<VV> Re: Mopar on the VV

[Tony Underwood]

At 11:04 hours 07/15/2004 -0700, you wrote: 
>
> As has been said the '57's were a sorry case. The style was released a year
> too early in a sales ploy. 



...I've always been partial to the '57 Chrysler 300-C.   *That* car was well
made.   They were bizarrely fast for being 4200 lb behemoths and they actually
handled very well indeed for such a large car.   


>
> As I've read, the bodies hadn't quite had all the engineering done. Numerous
> complaints came about, and the lack of build and design intergity had a
> lasting effect on Chrysler. One could make a case that it was the beginning
> of the downward spiral 



??    Chrysler was very successful in the 1960s and they left an indelible
impression on the automobile legacy that remains today.   And as far as build
quality goes, Mopars from the '60s were quite well done.   Not only were they
rigid and solid, they were durable and seldom suffered from the rattle-squeak
that framed cars became afflicted with after a few miles/years along the
way.  
'60s Mopars (also through the early '70s) had such a reputation for durability
and solid construction that they became practically the *only* option for
fleet
vehicle contract sales, like taxicabs or law enforcement etc.  

Admittedly, some of the mid-late 50s Chrysler products, mainly Desoto and
Dodge
(and to a degree Plymouth), did have some rust issues in the front fenders,
especially around the headlight rim eyebrows...  something that '57 Fords and
Mercurys also suffered.   Chrysler wasn't alone...  


>
> that Mopars are sitll trying to recover from ( and giving fits to the
boys at
> D-B these days).   



Daimler Benz might be having fits but it's hardly the fault of Chrysler at
all.   In fact, both Chrysler AND Daimler Benz would likely have been better
off if DB CEO Jurgen Shremp had minded his own damned business and not been
afflicted with takeover "merger mania" and gone after a flock of other
manufacturers like Freightliner, Mitsubishi, and then Chrysler.  Chryslers
"problems" today are the fault of DB alone.  It was DB who dug themselves a
hole in buying Chrysler with borrowed money via promises of quick payback and
large dividends to stockholders (some of whom held so much Mercedes stock that
*they* had to give a go-ahead before the Stuttgart office was able to move on
the plan to take over Chrysler).    At the time, Chrysler was rich, selling
lots of cars, and had billions of dollars in their slush fund (for research
and
development and design projects for upcoming model years)  along with a
growing
reputation (courtesy of Bob Lutz and other visionaries at Chrysler) of quality
and "in your face" cars like the Dodge Viper and their line of excellent
trucks
and future hints of more glory to come (300-M, Plymouth Prowler etc) which not
only made Chrysler a high visibility car maker, it also made them ripe for a
takeover and that's what Daimler did via buying out this stockholder then that
stockholder etc ad nauseam until they held enough stock to twist the arms of
other stockholders.

Then  came the fights in court with people like Kirk Kerkorian who tried to
stop the takeover with his own bid to acquire Chrysler (scary since Kerkorian
has a reputation of buying up companies and selling them off again piecemeal,
making billions in the process) and even Lee Iacocca was getting in on things
in an effort to keep Chrysler from being devoured.    DB overextended
themselves in the process, making promises to stockholders and banks alike
that
the billions they wanted to borrow would be paid back pronto and dividends to
stockholders would flood into their accounts.    

Over the course of a year anna half, DB emptied Chryslers R&D slush fund to
pay
stockholders those dividends DB promised, and to pay off some of the premium
note held by the Bank of Kuwait and Deutsches Bank in an attempt to keep them
happy.   Then DB went after Chryslers US managers, demanding they build more
and more cars and trucks and sell them "come hell or high water" any way they
can, in an attempt to put more money in DBs accounts which were further
depleted when Jurgen Shremp decided the thing to do would be to acquire
controlling interest in Mitsubishi... dumb move...  since DB was already
strapped for cash as it was.   Their next move was to start selling off
Chryslers secondary manufacturing facilities like the Huntsville Alabama
facility Accustar which manufactured Chrysler's electronics...  in turn
handing
the electronics business to Mitsubishi along with the accompanying switchover
problems and compatibility issues etc.   Chrysler continued to decline (what a
surprise).  So, Jurgen appointed his head watchdog Dieter Zetsche to head
Chrysler, following Zetsche's successful turnaround with bankrupt Freightliner
which DB had earlier bought for a song and a dance.   Zetsche is a sharp guy
with a head for auto manufacturing and had proven more than once that if
anybody could turn around a faltering automaker, he could...  since he'd
watched with a jaded eye what Jurgen Shremp had done to Chrysler while gutting
it in order to pay back the banks and the stockholders who continued to scream
for those dividends.      

Chryslers "drain" on Daimler Benz has been a whine and bitch-moan session from
Daimler Benz since day one...  and it's Jurgen Shremp who's to blame, NOT
Chrysler.   In fact, Shremp at one time had been giving thought to liquidating
Chrysler altogether in a last ditch effort to recover enough capital to pay
back the huge bank loans and dividends...  lest he end up on his ass outside
the DB offices; something the stockholders promised him if he failed to
deliver
what he'd promised them.   

In other words, he was perfectly willing to throw Chrysler on the scrap
heap if
necessary in order to save his own ass, something which never should have been
necessary in the first place if Shremp hadn't had delusions of grandeur and
dollar signs in his eyes.    Evidently someone else where read him the Riot
Act
and said "Fix Chrysler or else".    So, Shremp let it fall into Zetsche's
lap...   I suppose he could have done a lot worse.    

Zetsche is smart enough to let US car customers decide what they want, rather
than telling US car customers what they're gonna get, based upon decisions
made
in Stuttgart.    This is one of the reasons we have a new Hemi engine (with
another larger one on the way) and a new series of front engine rear wheel
drive (and soon AWD) platforms with real performance and handling.   


It's taken a few years but Chrysler has finally stabilized and is once
again in
the pink, with new and better offerings across the  board, back to where they
were before Shremp took them over.    And it's Zetsche who's to thank for it
after he came here to live for a while and get a close look at the US auto
markets and holding press conferences and listening to what potential car
buyers have to say about what *they* want in a car.     And of course it's
worked.   And now Chrysler is something for car shoppers to get excited
about. 


IN the coming months, expect a new addition to the Hemi  powered rear wheel
drive performance car line with the SRT-8 and new Dodge Charger (slated to
appear in early to mid 2005).   Add to this the current offerings such as the
new truck lines and the performance "sedan-wagon" Dodge Magnum and the new
Chrysler C-300 etc and it's not hard to envision Chrysler as a real player
once
again.      

Expect the new Dodge Charger (2005 model) to be available in a variant that's
rumored to be aimed at giving the Corvette a run for its money for 50% less
cost.     


>
> Aftter the rust and integrtiy issues were fixed, Chrysler had to suffer with
> Exner's styling, which dated rather rapidly.   



That it did... but Exner was kicking out designs that were enormously popular
for a while... albeit a few were a bit too art-deco for me...   


>
> A 1961 Dodge is one of the ugliest cars I've ever seen.


I'll still stick with the '61 Plymouth Fury as the ultimate ugly.    But then
again Exner gave us the original A-body Dodge Dart in '64 which was a winner,
and the Valiant/Lancers in  '60-61 and '62...  great looking uniquely styled
cars.   


>
> Remember, Mopars before 1957 were considered the paragons of quality and
> engineering amng the big three. At least that was the popular image. After
> the 1957 model year, Chrysler lost market share it never regained.



??    Where were you in the 1960s?  They were Chryslers heyday.    Plymouth
alone must have sold a whole flock of full sized and intermediate cars through
the '60s.  Dodge could have likely survived nicely on its fleet vehicle sales
alone, much less the multitudes of Coronet models they sold.  And I couldn't
even begin to estimate how many Darts and Valiants were sold through the '60s
and early '70s and it almost seemed as if every 4th car you saw on most roads
was a Chrysler product.   GM and Ford may have both been bigger and sold more
vehicles over-all but Chrysler products were right up the other two's
collective asses chomping at the bit the whole way.    As far as market share
is concerned, Chrysler has traditionally always been "#3" behind Ford and GM
but not by much.   The fact that Chrysler remains a viable entity to this day
suggests that they're not going anywhere anytime soon in spite of the
mis-handling that Shremp laid on them during the take-over and subsequent
mis-handling that followed.    


And for what it's worth, I'll stack up a mid-60s Dodge or Plymouth B-body car
against anything else made in America for build quality.    I've done body
work
on both GMs and Mopars of this vintage and I have no problems saying that the
Chrysler products were at least as well built.    Corvairs are closer to the
Mopar build quality in the '60s than anything else GM ever built and that's
because the Vairs borrowed Chryslers Unibody construction techniques, which
served the Corvair quite well.    

Now, if GM had only line-dipped their unibody Vair chassis to protect them
from
rust the way Mopars were dipped, maybe we'd have had fewer rusty Vairs and
more
of them left today.   


tony..