Auto analysts and financial blogs featuring captioned pictures agree: Chrysler ain’t gonna make it.
Sales in December dropped 53% – the company somehow managed to find a way to sell less than HALF as many cars in December 2008 as in the December before – which is no way to run any company, let alone a company whose very existence is being financed by a last-minute loan from the federal government. Or to put their sales numbers another way: the Toyota Camry/Solara by itself outsold the entire Chrysler lineup. The company is reportedly (being a privately-held company, it’s tricky to get solid numbers, though this one comes from their CFO) burning through cash at a rate of $7b every 45 days, and unless each of their vehicles sells for one million dollars, there is no way they are making enough money from sales to pay their vendors.
Auto industry analysts are using optimistic and forward-looking phrases to describe the company.
“Basically they’re done,” said Aaron Bragman, an auto analyst with the consulting company IHS Global Insight in Troy, Mich. “There is no real possibility of turning this thing around as an independent company in my opinion.”
Analysts say most of Chrysler’s products, especially its cars, don’t look, feel or drive as well as the competition’s.
Jonathan Macey, a Yale University law professor who has been critical of U.S. automakers’ management, said Chrysler’s sales numbers are “further evidence of an unviable entity.”
Macey, author of a book on corporate governance, said it’s too late for Chrysler and GM to solve their problems, including high labor costs and union work rules that hinder competitiveness.
One wonders what company CEO Bob Nardelli will drive to the brink of bankruptcy next. I remain convinced that he could drain every last profitable penny from Berkshire-Hathaway, if given the chance.
Alden Bugly // Jan 9, 2009 at 9:31 am
Having recently had the unfortunate need to drive a rental vehicle for a week I first drove a totally boring Ford Taurus for one day and replaced it with a PT Cruiser at the request of my wife. After one day of driving riding in it she lost all interest in the thing as in comparison to our VW Golf GLS it was cheaply put together with plastic interior and cheezy fabrics. And this in a upper end Touring model.
Total junk. Farewell Chrysler, no tears from me.
alyx // Jan 9, 2009 at 10:20 am
I have trouble even naming a vehicle currently in production at Chrysler right now (though from the comment above, I can see they still make that one odd Dodge Neon/station wagon crossbreed). And I drive a 10-year-old Ford, so it is not like I have some kind of bias against American vehicles or anything.
mark r // Jan 9, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Chrysler does actually have some decent cars. The one that looks like the CTS is kind of cool, and has relatively nice interiors.
To the PT cruiser dood: It’s a PT Cruiser. It is also the cheapest car on any rental car lot, probably cheaper than the chevy cobalt. But it’s big and it looks weird so they get people to think they’re giving them an ‘upgrade’ when really they’re just raking them over the coals once again. You are a sucker.
PT Cruisers were relatively popular when they were released though, remember?
pants // Jan 9, 2009 at 7:31 pm
i wonder what would happen if chrysler went public again. maybe they could try that as a hail mary.
PT cruisers look like a weird cross between a jelly bean and a cockroach.
haha i just went to pontiac.com to see who they were made by (GM, in case anyone was wondering.) it says in all caps: PONTIAC IS CAR and it looks very LOL-ish on its own. I’m laughing uncontrollably at this.
Jason // Jan 9, 2009 at 7:43 pm
GM has more brands than they’ve got sense enough to manage them: GMC, Chevy, Cadillac, Pontiac, Buick, Saturn, Saab, and Hummer.
I do like how they have CAR in red type, slightly larger, and severely italicized, as if they feel compelled to remind us what business Pontiac is in. Or perhaps it is a subtle way of saying what Pontiac is not: Pontiac is not SUV; Pontiac is not turnip; Pontiac is not profitable.
Tom Furnival // Apr 17, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Having worked for 10 years a GM (Delco Electronics) and 1.5 years at Chrysler (Huntsville), I am of the opinion that Daimler’s long range plan was to eliminate Chrysler from US competition. Complete destroy this competitor. First they announced a joint venture with Chrysler, then they confiscated their resources, they sold off their capabilities. Huntsville operation went to a German company and some of their body capabilities went to other German companies. This left a shell with most of the capability being German. Essentially we have the Germans producing a car called a Chrysler. A lot of loyal Chrysler customers realized this and abandoned the German effort. Daimler saw that their camouflaged German operation was exposed and dumped it. That is the way I see it.
I think if Daimler is to do business in the US they should be made to divest themselves and pay restitution to the Chrysler Corporation. Say, $300.00, for each Mercedes sold in the US for 10 years. Daimler prevented small car development at Chrysler. I also do not think Bob Nardelli, is not from the right industry. Surely there are a lot of real auto executives with the balls to guide Chrysler to success. I think there is enough US know-how to get Chrysler back without another foreign influence. That whole Daimler thing was a big mistake. Is there a market for Chrysler? I think a bigger market than the German market in the US.
This is all my opinion. I do not see our Government sitting by and allowing foreign the dismantling of our auto industry. The next think, we will be selling GMC to India.