The Second Sign of the Apocalypse: DaimlerChrysler De-Merger to Happen "Soon"

  • Thread starter Thread starter YSSMAN
  • 65 comments
  • 2,967 views

YSSMAN

Super-Cool Since 2013
Premium
Messages
21,286
United States
GR-MI-USA
Messages
YSSMAN
Messages
YSSMAN
An un-holy union?

LLN.com
General Motors is in negotiations with DaimlerChrysler to buy the Chrysler Group in its entirety, according to sources in Germany and America. The group consists of the Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep brands. High-level talks are underway between DCX and GM executives, according to trade publication Automotive News.

Rumors of an alliance first appeared in Germany's Manager-Magazin, but today's report is the first calling for an outright acquisition. Speculation about a GM acquisition began this week, but today's report is the first claiming to cite high-level sources. What's more, this is the first we've heard of actual negotiations taking place.

Following its announcement earlier this week of a $1.3 billion loss in 2006 for the Chrysler Group, DaimlerChrysler said it would consider all possible options to rectify the situation.

"No option is being excluded in the interest of arriving at the best possible solution for the Chrysler Group and DaimlerChrysler as a whole," the company said.

German newspapers Handelsblatt and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung said DaimlerChrysler was specifically looking at a spin-off of the Chrysler Group on the stock market. The reasoning behind such a move is to avoid the hassle of finding a company to acquire Chrysler. However, it appears GM was quick to step up to the plate.

On Wednesday, Chrysler announced three-year Recovery and Transformation Plan that seeks a return to profitability by 2008, including 13,000 job cuts and one plant closure.

Is it the end of the world as we know it? It would be in Detroit. But then again, wasn't the same question asked when Chrysler nearly folded in the '80s? I dunno. I've never been a big fan of anything Mopar despite outstanding family alliances toward the brand, but with the aid of GM, there could be quite the turnaround.

...More information would be nice, as there are far too many questions to be asked in this situation...
 
Funny that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/business/15cnd-auto.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Chrysler and GM Hold Talks on Joint Project
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Reprints Share
DiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink

By MICHELINE MAYNARD
Published: February 15, 2007
DETROIT, Feb. 15 ­- The Chrysler Group and General Motors are holding preliminary discussions about a joint project that would provide Chrysler with a version of the big Chevrolet Tahoe sport utility, people with direct knowledge of the talks said Thursday night.

There is no indication when the two companies might reach a conclusion in the talks, which have been under way for about six months, these people added. They insisted on anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions, which were described as being in the very early stages.

A spokesman for Chrysler declined comment Thursday night. A G.M. spokesman, Tony Cervone, added, "We don't comment on future product plans." Any kind of an arrangement most likely would require approval of the two companies' boards.

Word of the negotiations came a day after Chrysler's parent, DaimlerChrysler, said it was leaving its options open on Chrysler's future, leading to speculation it could spin off the American car company. Daimler-Benz and Chrysler merged in 1998.

On Wednesday, Chrysler said it would cut 13,000 hourly and salaried jobs and close all or part of four plants as part of a restructuring plan. The automaker, which ranks fourth in the United States behind G.M., Ford Motor and Toyota, lost $1.5 billion in 2006.

Discussions between G.M. and Chrysler, which were first reported Thursday by The Wall Street Journal, were described by those with knowledge of them as "ongoing and positive" but far from complete.

The talks got under way around the same time that G.M. was in talks with Renault and Nissan about a possibly global alliance. Those negotiations later fell apart when the two sides could not agree on the value of a deal, and have nothing to do with the current talks with Chrysler, people with knowledge of those discussions said.

Under the most likely situation, G.M. would produce a big S.U.V. for Chrysler to sell in the United States and other markets. G.M. builds Tahoe as well as a sister vehicle, the G.M.C. Yukon, at plants in the United States and Mexico.

Any deal with G.M. would be similar to Chrysler's recent agreement to build minivans for Volkswagen. Chrysler also has reached an agreement in principle with the Chinese automaker Chery on a venture that would build subcompact cars for Chrysler to sell in the United States.

Chrysler, whose lineup is weighted heavily toward S.U.V.'s, pickups and minivans, has talked about building a large S.U.V. for more than 20 years. But it has not been able to find a way to justify the expense of developing a big S.U.V., which it mostly likely could sell only in limited numbers.

S.U.V. sales peaked in 2002, but have fallen significantly since then, especially after gasoline prices spiked above $3 a gallon in 2005 and 2006.

In fact, the drop in S.U.V. sales was one reason G.M. lost $10.6 billion in 2005, prompting the company to initiate its own restructuring efforts.

"It's ironic that both of them are in financial trouble because they're too dependent on big vehicles, and now they're talking about doing a big vehicle together," said Kevin Smith, editorial director of Edmunds.com, a Web site that offers car-buying advice.

Still, auto companies say there is a market for big S.U.V.'s, especially for buyers with large families and those who use them for business purposes.

It is not clear when the talks might conclude or when such a vehicle would go on sale. G.M. introduced new versions of the Tahoe and Yukon in late 2005 and early 2006, meaning a Chrysler model might have to wait until it introduces fresh versions a few years from now.

But G.M. is expected to introduce a hybrid-electric version of the Yukon in 2008, using a system it is developing under another joint venture with DaimlerChrysler.

Mr. Smith said the companies' collaboration on the hybrid vehicle might be a reason for them to link up to build a sport utility.

I'm assuming that since Chrysler is "in trouble" that any talks with another manufacturer are going to be seen as an attempt to split off chrysler. Funny no one mentioned splitting of mercedes a couple years back when they were in the same situation.

Not saying it won't happen (sale of Chrysler), but the logistics of GM buying them seem difficult. Vehicle overlap, dealing with the Unions, etc, etc.
 
It wouldn't make sense for GM to buy them, all the cars are in competition, GM would end up having to either redefine, or destroy one car form each brand, in effect that would mean either the Corvette or the Viper would go, or either the Corvette or the Viper would be redefined and become a different animal to what they are today. That's applies for almost every model the companies prodce.
 
Chrysler is actually making a profit now for each car they sale. GM and Ford lose money. It would be better for mercedes to split in the short run, but long term Im not too sure.
 
I am sure as hell not buying a Dodge powered by a that damn Smallblock. I want my Mopar to have a Hemi.

As long as it's like GM's ownership of Subie, I guess I'd be fine. I'd be even finer, however, if Carlos Ghosn and Nissan/Renault got into the mix....

just as long as one model doesn't become called "Alliance."
 
I want my Mopar to have a Hemi.
A Porsche engine, then?
I dunno. I can't see how this would help either GM or Chrysler, especially since they have both fairly recently completely designed new platforms and all.
And, as live4speed mentioned, they happen to compete with each other more than Tom and Jerry do.
 
I just did a huge project on Chrysler and the Crossfire and I think its brilliant how merc has turned them around by basically making it its 'value brand'... so you get afew years old merc tech with a flashy new shell, Genius! Its relatively cheap and by looking at the crossfire great value as it such a beautiful car...

If GM bought it, firstly they would be competiting with themselves and secondly you would loose all the good merc stuff...

I really hope this doesnt happen..... this is the first time in ages that a Chrysler has appealed to me!

Robin
 
It wouldn't make sense for GM to buy them, all the cars are in competition, GM would end up having to either redefine, or destroy one car form each brand, in effect that would mean either the Corvette or the Viper would go, or either the Corvette or the Viper would be redefined and become a different animal to what they are today. That's applies for almost every model the companies prodce.

You're speaking as if GM thinks it's a bad thing to have its own cars competing with eachother. They've been doing this for how many decades now? And why would they need to eliminate one car from each category? If the cars compete against eachother, GM would theoretically make the same amount of money no matter which car is being sold.

Following its announcement earlier this week of a $1.3 billion loss in 2006 for the Chrysler Group, DaimlerChrysler said it would consider all possible options to rectify the situation.

And what were GM's losses last year? It was a very surprising thread title when I opened up GTP this evening, as I thought GM was in the worst financial position of all three.
 
Man. You've heard the expression the blind leading the blind? This would be like the blind buying the blind. Pray this doesn't occur.
 
You're speaking as if GM thinks it's a bad thing to have its own cars competing with eachother. They've been doing this for how many decades now? And why would they need to eliminate one car from each category? If the cars compete against eachother, GM would theoretically make the same amount of money no matter which car is being sold.

True, but GM doesn't have another car competing with the Corvette. GM doesn't need a Crossfire competing with the Solstice, and Sky for sales.

And they certainly don't need Dodge Rams going against Chevy Silveradoes/GMC Sierras/Avalanches/Escalade EXTs or Dodge Durango/Chrysler Aspens against Chevrolet Tahoes/GMC Yukons/Cadillac Escalades.

That's just way too many vehicles of the same market even if one is more luxurious than the others.
 
True, but GM doesn't have another car competing with the Corvette. GM doesn't need a Crossfire competing with the Solstice, and Sky for sales.

The only thing the Crossfire competes with is the Saab 9-5 for the title of 'most outdated vehicle on the market.' The Saab 9-5 consistently wins, but somehow the Crossfire grows closer each year.
 
The only thing the Crossfire competes with is the Saab 9-5 for the title of 'most outdated vehicle on the market.' The Saab 9-5 consistently wins, but somehow the Crossfire grows closer each year.

Oh. So what competes with the Solstice/Sky from Chrysler if anything?
 
Oh. So what competes with the Solstice/Sky from Chrysler if anything?

The Crossfire does, but I can't see anyone buying a Crossfire over the Solstice and Sky. Remember, when the Crossfire debuted - for '03 - it was already riding on an unbelievably old platform ('98), and it's the final application of the 3.2-liter Mercedes V6, an engine that debuted in the early 1990s, still in existence. All this coupled with the fact that it's automatic-only means there's just no way to justify it in today's market. I'm honestly surprised it's still on sale.
 
So, GM is out after a monopoly. Now we will have Grossly Misconcieved cars being built with Mostly Obsolete Parts And Rust. The only competing US make would be ford, which is now, um, Found On Road Dead. We need variety here if we are to compete with anything, and besides, I have considered Chrysler to be in a different league of quality than GM and Ford. If this does go through, let's hope GM doesn't mess with Chryslers.

On the looking at Nissan and Renault, I thought GM was already planted firmly enough in Europe and Japan. If their cars are inadequate, what makes them think these will be in five years? If anything, GM should revive an ultra-luxury company to build really high quality cars. Call it Deusenburg.:dopey:
 
And what were GM's losses last year? It was a very surprising thread title when I opened up GTP this evening, as I thought GM was in the worst financial position of all three.

GM is in by-far the best shape of the "Big 2.5" here in Detroit. They have a clear, and well-executed plan that thus far has been working, they have been holding moderately well in America and have been doing well worldwide. In 2006, GM North America sold 4.1 Million vehicles, down 9% from 4.5 million, but Ford and Chrysler faired much much worse overall.

---

As most of us know, I'm the "GM Guy" in most cases, and no matter what I hate seeing anything going wrong with the company I like best. But generally speaking, I don't like seeing any American company doing badly, and thereby believe that they need to do whatever necessary to stay afloat in this country... As Michigan needs to keep this business, badly.

Fundamentally speaking, mixing The General with MOPAR is similar to mixing Oil and Water, it just won't happen. The two companies take completely different approaches to the ways they build and design their cars and trucks, and if the "merger" (or whatever is suggested) happens, I can't see it turning out that much better than the "merger" (or takeover?) between Chrysler and DaimlerBenz.

But, when in need, I think the two could work together. Maybe...

Month after month, things continue to look grim for Chrysler and its children, and with the Germans growing distaste for the consistent money-loser, I'm neglecting to see why they have held onto the company for so long.

Will Dr. Z and his cohorts fix it in time before the company is on the verge of collapse once again? Maybe, maybe not. Could GM do anything to help? Maybe, maybe not.

A strategic "alliance" with GM may be necessary in the short-term to keep Chrysler from going belly-up, but when it comes down to it, I only see the benefits going towards Chrysler themselves. The General really has nothing to gain here; Nine out of ten Chrysler products are drastically inferior to that of GM's, not just in appearance and quality, but mechanical "stability" itself is so completely out-of-whack compared to that of GM that I just cannot fathom wanting to be a part of that mess.

I'd like to hear more information, as this is probably another one of those "maybe, kinda, should we, no probably not" stories like what we saw with GM/Ford, GM/Renault/Nissan, GM/Ford, Ford/Toyota, Ford/Renault/Nissan things we've seen in the past year...
 
Would this alliance function like a loan? The only way to improve revenues and sales is to build better cars. I could see this as an investment on GM's part, maybe hoping to revive Chrysler and reap the rewards? But this is risky business. You can throw tons of cash at a company and have it go nowhere (see Toyota F1 team, 2006). Bouncing around in the industy will get Chrysler nowhere, they need a partner who will be there long-term or will produce a good strategy for revival.
 
The Crossfire does, but I can't see anyone buying a Crossfire over the Solstice and Sky. Remember, when the Crossfire debuted - for '03 - it was already riding on an unbelievably old platform ('98), and it's the final application of the 3.2-liter Mercedes V6, an engine that debuted in the early 1990s, still in existence. All this coupled with the fact that it's automatic-only means there's just no way to justify it in today's market. I'm honestly surprised it's still on sale.

I'm most likely wrong on this, but isn't the first-gen SLK chassis (the one under the Crossfire) still based on the first-gen C-class chassis, making it much older than '98? I'm sure there are differences between the two, but I've always been lead to believe the C and SLK were still basically the same chassis.

Anywho, I'm shocked by this news, to be honest. How can a company that has a fair share of well-rated models domestically be doing so bad? They helped bring back RWD to mainstream models!
 
GM is in by-far the best shape of the "Big 2.5" here in Detroit. They have a clear, and well-executed plan that thus far has been working, they have been holding moderately well in America and have been doing well worldwide. In 2006, GM North America sold 4.1 Million vehicles, down 9% from 4.5 million, but Ford and Chrysler faired much much worse overall.

What were their losses in 2006?
 
Ford lost 12.7 billion. The General lost 10.6 billion. Interestingly, DC lost "only" 1.48 billion. All figures are in USD. Maybe GM is looking to learn something from Chrysler?
 
According to the Wiki it is. The SLK chassis is based on that of the W202 C-Class that first showed up in 1993, making the Crossfire, at least by diffusion, one of the "oldest" cars on the road when it comes to the chassis alone. The only cars that top that to my knowledge are the Ford Crown Victoria and the Econoline, which have the Crossfire beat by just a year, given their debuts in 1992.

Kinda sad really, but then again, not a huge surprise for Chrysler. I mean, I've driven the Crossfire, and it really isn't that bad, but it certainly was showing its age by comparison to newer sportier models out there. It does make me wonder why Chrysler hasn't killed the car, given the incredibly poor sales and the rather lukewarm introduction and reception it has had. Back in 2005 there was a 230 day sit time on dealer lots for the car here in the US, and I had read at one point that it was nearing 360 days... It got bad enough where Chrysler didn't import any Crossfires to America for 2006, given that they had to sell the 2005 models on Overstock.com to get rid of them.

...It is the gross incompotence of the people at Chrysler that has put them in a position such as this. They create models that answer questions that nobody was asking, don't sell well, and then find themselves in a spot in which they must decide to either get-rid of what they got, or solider on until the brink of collapse. We see this with things like the Chrysler Aspen (why?), the Jeep Compass and Patriot (double why?), Jeep Commander (either we build a Wagoneer or we DON'T!), etc.

Sure, there are things Chrysler does do right... The Dodge Ram, Dodge Viper, Jeep Wrangler, and Chrysler 300C come to mind, but that doesn't make-up for everything that the entire group does. Sure, GM and Ford are just as screwed up as this one with their overlapping products, but in their case, their overlapped products are actually good.
 
Kinda sad really, but then again, not a huge surprise for Chrysler. I mean, I've driven the Crossfire, and it really isn't that bad, but it certainly was showing its age by comparison to newer sportier models out there. It does make me wonder why Chrysler hasn't killed the car, given the incredibly poor sales and the rather lukewarm introduction and reception it has had. Back in 2005 there was a 230 day sit time on dealer lots for the car here in the US, and I had read at one point that it was nearing 360 days... It got bad enough where Chrysler didn't import any Crossfires to America for 2006, given that they had to sell the 2005 models on Overstock.com to get rid of them.

I think that the Crossfire was just a victim of cost-cutting. I don't remember them ever event hinting that it would be 60% SLK as a concept. I remember seeing the Crossfire alongside the Nissan Z Concept, and how they were strikingly similar cars. Upon release, Chrysler completely dummied down the Crossfire by rebadging a Mercedes, and I know I wasn't the only one disappointed by this. Nissan then had a runaway success.
 
According to the Wiki it is. The SLK chassis is based on that of the W202 C-Class that first showed up in 1993, making the Crossfire, at least by diffusion, one of the "oldest" cars on the road when it comes to the chassis alone. The only cars that top that to my knowledge are the Ford Crown Victoria and the Econoline, which have the Crossfire beat by just a year, given their debuts in 1992.

It's pathetic. How many updates did they chassis get when the SLK took it over in 1998?

By the way - the W202 C-class came out in 1994, not 1993. Could've come out earlier in other markets, but since we're comparing apples to apples, I suppose you have to look at the US debut of the platform. On that topic I saw a C220 yesterday while car spotting. They were rare - '94 and '95 only. Can you imagine a 147 horsepower Mercedes?

I mean, I've driven the Crossfire, and it really isn't that bad

Hell. I lost to one on Interstate 70, and that was at 5,300 feet. My turbocharged car was reaching peak power, but he was probably hovering around 200, possibly lower, and he was pulling away like nobody's business. I'll respect anything that beat me given those conditions. But it's old.

...It is the gross incompotence of the people at Chrysler that has put them in a position such as this. They create models that answer questions that nobody was asking,

I made the very same point in the Did You See Anything Good Yesterday thread upon posting a photo of the first Jeep Patriot I had seen on the road. Chrysler has had some extremely successful products lately, only to waste any possible profits with cars that have extremely limited appeal. It's sad.
 
I made the very same point in the Did You See Anything Good Yesterday thread upon posting a photo of the first Jeep Patriot I had seen on the road. Chrysler has had some extremely successful products lately, only to waste any possible profits with cars that have extremely limited appeal. It's sad.

The good news is that the Patriot is miles ahead of the Compass, but both have to be some of the worst new-product debuts since the Saturn Ion. Problem is, they still suck, and no matter how cheap or "fun" they may be, they aren't ever going to replace the Caliber as the standard small-car at DCX, which by even then is so far behind the competition in some respects, you have to wonder what is going on over there...

But when it comes to recent successful products, it is a pretty limited number:

- The LX triplets
- The Ram
- The Durango
- The Cherokee
- The Wrangler

...Thats about it...

And with the market drifting further and further away from SUVs and large trucks, you have to wonder what DCX's plans are for the eventual collapse...
 
But when it comes to recent successful products, it is a pretty limited number:

- The LX triplets
- The Ram
- The Durango
- The Cherokee
- The Wrangler

...Thats about it...

Between Chrysler's LX platform and Jeep's always-good products, Chrysler has been running away with it. Think about this: have Ford or GM made one single good car since the '05 Mustang? No. But Chrysler is having a veritable hit parade. So why are they doing so badly? Mis-management and niche products. My point? Unknown.
 
I don't really think GM & Chrysler are headed for a merger. Points made about massive overlap, decades-old buyers rivalries, and the waiting disaster with the unions all show how difficult it would be. I also think Chrysler is on the verge of figuring things out; they haven't done it yet, but they're overdue for some form of success (individual models aside).

But never overestimate the stupidity of corporate executives. I need only mention the merger of HP & Compaq....
 
I suppose the performance brand is going to be SSSRT or TSRT.

Can't wait to drive a Pacificlade or a Town and This Is Our Country.
 
I don't really think GM & Chrysler are headed for a merger.

What's wrong with you? They already merged.

Chrysler built the TC, which was manufactured by Maserati, formerly controlled by Ferrari, a member of the Fiat group, part owned by General Motors.

Essentially they are the same brand.

Omnis
Can't wait to drive a Pacificlade or a Town and This Is Our Country.

Almost funnier than me. Almost. +R
 
What's wrong with you? They already merged.

Chrysler built the TC, which was manufactured by Maserati, formerly controlled by Ferrari, a member of the Fiat group, part owned by General Motors.

Essentially they are the same brand.
Formerly part-owned by General Motors. I'm still too tired to think of any other way to link them, however, so that will have to do.
 
Back