http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinves...6&type=qcna This would be a most welcome development to me. I think the Daimler-Chrysler marriage was doomed form the start. It was presented as a merger when it was anything but a merger. Anyways I think it would be a great development for GM and for Chrysler, and for the United States.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 16 2007, 12:09 PM) [snapback]391510[/snapback]</div> Interesting. Seems like Chrysler has a lot of the same issues as GM with its truck/suv product line, and I actually thought some of the Diamler joint-developments with Chrysler were succeeding (Crossfire, Pacifica etc.). Can you elaborate on the positives you see out of a GM/Chrysler merger?
I guess Chrysler competes head-on with GM in the SUV, minivan and truck market (JEEP, DODGE brand, Pacifica & Town and Country models). If GM owned them the competition would be reduced to GM, TOYOTA, FORD, HONDA +OTHERS. I fail to see how this would be good for american employees or US?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Feb 16 2007, 11:17 AM) [snapback]391515[/snapback]</div> I think the biggest gain form the merger in the long-term could come in the form of political and pr gains. As I said earlier GM internally has finally drawn a line in the sand with regards to toyota, on hybrids, on cars on trucks on SUV's on pr, on everything. I think this move could go a long way in helping to restore GM to being seen in the US as the leader period. I am not sure how it would play out logistically, as far as plants, and design and engineering. I have to say it is much more exciting form my seat than all of their past experimentation with non-automotive acquisitions in the past. As a minor mopar dealer, I don't think there is anywhere to go but up in terms of corporate leadership. The German Daimler leasdership has been a disaster over the last 2-3 years. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SomervillePrius @ Feb 16 2007, 11:23 AM) [snapback]391519[/snapback]</div> Wow , aren;t you over-simplifying the situation just a bit?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 16 2007, 12:32 PM) [snapback]391521[/snapback]</div> Apparently I am but at least I state my ideas in more then a one line rebuttal. I fail to see what Chrysler has that GM doesn't already have. To me the companies look to be competing on the same market with the same products. Is that really a smart merger? In the Mercedes case they where at least addressing different market segments and got a bigger portfolio together (though I agree that it was a stupid move by Mercedes). So what's in it for GM to own yet another line of similar cars. trucks and SUVs?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SomervillePrius @ Feb 16 2007, 11:36 AM) [snapback]391530[/snapback]</div> It also looks like cannibalization to me, with even more Chrysler jobs lost. In theory the Daimler/Chrysler merger had little duplication along the product lines. One had luxury cars, the other had low-cost cars and trucks. Chrysler had outlets to sell Mercedes. It looks like the merger definitely should have worked, but management messed it up.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Feb 16 2007, 11:43 AM) [snapback]391540[/snapback]</div> Management is always the key. I think the American-German management composition failed miserably. Dieter Zetsche created this current inventory mess so he could get a promotion. The parent company was watching the assembly-line numbers and gave zietsche credit even though the vehicles were being put into storeage. The inventory mess had been building since mid 2005.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 16 2007, 12:32 PM) [snapback]391521[/snapback]</div> Yeah, but from where I sit, GM has about 3 too many brands already (GMC, Pontiac, Buick), and I'm not seeing the benefits of merging with Chrysler. Do they have something that complements some lack in GM, or something I'm not seeing like engineering or more modern plants for example? To me, it just looks like two big companies struggling in the face of flat SUV/truck sales becoming one bigger company struggling in the face of flat SUV/truck sales. What leadership problems do you see that GM would fix?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Feb 16 2007, 11:55 AM) [snapback]391551[/snapback]</div> The germans have treated Chrysler as the red-headed step child. They are pretty far out of touch with who the Chrysler customer is and who they are not. I think that was very evident with the whole Dr. Z campaign last summer. What an unequivical disaster on so many levels. For better or worse the average Chrylser buyer( at least in my one Mopar store) tends to be more blue-collar and poorer educated than Ford or GM customers. The last person you want pitching to them is a German in a suit with a very heavy accent. My opinion of course.
GM just parted with GMAC and Delphi, so why would they start increasing their debt by buying a company with duplicate lines?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 16 2007, 12:59 PM) [snapback]391555[/snapback]</div> Well, Chrysler does sell some upscale products, so maybe they need Dr. Z to balance out the two Hemi guys. You know the ones, "that's gonna leave a mark." You have a point, but I'm just not sure that advertising is that big a problem, or that this merger would be that big a help to either company.
I agree that GM would have a better understanding of Chrysler's customers then Mercedes ever had. That said I still see no value in it for GM apart from market protection. The best that could happen for GM is that Chrysler went away so that Dodge and JEEP buyers would flock to GM brands instead. Status Quo is probably ok as well as Mercedes is slowly screwing chrylser's image (if I would believe you). The worst would be fresh money into Chrysler (say Chinese VCs looking to get brand recognition). Buying Chrysler would stop this step. Maybe I'm cynical, but Chrysler is in a tough spot, and I don't think GM cries at night over that.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Feb 16 2007, 12:23 PM) [snapback]391589[/snapback]</div> Do you think it would be bigger or smaller than the current toyota Tundra? "The biggest, badass truck on the market?" Brought to you by the company that brought you the Prius!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SomervillePrius @ Feb 16 2007, 12:29 PM) [snapback]391594[/snapback]</div> A hummer with two hemi power plants?!
I'm not fond of the Ram, Hummer, or Tundra. It would not suprize me if the Ram and Hummer were merged to be the baddest.
Personally, I think it'd be a terrible deal for GM. I'm not sure about what it'd mean for Chrysler though. GM does NOT need MORE manufacturing capacity, MORE healthcare and legacy cost liabilities, MORE brands and MORE dealerships. It'd also be buying a money losing company. They combined company would be surely laying off a bunch of people as a result (usual for mergers). I'm not sure how many GM and Chrysler have in job banks now but in 10/05 they had 7100 workers in there combined per http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0.../A01-351179.htm. http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/070216a/ mentions that "On top of the $23 billion in Chrysler retiree health liabilities, GM would add three brands to its eight and increase its dealers in North America from 7,000 to 11,000. "
