problem? I'd be happy to have Chrysler be more "in the game". Competition breeds better products (generally--minus China/India). Ford and GM would **** their pants if a Chrysler product had good build quality, design, and an excellent Nissan/Renault derrived drivetrain. :D
 
JCE
Its underpowered, thats why I don't like the Hemi for other than noise and name.
We've been over this before. That has never been true.
It has more power than any V8 offered in trucks of that size/configuration except the Tundra
(ignoring the Cadillac Escalade EXT), which it has an astonishing single horsepower deficit to that one could argue is easily made up for by the total lack of explosions the Ram faces in the engine department. It has more torque than any petrol engine offered in quarter ton trucks excepting the same Cadillac. At the same time, it gets fuel mileage just as good (or better, in the case of the anemic Ford and Nissan) as all of its competitors.
Even a couple of years ago when it was rated at only 345 HP, it wiped the floor with the respective Ford offering, had 30 more HP than the respective Nissan offering, had the same power (but more torque despite being a smaller engine) as the Chevrolet offering and had 80 horses on the Toyota offering.




JCE
And if Renault/Nissan took it over and they completely clean house and start over I don't see how that's a problem?
Because there are only a few things that Nissan does overall through their range that are that much better than what Dodge does.
 
We've been over this before. That has never been true.
It has more power than any V8 offered in trucks of that size/configuration except the Tundra
(ignoring the Cadillac Escalade EXT), which it has an astonishing single horsepower deficit to that one could argue is easily made up for by the total lack of explosions the Ram faces in the engine department. It has more torque than any petrol engine offered in quarter ton trucks excepting the same Cadillac. At the same time, it gets fuel mileage just as good (or better, in the case of the anemic Ford and Nissan) as all of its competitors.
Even a couple of years ago when it was rated at only 345 HP, it wiped the floor with the respective Ford offering, had 30 more HP than the respective Nissan offering, had the same power (but more torque despite being a smaller engine) as the Chevrolet offering and had 80 horses on the Toyota offering.

A truck is about payload and towing yes? Then if that's the case the Hemi fails compared to everyone else (minus Ridgeline lol). 345bhp is meaningless if you can't out perform the less powerful opposition in what you were designed to do. The lackluster underpowered Ford 5.4L performs excellent in what its designed to do. GM and Nissan are the same. If you want a sports truck with good 0-60mph then the Ram was your friend. If you want a workhorse that does what it should be capable of doing you buy a GM or Ford. :D
 
That was poor chassis design. It has nothing to do with the engine being a poor performer.

2004 Dodge 5.7L V8 Hemi: 345bhp and 375tq
2004 GM 6.0L V8: 295bhp and 335tq
2004 Ford 5.4L V8: 300bhp and 365tq
2004 Nissan 5.6L V8: 305bhp and 379tq
2004 Toyota 4.7L V8: 271bhp and 313tq

And for grins:
2004 Nissan VK45DE 4.5L V8: 335bhp and 340tq (M45)

So as you can see the Ram really wasn't that more powerful than the rest of the group. The Ford manages almost as much torque with 45 less BHP and 300cc of displacement, and the Nissan manages to beat out on torque versus the Hemi with 100cc less displacement. And the surprise is Nissan of JAPAN with a measly 4.5L manages 10bhp less and 35tq less with a whopping 1300cc less displacement. I'm even impressed at the GM 6.0L on how well it performs for having overall less power than the Hemi. By all intents and purposes with a power output of 345bhp it seems as though they didn't set that engine up for torque. I'd imagine that engine could have over 400tq if they had wanted to set it up that way--its just the bhp would probably drop 30-50 (guess?).

Just food for thought.
 
I'm confused. Every single engine there except the Nissan has less torque. What difference does it make how large one is compared to another?

And flash forward to 2009:
2009 Dodge 5.7L V8 Hemi: 390bhp and 407tq
2009 GM 6.2L V8: 380bhp and 415tq
2009 Ford 5.4L V8: 320bhp and 390tq
2009 Nissan 5.6L V8: 317bhp and 385tq
2009 Toyota 5.7L V8: 381bhp and 401tq

I still don't get what you are driving at. You said it was underpowered. It was never underpowered (second most powerful engine in its class is not "underpowered" when it is pipped by only 4 pound feet and is in a group of five, even ignoring the huge horsepower advantages it had), and it is even less underpowered now.
If you really want to play hardball, one could easily make a case that it is the best engine in its class as it outpowers the expensive and less suited to truck duty DOHC engine Toyota introduced without resorting to more displacement. You have also contradicted yourself a number of times as to what underpowered actually means.


A similar thing occurs when you look at the mid level engine options:
2009 Dodge 4.7L V8: 310bhp and 330tq
2009 GM 4.8L V8: 295bhp and 305tq
2009 GM 5.3L V8: 315bhp and 325tq
2009 Ford 4.6L V8: 292bhp and 320tq
2009 Toyota 4.7L V8: 276bhp and 313tq

Once again the Dodge has the most torque and power except for the larger Silverado 5.3 V8 (which it essentially ties). So I don't know where you are coming from by saying that Dodge makes bad engines. If anything, that is the only thing they are good at.
 
Last edited:
What I'm saying is the underpowered comment--which does apply to anyone else with a low output per displacement--is aimed mostly towards the 6.1L. And my comment regarding the underpowered in reference to the 5.7L Hemi Ram is aimed squarely at the LACK of performance in terms of hauling/towing with those power numbers when compared to the others. Ford for instance does much more with much less.
 
I would agree that the 6.1 is a little substandard nowadays (though it does have similar performance to the GM 6.2), especially as it doesn't have cylinder shut off like the 5.7 does.

But the towing and payload capacity are just as much chassis related as they are engine related, if not more. The fact that the payload capacity is so low compared to the Ford and Chevy tells you that the reason the towing is so low is probably chassis related.
 
Well maybe so, but I still think the 5.7L in a truck is basically worthless with those power numbers--too much bhp and not enough tq. In a passenger car or SUV it does just fine with those numbers. And of course they make a pretty good noise. :D
 
But why does it need more torque? It already has more than nearly every single engine it competes with. The fact that it has class leading horsepower in addition to torque should be taken as a bonus, not a detriment.
 
JCE
Its underpowered, thats why I don't like the Hemi for other than noise and name. GM's V8's are ok, I prefer Ford's and Nissan's but that's ok.

wut?

They bumped the BHP on the 5.7L to 370 BHP. I'd say that's "competitive" against the L76 and whatever Ford is going to offer. Torque be damned, it works pretty well as a truck engine.
 
It's actually kinda amazing how long Chrysler have lasted with all of the incredibly bone-headed and short-sighted decisions they've made in the last several years. I find it hard to believe that upper management had anything in mind other than "squeeze whatever money we can out of this, grind it into the ground, and then retire with what we've got."
 
They claim to be listening, but they don't seem to be doing a very good job. The plight seems to have gone mum in the mainstream media, too, especially as Ford and GM take center stage with their fantastic plans for the future.
 
They claim to be listening, but they don't seem to be doing a very good job.
Oh yeah, I remember filling out that online form where you can send suggestions. I said something along the lines of spending more time and money on interior quality, abandoning the "style" used on cars such as the Crossfire and new Sebring, bringing back the Neon, and building a cheap, lightweight, sporty, 4-cylinder RWD coupe (aka what the Dodge Demon should have been, if its Chinese production version will ever even come to fruition).
 
Mopar's problem is not one of making too little power.
It's problem is one of making cars that don't last. Well, that and making every car that formerly was good looking ugly.
It's bad enough to own an ugly car. It truly sucks if your ugly car isn't at least reliable.

Talk to a Mopar Minivan owner.
Many will tell you tales of woe concerning transmissions that break catastrophically in extended models.
Many will tell you of 2.2L and 2.5L I4 engines that needed rebuilds at 30, 60, and 100 thousand miles.

Find a Neon that hasn't had a head-gasket changed. (It'll be very low miles, or it NEEDS to have the head gasket changed)

The reason that the leasing of vehicles is a poor job on Mopar's part is that their cars are built to live not much longer than a low-mileage 3 year lease.
It is the perfect car for someone that can pay cash, drive for 3 years, and trade up to a newer model. Of course, that puts a bunch of used cars on the market that are not very good cars.

I had a Plymouth Minivan, for 10 years, and had enough problems with it, that even with the "Lifetime" warranty on the engine/drivetrain, I'd still not even consider a Mopar.
And I LOVE the styling of the 300, Charger, and Challenger.

But even a brick ****house still smells like **** when all is said and done.
 
Last edited:
The minivan's trannies were crap. They were devised for the K-car (itself a cheaply-designed car) and not meant to lug around all the weight, yet Chrysler persisted with them. This from the company that created the 727 torqueflite, a hugely capable RWD transmission.

The "Cloud" Cars, (Stratus, in particular,) and the G1 Intrepid, though, were fairly good cars. The 300C/Charger, too, was a good move, but is badly in need of a diet and some serious seam welding. 94-'00 Cummins Rams? need I say more? And the Viper. An uncompromising sunnuvabi...yeah.

I just wish they'd put something out like the Stratus again, something that could clearly fly under the radar, with a Supertouring pedigree. I wish they'd sort out the LX weight/stiffness problem. I wish they'd build a decent front-wheel-drive tranny. I wish...

but it doesn't seem to come true.
 
I mostly agree with you.

Chrysler, until recently always had style.
The 300 is actually an erzatz Mercedes, as is the Crossfire.

However, those are the "high end" cars.
They had BETTER be good.

It's the low end cars that are the "bread and butter" for most corporations.
If these cars suck, then in the minds of the AVERAGE consumer all the cars must suck.

I got well and truly burned on my Voyager. As a result, I may like the Magnum, or the Charger, but my "fear factor" is gonna prevail.

If I had a Chrysler that had "Volkwagenitis" (little bits of interior trim falling off, odd rattles, but always ran, got me where I wanted to go, etc.) I'd be much less critical.

I've been left by the side of the road by three cars.
One of them was because it was indifferently maintained. And that's why they left me stranded, with "small items" (clutch, timing belt and head gasket).I'd buy another Nissan in a minute.
No Pontiacs or Mopars will ever find a home with me again.
When they broke, they broke huge, and expensively.
 
Back