Chrysler filing for a 60-day Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

[Chuck]

GM will be observing the Chrysler bankruptcy as what might be in store for them.

[Blackbelt]

Originally Posted by Delta Flyer

Overhearing NPR as an analyst stated common knowledge here: Chrysler put all their eggs in the SUV/truck basket in the 90's and ignored fuel economy. Even replacing the Neon with the Caliber was a statement of this direction.

The Caliber, like most of the Chrysler line is so polar opposite of the Airflow of 1934. I know this is going to sound like flame-throwing, but seriously, they could have been called Hummer, Inc - they build all their vehicles boxy, to convey that same image for those needing wheels to address manhood. It just gets me that Chrysler among others made vehicles look Hummer-like, which means they are inherently gas guzzlers, to cater to the market asking: "Am I a Man?" "Am I a Man?" "Am I a Man?" For the ones that chose to steer Chrysler down this path, I have no sympathy. I do feel for the subordinates that must suffer the consequences.

To an extent i have to agree with you. But remember, when you are talking styling, you are really getting into subjectives. If i was trying to convey "manhood", i would not own a triple white VW cabby, a smart, or a Scion xB. I like the styling because it is different. I truly HATE how pretty much every Honda(except the S2000) looks. I think they are either boring or ugly. I think the Camry is UGLY. (i like the yaris though)
BTW, MPG in my AWD Caliber is superior to what i got in any of my first gen neons.

[Chuck]

Blackbelt,

I don't think this applied to you or everyone that bought Chrysler, but the marketers did go overboard on this theme. It makes you wonder about this country though that many are obcessed with it....it comes up with hybrids....you give up your "Man card" driving one. .

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

I can't really vote in this one, since I don't know much about any of them except for the Ram...

With the PT Cruiser up there, I have one I can vote for.

I have to say I was extremely excited about it before it actually came out. It was a very nice looking car (to me).

However, after taking a ride in one (taxi cab), I found it very cramped inside. As far as the engine goes, it is totally gutless; but that would have been fine if it got any kind of FE.

[Blackbelt]

Originally Posted by Delta Flyer

Blackbelt,

I don't think this applied to you or everyone that bought Chrysler, but the marketers did go overboard on this theme. It makes you wonder about this country though that many are obsessed with it....it comes up with hybrids....you give up your "Man card" driving one. .

Since i am on a number of different auto forums, i hear that kind of crap all the time.
"that's a chick car" (why? does it have breasts?)
"Hybrids are for Greenie Vegans"(Are all vegans "greenie')
"VW's drivers are all gay" (does that mean they are happy?)
And on and on and on.
I see your point about going overboard on the theme. That actually seems to be the Dodge division that did that, moreso than the Chrysler/Jeep end of things. Looking at the cars in its size and price class, (Cobalt, Focus, Civic, Sentra, Corolla, etc) i saw a big sea of boring sameness. Also, looking for an AWD car at that price point that offered good fuel economy narrowed my choice. I see where they tried to style the Caliber as "macho", but honestly, when i bought mine, all i saw was "different". As you can see by what i drive, i do not have to drive a certain vehicle to "prove my manhood" LOL.
Which brings the following cartoon to mind.


Taliesin, it is interesting how differently you an i saw the PT. Considering its size, i found the car very roomy, with tremendous cargo carrying utility. I found the ride to be comfortable, the handling to be sharp, and the power to be sufficient(mine was a 5 speed). I owned mine for 6 years, loved every moment behind the wheel, and regret trading it in. I actually owned 2 at the same time, having bout a used 02 in 03. The 02 was an automatic, which i did not care for, but still loved that car also.
One thing i do agree with you on was its economy. They simply made that car too heavy. That was great for durability, but horrible for economy. The weighed nearly 3200#, which IMO was about 500# overweight.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Blackbelt

Taliesin, it is interesting how differently you an i saw the PT. Considering its size, i found the car very roomy, with tremendous cargo carrying utility. I found the ride to be comfortable, the handling to be sharp, and the power to be sufficient(mine was a 5 speed)...

Do remember that I was only in it for a short time, and in the passneger seat as well.

I felt like the dash was too close and the windows were too small. The ride was comfortable enough, and your are quite right about cargo capacity.

I might not have made myself understood. The power would have been sufficient if it had better FE. More power would have given it an excuse for it's poor FE (I wasn't a hypermiler at the time).
I feel sorry for the poor sap that bought this with the towing package option.

Also realize that at the time I had been driving a '88 Nissan Pulsar. Much more room for the driver for it's size, easy to see out of, and cargo capacity to haul me and my fishing equipment. It also got better FE with more power.

[Mike78]

It's no surpise to me at all that Chrysler was the first to go. For as long as I can remember they have had the worst fuel economy in nearly every car class. The Durango got worse gas mileage that the Excursion. How is that even possible? You start putting up numbers close to single digits and you won't have too many cars leave the lot when gas hits >$3/gallon.

My experience with Chrysler does not really center on the recent models but rather those from about 97-03. Can't say anything back then was something to write home about. I liked the driving experience of the Dakota Quad Cab when it came out, but yet again this was a mid size truck that suffered worse fuel economy than any full size out there. My first car was an 88 Aries K car. Do I really even need to detail the problems with that car or is it pretty obvious?

[Blackbelt]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Do remember that I was only in it for a short time, and in the passneger seat as well.

I felt like the dash was too close and the windows were too small. The ride was comfortable enough, and your are quite right about cargo capacity.

I might not have made myself understood. The power would have been sufficient if it had better FE. More power would have given it an excuse for it's poor FE (I wasn't a hypermiler at the time).
I feel sorry for the poor sap that bought this with the towing package option.

Also realize that at the time I had been driving a '88 Nissan Pulsar. Much more room for the driver for it's size, easy to see out of, and cargo capacity to haul me and my fishing equipment. It also got better FE with more power.

The PT had 3 big strikes against it when it came to FE. First, as i mentioned, was the weight. Second, the only engine available was the 2.4. That engine has never been particularly efficient. I had a 2.7 V6 in my stratus that got better MPG than the same car with that 2.4. Third was the aerodynamics. There were compromises in that car due to the unique styling. I had no problem living with them, but many did. It was a polarizing car when it came out. You either loved it or hated it. I loved it.

Originally Posted by Mike78

It's no surpise to me at all that Chrysler was the first to go. For as long as I can remember they have had the worst fuel economy in nearly every car class. The Durango got worse gas mileage that the Excursion. How is that even possible? You start putting up numbers close to single digits and you won't have too many cars leave the lot when gas hits >$3/gallon.

My experience with Chrysler does not really center on the recent models but rather those from about 97-03. Can't say anything back then was something to write home about. I liked the driving experience of the Dakota Quad Cab when it came out, but yet again this was a mid size truck that suffered worse fuel economy than any full size out there. My first car was an 88 Aries K car. Do I really even need to detail the problems with that car or is it pretty obvious?

When talking about the K car, you have to evaluate it with the cars of it's era, not the cars we drive today. The K car was a simple rugged cheap easy to fix sedan that could carry six people, get MPG over 30, and basically saved Chrysler. It actually was a lot of car for not a lot of money, and it was FWD, which was just beginning to become popular. When the K car came out, the GM answer was the X car, which actually made the K car look good. Ford had the RWD Fairmont, which traced it's lineage back to the 1960 Falcon.
The K car was the basis for the Minivan, which was another Chrylser innovation(if yo don't count the VW microbus). The problem with the K car was that it existed twice as long as it should have, while it was passed up in technology along the way. IMO no auto manufacturer in the 80's built a very good product, including the Japanese (unless you don't consider rusting to powder in 5 years a problem).

[Chumby]

With the exception of the Caravan, I can't think of any Chrysler product in the past 15 years that stood as an equal or superior to its competitors.

The Fiat products will take at least a year to pass US crash and emissions and at least another to be manufactured. Maybe the country should focus on the domestic brands that actually have a chance of making it without continual injections of billions of taxpayer dollars. Let this lemon company die.

"I drive a Dodge Stratus." - Will Ferrell, SNL

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Blackbelt

You either loved it or hated it. I loved it...

Don't get me wrong. I loved the looks and had great hopes for it.

But it fell very short of my expectations.