RichardJensen Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 (edited) So are they supposed to make everything failed wheel drive (fwd) and 1.5 turbo 4 to make it believable? Ah! Ha! Ha! "Failed wheel drive" So clever!! Maybe FCA should address the glaring holes in their lineup before they spend hundreds of millions on a Subaru FR-S fighter. Edited August 27, 2015 by RichardJensen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 (edited) So are they supposed to make everything failed wheel drive (fwd) .... I stopped reading there. If you can't reason logically and leave this crap out, don't even bother posting. EDIT: I had my window sitting open until I had time to respond and missed RJ's post. Edited August 27, 2015 by fordmantpw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Oh Gawd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fgts Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Ah! Ha! Ha! "Failed wheel drive" So clever!! Maybe FCA should address the glaring holes in their lineup before they spend hundreds of millions on a Subaru FR-S fighter. Almost clever as you..... I have to apply for a license here to make wise ass comments like you love to do?. The car is completed along with the Alpha , since the BRZ don't have a v6 or a droptop I don't think that's the target. Also you might want to read up on the other vehicles coming to patch up the "glaring holes" in the FCA lineup (though a few more hybrids maybe needed). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Almost clever as you..... I have to apply for a license here to make wise ass comments like you love to do?. Post of the century. lmao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Also you might want to read up on the other vehicles coming to patch up the "glaring holes" in the FCA lineup (though a few more hybrids maybe needed). What's coming for them? (That's a genuine quesiton - it's been a while since I've seen the 'future products' list, but I seem to remember not seeing much in the way of new products. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 The car is completed along with the Alpha And you think the Alfa is paying for this car? You think that FCA is going to get so much revenue from the Giulia that this car gets to tag along basically for free? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Guys, with this set of announcements FCA is basically the second coming of British Leyland. Those of you who don't know what British Leyland was are probably also the people who think that these plans are really awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Guys, with this set of announcements FCA is basically the second coming of British Leyland. Those of you who don't know what British Leyland was are probably also the people who think that these plans are really awesome. LOL Translated -- "Chrysler can do nothing right and Ford can do nothing wrong." I remember the good old days when Richard and the gang were predicting the imminent demise of Chrysler when they were owned by Cerberus. Just another in a long litany of false hopes and failed projections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 LOL Translated -- "Chrysler can do nothing right and Ford can do nothing wrong." I remember the good old days when Richard and the gang were predicting the imminent demise of Chrysler when they were owned by Cerberus. Just another in a long litany of false hopes and failed projections. All Fiat/bankruptcy did was delay the inevitable. Why do you think papa Sergio is/was pushing so hard for someone, anyone to merge with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 All Fiat/bankruptcy did was delay the inevitable. Why do you think papa Sergio is/was pushing so hard for someone, anyone to merge with. Many things are inevitable fuzz. It was inevitable that Mercury was going to go out of business because, like GM, Ford couldn't figure out how to market their secondary brands without just making them rebadged knock offs. They still haven't learned this lesson with Lincoln. It was inevitable that Ford was going to sell off Volvo and Jaguar and the rest of PAG because they needed the capital to stop the money that was hemorrhaging from Ford. I'm not trying to say that Chrysler hasn't made some mistakes along the way. Even some big mistakes. I'm just saying they are surely not alone in that respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 predicting the imminent demise of Chrysler when they were owned by Cerberus Yes. Silly us. We didn't foresee the government giving Fiat $6B to take Chrysler off their hands. Boy! Chrysler sure proved us wrong with their savvy management and skillful negotiation of the 2008 recession!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 NB: The Feds provided $6.6B in exit financing to Chrysler and Fiat's initial 35% stake was acquired with absolutely no cash outlay on their part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) Yes. Silly us. We didn't foresee the government giving Fiat $6B to take Chrysler off their hands. Boy! Chrysler sure proved us wrong with their savvy management and skillful negotiation of the 2008 recession!!!!!! NB: The Feds provided $6.6B in exit financing to Chrysler and Fiat's initial 35% stake was acquired with absolutely no cash outlay on their part. That's a heck of a deal wasn't it. Easily as good as the 5.9 billion dollar loan made to Ford in 2009 from the Federal Government under the agreement that Ford would make the kind of cars that Uncle Obama wanted right? Or perhaps the 15.9 billion dollars that Ford Credit borrowed? Who was it again that lobbied the Federal Government to give Chrysler and GM all that bailout money? Oh yes it was Ford CEO Alan Mulally. http://www.factcheck.org/2011/09/ford-motor-co-does-u-turn-on-bailouts/ You can try to spin and twist facts all the live long day Richard. I don't personally lend an ounce of credibility to anything you say anymore because you have been so wrong and so intentionally misleading so many times. Edited August 28, 2015 by BlackHorse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Easily as good as the 5.9 billion dollar loan made to Ford in 2009 from the Federal Government So, according to you: "Hi. The dealership gave me a car for free!" "HA! I got an even better deal than you!! I BORROWED MONEY to buy MY car!!!!!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 So, according to you: "Hi. The dealership gave me a car for free!" "HA! I got an even better deal than you!! I BORROWED MONEY to buy MY car!!!!!" That's not even remotely what I said but thank you once again for demonstrating that you can't make a single post without twisting and distorting facts to suit your pro-Ford agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) That's not even remotely what I said but thank you once again for demonstrating that you can't make a single post without twisting and distorting facts to suit your pro-Ford agenda. You said that getting something for free (Fiat's 35% stake in Chrysler) was no better than getting something with borrowed money (Ford's loan). Edited August 28, 2015 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) You said that getting something for free (Fiat's 35% stake in Chrysler) was no better than getting something with borrowed money (Ford's loan). Wrong, I simply pointed out that Ford got help from the Government just as Chrysler got help from the Government and furthermore that Ford lobbied for Chrysler to get said help and then tried to pretend like they were all opposed to it in their advertising. By the way, I am neither angry nor am I from Arkansas. But I know what hypocrisy is lol. Additionally Fiats stake in Chrysler is 58% not 35%. Edited August 28, 2015 by BlackHorse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Wrong, I simply pointed out Additionally Fiats stake in Chrysler is 58% not 35%. The phrase you used was "Easily as good as". In this context "as good as" clearly implies equivalence. Also, Fiat now owns 100% of Chrysler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 BTW: If you think you're not angry, then perhaps your understanding of the word differs from everyone else on this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) The phrase you used was "Easily as good as". In this context "as good as" clearly implies equivalence. Also, Fiat now owns 100% of Chrysler. lol please do split hairs and distort facts to suit your agenda. I would expect nothing less. It was obvious what I meant. Yes it was easily as good. Chrysler got what they wanted and Ford got what they wanted and they both got it from the same source. Hence easily as good. Edited August 28, 2015 by BlackHorse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) BTW: If you think you're not angry, then perhaps your understanding of the word differs from everyone else on this forum. I honestly couldn't care less what you think Richard and perhaps you shouldn't assume that just because you "think" I'm angry that everyone else around here "thinks" that too because I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people around here that are equally as unimpressed with you as I am. For the record I am a perfectly happy and content man regardless of what you might claim. Edited August 28, 2015 by BlackHorse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 The thing that scares me the complete lack of Hybrid or alternative powered cars FCA doesn't have. I'd like to know how they plan on meeting CAFE regulations in the next 10 years. I don't think Fiat 500 variants are going to carry the day, given how badly they are rated by buyers. Sergio expects to have a "partner" by then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 GM has been managed far better then FCA and that by itself is a pretty damning statement. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MY93SHO Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 I honestly couldn't care less what you think Richard and perhaps you shouldn't assume that just because you "think" I'm angry that everyone else around here "thinks" that too because I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people around here that are equally as unimpressed with you as I am. For the record I am a perfectly happy and content man regardless of what you might claim. Don't you get tired of everyone telling you you're wrong? You sure keep coming back for it over,and over and over again. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.