GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,924 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Chrysler sees "big" drop in March U.S. sales
Wednesday March 19, 4:03 pm ET NEW YORK (Reuters) - Chrysler LLC expects to post a "big" decline in March U.S. sales compared with a year earlier, reflecting the automaker's decision to pull back from less profitable deals for car rental agencies, Chrysler sales chief Jim Press said on Wednesday.


Press was speaking to reporters at an event with other senior Chrysler executives on the sidelines of the New York auto show. Now controlled by Cerberus Capital Management (CBS.UL), Chrysler has posted a 13 percent drop in U.S. sales in January and February.



http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080319/chrysler_sales.html?.v=5

lol Drudge has the headline: "American auto industry bracing for 'worst year in decade'..."

I hope this isn't a repost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,016 Posts
And the buying public speaks with a big "You Suck". Too bad. There are a lot of good people that worked for Chyrsler before the Germans came in a screwed it up. Now we have Suckberus pushing out the rest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,419 Posts
The sad part is for about $1000 more spent on the interiors, you could start selling more of these vehicles on their own merits. Lutz was so right when he said "The last place you want to advertise the cheapness of your vehicles is in the interior."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,424 Posts
The sad part is for about $1000 more spent on the interiors, you could start selling more of these vehicles on their own merits. Lutz was so right when he said "The last place you want to advertise the cheapness of your vehicles is in the interior."
So sad, yet so true.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,209 Posts
The sad part is for about $1000 more spent on the interiors, you could start selling more of these vehicles on their own merits. Lutz was so right when he said "The last place you want to advertise the cheapness of your vehicles is in the interior."
Well it was my understanding their were redoing the interiors of the Sebring/Avenger twins. The sales slump shouldn't come as no surprise other manufacturers who are producing cars consumers actually like have been showing slower sales as well. I just hope this company Cerebus have a level set plan on how they're going to resurrect Chrysler from the dead because as of current their future still looks very uncertain.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
The sad part is for about $1000 more spent on the interiors, you could start selling more of these vehicles on their own merits. Lutz was so right when he said "The last place you want to advertise the cheapness of your vehicles is in the interior."
So true. My new Malibu is a stunner on the inside - thanks Bob.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,883 Posts
Chrysler was previously a style innovator is making some really bad moves: The recently introduced Sebrings are a shame. They look like warmed over 1990 cars! Even the hardtop convertible looks out of proportion.

I would like to give some suggestions, look at the past cars that sold, and look at what's available to the dealers now. I for one liked the PT Cruiser convertible, and the Magnum Power Wagon. If there had been some power train changes (high output 4 cylinder turbos) the PT could have gone the performance route. The Magnum, 300, Charger, could all have benefited by using a more effective transmission, for greater mileage.

It makes me sad to see the way the American Manufacturers are letting their market share be hacked away, by foreign makes than understand the buying public more than the American Companies do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,016 Posts
Well, the Malibu had terrible side impact ratings but it didn't mean they couldn't make a better one. Chrysler should have built a better small car and kept the name. It's what is selling today.
It did? Or are you talking about IIHS's change in testing criteria? IIHS basically said that any car that didn't come with side impact air bags would get cut down in its rating. So the Malibu without side airbags: Poor. With side airbags: Good.

Chevy Malibu Side Impact Ratings

IIHS is also doing the same today with cars that don't have some sort of Electronic Stability Control. It will rate the car lower if it doesn't have it....

Straight from the IIHS website:
The Institute rates vehicles good, acceptable, marginal, or poor based on performance in high-speed front and side crash tests plus evaluations of seat/head restraints for protection against neck injuries in rear impacts. The first requirement for a vehicle to become a TOP SAFETY PICK is to earn good ratings in all three Institute tests. Another requirement is that winning vehicles must offer electronic stability control. This requirement is based on Institute research indicating that ESC significantly reduces crash risk, especially the risk of fatal single-vehicle crashes, by helping drivers maintain control of their vehicles during emergency maneuvers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
858 Posts
I seem to remember the PT was based on the same platform as the neon, and the PT imo, is a whole lot better looking than the Neon, So why not kill off the slow moving product to cut cost. Did the Neon really differ much form the PT in fuel economy? I know if I ever had to look at driving a compact the PT would be on top of my list and the neon would not even be on the list.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,579 Posts
I don't understand all that hatred for the Neon. It was a really good design, spacious and all, and the only serious attempt at a compact car from an American automaker in two decades (before the Focus arrived). The second generation was a looker - I still want one. I agree Chrysler should've kept the sedan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,063 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,016 Posts
It's really not the point I wanted to make but here's a link that shows how poor the Malibu's side impact rating was.
http://www.automobilemag.com/am/1999/chevrolet/malibu/index.html
Chrysler didn't change the Neon between 1999 and 2005. That was the major problem. Because they waited so long, they couldn't just improve the design as it would have taken more work(and money) than the clean sheet Caliber. Which we get back to the fact that Chrysler(Really Mercedes Benz at that point) made all the wrong product choices. The Germans raped Chrysler and we see the results.

It hit a nerve with me when you said the Malibu was unsafe. One of the reasons I bought it was that the 2005 with Air bags was rated very high in safety. You also never stated the 1999 Malibu(or Classic) in your original post so I took as you meaning the 2005 Malibu.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,621 Posts
I don't understand all that hatred for the Neon. It was a really good design, spacious and all, and the only serious attempt at a compact car from an American automaker in two decades (before the Focus arrived). The second generation was a looker - I still want one. I agree Chrysler should've kept the sedan.
From the same era I'd take a Cavalier or Escort (or anything Japanese) over a Neon in a heartbeat. I thought the original Neon was cute and likeable, but they didn't feel all that far removed from the K-cars they replaced. Head gasket problems were very common... my stepdad replaced his twice in 120,000 kms. Problems can occur, but Neon headgasket problems were really too common.

As for the newer one, it lost the cuteness that made the first appealing and ended up looking like a shrunken 300M... a look that I didn't think translated well. It almost had a tarted-up Cimmaron-ish look to it. I often agree with you, but not on the Neon.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,621 Posts
Ah, this little tidbit from Wikipedia:

In 2005, the Institute carried out side impact tests on fourteen small car models, simulating an impact with an SUV. Among these, the Neon performed the worst. The Institute's chief operating officer Adrian Lund stated that the Neon had “...major problems beginning with its structure. This car is a disaster...The structure is poor...If this had been a real driver in a real crash, it’s likely it wouldn’t have been survivable...if safety is a priority, the Neon is a small car to be avoided.”
And yes, the Cavalier was a poor crash test performer too...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,770 Posts
From the same era I'd take a Cavalier or Escort (or anything Japanese) over a Neon in a heartbeat. I thought the original Neon was cute and likeable, but they didn't feel all that far removed from the K-cars they replaced. Head gasket problems were very common... my stepdad replaced his twice in 120,000 kms. Problems can occur, but Neon headgasket problems were really too common.

As for the newer one, it lost the cuteness that made the first appealing and ended up looking like a shrunken 300M... a look that I didn't think translated well. It almost had a tarted-up Cimmaron-ish look to it. I often agree with you, but not on the Neon.
The 2.2L pushrod 4 in the Cavalier had its own headgasket issues, and GM used three-speed autos for way too long in those cars. Frankly, the "Neon" era was not a good one for any small American cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,891 Posts
The Neon might not be what they need right now, but at least something small and affordable like that...
Enter in Cherry QQ into Chryslers portfolio someday soon....sigh
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top