ehaase Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 See, I feel like Chryco has been bumped town the totem pole since their acquisition. Whether correct or not (pre Fiat), I always viewed Dodge as their mainstream (Ford, Chevy) brand, with Chrysler as their step up (more toward Lincoln and Cadillac) brand, and Jeep kinda off on its own. . It's been over 40 years, since Chrysler instead of Plymouth got the Cordoba, that Chrysler could be considered an upscale brand. It was certainly no upscale brand in the 1980's with all those K car LeBarons and other derivatives.Chrysler has one upscale model - the 300C. I agree with Chrysler being the mainstream brand and Dodge being downsized to a performance brand. However, Dodge supposedly is getting a B class hatchback around 2018, so Dodge won't be completely performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomcat68 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 It's been over 40 years, since Chrysler instead of Plymouth got the Cordoba, that Chrysler could be considered an upscale brand. It was certainly no upscale brand in the 1980's with all those K car LeBarons and other derivatives.Chrysler has one upscale model - the 300C. I agree with Chrysler being the mainstream brand and Dodge being downsized to a performance brand. However, Dodge supposedly is getting a B class hatchback around 2018, so Dodge won't be completely performance. I pretty much agree. Chrysler wasn't total luxury, it was just a step up like a Buick or Oldsmobile. I think Ram never should have been created and Dodge should have been turned into the truck brand and Chrysler should have gone mainstream with all the cars, minivans and crossovers. Jeep covers the SUV market. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 I'm pretty sure Blackhorse is the only one here that doesn't understand the difference. However, I've talked to quite a few anti-Ford folks who cannot fathom that there is a difference between the two. I see it this way. Loans, bankruptcy protection, currency manipulation, government ownership, restricted government contracts based on country of origins, tax credits, subsidized layoff pay et al means every auto maker in the world is benefitting from government intervention. Some more than others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Right. When large corporations say they want things to be "fair", what they really mean is "unfair in our favor". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 (edited) Yeah, how fair was it for Ford to watch two competitors become revitalized and virtually debt free, CH 11 reorganization allowed both to lose most of their debt, the government did the rest Edited August 29, 2015 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Yeah, how fair was it for Ford to watch two competitors become revitalized and virtually debt free, CH 11 reorganization allowed both to lose most of their debt, the government did the rest Ford had the option to do the same. The Family didn't want to lose their special shares. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Ford had the option to do the same. The Family didn't want to lose their special shares. Just like we all have the option to declare bankruptcy, but we don't want to lose things in the process. So, you suck it up, get the lowest rate loans you can, bust your tail, and make it work. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 (edited) Ford had the option to do the same. The Family didn't want to lose their special shares. Just like we all have the option to declare bankruptcy, but we don't want to lose things in the process. So, you suck it up, get the lowest rate loans you can, bust your tail, and make it work. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Without government intervention, GM and Chrysler would have both gone straight to Chapter 7 where as Ford could have gone CH 11 reorganization. Saving both companies is one thing but giving them such a big commercial head start over Ford is another matter especially given the unusual circumstances of zero chance of commercial financing.... And just like Ford, both GM and Chrysler could have and should have refinanced while lending was still on the table and done restructuring before the crunch time came but guess what, both took the easy out and let the situation develop to the point of rescue action via government intervention..... It may be right but in context, how is any of that "Fair" to Ford. Edited August 30, 2015 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Without government intervention, GM and Chrysler would have both gone straight to Chapter 7 where as Ford could have gone CH 11 reorganization. Saving bot companies is one thing but giving them such a big commercial head start over Ford is another matter especially given the unusual circumstances of zero chance of commercial financing.... And just like Ford, both GM and Chrysler could have and should have refinanced while lending was still on the table and done restructuring before the crunch time came but guess what, both took the easy out and let the situation develop to the point of rescue action via government intervention..... It may be right but in context, how is any of that "Fair" to Ford. Yep, it's like it was an incentive for GM and Chrysler to proceed to bankruptcy. They get handed wads of cash to make it out, eliminate some debt and other obligations, and come out with a clean slate. Where was the incentive to do what Ford did? Where is the incentive to change and avoid it the next time. 'Too big to fail.' 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron W. Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Just because you can doesn't mean you should. You have no idea how many times I've told myself that now that I have a Mustang GT for a daily driver ........... lol 5 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.