The decision by Justice Ginsburg to delay the sale of Chrysler to Fiat until further notice may mean a lot or may mean very little. The action taken today is merely a delay - possibly only for a day or so, in order to review the documentation, before deciding to hear or dismiss the appeal.
If that's what is intended, an effort to peer under the hood to see if anything is amiss before dismissing, then look for a decision before Saturday. For some reason 15 June 2009 is important (upon which Fiat's obligation to 'purchase' Chrysler expires. ; -)
If, in the next day or so, the Supreme Court declares that they will hear the appeal, the Fiat deal is gone. Arranging a marriage partner at that point will be difficult at best and the most that can be hoped for is the liquidation of Chrysler, the most valuable piece of which is the Jeep brand.
And if the court does decide to hear the appeal, what has to be done to ensure the GM bankruptcy doesn't suffer the same fate?
Showing posts with label chrysler. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chrysler. Show all posts
Monday, June 8, 2009
Put Some Time Back On That Clock (and Kiss Fiat Goodbye ; -)
Wow! After seeing Justice Ginsburg was assigned to hear the Chrysler appeal, I called the bookie and got 1 in 9 odds (how appropriate ; -). But then the longshot came in and Justice Ginsburg decided that the Supreme Court would take the appeal. I had expected the deadline to pass without any action, essentially denying the appeal.
Now what? ; -)
Now what? ; -)
The Clock Is Ticking
There is a 4 pm deadline today for the Supreme Court to accept or decline intervening in a decision to let the Chrysler sale to Fiat go through. If the Supreme Court decides to take the case, look for lots of hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth on the part of administration spokespersons and talking heads on the boob tube.
Myself, I give it 1 in 3 odds of the court wanting to stick their noses in this one.
There's also been some discussion about how poorly vetted the deal with Fiat has been. To say the least it was a hastily arranged marriage, kinda like Bank of America and Merrill Lynch. ; -)
Myself, I give it 1 in 3 odds of the court wanting to stick their noses in this one.
There's also been some discussion about how poorly vetted the deal with Fiat has been. To say the least it was a hastily arranged marriage, kinda like Bank of America and Merrill Lynch. ; -)
Monday, June 1, 2009
A Long Row to Hoe
Chrysler is said to be emerging from bankruptcy today to be swallowed by Fiat. This is a cashless transaction where Fiat converts equity in Fiat for the purchase price of Chrysler. And some folks will say, "swell".
GM enters bankruptcy today, ostensibly to clear the cancerous brands, Saturn, Pontiac, Opel/Vauxhall, Hummer, and Saab, from the books. The Canadian parts firm Magna has entered an agreement with the German government to purchase Opel (which saves Vauxhall). There has been a series of suitors for the Saturn brand (the brand NOT the products ; -) as well as the Hummer brand.
But, the road to recovery for both Chrysler and GM will be long and fraught with additional peril, especially while the economy continues to under perform. In the long run both will be mere shadows of their former selves.
GM enters bankruptcy today, ostensibly to clear the cancerous brands, Saturn, Pontiac, Opel/Vauxhall, Hummer, and Saab, from the books. The Canadian parts firm Magna has entered an agreement with the German government to purchase Opel (which saves Vauxhall). There has been a series of suitors for the Saturn brand (the brand NOT the products ; -) as well as the Hummer brand.
But, the road to recovery for both Chrysler and GM will be long and fraught with additional peril, especially while the economy continues to under perform. In the long run both will be mere shadows of their former selves.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Another View of the Chrysler Bailout
From this Atlantic piece by Megan McArdle:
When the government gives money to favored constituencies--well, I don't like it, but as PJ O'Rourke says, that's basically what our government does. "It ought to be right there in the constitution: 'We the People, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and give money to jerks . . . ' " But when it starts stepping in and trying to bypass the bankruptcy rules in order to make someone else give money to jerks, that's different in magnitude, and in kind.
I concur. What we needed to do was let our legal system run its course (and it can be expedited if need be). Of course the other piece of this I didn't quote was the notion that the institutions that have received TARP funds (and who now find the rules for repaying those funds changing) are on the hook to do their masters' bidding.
What we don't want are extra-legal reaches and grabs for our money - remember who ends up paying for all of this. We now own, thanks to our taxdollars-at-work, Chrysler and GM - we must want them to succeed. But what control do we have?
When the government gives money to favored constituencies--well, I don't like it, but as PJ O'Rourke says, that's basically what our government does. "It ought to be right there in the constitution: 'We the People, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and give money to jerks . . . ' " But when it starts stepping in and trying to bypass the bankruptcy rules in order to make someone else give money to jerks, that's different in magnitude, and in kind.
I concur. What we needed to do was let our legal system run its course (and it can be expedited if need be). Of course the other piece of this I didn't quote was the notion that the institutions that have received TARP funds (and who now find the rules for repaying those funds changing) are on the hook to do their masters' bidding.
What we don't want are extra-legal reaches and grabs for our money - remember who ends up paying for all of this. We now own, thanks to our taxdollars-at-work, Chrysler and GM - we must want them to succeed. But what control do we have?
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Chrylser Bankruptcy Proceedings
The bankruptcy judge has ruled against the senior debtors. Look for a quick turnaround and the empty hull of Chrysler to start churning out Fiat products in the next two years (with our tax dollars limping them along in the foreseeable future).
So who wants to loan money to a corporation that may be 'nationalized' now?
I'm still of the opinion that this company will not be profitable in my lifetime. But we're practically giving it away to Fiat. Frankly disgusting.
So who wants to loan money to a corporation that may be 'nationalized' now?
I'm still of the opinion that this company will not be profitable in my lifetime. But we're practically giving it away to Fiat. Frankly disgusting.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Fiat's UK Customer Satisfaction Numbers
MotorAuthority has this story regarding Fiat's UK J.D. Power satisfaction rankings.
I owned a Fiat, a 128, an important vehicle in the grand scheme of things (at least LJK Setright thought so). But it was not a very well built car. That was in 1976, however, and hopefully Fiat has learned a few things about screwing cars together in the intervening years. ; -)
I owned a Fiat, a 128, an important vehicle in the grand scheme of things (at least LJK Setright thought so). But it was not a very well built car. That was in 1976, however, and hopefully Fiat has learned a few things about screwing cars together in the intervening years. ; -)
Monday, May 4, 2009
Fiat's Ambition
Fiat, not long from financial ill health itself, seems to be intent on soaking up the marginal players in the current business cycle. They are intent on picking up GM's Europe holdings.
Frankly this is a bit troubling because neither Chrysler or GM Europe has made a profit recently. Will these two additions prove to be the 'gravitas' that propels Fiat to the forefront of automakers, or will they prove to be the Albatross around the neck that brings Fiat down?
I suspect the answer will depend on the type of recovery we see from the current recession. If it is a V-shaped or even U-shaped recovery, they may come out smelling like a rose. But if it is an L-shaped recovery, Fiat may wish it hadn't reached for an Opel or Dodge too far. ; -)
Frankly this is a bit troubling because neither Chrysler or GM Europe has made a profit recently. Will these two additions prove to be the 'gravitas' that propels Fiat to the forefront of automakers, or will they prove to be the Albatross around the neck that brings Fiat down?
I suspect the answer will depend on the type of recovery we see from the current recession. If it is a V-shaped or even U-shaped recovery, they may come out smelling like a rose. But if it is an L-shaped recovery, Fiat may wish it hadn't reached for an Opel or Dodge too far. ; -)
Thursday, April 30, 2009
The Hypocrisy of Government
This irks me to no end. Gov. Granholm said the following regarding Chrysler bondholders, "On behalf of Michigan, on behalf of the thousands of people who will be affected if this company is forced into bankruptcy, I am publicly asking these hedge funds to not be greedy but to do what the banks have done and what everyone else around the table has done -- take the concessions,"
That's pure political horse manure! The bondholders have loaned money to Chrysler with conditions. They expect some repayment and if they aren't satisfied with thirty cents on the dollar they have a right to force it through bankruptcy to see if they can receive more. They are taking a loss regardless, they CANNOT be faulted for trying to minimize the loss.
If you loan $1,000 to your brother-in-law and he tells you he won't pay back the principal, let alone the interest, and then accuses you of being greedy when you ask for as much of the principal back as possible, you'd have a right to take him to small claims court.
But that won't stop politicians from railing against greed (don't ask them to give up any of the contributions they've received from greedy 'capitalists' though ;-).
That's pure political horse manure! The bondholders have loaned money to Chrysler with conditions. They expect some repayment and if they aren't satisfied with thirty cents on the dollar they have a right to force it through bankruptcy to see if they can receive more. They are taking a loss regardless, they CANNOT be faulted for trying to minimize the loss.
If you loan $1,000 to your brother-in-law and he tells you he won't pay back the principal, let alone the interest, and then accuses you of being greedy when you ask for as much of the principal back as possible, you'd have a right to take him to small claims court.
But that won't stop politicians from railing against greed (don't ask them to give up any of the contributions they've received from greedy 'capitalists' though ;-).
Saturday, April 25, 2009
A Glimmer of Hope for Chrysler
The Detroit News has a story up saying that the Chrysler and the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) have reached on an agreement on concessions. That provides a small glimmer of hope that Chrysler may be able to survive.
Meanwhile, back at Rancho Fiat, Fiat has been working on a 'Plan B' in case the Chrysler deal comes to naught. Word is they've been talking to GM regarding picking up Opel.
In the grand scheme of things we'll have the biggies, VW, Toyota, Fiat, Ford, and a whole bunch of also rans and boutique brands.
Meanwhile, back at Rancho Fiat, Fiat has been working on a 'Plan B' in case the Chrysler deal comes to naught. Word is they've been talking to GM regarding picking up Opel.
In the grand scheme of things we'll have the biggies, VW, Toyota, Fiat, Ford, and a whole bunch of also rans and boutique brands.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
More On Chrysler
This WSJ article points out issues with the debt to equity swap purposed for Chrysler's bondholders. The current administration believes that the banks holding debt are receiving more value than they should (in other words, they've attempted to minimize their loses in this case. ; -)
If the banks in question are receiving TARP funds and the automaker in question is receiving government loans also, how much say does the government have in the process? Could the demands of the administration block a potentially hopeful resolution of Chrysler's situation? Stay tuned . . .
If the banks in question are receiving TARP funds and the automaker in question is receiving government loans also, how much say does the government have in the process? Could the demands of the administration block a potentially hopeful resolution of Chrysler's situation? Stay tuned . . .
Monday, April 6, 2009
Brief History of Chrysler Motors
Chrysler is the newest of the old line American 'Big 3' car companies. Chrysler cars hit the market in 1925 built in the Maxwell Motors facilities that Walter P. Chrysler had purchased four years earlier.
Walter P. Chrysler got his start in the railroad business as a machinist and mechanic in Kansas. He later ran Buick and when William C. Durant captured GM (for the second time), Chrysler tendered his resignation. Durant offered him an unprecedented salary and Chrysler was smart enough to accept it.
When he quit GM a few years later he was hired to fix Willys-Overland (for another unprecedented salary) which gave him the wherewithal to purchase Maxwell. Chrysler gave the company's product his name and later added Plymouth and De Soto to the product portfolio.
The Dodge Brothers concern floundered after the death of Horace and John; Chrylser purchased it in 1928. Shortly thereafter Dodge Brothers cars became simply Dodge cars.
Chrysler was known for engineering prowess (first mass produced four wheel hydraulic brakes) and in the mid-1930's was in second place in sales for US car manufacturers.
It moved through the late 1950s and into the early 1970s on the strength of the 'Hemi' engine and muscle cars. But by the end of the 1970s Chrysler needed government guarantees to obtain loans. Enter Lee Iacocca as CEO, and pitchman extraordinare, with the old salt, "If you can find a better car, buy it."
Chrysler survived on the strength of K cars and eventually one of the single most significant vehicles to ever exist, the minivan. (And the story of the minivan's origin is worthy of a novel. The short of it is that Ford originated the idea but didn't follow through.)
In the late 1980s Chrysler acquired the terminally ill American Motors, and quickly (and quietly) disposed of everything but the Jeep brand (and that was the reason American Motors was purchased). Along the way Chrysler picked up Bob Lutz and the Dodge Viper and Plymouth Prowler emerged.
Then Daimler-Benz pulled off a hostile takeover in the guise of a merger and that wasn't pretty for all concerned. (That chapter of Chrysler's history is well documented in the book, 'Taken for a Ride', by Vlasic & Stertz.)
But recently Chrysler has been lost in the wilderness, with wrong and uncompetitive product. In the end, Fiat is interested in the manufacturing capacity of Chrysler (and possibly the Jeep brand name). But if the government insists that Fiat absorb some or all of Chrysler's debt, look for the deal to fall through.
The last thing of any significant value in Chrysler is the Jeep name, and that brand's roots go back to Willys-Overland and without Walter P. Chrysler's ministrations in the early 1920s it wouldn't be there now to tempt a potential savior.
Walter P. Chrysler got his start in the railroad business as a machinist and mechanic in Kansas. He later ran Buick and when William C. Durant captured GM (for the second time), Chrysler tendered his resignation. Durant offered him an unprecedented salary and Chrysler was smart enough to accept it.
When he quit GM a few years later he was hired to fix Willys-Overland (for another unprecedented salary) which gave him the wherewithal to purchase Maxwell. Chrysler gave the company's product his name and later added Plymouth and De Soto to the product portfolio.
The Dodge Brothers concern floundered after the death of Horace and John; Chrylser purchased it in 1928. Shortly thereafter Dodge Brothers cars became simply Dodge cars.
Chrysler was known for engineering prowess (first mass produced four wheel hydraulic brakes) and in the mid-1930's was in second place in sales for US car manufacturers.
It moved through the late 1950s and into the early 1970s on the strength of the 'Hemi' engine and muscle cars. But by the end of the 1970s Chrysler needed government guarantees to obtain loans. Enter Lee Iacocca as CEO, and pitchman extraordinare, with the old salt, "If you can find a better car, buy it."
Chrysler survived on the strength of K cars and eventually one of the single most significant vehicles to ever exist, the minivan. (And the story of the minivan's origin is worthy of a novel. The short of it is that Ford originated the idea but didn't follow through.)
In the late 1980s Chrysler acquired the terminally ill American Motors, and quickly (and quietly) disposed of everything but the Jeep brand (and that was the reason American Motors was purchased). Along the way Chrysler picked up Bob Lutz and the Dodge Viper and Plymouth Prowler emerged.
Then Daimler-Benz pulled off a hostile takeover in the guise of a merger and that wasn't pretty for all concerned. (That chapter of Chrysler's history is well documented in the book, 'Taken for a Ride', by Vlasic & Stertz.)
But recently Chrysler has been lost in the wilderness, with wrong and uncompetitive product. In the end, Fiat is interested in the manufacturing capacity of Chrysler (and possibly the Jeep brand name). But if the government insists that Fiat absorb some or all of Chrysler's debt, look for the deal to fall through.
The last thing of any significant value in Chrysler is the Jeep name, and that brand's roots go back to Willys-Overland and without Walter P. Chrysler's ministrations in the early 1920s it wouldn't be there now to tempt a potential savior.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
More On the Automakers Bailout
Some additional items appeared in the Determination of Viability Summary for both Chrysler and GM. One was an emphasis on small cars. Yes, at the moment, Americans are buying small cars. But if the price of gasoline stabilizes at the current levels for a period of 24 to 36 months, then Americans will quickly revert to buying large vehicles.
There is just something about bigness and the American market for cars. I can't explain it - I have always driven small cars. But anyone that believes that Americans will willingly emulate European tastes in automobiles is either not conversant with Americans' buying habits or knows something that we don't. (At what price will gasoline be set at using taxation? ;-)
One glimpse of reality did shine through though when the Chevy Volt was mentioned. The Volt will not save GM, and they had the sense to understand that. Good well appointed cars like the Malibu and decent well built affordable small cars like the Cobalt will. Small and midsize SUVs and decent trucks will save GM. And continuing to make the Buick name a star in the Chinese market will save GM (Buick is big in China).
As far as Chrysler is concerned, Fiat might be able to save Chrysler. Will Fiat be willing to do that?
There is just something about bigness and the American market for cars. I can't explain it - I have always driven small cars. But anyone that believes that Americans will willingly emulate European tastes in automobiles is either not conversant with Americans' buying habits or knows something that we don't. (At what price will gasoline be set at using taxation? ;-)
One glimpse of reality did shine through though when the Chevy Volt was mentioned. The Volt will not save GM, and they had the sense to understand that. Good well appointed cars like the Malibu and decent well built affordable small cars like the Cobalt will. Small and midsize SUVs and decent trucks will save GM. And continuing to make the Buick name a star in the Chinese market will save GM (Buick is big in China).
As far as Chrysler is concerned, Fiat might be able to save Chrysler. Will Fiat be willing to do that?
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Reaction to the Bailouts
It's been interesting to read the reactions to the automakers bailout plan. It seems to be the subject of loathing on both the right and the left.
There has been a lot of criticism on the right of the ousting of GM's CEO, Rick Wagoner. It would be warranted if the current administration had decided that Ford's CEO should be deposed, especially since Ford hasn't bellied up to the public trough. Not so however in GM's case. GM sought public funding and agreed to provide a viability plan that met the scrutiny of President Obama's automotive task force.
GM put themselves at the mercy of the financier of last resort (you and me actually) and they have to abide by the decisions being made. I suppose if they objected they could give the money back and see if they can make it on their own. But they can't and they obviously couldn't, or they would never have agreed to the public funding. And that is in large part a failure of management. So is it any wonder that a change in management has been requested.
Now onto the other side of the criticism. The unions will not like some of the drastic changes that may occur to work rules. Amongst all the buzz about wages and benefits being the problem with automakers' viability, it is partially the constraints of the contractual work rules that have restrained the productivity of Chrsyler, Ford, and GM. The transplants currently aren't union organized (just wait for 'card check' though ;-) and subsequently they do not suffer the productivity inhibitors of inflexible work rules.
Of some merit, and receiving attention, is the notion that both Chrysler and GM could go through bankruptcy to assist the reorganization efforts. And that probably should have been the tool of choice all along - it would have saved Mr & Ms U.S. Taxpayer a bunch of money (as long as they didn't hold stock or bonds in the aforementioned entities.)
Of no small importance in this whole debacle is the fate of the suppliers. Cars aren't built from whole cloth (like they used to be at Ford's River Rouge plant were raw materials came in one end and left as cars on the other.) Suppliers provide more than just raw materials, they provide entire sub-assemblies in most cases and the work they do goes largely unseen. They employ large numbers of people, not just building widgets but designing and engineering parts/sub-assemblies for the automakers. There is definitely a trickle down effect to the pain of losing a major auto manufacturer.
There has been a lot of criticism on the right of the ousting of GM's CEO, Rick Wagoner. It would be warranted if the current administration had decided that Ford's CEO should be deposed, especially since Ford hasn't bellied up to the public trough. Not so however in GM's case. GM sought public funding and agreed to provide a viability plan that met the scrutiny of President Obama's automotive task force.
GM put themselves at the mercy of the financier of last resort (you and me actually) and they have to abide by the decisions being made. I suppose if they objected they could give the money back and see if they can make it on their own. But they can't and they obviously couldn't, or they would never have agreed to the public funding. And that is in large part a failure of management. So is it any wonder that a change in management has been requested.
Now onto the other side of the criticism. The unions will not like some of the drastic changes that may occur to work rules. Amongst all the buzz about wages and benefits being the problem with automakers' viability, it is partially the constraints of the contractual work rules that have restrained the productivity of Chrsyler, Ford, and GM. The transplants currently aren't union organized (just wait for 'card check' though ;-) and subsequently they do not suffer the productivity inhibitors of inflexible work rules.
Of some merit, and receiving attention, is the notion that both Chrysler and GM could go through bankruptcy to assist the reorganization efforts. And that probably should have been the tool of choice all along - it would have saved Mr & Ms U.S. Taxpayer a bunch of money (as long as they didn't hold stock or bonds in the aforementioned entities.)
Of no small importance in this whole debacle is the fate of the suppliers. Cars aren't built from whole cloth (like they used to be at Ford's River Rouge plant were raw materials came in one end and left as cars on the other.) Suppliers provide more than just raw materials, they provide entire sub-assemblies in most cases and the work they do goes largely unseen. They employ large numbers of people, not just building widgets but designing and engineering parts/sub-assemblies for the automakers. There is definitely a trickle down effect to the pain of losing a major auto manufacturer.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Determination of Viability Summary for Chrysler and GM
The Wall Street Journal (among others) posted links to the Determination of Viability Summary for Chrysler and GM. (Link to the summaries here.)
I looked for two words - work rules - and found them in the summaries for both companies as an issue that must be addressed. While they aren't THE critical component of the viability of either company, the absence of those two words would have indicated a bias in my mind.
From my reading of the summaries, I am in general agreement with the government's conclusions. First a word about the structure of the summary documents. It would appear that they built a boilerplate document and changed items as required for the specific company's summary. Given that there are significant overlapping concerns for both companies, that's a minor quibble.
Their assessment of Chrysler's inviability as a standalone company tracks with my thinking. Chrysler does not have the current product or the resources to develop the product (R&D) it needs to be competitive.
GM, on the other hand, has the potential to survive - only if a more realistic reorganization plan is submitted - and one that reduces financial risk to the company and suppliers (sorry bondholders and share owners ; -).
Of note is that bankruptcy proceedings may be required to resolve debt issues with both companies. And if Chrysler can't swing some sort of meaningful accommodation with Fiat, they are as good as history - they will be done as a manufacturer, bankruptcy would be useful only to dissolve Chrysler at that point.
Only one thing caused me to smirk in reading the summaries and that was a reference to Consumer Reports in the Chrysler summary. Personally I'm not that hip on CR as the final arbiter of things automotive. I'm still waiting for their article/expose on rollover testing for adult undergarments. ; -)
I looked for two words - work rules - and found them in the summaries for both companies as an issue that must be addressed. While they aren't THE critical component of the viability of either company, the absence of those two words would have indicated a bias in my mind.
From my reading of the summaries, I am in general agreement with the government's conclusions. First a word about the structure of the summary documents. It would appear that they built a boilerplate document and changed items as required for the specific company's summary. Given that there are significant overlapping concerns for both companies, that's a minor quibble.
Their assessment of Chrysler's inviability as a standalone company tracks with my thinking. Chrysler does not have the current product or the resources to develop the product (R&D) it needs to be competitive.
GM, on the other hand, has the potential to survive - only if a more realistic reorganization plan is submitted - and one that reduces financial risk to the company and suppliers (sorry bondholders and share owners ; -).
Of note is that bankruptcy proceedings may be required to resolve debt issues with both companies. And if Chrysler can't swing some sort of meaningful accommodation with Fiat, they are as good as history - they will be done as a manufacturer, bankruptcy would be useful only to dissolve Chrysler at that point.
Only one thing caused me to smirk in reading the summaries and that was a reference to Consumer Reports in the Chrysler summary. Personally I'm not that hip on CR as the final arbiter of things automotive. I'm still waiting for their article/expose on rollover testing for adult undergarments. ; -)
Bailout: A Bridge (Loan) Too Far
Calculated Risk has a good post up on current thinking regarding the bailouts of GM and Chrysler here.
At some point in the next two weeks, look for short summaries of the history of GM and Chrysler on this blog.
At some point in the next two weeks, look for short summaries of the history of GM and Chrysler on this blog.
Waiting for the Other Shoe to Drop
GM CEO, Rick Wagoner, is leaving the company, reportedly at the behest of the Obama administration. I've avoided discussing the bailout of GM and Chrysler, as much because I've not kept abreast of all the twists and turns, and because I'm afraid that I can see no good ahead on the road the bailout is traveling. My worst fear is that we'll be merely creating zombie automakers; companies that aren't really competitive and that will eventually fail while merely sucking more resources down the drain in the interim.
Car companies have been going out of business since the car was invented. The 'Beaulieu Encyclopedia of the Automobile' is a three volume set that chronicles thousands of auto manufacturers. That there are now significantly fewer automobile manufacturers is lost on many. There has never been an equilibrium regarding the number of car companies in business. Companies with longer histories and better reputations than Chrysler or GM have folded before (think Packard and Studebaker as examples).
It is disheartening in that we all know people that are deeply and personally impacted by the decisions that will be made, especially if failure is the result. I hope for the best . . .
Car companies have been going out of business since the car was invented. The 'Beaulieu Encyclopedia of the Automobile' is a three volume set that chronicles thousands of auto manufacturers. That there are now significantly fewer automobile manufacturers is lost on many. There has never been an equilibrium regarding the number of car companies in business. Companies with longer histories and better reputations than Chrysler or GM have folded before (think Packard and Studebaker as examples).
It is disheartening in that we all know people that are deeply and personally impacted by the decisions that will be made, especially if failure is the result. I hope for the best . . .
Monday, March 23, 2009
Beware the Charger in the Rearview Mirror
More and more police departments are picking up Dodge Chargers as replacements for the Ford Crown Vic' to serve as pursuit and patrol cars.
A few months ago one of our wise (guys) at the Age & Treachery breakfast hinted that police departments were growing weary of the Crown Vic' image as a geezermobile when the Dodge happened on the scene.
I got a chance to drive this thing at the Chrysler Proving Grounds (outside of Chelsea, MI) a few years back and enjoyed it. With a significantly stiffer suspension (and what seemed to be a 'drop') the car was a blast around the inner loop. Yes it was harsher than the civilian version, but for some of us that means it was just right.
Powerful, poised and in pursuit of lawbreakers, coming to a Police department near you (as long as Chrysler's still solvent. ; -)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
