|
Re: GM's Butt buddies
In article
<jason-1604061041030001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Great point. However, I doubt that Honda or any other foreign car company > would want all of the problems connected with owning and running GM. It's > my guess that the owners of Mercedes now reqret taking over Chrysler. I > read one article in a car magazine indicating that the automotive > engineers from Mercedes gave up on trying to fix the design problems > related to some of the engines that were used in Chrysler vehicles. They > solved the problem by placing Mercedes engines in those vehicles. I read the opposite, it's Chrysler engines in the Mercedes and Mercedes transmissions and outward in the RWD Chryslers. To be specific he Chrysler hemi V8 and 3.5L V6 are used by Mercedes. With the FWD Chrysler Caliber and the Mercedes B-200 they obviously use the same complete drive train, tuned up a bit for the market each is in. The 4 cyl engine and CV transmission have design involvement by a number of other companies. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
st-bum wrote:
> You don't know what the hell you're talking about! > > Share for share purchases done all the time. And no, you don't have to > "cross cheques". YOu just made that gibberish up! Shares are issued, > simple as that. Don't have to have 100 billion in cash to issue 100 > billion in shares. > > Idiot. My dear street-bum, you had better go back and read my post. Then review your basic accounting text, for Accounting 101. Then admit yourself to the local psychiatric ward for assessment. I repeat: "You can't buy diddley with "market cap". You need cash! ;-)" Except perhaps AFLAC customers out of Columbus, GA. Fool! |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
st-bum wrote:
> You don't know what the hell you're talking about! > > Share for share purchases done all the time. And no, you don't have to > "cross cheques". YOu just made that gibberish up! Shares are issued, > simple as that. Don't have to have 100 billion in cash to issue 100 > billion in shares. > > Idiot. My dear street-bum, you had better go back and read my post. Then review your basic accounting text, for Accounting 101. Then admit yourself to the local psychiatric ward for assessment. I repeat: "You can't buy diddley with "market cap". You need cash! ;-)" Except perhaps AFLAC customers out of Columbus, GA. Fool! |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
Ba ha ha paranoid loser.
You issue stock for stock. You don't need cash and you don't need to "exchange cheques". Did Time Warner have 100 billion or so when it bought AOL? Did they say..."hold on we'll issue stock but first we need to raise 100 billion in cash to facilitate 'exchanging cheques'". Or did it just issue stock? LOL. Yeah they "exchange cheques". Why try to be an expert in something when you're not? Do you like being a phony? You need neither market value nor cash actually. Small companies can issue stock for larger ones if buyers will take it. You are laughable, but I like calling out blowhards. You're trying to come accross as a know it all, but you know nothing. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
Ba ha ha paranoid loser.
You issue stock for stock. You don't need cash and you don't need to "exchange cheques". Did Time Warner have 100 billion or so when it bought AOL? Did they say..."hold on we'll issue stock but first we need to raise 100 billion in cash to facilitate 'exchanging cheques'". Or did it just issue stock? LOL. Yeah they "exchange cheques". Why try to be an expert in something when you're not? Do you like being a phony? You need neither market value nor cash actually. Small companies can issue stock for larger ones if buyers will take it. You are laughable, but I like calling out blowhards. You're trying to come accross as a know it all, but you know nothing. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
In article <iHate-84AF41.10450818042006@news.telus.net>, Spam Hater
<iHate@spam.net> wrote: > In article > <jason-1604061041030001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > Great point. However, I doubt that Honda or any other foreign car company > > would want all of the problems connected with owning and running GM. It's > > my guess that the owners of Mercedes now reqret taking over Chrysler. I > > read one article in a car magazine indicating that the automotive > > engineers from Mercedes gave up on trying to fix the design problems > > related to some of the engines that were used in Chrysler vehicles. They > > solved the problem by placing Mercedes engines in those vehicles. > > I read the opposite, it's Chrysler engines in the Mercedes and Mercedes > transmissions and outward in the RWD Chryslers. > > To be specific he Chrysler hemi V8 and 3.5L V6 are used by Mercedes. > > With the FWD Chrysler Caliber and the Mercedes B-200 they obviously use > the same complete drive train, tuned up a bit for the market each is in. > The 4 cyl engine and CV transmission have design involvement by a number > of other companies. I no longer have the magazine that had the article in it. I was referring to the first one or two years after Mercedes took over the company. You must have read a more recent article. It's my guess that the automotive engineers from Mercedes have already made all of the needed design changes in the Chrysler motors and transmissions (and related parts). Jason -- NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
In article <iHate-84AF41.10450818042006@news.telus.net>, Spam Hater
<iHate@spam.net> wrote: > In article > <jason-1604061041030001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > Great point. However, I doubt that Honda or any other foreign car company > > would want all of the problems connected with owning and running GM. It's > > my guess that the owners of Mercedes now reqret taking over Chrysler. I > > read one article in a car magazine indicating that the automotive > > engineers from Mercedes gave up on trying to fix the design problems > > related to some of the engines that were used in Chrysler vehicles. They > > solved the problem by placing Mercedes engines in those vehicles. > > I read the opposite, it's Chrysler engines in the Mercedes and Mercedes > transmissions and outward in the RWD Chryslers. > > To be specific he Chrysler hemi V8 and 3.5L V6 are used by Mercedes. > > With the FWD Chrysler Caliber and the Mercedes B-200 they obviously use > the same complete drive train, tuned up a bit for the market each is in. > The 4 cyl engine and CV transmission have design involvement by a number > of other companies. I no longer have the magazine that had the article in it. I was referring to the first one or two years after Mercedes took over the company. You must have read a more recent article. It's my guess that the automotive engineers from Mercedes have already made all of the needed design changes in the Chrysler motors and transmissions (and related parts). Jason -- NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
street-bum kennykabukiATyahooDOTcom Ba ha ha paranoid loser. wrote: > You issue stock for stock. You don't need cash and you don't need to > "exchange cheques". Did Time Warner have 100 billion or so when it > bought AOL? Did they say..."hold on we'll issue stock but first we > need to raise 100 billion in cash to facilitate 'exchanging cheques'". > Or did it just issue stock? LOL. Yeah they "exchange cheques". Why > try to be an expert in something when you're not? Do you like being a > phony? You need neither market value nor cash actually. Small > companies can issue stock for larger ones if buyers will take it. First of all, you boorish little man, Time Warner did not buy AOL! In actual fact, AOL Inc. acquired Time Warner Inc. for roughly $182 billion in stock and debt. Bwa, Ha, Ha! If you check your Accounting 101 text, my intellectually challenged little man, you will find that even debt assumption requires the crossing of checks. The two companies for all intents and purposes merged. Interestingly, AOL's purchase of Time Warner in January 2001 came to symbolize the boom and bust of the Web bubble and the rise and fall of new media. > > You are laughable, but I like calling out blowhards. You're trying to > come accross as a know it all, but you know nothing. You would clearly know a blowhard when you saw one. ;-) There is great irony in your comment about calling out blowhards, because you have just been called out as one, who was way offbase on the Time Warner issue. For the hard-of-hearing, I repeat: "You can't buy diddley with "market cap". You need cash! ;-)" |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
street-bum kennykabukiATyahooDOTcom Ba ha ha paranoid loser. wrote: > You issue stock for stock. You don't need cash and you don't need to > "exchange cheques". Did Time Warner have 100 billion or so when it > bought AOL? Did they say..."hold on we'll issue stock but first we > need to raise 100 billion in cash to facilitate 'exchanging cheques'". > Or did it just issue stock? LOL. Yeah they "exchange cheques". Why > try to be an expert in something when you're not? Do you like being a > phony? You need neither market value nor cash actually. Small > companies can issue stock for larger ones if buyers will take it. First of all, you boorish little man, Time Warner did not buy AOL! In actual fact, AOL Inc. acquired Time Warner Inc. for roughly $182 billion in stock and debt. Bwa, Ha, Ha! If you check your Accounting 101 text, my intellectually challenged little man, you will find that even debt assumption requires the crossing of checks. The two companies for all intents and purposes merged. Interestingly, AOL's purchase of Time Warner in January 2001 came to symbolize the boom and bust of the Web bubble and the rise and fall of new media. > > You are laughable, but I like calling out blowhards. You're trying to > come accross as a know it all, but you know nothing. You would clearly know a blowhard when you saw one. ;-) There is great irony in your comment about calling out blowhards, because you have just been called out as one, who was way offbase on the Time Warner issue. For the hard-of-hearing, I repeat: "You can't buy diddley with "market cap". You need cash! ;-)" |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
street-bum kennykabukiATyahooDOTcom Ba ha ha paranoid loser. wrote: > You issue stock for stock. You don't need cash and you don't need to > "exchange cheques". Did Time Warner have 100 billion or so when it > bought AOL? Did they say..."hold on we'll issue stock but first we > need to raise 100 billion in cash to facilitate 'exchanging cheques'". > Or did it just issue stock? LOL. Yeah they "exchange cheques". Why > try to be an expert in something when you're not? Do you like being a > phony? You need neither market value nor cash actually. Small > companies can issue stock for larger ones if buyers will take it. First of all, you boorish little man, Time Warner did not buy AOL! In actual fact, AOL Inc. acquired Time Warner Inc. for roughly $182 billion in stock and debt. Bwa, Ha, Ha! If you check your Accounting 101 text, my intellectually challenged little man, you will find that even debt assumption requires the crossing of checks. The two companies for all intents and purposes merged. Interestingly, AOL's purchase of Time Warner in January 2001 came to symbolize the boom and bust of the Web bubble and the rise and fall of new media. > > You are laughable, but I like calling out blowhards. You're trying to > come accross as a know it all, but you know nothing. You would clearly know a blowhard when you saw one. ;-) There is great irony in your comment about calling out blowhards, because you have just been called out as one, who was way offbase on the Time Warner issue. For the hard-of-hearing, I repeat: "You can't buy diddley with "market cap". You need cash! ;-)" |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
In article
> > In article > > <jason-1604061041030001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > > jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > Great point. However, I doubt that Honda or any other foreign car company > > > would want all of the problems connected with owning and running GM. It's > > > my guess that the owners of Mercedes now reqret taking over Chrysler. I > > > read one article in a car magazine indicating that the automotive > > > engineers from Mercedes gave up on trying to fix the design problems > > > related to some of the engines that were used in Chrysler vehicles. They > > > solved the problem by placing Mercedes engines in those vehicles. > In article <iHate-84AF41.10450818042006@news.telus.net>, Spam Hater > <iHate@spam.net> wrote: > > I read the opposite, it's Chrysler engines in the Mercedes and Mercedes > > transmissions and outward in the RWD Chryslers. > > > > To be specific he Chrysler hemi V8 and 3.5L V6 are used by Mercedes. > > > > With the FWD Chrysler Caliber and the Mercedes B-200 they obviously use > > the same complete drive train, tuned up a bit for the market each is in. > > The 4 cyl engine and CV transmission have design involvement by a number > > of other companies. <jason-1804061227210001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:> > I no longer have the magazine that had the article in it. I was referring > to the first one or two years after Mercedes took over the company. You > must have read a more recent article. It's my guess that the automotive > engineers from Mercedes have already made all of the needed design > changes in the Chrysler motors and transmissions (and related parts). > Jason The Chrysler 3.5L V6 and 2.7L V6 were designed and built before Mercedes. FYI engines are Chryslers strongest point, they just go on and on. An example is the 3.3L V6 that Chrysler has been using since the early 90s. It just runs forever very efficiently, as did Chrysler engines in the past such as their great slant 6 that was used for many years. Mercedes has V6 engines, but I believe they are cut down versions of their V8s, so are 90° banks instead of the better Chrysler 60° V6s. I did have two of the first Chrysler FWD cars and the engine wasn't that great, but it was a VW engine. That VW engine was the subject of a class action suit by VW owners. The Chrysler replacement for the VW engine was better in all respects. Mercedes appears to have first had a positive influence on Chrysler's assembly quality. We have seen this in our own Chrysler car from 2001 and those we have rented since. Mercedes design influence seems to start in the 300, including the inferior cruise control stalk and power locking; too bad they didn't adopt what I feel is Chryslers better designs there. As for transmissions Mercedes excels. The Chrysler Hemi V8 required a RWD drive train, which was a good fit for Mercedes. The bottom line of this part sharing was surely to lower Mercedes costs, by taking advantage of Chrysler's higher volume. The recent Chrysler Caliber is an example of Mercedes and two other companies contributing their best talent to a new engine. Chrysler, Mercedes, Hyundai and Mitsubishi are said to have jointly designed the engine and will manufacture it in jointly run plants. There is a new plant in Detroit for final manufacturing of the new 4 cyl "world" engines used in the Caliber. The Mercedes B-200 cousin obviously uses the same engine, probably with slightly different tuning. I'm wondering where Mercedes assembles the B-200? I suspect Europe for now, although if it sells well in the USA I'm sure the Mercedes Alabama plant will also produce it. The B-200 is better finished than the Caliber, but at about twice the price here in Canada and unfortunately for the Mercedes image looks too much like the Toyota Matrix. You don't need to buy books on this subject, just Google Mopar and Alpar, etc. I notice the sites I've mentioned below are occasionally updated. Better than books! Here are starting points: http://www.allpar.com/ed/question.html http://www.moparchat.com/forums/ http://www.allpar.com/ http://www.allpar.com/mopar/new-mopar-hemi.html http://www.allpar.com/model/upcoming.html http://www.allpar.com/mopar/world-engine.html -A 4 company engine, with joint manufacturing. However reading several sources is a recommendation. This blog I read seems to me to have errors on Chrysler's recent products, yet is dated April 2006? http://abetterfuture.blogspot.com/ |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
In article
> > In article > > <jason-1604061041030001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > > jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > Great point. However, I doubt that Honda or any other foreign car company > > > would want all of the problems connected with owning and running GM. It's > > > my guess that the owners of Mercedes now reqret taking over Chrysler. I > > > read one article in a car magazine indicating that the automotive > > > engineers from Mercedes gave up on trying to fix the design problems > > > related to some of the engines that were used in Chrysler vehicles. They > > > solved the problem by placing Mercedes engines in those vehicles. > In article <iHate-84AF41.10450818042006@news.telus.net>, Spam Hater > <iHate@spam.net> wrote: > > I read the opposite, it's Chrysler engines in the Mercedes and Mercedes > > transmissions and outward in the RWD Chryslers. > > > > To be specific he Chrysler hemi V8 and 3.5L V6 are used by Mercedes. > > > > With the FWD Chrysler Caliber and the Mercedes B-200 they obviously use > > the same complete drive train, tuned up a bit for the market each is in. > > The 4 cyl engine and CV transmission have design involvement by a number > > of other companies. <jason-1804061227210001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:> > I no longer have the magazine that had the article in it. I was referring > to the first one or two years after Mercedes took over the company. You > must have read a more recent article. It's my guess that the automotive > engineers from Mercedes have already made all of the needed design > changes in the Chrysler motors and transmissions (and related parts). > Jason The Chrysler 3.5L V6 and 2.7L V6 were designed and built before Mercedes. FYI engines are Chryslers strongest point, they just go on and on. An example is the 3.3L V6 that Chrysler has been using since the early 90s. It just runs forever very efficiently, as did Chrysler engines in the past such as their great slant 6 that was used for many years. Mercedes has V6 engines, but I believe they are cut down versions of their V8s, so are 90° banks instead of the better Chrysler 60° V6s. I did have two of the first Chrysler FWD cars and the engine wasn't that great, but it was a VW engine. That VW engine was the subject of a class action suit by VW owners. The Chrysler replacement for the VW engine was better in all respects. Mercedes appears to have first had a positive influence on Chrysler's assembly quality. We have seen this in our own Chrysler car from 2001 and those we have rented since. Mercedes design influence seems to start in the 300, including the inferior cruise control stalk and power locking; too bad they didn't adopt what I feel is Chryslers better designs there. As for transmissions Mercedes excels. The Chrysler Hemi V8 required a RWD drive train, which was a good fit for Mercedes. The bottom line of this part sharing was surely to lower Mercedes costs, by taking advantage of Chrysler's higher volume. The recent Chrysler Caliber is an example of Mercedes and two other companies contributing their best talent to a new engine. Chrysler, Mercedes, Hyundai and Mitsubishi are said to have jointly designed the engine and will manufacture it in jointly run plants. There is a new plant in Detroit for final manufacturing of the new 4 cyl "world" engines used in the Caliber. The Mercedes B-200 cousin obviously uses the same engine, probably with slightly different tuning. I'm wondering where Mercedes assembles the B-200? I suspect Europe for now, although if it sells well in the USA I'm sure the Mercedes Alabama plant will also produce it. The B-200 is better finished than the Caliber, but at about twice the price here in Canada and unfortunately for the Mercedes image looks too much like the Toyota Matrix. You don't need to buy books on this subject, just Google Mopar and Alpar, etc. I notice the sites I've mentioned below are occasionally updated. Better than books! Here are starting points: http://www.allpar.com/ed/question.html http://www.moparchat.com/forums/ http://www.allpar.com/ http://www.allpar.com/mopar/new-mopar-hemi.html http://www.allpar.com/model/upcoming.html http://www.allpar.com/mopar/world-engine.html -A 4 company engine, with joint manufacturing. However reading several sources is a recommendation. This blog I read seems to me to have errors on Chrysler's recent products, yet is dated April 2006? http://abetterfuture.blogspot.com/ |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
In article
> > In article > > <jason-1604061041030001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > > jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > Great point. However, I doubt that Honda or any other foreign car company > > > would want all of the problems connected with owning and running GM. It's > > > my guess that the owners of Mercedes now reqret taking over Chrysler. I > > > read one article in a car magazine indicating that the automotive > > > engineers from Mercedes gave up on trying to fix the design problems > > > related to some of the engines that were used in Chrysler vehicles. They > > > solved the problem by placing Mercedes engines in those vehicles. > In article <iHate-84AF41.10450818042006@news.telus.net>, Spam Hater > <iHate@spam.net> wrote: > > I read the opposite, it's Chrysler engines in the Mercedes and Mercedes > > transmissions and outward in the RWD Chryslers. > > > > To be specific he Chrysler hemi V8 and 3.5L V6 are used by Mercedes. > > > > With the FWD Chrysler Caliber and the Mercedes B-200 they obviously use > > the same complete drive train, tuned up a bit for the market each is in. > > The 4 cyl engine and CV transmission have design involvement by a number > > of other companies. <jason-1804061227210001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:> > I no longer have the magazine that had the article in it. I was referring > to the first one or two years after Mercedes took over the company. You > must have read a more recent article. It's my guess that the automotive > engineers from Mercedes have already made all of the needed design > changes in the Chrysler motors and transmissions (and related parts). > Jason The Chrysler 3.5L V6 and 2.7L V6 were designed and built before Mercedes. FYI engines are Chryslers strongest point, they just go on and on. An example is the 3.3L V6 that Chrysler has been using since the early 90s. It just runs forever very efficiently, as did Chrysler engines in the past such as their great slant 6 that was used for many years. Mercedes has V6 engines, but I believe they are cut down versions of their V8s, so are 90° banks instead of the better Chrysler 60° V6s. I did have two of the first Chrysler FWD cars and the engine wasn't that great, but it was a VW engine. That VW engine was the subject of a class action suit by VW owners. The Chrysler replacement for the VW engine was better in all respects. Mercedes appears to have first had a positive influence on Chrysler's assembly quality. We have seen this in our own Chrysler car from 2001 and those we have rented since. Mercedes design influence seems to start in the 300, including the inferior cruise control stalk and power locking; too bad they didn't adopt what I feel is Chryslers better designs there. As for transmissions Mercedes excels. The Chrysler Hemi V8 required a RWD drive train, which was a good fit for Mercedes. The bottom line of this part sharing was surely to lower Mercedes costs, by taking advantage of Chrysler's higher volume. The recent Chrysler Caliber is an example of Mercedes and two other companies contributing their best talent to a new engine. Chrysler, Mercedes, Hyundai and Mitsubishi are said to have jointly designed the engine and will manufacture it in jointly run plants. There is a new plant in Detroit for final manufacturing of the new 4 cyl "world" engines used in the Caliber. The Mercedes B-200 cousin obviously uses the same engine, probably with slightly different tuning. I'm wondering where Mercedes assembles the B-200? I suspect Europe for now, although if it sells well in the USA I'm sure the Mercedes Alabama plant will also produce it. The B-200 is better finished than the Caliber, but at about twice the price here in Canada and unfortunately for the Mercedes image looks too much like the Toyota Matrix. You don't need to buy books on this subject, just Google Mopar and Alpar, etc. I notice the sites I've mentioned below are occasionally updated. Better than books! Here are starting points: http://www.allpar.com/ed/question.html http://www.moparchat.com/forums/ http://www.allpar.com/ http://www.allpar.com/mopar/new-mopar-hemi.html http://www.allpar.com/model/upcoming.html http://www.allpar.com/mopar/world-engine.html -A 4 company engine, with joint manufacturing. However reading several sources is a recommendation. This blog I read seems to me to have errors on Chrysler's recent products, yet is dated April 2006? http://abetterfuture.blogspot.com/ |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
In article <iHate-53992F.12530921042006@news.telus.net>, Spam Hater
<iHate@spam.net> wrote: > In article > > > > > In article > > > <jason-1604061041030001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > > > jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > Great point. However, I doubt that Honda or any other foreign car company > > > > would want all of the problems connected with owning and running GM. It's > > > > my guess that the owners of Mercedes now reqret taking over Chrysler. I > > > > read one article in a car magazine indicating that the automotive > > > > engineers from Mercedes gave up on trying to fix the design problems > > > > related to some of the engines that were used in Chrysler vehicles. They > > > > solved the problem by placing Mercedes engines in those vehicles. > > > In article <iHate-84AF41.10450818042006@news.telus.net>, Spam Hater > > <iHate@spam.net> wrote: > > > I read the opposite, it's Chrysler engines in the Mercedes and Mercedes > > > transmissions and outward in the RWD Chryslers. > > > > > > To be specific he Chrysler hemi V8 and 3.5L V6 are used by Mercedes. > > > > > > With the FWD Chrysler Caliber and the Mercedes B-200 they obviously use > > > the same complete drive train, tuned up a bit for the market each is in. > > > The 4 cyl engine and CV transmission have design involvement by a number > > > of other companies. > > <jason-1804061227210001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:> > > I no longer have the magazine that had the article in it. I was referring > > to the first one or two years after Mercedes took over the company. You > > must have read a more recent article. It's my guess that the automotive > > engineers from Mercedes have already made all of the needed design > > changes in the Chrysler motors and transmissions (and related parts). > > Jason > The Chrysler 3.5L V6 and 2.7L V6 were designed and built before Mercedes. > FYI engines are Chryslers strongest point, they just go on and on. > An example is the 3.3L V6 that Chrysler has been using since the early > 90s. It just runs forever very efficiently, as did Chrysler engines in > the past such as their great slant 6 that was used for many years. > Mercedes has V6 engines, but I believe they are cut down versions of > their V8s, so are 90° banks instead of the better Chrysler 60° V6s. > > I did have two of the first Chrysler FWD cars and the engine wasn't that > great, but it was a VW engine. That VW engine was the subject of a class > action suit by VW owners. > The Chrysler replacement for the VW engine was better in all respects. > > Mercedes appears to have first had a positive influence on Chrysler's > assembly quality. We have seen this in our own Chrysler car from 2001 > and those we have rented since. > > Mercedes design influence seems to start in the 300, including the > inferior cruise control stalk and power locking; too bad they didn't > adopt what I feel is Chryslers better designs there. > > As for transmissions Mercedes excels. The Chrysler Hemi V8 required a > RWD drive train, which was a good fit for Mercedes. > The bottom line of this part sharing was surely to lower Mercedes costs, > by taking advantage of Chrysler's higher volume. > > The recent Chrysler Caliber is an example of Mercedes and two other > companies contributing their best talent to a new engine. > Chrysler, Mercedes, Hyundai and Mitsubishi are said to have jointly > designed the engine and will manufacture it in jointly run plants. > There is a new plant in Detroit for final manufacturing of the new 4 cyl > "world" engines used in the Caliber. > The Mercedes B-200 cousin obviously uses the same engine, probably with > slightly different tuning. > I'm wondering where Mercedes assembles the B-200? I suspect Europe for > now, although if it sells well in the USA I'm sure the Mercedes Alabama > plant will also produce it. > The B-200 is better finished than the Caliber, but at about twice the > price here in Canada and unfortunately for the Mercedes image looks too > much like the Toyota Matrix. > > You don't need to buy books on this subject, just Google Mopar and > Alpar, etc. I notice the sites I've mentioned below are occasionally > updated. Better than books! > Here are starting points: > http://www.allpar.com/ed/question.html > http://www.moparchat.com/forums/ > http://www.allpar.com/ > http://www.allpar.com/mopar/new-mopar-hemi.html > http://www.allpar.com/model/upcoming.html > http://www.allpar.com/mopar/world-engine.html -A 4 company engine, > with joint manufacturing. > > However reading several sources is a recommendation. This blog I read > seems to me to have errors on Chrysler's recent products, yet is dated > April 2006? > http://abetterfuture.blogspot.com/ Hello, Thanks for your post. You provided some info. that was not in the article that I read. Based on your excellent knowledge of what happened related to Chrysler/Mercedes--Do you believe that a Honda Inc. or Toyota Inc. would even consider taking over GM? It's my opinion that they would not do it. I also believe that Mercedes Inc. would NOT take over Chrysler if they had it to do all over again. Jason -- NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
In article <iHate-53992F.12530921042006@news.telus.net>, Spam Hater
<iHate@spam.net> wrote: > In article > > > > > In article > > > <jason-1604061041030001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > > > jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > > Great point. However, I doubt that Honda or any other foreign car company > > > > would want all of the problems connected with owning and running GM. It's > > > > my guess that the owners of Mercedes now reqret taking over Chrysler. I > > > > read one article in a car magazine indicating that the automotive > > > > engineers from Mercedes gave up on trying to fix the design problems > > > > related to some of the engines that were used in Chrysler vehicles. They > > > > solved the problem by placing Mercedes engines in those vehicles. > > > In article <iHate-84AF41.10450818042006@news.telus.net>, Spam Hater > > <iHate@spam.net> wrote: > > > I read the opposite, it's Chrysler engines in the Mercedes and Mercedes > > > transmissions and outward in the RWD Chryslers. > > > > > > To be specific he Chrysler hemi V8 and 3.5L V6 are used by Mercedes. > > > > > > With the FWD Chrysler Caliber and the Mercedes B-200 they obviously use > > > the same complete drive train, tuned up a bit for the market each is in. > > > The 4 cyl engine and CV transmission have design involvement by a number > > > of other companies. > > <jason-1804061227210001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:> > > I no longer have the magazine that had the article in it. I was referring > > to the first one or two years after Mercedes took over the company. You > > must have read a more recent article. It's my guess that the automotive > > engineers from Mercedes have already made all of the needed design > > changes in the Chrysler motors and transmissions (and related parts). > > Jason > The Chrysler 3.5L V6 and 2.7L V6 were designed and built before Mercedes. > FYI engines are Chryslers strongest point, they just go on and on. > An example is the 3.3L V6 that Chrysler has been using since the early > 90s. It just runs forever very efficiently, as did Chrysler engines in > the past such as their great slant 6 that was used for many years. > Mercedes has V6 engines, but I believe they are cut down versions of > their V8s, so are 90° banks instead of the better Chrysler 60° V6s. > > I did have two of the first Chrysler FWD cars and the engine wasn't that > great, but it was a VW engine. That VW engine was the subject of a class > action suit by VW owners. > The Chrysler replacement for the VW engine was better in all respects. > > Mercedes appears to have first had a positive influence on Chrysler's > assembly quality. We have seen this in our own Chrysler car from 2001 > and those we have rented since. > > Mercedes design influence seems to start in the 300, including the > inferior cruise control stalk and power locking; too bad they didn't > adopt what I feel is Chryslers better designs there. > > As for transmissions Mercedes excels. The Chrysler Hemi V8 required a > RWD drive train, which was a good fit for Mercedes. > The bottom line of this part sharing was surely to lower Mercedes costs, > by taking advantage of Chrysler's higher volume. > > The recent Chrysler Caliber is an example of Mercedes and two other > companies contributing their best talent to a new engine. > Chrysler, Mercedes, Hyundai and Mitsubishi are said to have jointly > designed the engine and will manufacture it in jointly run plants. > There is a new plant in Detroit for final manufacturing of the new 4 cyl > "world" engines used in the Caliber. > The Mercedes B-200 cousin obviously uses the same engine, probably with > slightly different tuning. > I'm wondering where Mercedes assembles the B-200? I suspect Europe for > now, although if it sells well in the USA I'm sure the Mercedes Alabama > plant will also produce it. > The B-200 is better finished than the Caliber, but at about twice the > price here in Canada and unfortunately for the Mercedes image looks too > much like the Toyota Matrix. > > You don't need to buy books on this subject, just Google Mopar and > Alpar, etc. I notice the sites I've mentioned below are occasionally > updated. Better than books! > Here are starting points: > http://www.allpar.com/ed/question.html > http://www.moparchat.com/forums/ > http://www.allpar.com/ > http://www.allpar.com/mopar/new-mopar-hemi.html > http://www.allpar.com/model/upcoming.html > http://www.allpar.com/mopar/world-engine.html -A 4 company engine, > with joint manufacturing. > > However reading several sources is a recommendation. This blog I read > seems to me to have errors on Chrysler's recent products, yet is dated > April 2006? > http://abetterfuture.blogspot.com/ Hello, Thanks for your post. You provided some info. that was not in the article that I read. Based on your excellent knowledge of what happened related to Chrysler/Mercedes--Do you believe that a Honda Inc. or Toyota Inc. would even consider taking over GM? It's my opinion that they would not do it. I also believe that Mercedes Inc. would NOT take over Chrysler if they had it to do all over again. Jason -- NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:39 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands