|
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
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:jason-2104061401110001@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... <snipped> >> 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 > > -- I didn't post the information about the Chrysler/Mercedes products, but I thought I'd post my opinions on whether Honda or Toyota would consider taking over GM and whether Mercedes would work with Chrysler if they had to do it all over again. Honda has little, if any experience in joint ventures and ownership/partnerships with other automakers. I doubt if they would (or could) take over GM. Toyota has pretty extensive experience in joint ventures and with ownership/partnerships with other automakers. Toyota's leaders are very astute politically and are very aware of the uproar that would be caused in the U.S. if they attempted to take over GM. One of Toyota's executives was criticized for saying that Toyota would raise its prices to help GM by giving GM some breathing room, and IMHO, that was a testing of the waters. Toyota executives always rehearse what they are going to say to the media and are not known for making mistakes. What I see as a more likely scenario is Toyota taking over some of GM or Ford's excess production capacity in the next 3 or 4 years. -- Ray O (correct punctuation to reply) |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:jason-2104061401110001@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... <snipped> >> 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 > > -- I didn't post the information about the Chrysler/Mercedes products, but I thought I'd post my opinions on whether Honda or Toyota would consider taking over GM and whether Mercedes would work with Chrysler if they had to do it all over again. Honda has little, if any experience in joint ventures and ownership/partnerships with other automakers. I doubt if they would (or could) take over GM. Toyota has pretty extensive experience in joint ventures and with ownership/partnerships with other automakers. Toyota's leaders are very astute politically and are very aware of the uproar that would be caused in the U.S. if they attempted to take over GM. One of Toyota's executives was criticized for saying that Toyota would raise its prices to help GM by giving GM some breathing room, and IMHO, that was a testing of the waters. Toyota executives always rehearse what they are going to say to the media and are not known for making mistakes. What I see as a more likely scenario is Toyota taking over some of GM or Ford's excess production capacity in the next 3 or 4 years. -- Ray O (correct punctuation to reply) |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:jason-2104061401110001@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... <snipped> >> 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 > > -- I didn't post the information about the Chrysler/Mercedes products, but I thought I'd post my opinions on whether Honda or Toyota would consider taking over GM and whether Mercedes would work with Chrysler if they had to do it all over again. Honda has little, if any experience in joint ventures and ownership/partnerships with other automakers. I doubt if they would (or could) take over GM. Toyota has pretty extensive experience in joint ventures and with ownership/partnerships with other automakers. Toyota's leaders are very astute politically and are very aware of the uproar that would be caused in the U.S. if they attempted to take over GM. One of Toyota's executives was criticized for saying that Toyota would raise its prices to help GM by giving GM some breathing room, and IMHO, that was a testing of the waters. Toyota executives always rehearse what they are going to say to the media and are not known for making mistakes. What I see as a more likely scenario is Toyota taking over some of GM or Ford's excess production capacity in the next 3 or 4 years. -- Ray O (correct punctuation to reply) |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
In article <3a62f$44495f67$44a4a10d$12596@msgid.meganewsserve rs.com>, "Ray
O" <rokigawa@tristarassociatesDOTcomn> wrote: > "Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:jason-2104061401110001@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > <snipped> > > >> 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 > > > > -- > > I didn't post the information about the Chrysler/Mercedes products, but I > thought I'd post my opinions on whether Honda or Toyota would consider > taking over GM and whether Mercedes would work with Chrysler if they had to > do it all over again. > > Honda has little, if any experience in joint ventures and > ownership/partnerships with other automakers. I doubt if they would (or > could) take over GM. > > Toyota has pretty extensive experience in joint ventures and with > ownership/partnerships with other automakers. Toyota's leaders are very > astute politically and are very aware of the uproar that would be caused in > the U.S. if they attempted to take over GM. One of Toyota's executives was > criticized for saying that Toyota would raise its prices to help GM by > giving GM some breathing room, and IMHO, that was a testing of the waters. > Toyota executives always rehearse what they are going to say to the media > and are not known for making mistakes. > > What I see as a more likely scenario is Toyota taking over some of GM or > Ford's excess production capacity in the next 3 or 4 years. You may be correct--only time will tell. Perhaps various foreign car companies such as Honda, Toyota and Mazda might divide up the best selling GM vehicles such as their full sized pick-up trucks: full sized SUVs and best selling cars such as the Corvette. They could build those vehicles in their own factories. You may be on to something--only time will tell. GM only has enough money to last for three years (according to the May 2006 issue of Motor Trend magazine). Of course, if they sell more vehicles than last year--they may be able to hang on for more than three years. 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 <3a62f$44495f67$44a4a10d$12596@msgid.meganewsserve rs.com>, "Ray
O" <rokigawa@tristarassociatesDOTcomn> wrote: > "Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:jason-2104061401110001@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > <snipped> > > >> 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 > > > > -- > > I didn't post the information about the Chrysler/Mercedes products, but I > thought I'd post my opinions on whether Honda or Toyota would consider > taking over GM and whether Mercedes would work with Chrysler if they had to > do it all over again. > > Honda has little, if any experience in joint ventures and > ownership/partnerships with other automakers. I doubt if they would (or > could) take over GM. > > Toyota has pretty extensive experience in joint ventures and with > ownership/partnerships with other automakers. Toyota's leaders are very > astute politically and are very aware of the uproar that would be caused in > the U.S. if they attempted to take over GM. One of Toyota's executives was > criticized for saying that Toyota would raise its prices to help GM by > giving GM some breathing room, and IMHO, that was a testing of the waters. > Toyota executives always rehearse what they are going to say to the media > and are not known for making mistakes. > > What I see as a more likely scenario is Toyota taking over some of GM or > Ford's excess production capacity in the next 3 or 4 years. You may be correct--only time will tell. Perhaps various foreign car companies such as Honda, Toyota and Mazda might divide up the best selling GM vehicles such as their full sized pick-up trucks: full sized SUVs and best selling cars such as the Corvette. They could build those vehicles in their own factories. You may be on to something--only time will tell. GM only has enough money to last for three years (according to the May 2006 issue of Motor Trend magazine). Of course, if they sell more vehicles than last year--they may be able to hang on for more than three years. 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 <3a62f$44495f67$44a4a10d$12596@msgid.meganewsserve rs.com>, "Ray
O" <rokigawa@tristarassociatesDOTcomn> wrote: > "Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:jason-2104061401110001@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > <snipped> > > >> 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 > > > > -- > > I didn't post the information about the Chrysler/Mercedes products, but I > thought I'd post my opinions on whether Honda or Toyota would consider > taking over GM and whether Mercedes would work with Chrysler if they had to > do it all over again. > > Honda has little, if any experience in joint ventures and > ownership/partnerships with other automakers. I doubt if they would (or > could) take over GM. > > Toyota has pretty extensive experience in joint ventures and with > ownership/partnerships with other automakers. Toyota's leaders are very > astute politically and are very aware of the uproar that would be caused in > the U.S. if they attempted to take over GM. One of Toyota's executives was > criticized for saying that Toyota would raise its prices to help GM by > giving GM some breathing room, and IMHO, that was a testing of the waters. > Toyota executives always rehearse what they are going to say to the media > and are not known for making mistakes. > > What I see as a more likely scenario is Toyota taking over some of GM or > Ford's excess production capacity in the next 3 or 4 years. You may be correct--only time will tell. Perhaps various foreign car companies such as Honda, Toyota and Mazda might divide up the best selling GM vehicles such as their full sized pick-up trucks: full sized SUVs and best selling cars such as the Corvette. They could build those vehicles in their own factories. You may be on to something--only time will tell. GM only has enough money to last for three years (according to the May 2006 issue of Motor Trend magazine). Of course, if they sell more vehicles than last year--they may be able to hang on for more than three years. 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
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:jason-2104061652150001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> I didn't post the information about the Chrysler/Mercedes products, but I >> thought I'd post my opinions on whether Honda or Toyota would consider >> taking over GM and whether Mercedes would work with Chrysler if they had >> to >> do it all over again. >> >> Honda has little, if any experience in joint ventures and >> ownership/partnerships with other automakers. I doubt if they would (or >> could) take over GM. >> >> Toyota has pretty extensive experience in joint ventures and with >> ownership/partnerships with other automakers. Toyota's leaders are very >> astute politically and are very aware of the uproar that would be caused >> in >> the U.S. if they attempted to take over GM. One of Toyota's executives >> was >> criticized for saying that Toyota would raise its prices to help GM by >> giving GM some breathing room, and IMHO, that was a testing of the >> waters. >> Toyota executives always rehearse what they are going to say to the media >> and are not known for making mistakes. >> >> What I see as a more likely scenario is Toyota taking over some of GM or >> Ford's excess production capacity in the next 3 or 4 years. > > You may be correct--only time will tell. Perhaps various foreign car > companies such as Honda, Toyota and Mazda might divide up the best selling > GM vehicles such as their full sized pick-up trucks: full sized SUVs and > best selling cars such as the Corvette. They could build those vehicles in > their own factories. > You may be on to something--only time will tell. GM only has enough money > to last for three years (according to the May 2006 issue of Motor Trend > magazine). Of course, if they sell more vehicles than last year--they may > be able to hang on for more than three years. > Jason > First and foremost, Toyota is a moneymaking machine with an eye on the future, and every move it makes is calculated and planned somewhere from 5 to 30 years in advance. I suspect that Honda's management thinks much in the same way. Honda, Toyota, and Mazda would never acquire GM's designs or build a GM vehicle in their own factories. Honda and Toyota are already producing vehicles at their respective capacities. That means that they are selling everything they can make of their own designs so there is no compelling business reason to acquire someone else's designs. Toyota and Honda are expanding production capacity, that is why I thought that they may purchase some of GM's or Ford's plants - so they have locations for additional capacity. The other company that has the financial wherewithal to acquire bits and pieces of GM is Hyundai, and although Hyundai is unlikely to acquire GM, they are more likely than a Japanese automaker. Mazda is already aligned with Ford, which is in better shape than GM with what is in my opinion a better vehicle lineup so I think it is unlikely that Mazda would suddenly want to align itself with GM. Also, Mazda does not have the financial resources of Toyota, Nissan, or Honda and I doubt it is in a position to acquire another company or even a part of another company. IMO, this is all a moot point because I believe that GM will weather the storm and emerge from their current troubles as a more business-savvy organization, leaner and more profitable, with different management, and #2 in global sales behind Toyota. -- Ray O (correct punctuation to reply) |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:jason-2104061652150001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> I didn't post the information about the Chrysler/Mercedes products, but I >> thought I'd post my opinions on whether Honda or Toyota would consider >> taking over GM and whether Mercedes would work with Chrysler if they had >> to >> do it all over again. >> >> Honda has little, if any experience in joint ventures and >> ownership/partnerships with other automakers. I doubt if they would (or >> could) take over GM. >> >> Toyota has pretty extensive experience in joint ventures and with >> ownership/partnerships with other automakers. Toyota's leaders are very >> astute politically and are very aware of the uproar that would be caused >> in >> the U.S. if they attempted to take over GM. One of Toyota's executives >> was >> criticized for saying that Toyota would raise its prices to help GM by >> giving GM some breathing room, and IMHO, that was a testing of the >> waters. >> Toyota executives always rehearse what they are going to say to the media >> and are not known for making mistakes. >> >> What I see as a more likely scenario is Toyota taking over some of GM or >> Ford's excess production capacity in the next 3 or 4 years. > > You may be correct--only time will tell. Perhaps various foreign car > companies such as Honda, Toyota and Mazda might divide up the best selling > GM vehicles such as their full sized pick-up trucks: full sized SUVs and > best selling cars such as the Corvette. They could build those vehicles in > their own factories. > You may be on to something--only time will tell. GM only has enough money > to last for three years (according to the May 2006 issue of Motor Trend > magazine). Of course, if they sell more vehicles than last year--they may > be able to hang on for more than three years. > Jason > First and foremost, Toyota is a moneymaking machine with an eye on the future, and every move it makes is calculated and planned somewhere from 5 to 30 years in advance. I suspect that Honda's management thinks much in the same way. Honda, Toyota, and Mazda would never acquire GM's designs or build a GM vehicle in their own factories. Honda and Toyota are already producing vehicles at their respective capacities. That means that they are selling everything they can make of their own designs so there is no compelling business reason to acquire someone else's designs. Toyota and Honda are expanding production capacity, that is why I thought that they may purchase some of GM's or Ford's plants - so they have locations for additional capacity. The other company that has the financial wherewithal to acquire bits and pieces of GM is Hyundai, and although Hyundai is unlikely to acquire GM, they are more likely than a Japanese automaker. Mazda is already aligned with Ford, which is in better shape than GM with what is in my opinion a better vehicle lineup so I think it is unlikely that Mazda would suddenly want to align itself with GM. Also, Mazda does not have the financial resources of Toyota, Nissan, or Honda and I doubt it is in a position to acquire another company or even a part of another company. IMO, this is all a moot point because I believe that GM will weather the storm and emerge from their current troubles as a more business-savvy organization, leaner and more profitable, with different management, and #2 in global sales behind Toyota. -- Ray O (correct punctuation to reply) |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:jason-2104061652150001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> I didn't post the information about the Chrysler/Mercedes products, but I >> thought I'd post my opinions on whether Honda or Toyota would consider >> taking over GM and whether Mercedes would work with Chrysler if they had >> to >> do it all over again. >> >> Honda has little, if any experience in joint ventures and >> ownership/partnerships with other automakers. I doubt if they would (or >> could) take over GM. >> >> Toyota has pretty extensive experience in joint ventures and with >> ownership/partnerships with other automakers. Toyota's leaders are very >> astute politically and are very aware of the uproar that would be caused >> in >> the U.S. if they attempted to take over GM. One of Toyota's executives >> was >> criticized for saying that Toyota would raise its prices to help GM by >> giving GM some breathing room, and IMHO, that was a testing of the >> waters. >> Toyota executives always rehearse what they are going to say to the media >> and are not known for making mistakes. >> >> What I see as a more likely scenario is Toyota taking over some of GM or >> Ford's excess production capacity in the next 3 or 4 years. > > You may be correct--only time will tell. Perhaps various foreign car > companies such as Honda, Toyota and Mazda might divide up the best selling > GM vehicles such as their full sized pick-up trucks: full sized SUVs and > best selling cars such as the Corvette. They could build those vehicles in > their own factories. > You may be on to something--only time will tell. GM only has enough money > to last for three years (according to the May 2006 issue of Motor Trend > magazine). Of course, if they sell more vehicles than last year--they may > be able to hang on for more than three years. > Jason > First and foremost, Toyota is a moneymaking machine with an eye on the future, and every move it makes is calculated and planned somewhere from 5 to 30 years in advance. I suspect that Honda's management thinks much in the same way. Honda, Toyota, and Mazda would never acquire GM's designs or build a GM vehicle in their own factories. Honda and Toyota are already producing vehicles at their respective capacities. That means that they are selling everything they can make of their own designs so there is no compelling business reason to acquire someone else's designs. Toyota and Honda are expanding production capacity, that is why I thought that they may purchase some of GM's or Ford's plants - so they have locations for additional capacity. The other company that has the financial wherewithal to acquire bits and pieces of GM is Hyundai, and although Hyundai is unlikely to acquire GM, they are more likely than a Japanese automaker. Mazda is already aligned with Ford, which is in better shape than GM with what is in my opinion a better vehicle lineup so I think it is unlikely that Mazda would suddenly want to align itself with GM. Also, Mazda does not have the financial resources of Toyota, Nissan, or Honda and I doubt it is in a position to acquire another company or even a part of another company. IMO, this is all a moot point because I believe that GM will weather the storm and emerge from their current troubles as a more business-savvy organization, leaner and more profitable, with different management, and #2 in global sales behind Toyota. -- Ray O (correct punctuation to reply) |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
Ray O wrote:
> > What I see as a more likely scenario is Toyota taking over some of GM or > Ford's excess production capacity in the next 3 or 4 years. > Toyota is already taking over GM, one customer at a time :). Toyota also has picked up some excess GM capacity by buying out GM's interest in Subaru and then promtly making plans to build Camrys at the Subaru US factory. I don't imagine any of the growing auto makers having much interest in buying many of the aging GM/Ford factories. Have you seen anyone buying the factories the old line US companies are closing ???? John |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
Ray O wrote:
> > What I see as a more likely scenario is Toyota taking over some of GM or > Ford's excess production capacity in the next 3 or 4 years. > Toyota is already taking over GM, one customer at a time :). Toyota also has picked up some excess GM capacity by buying out GM's interest in Subaru and then promtly making plans to build Camrys at the Subaru US factory. I don't imagine any of the growing auto makers having much interest in buying many of the aging GM/Ford factories. Have you seen anyone buying the factories the old line US companies are closing ???? John |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
Ray O wrote:
> > What I see as a more likely scenario is Toyota taking over some of GM or > Ford's excess production capacity in the next 3 or 4 years. > Toyota is already taking over GM, one customer at a time :). Toyota also has picked up some excess GM capacity by buying out GM's interest in Subaru and then promtly making plans to build Camrys at the Subaru US factory. I don't imagine any of the growing auto makers having much interest in buying many of the aging GM/Ford factories. Have you seen anyone buying the factories the old line US companies are closing ???? John |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
Ray O wrote:
> > IMO, this is all a moot point because I believe that GM will weather the > storm and emerge from their current troubles as a more business-savvy > organization, leaner and more profitable, with different management, and #2 > in global sales behind Toyota. The most interesting move GM could make would be to divide itself into three pieces and spin them all off to the shareholders as separate companies. GM-Asia, GM-Europe and GM-Americas would be an interesting split up. John |
Re: GM's Butt buddies
Ray O wrote:
> > IMO, this is all a moot point because I believe that GM will weather the > storm and emerge from their current troubles as a more business-savvy > organization, leaner and more profitable, with different management, and #2 > in global sales behind Toyota. The most interesting move GM could make would be to divide itself into three pieces and spin them all off to the shareholders as separate companies. GM-Asia, GM-Europe and GM-Americas would be an interesting split up. John |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:51 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands