Re: IML: Chrysler News

["Bill Watson" <wwatson5@xxxxxxxxx>]

What is populat in Chicago may not be the same for the rest of North
America.  Sadly, what people love is not always enough to break the minimum
sales needed to make money.

DC is keeping correct books - the problem is they are not selling enough
vehicles to make money.  Having enough vehicles on hand for 120 days of
potential sales should tell you that vehicle is not selling well. - 30 to 60
days is the accepted figure   And with lots full of so many unsold cars,
Chrysler is spending too much money on labour (slow the production lines
dowm to the sales rate), too mich on storage fees (those lots have to be
paid for) and too much interest on loans and insurance (Chrysler has to pay
the interest and storage insurance on those vehicles until they are
shupped).   And also too much money going out the door on low/no intrerest
loans (Chrysler has to pay the difference between what the buyer pays and
what the banks charge) and cash-back (pure profit out the window).

Chrysler has tied all its money and production into hemi V8 engines and big
trucks, SUVs etc.  And they are just not selling.  Chrysler all but
abandoned the auto market during the Holden era, and now the chickens are
coming home to roost.  Chrysler's auto mix is poor - some hi-perf vehicles,
a convertible, a compact hatchback and a mid-sized sedan.  No samll cars,
no basic economy vehicles, no family vehicles.  When the family-sized
Concorde, LHS and Intrepid were dropped and not replaced, Chrysler abandoned
over 300,000 prospectove car buyers.

Dropping Plymouth was a mistake - but a mistake that goes back to 1973.
Plymouth sales almost hit a million that year, and it seems Chrysler said,
"Well that was fun.  What do we do now?"  The Plymouth Sebring became the
Cordoba, no Diplomat/LeBaron version, no down-sised Gran Fury for two years,
no version of the GTS/Lancer. the Daytona/Laser, the Dynasty/New Yorker, the
Intrepid/Concorde, a Neon only after dealer pressure, and the Breeze after
even more dealer pressure.  Then nothing at all.   It took Chrysler 25 years
to kill Plymouth.  What a waste.

Hopefully the Imperial will proceed.  In that price range, and with the
underpinnings shared with the 300/Daytona/Msgnum, they should make money.

Bill
Vancouver. BC



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Bogart3147@xxxxxxx
To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: IML: Chrysler News


Then we could MAKE them bring back the Imperial, preferably as a limited
production, fully loaded luxury car.  If it were me, I'd offer a 2-door,
4-door, convertible, AND a wagon.  And bring back that suspension!  I
understand I've only had mine for a couple of days, but I've gone so many
miles and the ride is to die for.  If I've said it a thousand times, I'll
say it once, that my 1965 Crown can glide across washboard surfaces better
then my mother's 2005 Mercedes-Benz.  She actually admitted it would, too.

However, there is a different perspective to selling out Chrysler, although
I can't believe they're not making money.  My boss has a 2005 Town & Country
(loves it), and those 300's are very popular here in the Chicagoland area.
There's some new Dodge wagon, I forget the name, that's popular here, too.
It's small, but tall.  Not including all the new Dodge Chargers I've seen.
I'd like to know how they keep the books.  Maybe Damlier sluffs all losses
over to Chrysler division.  Who knows?  Anyway, if Chrysler folds, Imperials
could be like Packards, i.e., extremely desirable and sought after.  I've
checked E-Bay and even a parts car can be a few thousand, not to mention the
cost of a restored one.

I'd hate to see what Chrysler did to AMC happen again.  When Chrysler bought
AMC, they just wanted the Jeep Division, and, instead of trying to make the
automobile area more viable, they just discarded it.  As with everything
else, it probably all had to do with money, but, if I had been Chrysler at
the time, I would have considered reviving the Nash and Hudson nameplates
and targeted the mid-sized, $18,000-$28,000 price range.  But that's my
opinion.

Currently, if Chrysler really is posting all these losses, one of the major
shortfalls is not the product, but they don't make any inexpensive cars.
Since they dropped the Neon, do they have anything less than about $20,000?
It appears that the entire line-up of Chrysler and Mercedes-Benz is
upper-middle to the sky's-the-limit.  What about the person who wants a new
car, but can only afford $12,000-$15,000?  I don't think Chrysler offers
anything like that right now.  As usual, Chrysler products have top marks in
a lot of categories and the styling is phenomenal, but they're expensive.
They NEVER should have dropped Plymouth.  In that division they made great
cars at price everyone could afford, albeit more than a Chevrolet, but a
better car overall, too.

I apologize for rambling, but I don't want to see Chrysler fall, nor do I
want to see it go into the hands of people that don't know what they're
doing and cheapen the product.  Just as Volvo has the reputation for safety,
Chrysler has always had the reputation for engineering.  It would be
wonderful to see the legacy continue.

Timothy
1965 Crown 4 door






See what's free at AOL.com.



-----------------  http://www.imperialclub.com  -----------------
This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please 
reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be 
shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm