Digg

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

GM, Chrysler in merger talks

reuters.com — General Motors has had talks with smaller rival Chrysler LLC about a merger that would combine the No. 1 and No. 3 American automakers at a time when both are struggling to cut costs and shore up cash, according to a source briefed on the matter.

Bury

anderzole 41 days ago, made popular 40 days ago

704 diggs
digg it

139 Comments
Who Dugg It?

diggJMiller, on 10/11/2008, -0/+14This merger would take some time to pull off and will do little to help the two in the short run. It has to make sense long term and I'm not convinced this would be the case for both companies.
contractcentral, on 10/11/2008, -2/+22GM should file for bankruptcy protection if it wants to grow.
- ks13, on 10/13/2008, -7/+4They should make go-carts
- Haphazardness, on 10/13/2008, -3/+1I see what you did there.
rustychipmunk, on 10/13/2008, -1/+7Less competition = Higher Prices?

hopefully not...
- RogerStrong, on 10/13/2008, -2/+9Nope. There'd still be plenty of competition.
  
  Less duplication of effort = better economies of scale = lower prices.
  
  Hopefully.
- hwy9nightkid, on 10/13/2008, -2/+11GM and Chrysler are barely competitive as is.. are you forgetting all the other car manufacturers?
- rustychipmunk, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1good point, didnt think of that
aekdbbop, on 10/13/2008, -1/+7GMrylser? ChryGM? Ehh, well have to see who wins that one..
- waynehoggett, on 10/13/2008, -2/+6They will keep the GM and just call them Generic Motors.
- Lukesed, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2Maybe "Chevrolet-Chrysler Motors."
  
  Just calling it "Chrysler General Motors" wouldn't really keep GM's brand value at all. Chysler could have that name now, for all I know.
- Lionhart, on 10/13/2008, -0/+10most likely would become a brand under General Motors. Kind of like GM has Chevrolet and Pontiac. Now they would also have Chrysler.
  
  That would make the most sense, anyway.
- xcheats, on 10/13/2008, -1/+8American Motor Co.
  - Lionhart, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2brilliant.
- xcvbn, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1General Dodge -
  dodging extinction
- caddysalesman, on 10/13/2008, -0/+0Hummm Corvette Crossfire, Impala Cruiser, Colorado Aspen not bad.
j0hnc0ry, on 10/13/2008, -5/+2I would not buy a GMC Wrangler. I hope this doesn't happen, there is to much brand meshing already.
- gtluke, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4would you buy a ford wrangler? heh, they used to build them in the 40's
  my jeep is made by AMC, before that they were willy's, and before that ford.
  jeep is a whore
- Brasky, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1Chrysler already ***** ruined Jeep so what is the difference? Just look at what they did to the "New" Wrangler.
BoneStamp, on 10/13/2008, -0/+8There is no way this will happen. Cerberus owns 80% of Chrysler, they want GM's 49% share of GMAC (they already own 51% of this finance company) and want to give GM their share in Chrysler for it. GM is trying to sell HUMMER, there's no way they're going to take on a few MORE brands to manage.
- yosisme, on 10/13/2008, -1/+2Hmm, which is more worthless right now. A bank or a car company? Seems like wanting to trade crap for crap.
Octoberlull, on 10/13/2008, -17/+9Boobies
whiteyx, on 10/13/2008, -3/+29As a lifetime Lansing resident, I don't see how this is beneficial to GM.

They need to spend their resources on oil-less tech rather than merge with Chrysler, whose definitely seen better days.

When did ***** Company + ***** Company = Better Company?

Yes, GM is on the right track with the Volt, but we need more. *****, they need more if they want to survive the onslaught of Eastern-world made vehicles, that are becoming oh-so popular because they don't cause half a mortgage to drive per month.
- knowitman, on 10/13/2008, -0/+5GM offers and sales more cars that get better than 30 mpg then any other manufacturer.
- Dejacque, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1As a short-time Lansing resident and son/grandson/greatgrandson of Chrysler dealers, I just want Chrysler not to go under so that my younger siblings can afford to go to college in a few years. If Chrysler and GM have to merge, so be it.
disrupter, on 10/13/2008, -10/+42So now American cars will be twice as unreliable
- BoneStamp, on 10/13/2008, -3/+19Public opinion is not fact. Do some actual research on quality ratings for VW, BMW, Toyota and Honda. You'll be surprised how much fact differs from public opinion.
  - cdigioia, on 10/13/2008, -10/+4What research do you mean? Consumer reports *usually* indicates that American/European cars are not as reliable as Japanese, and the few mechanics I've known have confirmed this was their opinion as well.
- nextbgates95, on 10/13/2008, -5/+13American cars are plenty reliable. My aunt drove a 1980 Dodge RAM until last year. It ran fine, from day one to day 9,855.
  
  I'm glad you decided to say what you thought people wanted to hear.
  - cdigioia, on 10/13/2008, -5/+6I'm glad your Aunt's Dodge Ram is a statistically significant sample.
    
    Seriously, you know one 1980 model car that's done really well, that doesn't prove anything.
  - knowitman, on 10/13/2008, -1/+4I still know many people who have driven the same Dodge, Ford, Chevy pickup truck since the 70s or 80s.
- chunkymonkey04, on 10/13/2008, -2/+7Consumer Reports is NOT a reliable source. I used to believe that they were....until I noticed the new Toyota Tundra was given a "Recommended" before there was even a year to know this. Yet my new Chevy Avalanche was given a "Not enough to say" rating....that is total ***** that because of the brand they assume its reliability.
  
  In order for there to be a fair test. They should approach each new model with a clean slate.
  
  Ironically, the new Tundra has had many problems in its first year...mostly related to it's weak transmission. The Chevy Tahoe/Avalanche has been one of the most reliable out of Detroit...ever.
  
  I have had 10 or 15 different car brands in my lifetime. I found that each one varies in the amount and type of problems you can have. Ironically, my Dodge Dakota was the most reliable but my Toyota Camry was good, but not great with reliability.
  - DifferentAngle, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1They _do_ have information on if the engine or transmission were used in other vehicles, as well as the frame platform, etc, which is a strong indicator for reliability in the future.
  - chunkymonkey04, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3I don't disagree with you on that point...but why can they use past performance on a Toyota as an indicator to future reliability on a new model, but will not use past performance of a domestic as an indicator?
  - bjornski, on 10/13/2008, -4/+1The Avalanche is one of the ugliest, too.
    
    Ranks right up there with the Aztek.
  - chunkymonkey04, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2Have you even seen a new one? I seriously doubt it based on your comment
    
    http://www.autoputer.com/chevytrucks/07avalanche.j ...
    
    I don't care for the old one either...but comparing it to the Asstek is ridicules.
    
    http://www.my-car-picture.com/image-files/04-chevy ...
kangy3213, on 10/13/2008, -9/+7GOD NO!!! DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN!!!! I HATE CHRYSLER!
- itate, on 10/13/2008, -5/+11GOD NO!!! DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN!!!! I HATE GM!
  - Paradiddler45, on 10/13/2008, -4/+6In comparison, Chrysler makes a far inferior product. GM has made great improvements in the last 5 years. Chrysler, on the other hand, is the biggest joke in the auto industry.
  - chunkymonkey04, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1Agreed. Have you seen the new Chevy Malibu?!?! That is a very nice car!
- RogerStrong, on 10/13/2008, -1/+9"(W)e do not think it rises to the level of a safety defect"
  - Chrysler spokesman Max Gates, December 2004, fighting a threatened recall of 600,000 Dodge Durango and Dakota trucks even though, Gates acknowledged, "upper ball joint separation" might make the trucks' wheels fall off.
- czeman, on 10/13/2008, -3/+5I HATE BOTH OF THEM!!!!
- mrgeekguy, on 10/13/2008, -9/+2***** You.
- Dejacque, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1As a son of a Chrysler dealer, kindly go ***** yourself.
eers2snow, on 10/13/2008, -2/+5Awesome. I'm certain the coming PT Cavalier Cruiser will captivate the market bringing us out of recession!
- BoneStamp, on 10/13/2008, -0/+5They could save money by merging the PT cruiser and HHR since they look very similar.
  - Tyr7, on 10/13/2008, -0/+6They look similar because they had the same designer.
OfNumbers, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3Things are about to get a whole lot more general.
c010rb1indusa, on 10/13/2008, -6/+1Like GM needs one more brand in their arsenal of *****...Chevrolet, Buick, Pontiac, Cadillac, Hummer, GMC, part of Volvo, and now Chrysler. Chrysler is in the tank anyways, they marketed all their vehicles around these big V8 hemis and now that gas has gone up their *****. Don't even get me started on Ford...
- BoneStamp, on 10/13/2008, -0/+7I think you meant Saab when you wrote Volvo. It's actually Ford who owns the Volvo car trademark (Volvo Group is separate).
  - Trekhawk, on 10/13/2008, -3/+0You SOB/SAAB! I created a profile just to correct him. Touche good sir.
OneLess, on 10/13/2008, -0/+8Why is the thumbnail Secretary *****?
pstroll, on 10/13/2008, -12/+1I only buy Japanese brands that are made in Japan. Love seeing America go down the toilet
- czeman, on 10/13/2008, -3/+4I only buy Japanese brands because I like a vehicle that's reliable, easy to work on (I don't like a vehicle that requires a contortionist socket set just to change spark plugs!!!) , and gets good gas mileage.
- mrgeekguy, on 10/13/2008, -4/+2***** YOU!
- Ymeg, on 10/13/2008, -2/+3fyi: if we end up down the toilet, we are taking others with us.
  - hwy9nightkid, on 10/13/2008, -4/+2I doubt it, here's why...while the US falls
    other countries can now focus on what they want to produce..not what the US consumes. they will surpass the US in all aspects, except for outstanding debt.
- BoneStamp, on 10/13/2008, -1/+4Since America is Canada's largest export destination, Canada will soon follow. If our economy collapses, who do you think is going to buy all your products and resources. The Oil pipeline doesn't lead anywhere else, the roads don't lead anywhere else... most of your products are not cost effective for water export (save steel and a dozen automobiles... all manufactured in Ontario).
- Pecheckler, on 10/13/2008, -0/+0Before America goes down the toilet, we'll start selling nukes and B2 bombers to Israel.
stack3r, on 10/13/2008, -2/+5lol.... this just after Daimler and Chrysler just seperated. Interesting.

Also, anyone else getting sick of hearing "shore up".... ugh.
mrshare, on 10/13/2008, -10/+2Here's my plan for GM:

Go all-electric, right now.
Stop building SUVs and convert your assembly lines to make windmills and solar power panels.
Cut SPENDING.
Close plants.
Drastically cut the salaries and benefits of employees.
Bust the unions.

They can either follow my plan, or prepare for bankruptcy. We simply cannot be paying workers the equivalent (with pensions, health care, vacations, etc) of $100 an hour when Chinese will build cars for $2 an hour.
- kakwakas, on 10/13/2008, -1/+5Yeah! ***** the little guy!
  - mrshare, on 10/13/2008, -4/+1They are going to be feeling a lot MORE ***** when the company ceases to exist.
- czeman, on 10/13/2008, -3/+3Why not just cut the exhorbant salaries and benefits of executives?
  - debtman7, on 10/13/2008, -2/+2Um, because GM spends way more paying workers salaries and benefits than it does for executives?
  - mrshare, on 10/13/2008, -1/+2What part of "Drastically cut the salaries and benefits of employees" didn't you understand? That means ALL employees.
  - BoneStamp, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1There are a lot of plant workers that make very close to 6 figures... you could replace those guys in a heartbeat with a new employee that would by happy at half the money. Give all those guys packages now!
- Trekhawk, on 10/13/2008, -3/+3Why not just fire all UAW members on Monday, close up shop for the day, and offer to hire them back on Tuesday at a sane, market-correct wage that's more inline with their skills and education level?
  - Armagetto, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2...And that would achieve squat to save the company.
    
    The truth is the UAW has little or no power these days. To company outsiders, last summers strikes appeared to be caused by the UAW flexing it's muscle, but in reality all it did is save the company money while allowing it to adjust its inventory. Besides, the Big 3 now have 2 tiered pay scales and even their top-tier jobs are in line with those of the US plants operated by their foreign competitors. What's more is that when the UAW takes over administration of health care in 2010 they will have an edge over the company funded plans of Toyota and the others.
    
    Meanwhile, GM's top CEO's rake in multimillion dollar salaries while Toyotas CEOs only make 6 figures. But really CEOs aren't the issue, nor is the huge amount of white collar fat at the middle, it's mismanagement of the company as a whole. GM made a number of bad bets and business moves, acquiring companies overseas and then selling them at a massive loss. I won't even get into all the suppliers they bailed out...
  - BoneStamp, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1@armagetto
    Not to mention the fortune GM spends on retirees, benefits that Toyota doesn't offer their employees.
- Number23, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1so I can only chose your plan or bankruptcy? No false dichotomy there, right?
- BoneStamp, on 10/13/2008, -2/+11. It takes at least 3 years to develop a new product, let alone an electric technology that is brand new.
  2. It takes far more money than they have to develop a new product, let alone turn their entire product lineup (30+ vehicles) into electrics.
  3. It takes far more money than that to convert a single plant to product anything else.
  4. They can't sell enough windmills and solar panels to compete with the Japanese.
  5. All your other points are bang on (cut spending, close plants, bust the unions, reduce salaries and benefits ... they've done a lot of the reducing and need to do more).
- cadmiumpaint, on 10/13/2008, -3/+6"Go all-electric, right now."
  
  um not possible at all.
  - mrshare, on 10/13/2008, -1/+2Well they can get started right now.
  - BoneStamp, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1@mrshare
    They have started. Since no company has ever mass produced an electric vehicle, they're going to work out the bugs on 1 model before they do anything drastic and change their entire lineup. Plus, electric cars are not cost effective for some consumers. Extremely small/cheap cars will be gas for a while and extremely large vehicles probably have a while before they will be electric too (cost of more batteries).
halloweenkat, on 10/13/2008, -2/+2This is interesting news
brstilson, on 10/13/2008, -2/+8Decades of putting out substandard quality vehicles are finally coming to fruition. It's not really a surprise. For years they made cars to be replaced every few years, but then the companies putting out reliable cars swooped in and Americans went with the better, foreign product.
Cannonballkid, on 10/13/2008, -2/+3hmm while I do prefer Japanese brands I myself drive a Nissan Altima 06, In fact many Japanese manufactures have their cars assembled in America. Honda Subaru, my Altima was made in the Nissan plant at Tennessee. I once heard someone say (cant verify) that Honda actually makes more cars in the US than any other car company.
- czeman, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4It doesn't matter where they're assembled. It matters where the parts are manufactured. My Honda Civic was going strong after 8 years. It would have lasted longer if I wouldn't have seen that damned ghost green arrow and turned. :(
ccL1, on 10/13/2008, -7/+3Crap car company with crap cars + crap car company with crap cars doesn't equal a nice car company with nice cars.

Although I'm all for consolidation in the auto industry, I don't support it between two companies with money troubles.
- specialbuddy1, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1double negatives = positive duh
dd12101, on 10/13/2008, -3/+6wouldn't it be better business to break them up and auction them off to new thinking entrepreneurs???? Seems like 2 big companies with alot of debt would only equal 1 big company with a whole lot more debt....
- snoogit, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3you're probably right.
  
  Hate to say it, but GM should be thinking of spinning off car brands, not adding.
nurbsenvi, on 10/13/2008, -2/+4What's the point?
I mean it's not like we are merging Jessica Alba and Angelina Jolie
We are talking about GM-Chrysler which is like merging bold Britney with drunk Courtney Love
Lots of liabilities and problems no synergy.
ASSASSYN360, on 10/13/2008, -1/+2Now where are those Chrysler jokes from GM fans.
- kastlip88, on 10/13/2008, -2/+3CHRYSLER SUCKS
geoffg, on 10/13/2008, -9/+1Detroit blows.
cadmiumpaint, on 10/13/2008, -1/+2Wouldn't it make more sense to partner up with a healthy company? I guess the failed Dailmer/Chrysler experiment is keeping people away from merging with American automakers
svandemore, on 10/13/2008, -4/+4I honestly believe that within 10 years, there won't be any Ford, Chevy, or GM. Too mixed up with the government and oil producers to bring anything truly innovative to the marketplace. It will be sad to see them go. One of many American icons down the toilet because of greed.
- theutopian, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1I think it will happen sooner than 10 years.
ButlerMonkey, on 10/13/2008, -0/+12GM and Chrysler in one - that just scream quality to me. I actually have a feeling GM can make a comeback if the Volt turns out to be a good car and is practical to use for the average person. I think that they can steal sales away hybrid cars, especially if they push a "buy American to help America" type of pitch. If it becomes a successful platform, they can adopt it across their entire line (eventually). GM could go from the brand of the H2 to the most environmentally friendly car brand if they play this right.

Also, being from Toronto and living in a province that does a bit of car production, it seems unions have the car companies by the balls. I'm unaware of any other industry or field (maybe Wall St. CEO) that feels that they need their jobs to be protected or are owed such great compensation if they are to be laid off.
- alexgg, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1Well, take a look at Mexico's education union and petrol union. It's disgusting, and yes, I'm Mexican, so I know what I'm saying.
Pecheckler, on 10/13/2008, -2/+3One of my best friends has worked for GM for just over three years, he makes 28 dollars an hour, plus benefits, working on an assembly line. He hired in just before the salary of new hires started to drop significantly. Three years ago it was between 20 and 22 dollars an hour, now it is down to 14 dollars an hour.
I do not want to see GM merge with anyone, and I don't believe they need too.
Given time, once the higher paid employees start to retire, GM will be cutting significant costs in labor, besides, I'm sure GM is making other significant changes to cut costs as well.
- aelias, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2Yeah, but then those retirees want their money, too, along with all the employees that retired before them. GM, and all other UAW manufacturers will collapse because you can't increase sales forever, and the longer you keep it at bay, the faster it all fails eventually.
Duncan3, on 10/13/2008, -4/+3Merging doesn't get them out of their insane pensions and healthcare problem. For every one employee working for them, 10 are being supported but not working.

The _only_ way that there will ever be a car made by a US company again is if they start a new company, buy up the facilities and IP of the old but leave the unions and the pension in the old shell companies. The unions have done what they always have done throughout history - destroy their own jobs.

Toyota already figured this out, and they are kicking butt.
- cubicledrone, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4Oh bew hew! Union jobs are the reason we had a middle class in the 1950s and 1960s. Auto makers had no problem paying pensions and benefits until they started making ***** cars THIRTY ***** YEARS AGO.
  
  The reason Toyota is winning the competition for the North American market is they've been thinking long-term since the 1970s. American companies never think long-term. They think about how much cash they can stuff in their ass before lunch. Oh, and there's also the fact that American workers and companies have to compete against unfair trade policies that block our products and undercut our workers.
  
  We can't ***** compete because we suck. The sooner we admit we SUCK the sooner we can stop WHINING and put our people to work COMPETING under a fair trade policy again.
Alias1431, on 10/13/2008, -2/+3I don't know about the rest of you, but ever since I heard Sarah Palin utter the phrase, "shore up the economy," I wince every time I read "shore up" anything.
JrtD, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2I wonder how much the mortgage crunch triggered GM's decision to merge with Chrysler. This might have more to do with the mortgage crisis than poor car sales.

GM's financing division [GMAC, also known as Ditech] has been very active in the mortgage industry with $150 billion in debt liabilities:

http://thekeithdavisshow.com/25.html
- bjornski, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1They stopped being a car company long ago.
  
  Now they just give you one if you open up an expensive loan through them.
  
  They've become a financial institution, not a car company.
HotDogBun, on 10/13/2008, -3/+2It would be nice if all the crap cars were under one brand name so that they would be easier to avoid... and this is a step in that direction.
- chunkymonkey04, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1I have a list of foreign car companies that have WORSE reliability than domestic.
  
  I am so tired of these ignorant comments. And yes I have a Toyota.
illustrick, on 10/13/2008, -2/+1doesnt Chrysler own Mercedes?
- gtluke, on 10/13/2008, -0/+7no, mercedes owned chrysler and sold it to cerebrus
- theutopian, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1It was the other way around and Daimler realized the steaming turd they'd gotten involved with and pawned it off for a loss of a private equity firm.
  - xdre, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1More like Daimler drained Chrysler's cash to prop up Airbus and their smart division, cheapened Chrysler's cars more than they ever were, and then dropped them like a hot potato.
24imac, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1this is going to bring a whole new level of gear-tards showing off their new hemi powered Camaro
Tracon, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4So two piles of fail become one massive pile of fail how fun how exciting.
- JYoungest1, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1Its always sunny?
jbird32275, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2Dugg for the Ford ad at the top of the page.
xcvbn, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2talk about a bad penny...or Dodge from death
U.S. bailout in the 70s
then daimler's "partnership of equals"
now gm?
bigbangbuddha, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3This is the kind of monstrosities we have to look forward to now:

http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2007/05/vipette-dodge ...
- bjornski, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1If the 10mpg cars didn't already kill separate companies, maybe merging and producing these wastes of fuel will finally do it.
  
  Wonder what their SUVs will look like? You KNOW they're not cutting those.
lotion, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2This rumor has been floating around the auto industry for ages. Time will tell if anything actually happens but I'd have to guess that they don't merge.

As for how this makes sense, it does open up some possibilities. This would afford the merged company the opportunity to pick and choose amongst the variety of technologies and facilities that they, presently, independently own. Additionally, this opens up the chance to share the tooling for parts, reducing costs on future vehicles (commonizing parts along multiple production lines is a frequently used cost-reduction strategy in manufacturing ... For example, the drive shaft in the Ford GT is borrowed from the Focus or the entire reason that SUVs -- Cars on truck chassis -- came into existence).

One larger corporation will have less costs than the two large corps combined (unfortunately at the hands of a reduced workforce, amongst other reasons). This might enable more risk-taking which is the only way for an auto company to get ahead these days.
- cubicledrone, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2The way for an auto company to get ahead is to stop firing their workers and start building cars that don't suck their own chrome off before they get to the lot.
cubicledrone, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3This is what happens when you lay off all the people that used to know how to make cars. The answer, of course, is to merge so they can lay off the rest. Oh wait, they already "bought them out" which is corporate-speak for "fired but paid a little extra."

Management, of course, is blameless and continues to enjoy full employment and benefits. That's the ***** "free market" right there.
- bjornski, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1Ron Paul! Ron Paul!
  
  A merger is what the market wants! The market is ALWAYS right!
wilf_brim, on 10/13/2008, -0/+5Worst....merger......EVER.

Two cripple companies, both making the same mistakes and the with the same problems. Putting them together? Awful idea. At least one of the big three US automakes needs to go, probably two of them.
Dylson, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1Say it ain't so! This merge will destroy GM's image. Chrysler makes one of the worst products on the road.
- bjornski, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1I'd take one over a Pontiac.
  - Dylson, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1You're stupid then.
  - bjornski, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1No, I hate the interior of Pontiacs. They're uncomfortable to me.
    
    Dodge/Chrysler is nice inside. Even the freakin' Neon is more comfortable than your typical Pontiac.
- theutopian, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2"GM makes of the worst products on the road"
  
  There, fixed that for you.
edwarddouglas, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3GM cars may not be great but try to find a good alternative to a Tahoe, Suburban, Escalade. There are none. Just to be fair, Toyota is in almost as bad bad shape themselves having reported a 30% drop in sales for September. As long as the credit market is tight no one will be buying cars because very few can get approved for loans now. Any mass market manufacturer is not gonna be doing well. Mercedes, Bmw, Audi will probably be better off since their customers have on average much higher incomes.
- chunkymonkey04, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1Finally! Someone that actually makes since! You will be dugg down soon, my friend.
Dejacque, on 10/13/2008, -2/+1My family has sold Chrysler cars since the 1930s, so whatever works to keep Chrysler afloat is fine by me.
waydee, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4Merge two inept manufacturers who are unable to compete with the European and Japanese companies to form one super inept manufacturer... sounds like the British car industry in the 70s.
TimDigg, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2As long as they keep making

chrysler 300
dodge magnum
dodge charger
jeep grand cherokee
jeep wrangler
jeep wrangler unlimited
dodge caravan
dodge ram

they can trash the rest....

MAYBE keep...

Dodge Sprinter
Dodge Challenger
Dodge Viper
Dodge Durango
theutopian, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2According the news, GM approached Ford first and Ford said ***** off. Can you imagine if Ford and GM were together. Gearheads are loyal to their respective companies like freaking religion. Can you imagine all the heads that would explode of they became GMFord? Same ***** cars, same rabid fanbase.
lazerflesh, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1Cool, I know both companies have a couple electric cars planned. Maybe it'll make them stronger and bring more power to American cars.
gkiltz, on 10/13/2008, -0/+0GM couldn't buy Chrysler if it had to, and it doesn't have to!
GM ALREADY has TOO MANY nameplates, too many models, too many dealerships and too many plants! They need to re-assess their own lineup. They need to get down to no more than three nameplates, preferably just two, Chevrolet, and Cadillac, as soon as possible! Pontiac is the one for which you could make an entirely defensible argument either way, and that will be a tough call! At least it's putting money onto the bottom line, instead of taking it off! But it hasn't contributed much from a technological standpoint in years, and the sales trend is not favorable. The money it does put onto the bottom line may very well be at the expense of the higher-profit Chevrolet models.
Given Dodge's notorious poor durability, and low mileage, and the fact that the Plymouth nameplate already barely exists, aside from some models of Jeep, what does Chrysler have to offer in the market? And is Jeep's core market any different from that filled by some of the SUVs Chevy already sells?
Jeep's record is still unblemished, EVERY company that has ever owned Jeep has made money on Jeep itself, but gone broke anyway!
First Willy's Then Kaiser, then AMC, then Chrysler, then, at least as far as North America is concerned Daimler-Chrysler, now Cerberus Chrysler! The trend continues!
GM does not need that baggage right now, or anytime soon! They're better off just letting Jeep go, and trying to pick up it's market! They'll probably get most of it anyway!
Also, it's worth noting that, while there have been a few exceptions, on the whole, private equity partnerships like Cerberus, are far more adept at taking money out of companies than they are at putting it into companies! That's what they do! There are no anorexic alligators, are there?
Cerberus bought Chrysler in the first place thinking Jeep would be an easy sell, and that no-one really cared who owned Dodge! They were in for a rude awakening where the automobile business is concerned! Every industry has certain insider "gotchas" put there to trip-up outsiders! They tripped over a big one this time!
Bottom line Chrysler is TOAST!
You buy a Dodge or A Jeep, you better hope you get a model that has sold enough units that you'll be able to cannibalize parts for 5 or 6 more years. I don't expect Chrysler to start the 2010 model year. And GM is not stupid enough to get sucked into that mess!
At least I want to think they're not!
- ChaseG1, on 10/14/2008, -0/+0You are absolutely right. You are very smart and intelligent.
  I work for Chrysler, and I will have to kill myself.
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

GM, Chrysler in merger talks

Login or register to add a comment