Agreed....dollar for dollar... pound for pound, Corvette is a better value.

And WalMart is a better then value than Prada.

And JC Penny's is a better value than Gucci.

And K-Mart is a better value than Ferragamo.

dollar for dollar... pound for pound...

----

Mercedes mismanaged Chrysler? Or was Chrysler impossible to manage?

Sorry... but I'll put my faith in Mercedes... perhaps the world's premier automaker.

"Like I stated before Fiat doesn't have the money on hand to start up production and build up a dealer network from scratch in the US."

Uh so? And does Chysler have the money on hand to start up production and build up a dealer network from scratch in the world markets that Fiat is in?

"It is very interesting how Fiat helps prop Ferrari up with selling most of its engine production to another company owned by Fiat MASERATI."

Is it strange that engines are shared among Fiat brands?

And also

"The reason that Fiat is willing to take a 35% share in Chrysler is because they don't have the cash to start from scratch to build factories and a dealership network to sell its autos in the US. The only reason that Fiat was able to obtain a 35% share of Chrysler is because Cerberus the parent company of Chrysler wants to get out of the auto business."

If Chrysler were a truly worthwhile company it would not find it's self in this pathetic position:

From Edmunds:

"Fiat reportedly is considering taking another 20 percent of Chrysler but will pay for this one, albeit still a pittance. Word is it will decide within the year if it will take the added stake and pay Chrysler $25 million for it. Reuters, quoting a source close to the Fiat industrial group, said Fiat's decision to add the stake will depend on whether it sees Chrysler as having a chance to survive as a going concern."

http://www.autoobserver.com/2009/01/threesome-fiat-looks-to-link-with-peugeot-as-well-as-chrysler-reports-say.html

And let me address the quote:


"First of all I really doubt that Fiat is making any real great profit from Ferrari or Maserati. "

Oh really?

From the Times:

"Last year, turnover hit ?1.67 billion, producing a profit of ?266 million. That figure is set to rise, giving Ferrari a pre-tax profit margin of 19 per cent by 2010, according to Morgan Stanley, compared with 15.9 per cent last year. On that basis, it would be more profitable than Porsche, often thought of as the world's most profitable carmaker."

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article4326982.ece

And this:

"As for performance the American cars like Corvette and the Dodge Viper will hold their own against anything that Ferrari builds."

Who knows... Consumer Reports might very well agree... but it's a false argument really. Ferrari is in a completely different class and price range. Just as you can't compare a Cadillac to a Rolls.

Perhaps one should ask: could any American manufacturer build an auto like the Ferrari... that level of style, sophistication and world-wide desirability? I don't think so. Ferrari owners do not lust after Corvettes... or Vipers (for God's sake) but I'm sure plenty of Corvette and Viper owners would love to own a Ferrari.

^ Certainly, just as many other small car buyers remember those "less than steller examples of the automakers craft" like: the Pinto, the Chevette, the Vega, the Cavalier...

"As I have stated previously I would not have bought the 300c if FIAT had any involvement in producing it."

Well gee... looks like you bought it just in time!:

"Amid the 2008 automobile crisis, Chrysler announced in December 2008 that they were almost out of cash, and might not survive past 2009. After the defeat of the auto bailout in the Senate, Chrysler stated that they would most likely file for bankruptcy and shut down all operations permanently. On December 17, 2008, Chrysler announced that it would close all of its North American plants on December 19 for at least a month or longer. That same day, President Bush announced a $13.4 billion rescue loan for the American automakers, including Chrysler."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler

Reality check:

Fiat is not owned by the Italian government. It has also not asked for government bailout money from the government as Chrysler has (at least for now... 2009 will be difficult for everyone).

Fiat has had big sales gains in Europe and the world in the last few years due to great designs ( Fiat 500 and the Panda) and improvements in quality. The company is healthy, well run, innovative and much admired in the automobile business. Europe is a difficult market with demanding consumers, yet Fiat is gaining market share. Meanwhile Consumer Reports rates Chrysler quality as the worst in the US and sales are in the toilet.

Note too: Fiat makes Ferrari and Maserati ...among the most desirable sport/luxury car brands in the world. These brands have limited production, but are huge money makers.

I think it's pretty hilarious that a poster above writes: "If they merge with Fiat the turbine will be run with a hamster."... meanwhile Fiat produces Ferrari and Maserati's magnificent V12s... engines that Chrysler would not begin to know how to engineer. LOL.

No wonder (and rather ironically) Chrysler, a company once involved in NASA's space program, is turning to Fiat for technology.

Fiat is mostly interested in Chrysler for the Jeep brand... Dodge will stick around but the once great name "Chrysler" means little today. Fiat also wants to launch Alfa Romeo in the US and introduce a big sedan on the lines of BMW and Audi.

It is interesting that Chrysler is basically giving 35% to Fiat ...indicative of the bad shape Chrysler is in.

----

Must be some hamster in there...

Attach file:

---

  (18.59 KB)

Clipper47: LOL!

A question for you all: How were the '55 and '56 Packards viewed by the Automotive press back in their day? Are there any comparison tests from the era comparing the Packard to the Caddy? I would be very interested to read them.

The last big Packards are fascinating cars, but the Cadillacs and Imperials give me the impression of being opulent and luxurious in a more substantive way. Just look at things like the interior door panels and appiontments. Is my impression correct? I think the fact that the Packard was based on an older body, sort of shows through.

Also: who were the buyers for the '55 and '56 senior Packards? Old time Packard owners or people switching from other makes? Any info on this?

Something to chew on: IMHO the best bet for Packard would have been if it had merged with Chrysler.

The Imperial should have been positioned as the top-of-the-line Chrysler competeing with the Roadmaster... and the Packard as Chrysler Corporation's luxury brand competing directly with Cadillac.

The Imperial name was so imbedded in the public's mind as a deluxe Chrysler, I think they would have done well to take over and develop the Packard brand: imagine... the Packard Lebaron.