Chrysler to be owned by the US Government, Fiat, and the UAW?

[TK]

Some of you may see this as a good thing, I see it as the government competing with private enterprise, which is against the Constitution, and one more step towards Communism. Not to mention the US Governments current administration thinks the answer to Chrysler is tiny little shitboxes. (Are you gonna buy a new Chrysler-Fiat-Obama multi fuel, half electric 45 HP Shitbox, fully equipped with styrofoam crash resistance, GPS autopilot, and automatic speed limiting through GPS?
I need to find a link to the GPS auto speed limiter, it's pretty funny, but coming soon.

Chrysler is far from out of the clear, and, just like the American Dollar, I am betting it will be set up for a real bad crash.


http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss...ge/us_chrysler

[Dick]

That's good. Now eat your vegetables.

[REDNECKMOBILE]

It will be interesting to see Mr. Iacocca's remarks on this newest page of Chrysler's soap opera.

[Stoga]

Originally Posted by TK

(Are you gonna buy a new Chrysler-Fiat-Obama multi fuel, half electric 45 HP Shitbox, fully equipped with styrofoam crash resistance, GPS autopilot, and automatic speed limiting through GPS?

You betcha, just like the guys who said my minivan would die years ago, I expect your predictions of failure will be equally F.O.S.
Then again, I'm a Mopar fan, and realize that Chrysler needs an entry level vehicle to replace the Neon. That's how they made the money to make Viper and Challengers, after all, just like how selling Darts, Valiants and Savoys paid for making Hemis and 440s. The government will mandate all those changes for all vehicles anyway if they decide to, no point blaming Chrysler or Fiat for it.
My only fear is this will end up like Benz thievery, x2.
Hopefully the Italians will be more honorable in this situation than the Germans were.
Either way, it's another bunch of foreign nationals, I can only hope that this time it'll work.
I plan to buy Chrysler products as long as I can, I really don't like the alternatives.

[Frankie]

Depending on what type of vehicle they will be "allowed" to offer, there might be no changes, then again, there might be drastic changes.

I'm sure the minivan will survive. It's got to be the best selling vehicle Chrysler produces. I personally think it's the best minivan produced. I particularly like the newest body style. No, it's not the prettiest, but it looks to be the most efficient.

I think the Challenger will be short lived, though. Especially if PresBO, and Fiat have anything to say about it. I hope they keep the Charger. It's a wonderful family sedan even if you don't like it being called a charger. But I think they should offer it with a 4.7L V8 as an option, too.
The company/union negotiations should be real interesting, too.

[dodger1]

Didn't anyone read the actual press releases? Ownership will be U.A,W. - 55%, FIAT - 20%, leaving 25% to you taxpayers. Chrysler do Mexico (truck plants) and Chrysler Canada (rear-drive cars and minivans) are not included in the bankruptcy, and I wonder what that means to both of those entities. Yet the new 9-member board is loaded in favour of the U.S. Govt., 4 seats for them (you taxpayers), 2 for FIAT, and one each for U.A.W., C.A.W., and the Canadian Feds (us taxpayers) I don't quite understand how that works - the U.A.W. has 55%, but only 1 seat. Chrysler Canada isn't included in the bankruptcy, but the C.A.W. has a seat. I give up!!

[dodger1]

Here is the official Chrysler press release: http://www.autoweek.com/article/2009...NEWS/304309998

[TK]

Originally Posted by Stoga

You betcha, just like the guys who said my minivan would die years ago, I expect your predictions of failure will be equally F.O.S.
Then again, I'm a Mopar fan, and realize that Chrysler needs an entry level vehicle to replace the Neon. That's how they made the money to make Viper and Challengers, after all, just like how selling Darts, Valiants and Savoys paid for making Hemis and 440s. The government will mandate all those changes for all vehicles anyway if they decide to, no point blaming Chrysler or Fiat for it.
My only fear is this will end up like Benz thievery, x2.
Hopefully the Italians will be more honorable in this situation than the Germans were.
Either way, it's another bunch of foreign nationals, I can only hope that this time it'll work.
I plan to buy Chrysler products as long as I can, I really don't like the alternatives.

Typical, you like the idea that the US government owns part of chrysler now.................

I bet you would love it in Russia!

[Walkercolt]

Dodger, the reality is 1 seat for the UAW is plenty, as the "U.S. Gov't" will vote exactly the way the union says to. This is part of the "deal" package. But at 2:45 CDT, it was announced that Chrysler was officially applying for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection on the radio news(ABC network). Another $8 billion in taxpayer money on top of the $11 billion last year was the money mentioned.

[REDNECKMOBILE]

Originally Posted by TK

Typical, you like the idea that the US government owns part of chrysler now.................

I bet you would love it in Russia!

We all may before it's over, Fiat sold the Russians a pattern that is still being made over there; the Lada.

[Dick]

Originally Posted by REDNECKMOBILE

It will be interesting to see Mr. Iacocca's remarks on this newest page of Chrysler's soap opera.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/195551

[TK]

But we all know the Obama Administration will trump anything that we want. They have been doing it since elected.


What I want, and what everyone else wants........ (Add to the list)

4cyl Dakota Diesel? Or some mid-size truck, RELIABLE diesel power, not like the jeeps Italian POS.....speaking of.....LOL...........
More fuel efficiency! We know it is possible.
And how about a cheaper line of trucks, for work trucks, basic, cheap, no bells and whistles, priced with the GM and Fords.
Every day one of my Contractor buddies, says, "If I coulda' got a Dodge for the price I got the Chevy...."

Four years ago, I wanted to buy a two wheel drive, Short cab, dually, with a cummins and a 6 speed. Rubber floor, crank windows, no air.

Uhm, they didn't make them. And yet I'm not the only one. LIke I said, over half the contractors I know, would drive a dodge, with a cummins, if they were NEAR the price of the Fords, or Chevy's.


And we all know what FIAT stands for.

Fix It Again Tony. Name something the Italians have made that is reliable in American standards. Even the heavy equipment doesn't hold a candle to a Cat, or a Deere, or even a Hitachi, for that matter. Not to mention Fiat is excited about building FIATS in America, using Chrysler plants. It's another DAIMLER RAPING, ten fold.

[Frankie]

Originally Posted by dodger1

Didn't anyone read the actual press releases? Ownership will be U.A,W. - 55%, FIAT - 20%, leaving 25% to you taxpayers. Chrysler do Mexico (truck plants) and Chrysler Canada (rear-drive cars and minivans) are not included in the bankruptcy, and I wonder what that means to both of those entities. Yet the new 9-member board is loaded in favour of the U.S. Govt., 4 seats for them (you taxpayers), 2 for FIAT, and one each for U.A.W., C.A.W., and the Canadian Feds (us taxpayers) I don't quite understand how that works - the U.A.W. has 55%, but only 1 seat. Chrysler Canada isn't included in the bankruptcy, but the C.A.W. has a seat. I give up!!

What makes you think that the 4 US Gov seats are any different in ideology than the one UAW seat? I'll wager those seats have nothing to do with the wishes of us "taxpayers".

[dodger1]

Originally Posted by Frankie

What makes you think that the 4 US Gov seats are any different in ideology than the one UAW seat? I'll wager those seats have nothing to do with the wishes of us "taxpayers".

That was the question, Frankie! Nothing makes me think the 4 Govt. seats are different than the one U.A.W., I just wonder what the rationale is in deciding this odd distribution. Don't forget I live in a Socialist country, and therefore know little about these things.

[Walkercolt]

TK, I know the rap about Fiats, but I've owned five, four 100% trouble free. The one was used had been in a wreck and had a cracked head that would only show-up when the engine got really hot. Americans don't know how to drive Fiats or Alfa-Romeos. You rev them to red-line BEFORE you up-shift. If you don't, you'll "lug" the engine and pull the valve heads right off the stems. Two people I worked with did this to their X-1/9's. I never had a single problem with mine, and I raced it every weekend at the roadrace course west of town on slicks. The low-revving 4 bangers is what made Japan Inc. successful with their cars here, because people ruined many 240Z(Fair Lady) 6 cylinders by "lugging" them, and Simca, Opel, BMW, Renault, Peugot and Saab all had trouble with people not revving the engines high enough. Toyota and Honda were the first to figure out that Americans were going to drive little engines (like 1.5L) like they did a 225 slant 6. Take-off, rev to 2500, maybe and up-shift. It took years for other Japanese car makers to duplicate what they were doing, and make a four cyl. that could take that. People cursed the Mazda Rotary for the same reason. If you drove the little RX-3 like you were running from the cops, it ran great, got great mileage, and had more power than the low compression SB V-8's. Listen to the way Porsche drivers drive. They wind that engine to the top in each gear, everytime. The engine is designed for that. So are Fiat engines. Most Alfa buyers could grasp the idea of an engine winding to 14,000 RPM (there is no redline on the tach, just a yellow line at 14,000; you can rev it beyond the 18,000 on the tach with no harm, but you get no more power). Even US motorcycle riders can't concive of the RPM's some Japanese engine designs will turn, and they've been "one-year models" in the US. The "home-market" Honda CBR-250ZZ two cylinder four-stroke turns 26,000 RPM and makes more power than some US 600's and weighs 200 lbs. less. I've ridden one brought in thru Canada, last month. With a 90-110 lb Japanese rider aboard, not many 1200cc sport bikes could stay with him on a twisty road. WWII fighter pilots had quite a time adapting to jet engined aircraft too. They were used to "HP", not "thrust". Most American drivers can't (won't) adapt to "different" driving vehicles. After nearly 40 years, many people don't like front wheel drive cars, and many of them I don't like either, but I bought my first FWD car in '76 and loved it. And only Porche owners like thier "tail-waggers" which you have to learn how to drive all over again if you get one. I had one, hated it, got rid of it in less than a week. "Nothing drives like a Porsche." That is 100% true. You love 'em or hate 'em. My cousin next door is driving an old Crown Vic. Give him a brand new V-6 Accord or Camry and in a year either would be in sad shape because of the way Steve drives. He's on and off the gas when he should be steady cruising. He drives just like mine and his Grand-dad did. Paw-Paw was a lousy driver, from a Model T on. From the day I got my "learner's permit" on, he had me drive him and my Grandmother in his old Chebby pick-em-up. My Dad and I may have put more miles driving the truck than Paw-Paw did. My Dad DID drive Paw-Paw's '48 Chevy FAR more than Paw-Paw ever did, and my mother nearly as much, before she had her license! Vehicle quality has less to do with it's durability or design than who's driving it. And yes, Cat track-hoes are better than Allis-Fiats, but the county can buy three and a half Allis-Fiats for the price of the same HP Cat. With the people operating them and "maintaining" them, down here we end up with Ku'Bota's, because they're cheaper yet.

[nhdriver]

Originally Posted by Dick

http://www.newsweek.com/id/195551

I read the link. He said it was a sad day for him . It was a sad day for Chrysler when he retired & left the company with Robert Eaton in charge.

[Frankie]

Originally Posted by dodger1

That was the question, Frankie! Nothing makes me think the 4 Govt. seats are different than the one U.A.W., I just wonder what the rationale is in deciding this odd distribution. Don't forget I live in a Socialist country, and therefore know little about these things.

Re: The "rationale", I've seen nothing in the news that even comes close to explaining it. If the "Liberal Press" hasn't found it necessary to ask that question of our new "Socialist President", any answer would be speculation. For example, we could speculate that for sake of appearances, the seat mix was purposely drawn to make things "Look" like things are "Fair and Equitable". Without the press doing their job, asking questions, and doing investigative research without a bias, we have nothing to prove or disprove that theory. But, this is only my opinion, and I'm sure others here can, and probably will, speculate differently, and that's fine.

IN MY OPINION the cards are being stacked against Chrysler, and against the American tax payer, by the distribution of the company, and the handling of the company's past investors. But, without the press being willing, or able, to do their job, we might never know the real reason for the distribution of seats.

I hope that the new Chrysler can find viable investors after all is said and done.
That hope has 2 levels. One is emotional: I'd love to see Chrysler come out of this a stronger company and continue to produce vehicles the American public wants, instead of what the American government says we want. The other is purely financial. The way things are going right now, if Chrysler cannot find viable investors, the American tax payer will carry that load, too, as part of the need to payback the labor union for their support during the last election. Look at it as "...returning America's wealth to it's rightful owners".

...and I haven't forgotten that you live in a socialist country, but that isn't my fault.

[TK]

Walkercolt.



For one, the American government isn't going to let 10,000RPM four cylinders pass. You know that. I do know what you are talking about. The old 2cycle Detroit, most truck drivers hate them, I love them. Hold to the floor, and push/pull on the stick towards nuetral, when it bounces off of the governer, it will poop into nutral, let off the throttle, and cram in to the next gear, because they unwind so fast, repeat. All the way to the governer.
However.
In the land of automatics, tire pressure warning lights, and back up camera's, the world of high revving 4 cylinder cars that need a "Driver" to drive them, will not happen in America.
Seat of the pants low end TQ, great MPG, and LONG service life, is what will save Chrysler, I think. Never seen a Fiat with 150,000 miles before.
We need longer strokes, lower RPM power band, better MPG's, and no warranty claims.
Ever drove a Dodge truck V10?
Perfect example of an extraordinary engine, with the perfect power band for American cars and trucks.
Mine, got 12 city, and 15-16 highway, in a 2x dually std cab.
The 3.8 V6 engine in this jeep we rented, makes power at 3500-5000, and cruises down the road, at 65, turning 1600RPM. The thing wont even push a headwind in overdrive. The old 4.0 ran great at 1600RPM. What gives?

[dodger1]

Here's FIAT's press release on the deal. http://www.fiat.co.nz/default.aspx?MenuId=400 I think we should forget about the old "Fix It Again Tony" scenario - that was as much a fault of a shitty dealer network as it was FIAT's, i.m.h.o. (I am guilty of selling a pal of mine a used FIAT 124 sports car back in the late 60's, but he was actually pretty happy with it. Of course he was an Italian-Canadian, so...) Anyway, I found the info interesting, and I did learn something about how the deal is intended to work.

[Frankie]

"In summary, the Fiat Contributions will consist of the following: licenses enabling Chrysler to use all Fiat Group Automobiles car platforms (and subject to any restrictive agreement between Fiat and any third party) for the production of Chrysler vehicles in NAFTA; licenses enabling Chrysler to use certain of FiatÂ’s other key technology, such as engine technology...."

Oh, good. :dis

[TK]

More high rpm low torque short life engines..........

[1973Swinger]

If this is what some of the plans really are, its really bad news...

http://jalopnik.com/5240916/chrysler...-jeep-wrangler

[TK]

Death For Chrysler. Life for Fiat.

Obama and the gov should be happy with that, I am sure they apologized for America not buying more Fiats anyway.

[Walkercolt]

TK, high RPM has nothing to do with engine life! The piston speed of my old 1800cc Alfa in FPS was lower than a 454 Chevy big-block. Now the Alfa engine was very low bottom end torque. Fiat bought Dr. Wittner's 6 valve head technolgy he used on his Moto-Guzzi Formula I bikes. With a 6 vavle head and direct fuel injection, 150HP per liter at 6000 RPM is quite easy, and torque figures of 120-140 ft/lbs per liter aren't hard either. With Fiat V-engines, they add 50% to the torque figures. Fiat/Peugoet-Citreon perfected the CVR auto transmission which is very effective for small high-RPM engines. It does waste some HP compared to some types of transmissions, but it improves real-world drivability. BMW has been the company that loves in-line 6's. We don't see the V-4's of Fiat that are very fine engines, we only see one of Audi's inline 5's here, but they build a number of them. We never see the inline 4 Fiat's that lay on their sides in the little Fiat trucks, but in Brazil, they're all over(as well as in Europe). The Australian Orbital/Ford smokeless 2-stoke is THE engine used in thier version of the Focus, and it's a real powerhouse for it's size and more importantly it's weight. If you look back to the turn of the Century, the motorcycle engine makers experimented with dozens of designs, most were sucessfull, although some needed metalugy and technology to catch-up to the designs. By the 30's, between the aircraft and automotive designers hundreds of designs were experimented with. Again, it took a while for technology to catch-up to the designs, but most worked. Costs kept some designs from being mass produced, but the ideas were sound. Most countries in the EU have huge displacment taxes. They make our gas-guzzler taxes a super bargain, so small high-RPM engines are the only realistic options. We could take some lessons from those designs. Not every engine design is ideal for every purpose. We need to think about more choices and not just do the same thing because "it's always been done that way." Of course, we also need to tell the EPA to set emmissions standards that are reasonable, and more importantly sensable. Now we are losing 20% fuel economy to improve emmissions 3%. That doesn't make good sense. The 2012 emmissions standards (proposed) are unatainable, at any price right now. Every single automaker has said this. Honda and Toyota say they can come with-in 20% of them but at a loss of 50% of HP and lowered fuel economy. We passed the "break-even" point of economy vs: emmissions about 10 years ago. Check the Honda mileage of the 2000 HE vs: the "Fit". Oh well....