Interesting Chrysler News
Interesting Chrysler News
Solutions in the Short-Term Lane
By Warren Brown
Sunday, May 11, 2008; Page G02
It's the nutty season in the automobile industry. Falling sales and soaring gasoline prices are causing the insanity. Politics is making it worse.
There's no doubt that things are bad on the sales front. Overall, sales were down 6.8 percent in April compared with sales in the same month a year ago. That was the sixth consecutive decline, measured monthly on a year-to-year comparison basis. It was the 10th decline in the past 11 months, Automotive News Data Center records show.
Trucks and sport-utility vehicles were the hardest hit. General Motors' Hummer division sales plummeted 45.6 percent in April. Truck-heavy Chrysler saw its sales drop 40.4 percent. Conversations with Washington area dealers last week confirmed what the data shows.
"We really saw it in our stores last month," said Vincent A. Sheehy IV, president of the 20-store Sheehy Auto Stores, based in Fairfax. "Sales of small cars were up 30 percent. We're really selling cars. But trucks are another story."
Dealers nationwide, including Toyota dealers, are stuck with trucks. But Chrysler and Dodge dealers appear to be the most stuck. Dodge dealers across the country have a 109-day supply of big trucks in an industry where a 62-day supply of trucks historically has been considered normal, Automotive News data show.
That large unsold inventory is costing Chrysler/Dodge dealers plenty in interest rates and taxes, so much that desperation in the truest meaning of the term has set in.
Some of those Chrysler/Dodge dealers are offering rebates as high as $13,000 to move their trucks. Chrysler's management, in turn, has come up with a sales incentive program that is so nutty, it is worthy of a presidential candidate.
Called "Let's Refuel America," the Chrysler program would cap any fuel -- unleaded or premium gasoline, diesel or ethanol -- at $2.99 a gallon for three years for any customer buying a Chrysler or Dodge product between May 6 and June 2 this year. The program applies to a wide range of Chrysler and Dodge vehicles, including sport-utility models and those trucks clogging the company's new-vehicle lots.
This is a program being offered by the same Chrysler that historically has balked at being forced by the federal government to raise fuel economy standards. Now, with its clear-the-lots "Let's Refuel America" program, it is taking the short-term risk of sales-weighted, federal fuel economy standards by flooding the market with vehicles that have less than stellar fuel efficiency.
Nuts!
But in business and politics, common sense goes out the window when desperation sets in. Thus, we have one of the Democratic presidential candidates, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), joining presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) calling for a summer moratorium on federal gasoline and diesel taxes. Never mind that both Clinton and McCain last year backed major increases in federal fuel economy standards. Never mind that both of them know, or should know, that original federal fuel economy standards put in place in 1975 were undermined by consumers drunk on cheap gasoline.
The suffering across the country stemming from high fuel prices is real, the politicians and Chrysler executives say. The time to do something dramatic is now, if only to temporarily relieve the psychological burden of high fuel costs, they argue. But they say little or nothing about the potential consequences of their proposed short-term fixes.
Maybe if McCain and Clinton are unsuccessful in their political bids they can get jobs at Chrysler. But they might want to think long and hard about such a move. Chrysler is losing so much money that Daimler, which retains a 19.9 percent interest in the U.S. company it once owned outright, is cutting the book value of its Chrysler share from $2.19 billion to $845 million. Cerberus Capital Management, the private-equity investment firm that bought 80.1 percent of Chrysler from Daimler last year, is having a major case of buyer's remorse about its purchase, according to industry sources.
Cerberus, which lately has been flirting with Nissan/Renault, the Japanese-French car company, could wind up offloading Chrysler to Nissan. That would give Nissan a broader array of pickup trucks, should trucks ever become big sellers in the U.S. market again. Chrysler would have access to Nissan's excellent small-car portfolio, which it needs now and will need in the future.
That would make more sense than a money-losing company subsidizing gasoline sales.
I don't particularly agree with Chrysler's "Refuel America" program or the idea of a moratorium on the federal gas tax. Its Chryslers fault for over-producing large trucks... the Chrysler Aspen for example, give me a break. Building an over-sized luxury SUV by simply putting leather seats and a Chrysler badge on a Durango? Now the lots are full of MOPAR trucks. The idea of a nissan chrysler buyout is interesting however it seems like a big risk for Nissan. But could you imagine the offspring of that merger? A two seater like the 350Z (or the new 370Z) or GT-R with the Chrysler badge? However due to Chrysler's marketing strategy it would quickly face the same demise as our ill-fated Crossfires!
By Warren Brown
Sunday, May 11, 2008; Page G02
It's the nutty season in the automobile industry. Falling sales and soaring gasoline prices are causing the insanity. Politics is making it worse.
There's no doubt that things are bad on the sales front. Overall, sales were down 6.8 percent in April compared with sales in the same month a year ago. That was the sixth consecutive decline, measured monthly on a year-to-year comparison basis. It was the 10th decline in the past 11 months, Automotive News Data Center records show.
Trucks and sport-utility vehicles were the hardest hit. General Motors' Hummer division sales plummeted 45.6 percent in April. Truck-heavy Chrysler saw its sales drop 40.4 percent. Conversations with Washington area dealers last week confirmed what the data shows.
"We really saw it in our stores last month," said Vincent A. Sheehy IV, president of the 20-store Sheehy Auto Stores, based in Fairfax. "Sales of small cars were up 30 percent. We're really selling cars. But trucks are another story."
Dealers nationwide, including Toyota dealers, are stuck with trucks. But Chrysler and Dodge dealers appear to be the most stuck. Dodge dealers across the country have a 109-day supply of big trucks in an industry where a 62-day supply of trucks historically has been considered normal, Automotive News data show.
That large unsold inventory is costing Chrysler/Dodge dealers plenty in interest rates and taxes, so much that desperation in the truest meaning of the term has set in.
Some of those Chrysler/Dodge dealers are offering rebates as high as $13,000 to move their trucks. Chrysler's management, in turn, has come up with a sales incentive program that is so nutty, it is worthy of a presidential candidate.
Called "Let's Refuel America," the Chrysler program would cap any fuel -- unleaded or premium gasoline, diesel or ethanol -- at $2.99 a gallon for three years for any customer buying a Chrysler or Dodge product between May 6 and June 2 this year. The program applies to a wide range of Chrysler and Dodge vehicles, including sport-utility models and those trucks clogging the company's new-vehicle lots.
This is a program being offered by the same Chrysler that historically has balked at being forced by the federal government to raise fuel economy standards. Now, with its clear-the-lots "Let's Refuel America" program, it is taking the short-term risk of sales-weighted, federal fuel economy standards by flooding the market with vehicles that have less than stellar fuel efficiency.
Nuts!
But in business and politics, common sense goes out the window when desperation sets in. Thus, we have one of the Democratic presidential candidates, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), joining presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) calling for a summer moratorium on federal gasoline and diesel taxes. Never mind that both Clinton and McCain last year backed major increases in federal fuel economy standards. Never mind that both of them know, or should know, that original federal fuel economy standards put in place in 1975 were undermined by consumers drunk on cheap gasoline.
The suffering across the country stemming from high fuel prices is real, the politicians and Chrysler executives say. The time to do something dramatic is now, if only to temporarily relieve the psychological burden of high fuel costs, they argue. But they say little or nothing about the potential consequences of their proposed short-term fixes.
Maybe if McCain and Clinton are unsuccessful in their political bids they can get jobs at Chrysler. But they might want to think long and hard about such a move. Chrysler is losing so much money that Daimler, which retains a 19.9 percent interest in the U.S. company it once owned outright, is cutting the book value of its Chrysler share from $2.19 billion to $845 million. Cerberus Capital Management, the private-equity investment firm that bought 80.1 percent of Chrysler from Daimler last year, is having a major case of buyer's remorse about its purchase, according to industry sources.
Cerberus, which lately has been flirting with Nissan/Renault, the Japanese-French car company, could wind up offloading Chrysler to Nissan. That would give Nissan a broader array of pickup trucks, should trucks ever become big sellers in the U.S. market again. Chrysler would have access to Nissan's excellent small-car portfolio, which it needs now and will need in the future.
That would make more sense than a money-losing company subsidizing gasoline sales.
I don't particularly agree with Chrysler's "Refuel America" program or the idea of a moratorium on the federal gas tax. Its Chryslers fault for over-producing large trucks... the Chrysler Aspen for example, give me a break. Building an over-sized luxury SUV by simply putting leather seats and a Chrysler badge on a Durango? Now the lots are full of MOPAR trucks. The idea of a nissan chrysler buyout is interesting however it seems like a big risk for Nissan. But could you imagine the offspring of that merger? A two seater like the 350Z (or the new 370Z) or GT-R with the Chrysler badge? However due to Chrysler's marketing strategy it would quickly face the same demise as our ill-fated Crossfires!
Last edited by beasticles; 05-13-2008 at 07:04 AM.
Re: Interesting Chrysler News
I'm afraid this may take a more political edge than was meant to, and sorry if I go over the top.
"Dodge dealers across the country have a 109-day supply of big trucks in an industry where a 62-day supply of trucks historically has been considered normal, Automotive News data show."
Here's the thing: We supposedly live in a capitalistic country. That means, to be very overly simple, "survival of the fittest."
So, when trends change, whether it be milk prices or oil supply, other things (including consumption and methods) must also change to adapt. Adapting is the key, not slowing down the problem, and I personally feel like this idea and our politicians both are trying to be slowly reactive in denial of the problem rather than progressive in changing to a new solution. Change the way we deal with problems because these problems are out of our hands.
Ok, yea. Thats how I feel...
"Dodge dealers across the country have a 109-day supply of big trucks in an industry where a 62-day supply of trucks historically has been considered normal, Automotive News data show."
Here's the thing: We supposedly live in a capitalistic country. That means, to be very overly simple, "survival of the fittest."
So, when trends change, whether it be milk prices or oil supply, other things (including consumption and methods) must also change to adapt. Adapting is the key, not slowing down the problem, and I personally feel like this idea and our politicians both are trying to be slowly reactive in denial of the problem rather than progressive in changing to a new solution. Change the way we deal with problems because these problems are out of our hands.
Ok, yea. Thats how I feel...
Senior Member
Re: Interesting Chrysler News
Originally Posted by NDLanoue
I'm afraid this may take a more political edge than was meant to, and sorry if I go over the top.
"Dodge dealers across the country have a 109-day supply of big trucks in an industry where a 62-day supply of trucks historically has been considered normal, Automotive News data show."
Here's the thing: We supposedly live in a capitalistic country. That means, to be very overly simple, "survival of the fittest."
So, when trends change, whether it be milk prices or oil supply, other things (including consumption and methods) must also change to adapt. Adapting is the key, not slowing down the problem, and I personally feel like this idea and our politicians both are trying to be slowly reactive in denial of the problem rather than progressive in changing to a new solution. Change the way we deal with problems because these problems are out of our hands.
Ok, yea. Thats how I feel...
"Dodge dealers across the country have a 109-day supply of big trucks in an industry where a 62-day supply of trucks historically has been considered normal, Automotive News data show."
Here's the thing: We supposedly live in a capitalistic country. That means, to be very overly simple, "survival of the fittest."
So, when trends change, whether it be milk prices or oil supply, other things (including consumption and methods) must also change to adapt. Adapting is the key, not slowing down the problem, and I personally feel like this idea and our politicians both are trying to be slowly reactive in denial of the problem rather than progressive in changing to a new solution. Change the way we deal with problems because these problems are out of our hands.
Ok, yea. Thats how I feel...
At the time of the "first oil crisis", the embargo back in the '70s, the American car companies were still flying high because import count was extremely low and, quite frankly, those little Japanese cars were laughed as tiny, tinny little pieces of junk. But suddenly gas prices soared - relatively speaking - and those little Japanese cars didn't look so silly any more. Problem was, none of the American companies built little fuel efficient cars, and that's the ONLY thing the Japanese did build. So they just stepped right in. And made enormous gains in quality, features, etc.
But things stabilized a bit, people became used to the fuel prices, the minivan came to prominance and then fell from grace as a mommy mobile. So the SUV came to prominance, even with it's poor fuel economy. That old adage "those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it" was never more apt. It's the '70s all over again, except there's technically no embargo or lines for gas, the prices have just soared to crazy levels. And the US manufactures are now sitting on a fleet of cars that the fickle American buying public so desperately wanted just a few short months ago. But they can't suddenly design and build small, fuel efficient cars because the tide has turned too quickly.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Houston
Age: 49
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Interesting Chrysler News
Chrysler may be crazy. But they are doing something.
The idea of moving vehicles off the lot by solving the high fuel costs "at the consumer level" will not solve the long term problem. But it will help Mr. john smith consumer. Right now.
This isn't the first time Chrysler put their money where their mouth is. Remember the funky economy of the Carter years. Just as they were coming out of bankruptcy Chrysler sent a $500.00 voucher to anyone who had bought a car during the reconstruction of the company. A few years and lots of K cars later, they paid the government backed loan off early. The government three hundred dollar tax rebates will be repaid by whom? You and me and our children...
Nice.
To all of the above I would ask this question,
Who has a track record of getting out front quickly with a solution to the problem, Washington or the business community? And who will shut down the program when it doesn't work anymore? Name a government program that was shut down when no longer effective.
Stop looking to Washington for the answers. They are all too busy getting re-elected.
Free enterprise works best when it is allow to be free.
roadster with a stick
The idea of moving vehicles off the lot by solving the high fuel costs "at the consumer level" will not solve the long term problem. But it will help Mr. john smith consumer. Right now.
This isn't the first time Chrysler put their money where their mouth is. Remember the funky economy of the Carter years. Just as they were coming out of bankruptcy Chrysler sent a $500.00 voucher to anyone who had bought a car during the reconstruction of the company. A few years and lots of K cars later, they paid the government backed loan off early. The government three hundred dollar tax rebates will be repaid by whom? You and me and our children...
Nice.
To all of the above I would ask this question,
Who has a track record of getting out front quickly with a solution to the problem, Washington or the business community? And who will shut down the program when it doesn't work anymore? Name a government program that was shut down when no longer effective.
Stop looking to Washington for the answers. They are all too busy getting re-elected.
Free enterprise works best when it is allow to be free.
roadster with a stick
Last edited by Franc Rauscher; 05-13-2008 at 03:03 PM.
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: VA
Age: 48
Posts: 1,782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Interesting Chrysler News
Industry contributes to some of the problems however, by creating markets that thrive on short term trends without regard to future impacts of those markets.
Americans have a problem called the "bigger is better" syndrome. Think about it. If it costs a lot of money and people know it costs a lot of money, "we" want it. So, when Hummer H2s came out, they cost upwards of 60 grand and used a ton of expensive gas. Well, you know as well as I do, people had to have them. I lived on the same street with a guy who took out a second mortgage on his house just so he could "impress the ladies" (his words) by driving a Hummer. The same thing happened with all of the large, luxury SUVs. I mean really, a sport utiity vehicle was originally designed to carry people and their sporting goods to hard to reach areas like the woods. Well, can't really do that with 22 inch chromes now can ya? Many Americans in general aren't rational when it comes to vehicle choices. So, what does the auto industry do? They capitalize on the trends. They build larger and larger vehicles without any consideration to long term affects. "Hey, I've got an idea for a new vehicle. It will be the largest, vechicle in our fleet, people will have to have it so that they can say they have the largest SUV on the block. It will cost a ton of money too, but people will have to buy it because it is a status thing. It will get about 8 miles to the gallon. Heck, they won't even be able to park it in a normal garage or parking space. We'll call it the Ford Excursion!!" You know what? People did buy them. Some made the excuse that they needed a large vehicle to carry their kids around. Seems like every time I saw one of those 8 passenger vehicles, it was occupied by one person, the driver. I just don't get it! Well, all those people who just had to have the Hummer, Escalade, Excursion, Tahoe, etc. are hating their cars now I'm sure, especially with people giving them looks like they are sucking up all the gas for the rest of us. I knew the SUV bomb would come sooner or later. Now people are complaining about not being able to afford gas for their SUVs. I don't have a sympathetic bone in me for anyone who purchased one of these behemouths unless it was for a work-related need. There were/are plenty of other options out there for family haulers. Station wagons, mini vans, etc.
Sorry for the rant, but some things just really annoy me. People need to start taking accountablilty for things instead of relying on other people or the government to come bail them out.
Americans have a problem called the "bigger is better" syndrome. Think about it. If it costs a lot of money and people know it costs a lot of money, "we" want it. So, when Hummer H2s came out, they cost upwards of 60 grand and used a ton of expensive gas. Well, you know as well as I do, people had to have them. I lived on the same street with a guy who took out a second mortgage on his house just so he could "impress the ladies" (his words) by driving a Hummer. The same thing happened with all of the large, luxury SUVs. I mean really, a sport utiity vehicle was originally designed to carry people and their sporting goods to hard to reach areas like the woods. Well, can't really do that with 22 inch chromes now can ya? Many Americans in general aren't rational when it comes to vehicle choices. So, what does the auto industry do? They capitalize on the trends. They build larger and larger vehicles without any consideration to long term affects. "Hey, I've got an idea for a new vehicle. It will be the largest, vechicle in our fleet, people will have to have it so that they can say they have the largest SUV on the block. It will cost a ton of money too, but people will have to buy it because it is a status thing. It will get about 8 miles to the gallon. Heck, they won't even be able to park it in a normal garage or parking space. We'll call it the Ford Excursion!!" You know what? People did buy them. Some made the excuse that they needed a large vehicle to carry their kids around. Seems like every time I saw one of those 8 passenger vehicles, it was occupied by one person, the driver. I just don't get it! Well, all those people who just had to have the Hummer, Escalade, Excursion, Tahoe, etc. are hating their cars now I'm sure, especially with people giving them looks like they are sucking up all the gas for the rest of us. I knew the SUV bomb would come sooner or later. Now people are complaining about not being able to afford gas for their SUVs. I don't have a sympathetic bone in me for anyone who purchased one of these behemouths unless it was for a work-related need. There were/are plenty of other options out there for family haulers. Station wagons, mini vans, etc.
Sorry for the rant, but some things just really annoy me. People need to start taking accountablilty for things instead of relying on other people or the government to come bail them out.
Last edited by cgocifer; 05-13-2008 at 03:36 PM.
Re: Interesting Chrysler News
"Sorry for the rant, but some things just really annoy me. People need to start taking accountablilty for things instead of relying on other people or the government to come bail them out."
I don't know if that was directed at my comments or not, but let me be the first to say I am for the power and rights, as well as personal responsibility, of the individual; in fact, to extreme point.
I never asked for government bail-outs. I argued against them. When I say survival of the fittest I mean: Companies who produced bigger fuel-guzzling cars deserve to crumble when the buying trends change exactly as consumers who have such cars and lose money due to gas prices also deserve to lose.
It's called intelligence and awareness. I for one had at 16 a 1989 Mazda B2200 pick-up truck from my grandfather. Gas was ok, and being a manual, I was able to find ways to save gas. After my junior year, I gave the truck away to a charity in Alabama (couldn't be fixed to pass Georgia emissions anymore) and I began driving my mother's Expedition as we had no other vehicle for me. Now, we have an Expedition for work. We haul Scuba diving gear and boat equipment to and from Florida every two weeks. Yet, as a seventeen year old, the Expedition was horrible on gas. So, I began car-pooling with my friends who drove civics and riding my bicycle because I didn't want to/couldn't pay for gas for the Expedition. And yes, I paid for my own gas. Cliche, but it works.
Then, about two months ago, I bought my Crossfire.
Main point being, I never asked for the government's help, nor anyone's for that matter. What I did say was that I feel like the measures they ARE passing are completely opposite from what they should pass if they feel they must doing anything at all.
My personal philosophy: People will adapt or lose.
(If this wasn't specifically against my posts earlier, sorry.)
I don't know if that was directed at my comments or not, but let me be the first to say I am for the power and rights, as well as personal responsibility, of the individual; in fact, to extreme point.
I never asked for government bail-outs. I argued against them. When I say survival of the fittest I mean: Companies who produced bigger fuel-guzzling cars deserve to crumble when the buying trends change exactly as consumers who have such cars and lose money due to gas prices also deserve to lose.
It's called intelligence and awareness. I for one had at 16 a 1989 Mazda B2200 pick-up truck from my grandfather. Gas was ok, and being a manual, I was able to find ways to save gas. After my junior year, I gave the truck away to a charity in Alabama (couldn't be fixed to pass Georgia emissions anymore) and I began driving my mother's Expedition as we had no other vehicle for me. Now, we have an Expedition for work. We haul Scuba diving gear and boat equipment to and from Florida every two weeks. Yet, as a seventeen year old, the Expedition was horrible on gas. So, I began car-pooling with my friends who drove civics and riding my bicycle because I didn't want to/couldn't pay for gas for the Expedition. And yes, I paid for my own gas. Cliche, but it works.
Then, about two months ago, I bought my Crossfire.
Main point being, I never asked for the government's help, nor anyone's for that matter. What I did say was that I feel like the measures they ARE passing are completely opposite from what they should pass if they feel they must doing anything at all.
My personal philosophy: People will adapt or lose.
(If this wasn't specifically against my posts earlier, sorry.)
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: VA
Age: 48
Posts: 1,782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Interesting Chrysler News
Originally Posted by NDLanoue
"Sorry for the rant, but some things just really annoy me. People need to start taking accountablilty for things instead of relying on other people or the government to come bail them out."
I don't know if that was directed at my comments or not, but let me be the first to say I am for the power and rights, as well as personal responsibility, of the individual; in fact, to extreme point.
I never asked for government bail-outs. I argued against them. When I say survival of the fittest I mean: Companies who produced bigger fuel-guzzling cars deserve to crumble when the buying trends change exactly as consumers who have such cars and lose money due to gas prices also deserve to lose.
It's called intelligence and awareness. I for one had at 16 a 1989 Mazda B2200 pick-up truck from my grandfather. Gas was ok, and being a manual, I was able to find ways to save gas. After my junior year, I gave the truck away to a charity in Alabama (couldn't be fixed to pass Georgia emissions anymore) and I began driving my mother's Expedition as we had no other vehicle for me. Now, we have an Expedition for work. We haul Scuba diving gear and boat equipment to and from Florida every two weeks. Yet, as a seventeen year old, the Expedition was horrible on gas. So, I began car-pooling with my friends who drove civics and riding my bicycle because I didn't want to/couldn't pay for gas for the Expedition. And yes, I paid for my own gas. Cliche, but it works.
Then, about two months ago, I bought my Crossfire.
Main point being, I never asked for the government's help, nor anyone's for that matter. What I did say was that I feel like the measures they ARE passing are completely opposite from what they should pass if they feel they must doing anything at all.
My personal philosophy: People will adapt or lose.
(If this wasn't specifically against my posts earlier, sorry.)
I don't know if that was directed at my comments or not, but let me be the first to say I am for the power and rights, as well as personal responsibility, of the individual; in fact, to extreme point.
I never asked for government bail-outs. I argued against them. When I say survival of the fittest I mean: Companies who produced bigger fuel-guzzling cars deserve to crumble when the buying trends change exactly as consumers who have such cars and lose money due to gas prices also deserve to lose.
It's called intelligence and awareness. I for one had at 16 a 1989 Mazda B2200 pick-up truck from my grandfather. Gas was ok, and being a manual, I was able to find ways to save gas. After my junior year, I gave the truck away to a charity in Alabama (couldn't be fixed to pass Georgia emissions anymore) and I began driving my mother's Expedition as we had no other vehicle for me. Now, we have an Expedition for work. We haul Scuba diving gear and boat equipment to and from Florida every two weeks. Yet, as a seventeen year old, the Expedition was horrible on gas. So, I began car-pooling with my friends who drove civics and riding my bicycle because I didn't want to/couldn't pay for gas for the Expedition. And yes, I paid for my own gas. Cliche, but it works.
Then, about two months ago, I bought my Crossfire.
Main point being, I never asked for the government's help, nor anyone's for that matter. What I did say was that I feel like the measures they ARE passing are completely opposite from what they should pass if they feel they must doing anything at all.
My personal philosophy: People will adapt or lose.
(If this wasn't specifically against my posts earlier, sorry.)
Re: Interesting Chrysler News
Originally Posted by cgocifer
Industry contributes to some of the problems however, by creating markets that thrive on short term trends without regard to future impacts of those markets.
Americans have a problem called the "bigger is better" syndrome. Think about it. If it costs a lot of money and people know it costs a lot of money, "we" want it. So, when Hummer H2s came out, they cost upwards of 60 grand and used a ton of expensive gas. Well, you know as well as I do, people had to have them. I lived on the same street with a guy who took out a second mortgage on his house just so he could "impress the ladies" (his words) by driving a Hummer. The same thing happened with all of the large, luxury SUVs. I mean really, a sport utiity vehicle was originally designed to carry people and their sporting goods to hard to reach areas like the woods. Well, can't really do that with 22 inch chromes now can ya? Many Americans in general aren't rational when it comes to vehicle choices. So, what does the auto industry do? They capitalize on the trends. They build larger and larger vehicles without any consideration to long term affects. "Hey, I've got an idea for a new vehicle. It will be the largest, vechicle in our fleet, people will have to have it so that they can say they have the largest SUV on the block. It will cost a ton of money too, but people will have to buy it because it is a status thing. It will get about 8 miles to the gallon. Heck, they won't even be able to park it in a normal garage or parking space. We'll call it the Ford Excursion!!" You know what? People did buy them. Some made the excuse that they needed a large vehicle to carry their kids around. Seems like every time I saw one of those 8 passenger vehicles, it was occupied by one person, the driver. I just don't get it! Well, all those people who just had to have the Hummer, Escalade, Excursion, Tahoe, etc. are hating their cars now I'm sure, especially with people giving them looks like they are sucking up all the gas for the rest of us. I knew the SUV bomb would come sooner or later. Now people are complaining about not being able to afford gas for their SUVs. I don't have a sympathetic bone in me for anyone who purchased one of these behemouths unless it was for a work-related need. There were/are plenty of other options out there for family haulers. Station wagons, mini vans, etc.
Sorry for the rant, but some things just really annoy me. People need to start taking accountablilty for things instead of relying on other people or the government to come bail them out.
Americans have a problem called the "bigger is better" syndrome. Think about it. If it costs a lot of money and people know it costs a lot of money, "we" want it. So, when Hummer H2s came out, they cost upwards of 60 grand and used a ton of expensive gas. Well, you know as well as I do, people had to have them. I lived on the same street with a guy who took out a second mortgage on his house just so he could "impress the ladies" (his words) by driving a Hummer. The same thing happened with all of the large, luxury SUVs. I mean really, a sport utiity vehicle was originally designed to carry people and their sporting goods to hard to reach areas like the woods. Well, can't really do that with 22 inch chromes now can ya? Many Americans in general aren't rational when it comes to vehicle choices. So, what does the auto industry do? They capitalize on the trends. They build larger and larger vehicles without any consideration to long term affects. "Hey, I've got an idea for a new vehicle. It will be the largest, vechicle in our fleet, people will have to have it so that they can say they have the largest SUV on the block. It will cost a ton of money too, but people will have to buy it because it is a status thing. It will get about 8 miles to the gallon. Heck, they won't even be able to park it in a normal garage or parking space. We'll call it the Ford Excursion!!" You know what? People did buy them. Some made the excuse that they needed a large vehicle to carry their kids around. Seems like every time I saw one of those 8 passenger vehicles, it was occupied by one person, the driver. I just don't get it! Well, all those people who just had to have the Hummer, Escalade, Excursion, Tahoe, etc. are hating their cars now I'm sure, especially with people giving them looks like they are sucking up all the gas for the rest of us. I knew the SUV bomb would come sooner or later. Now people are complaining about not being able to afford gas for their SUVs. I don't have a sympathetic bone in me for anyone who purchased one of these behemouths unless it was for a work-related need. There were/are plenty of other options out there for family haulers. Station wagons, mini vans, etc.
Sorry for the rant, but some things just really annoy me. People need to start taking accountablilty for things instead of relying on other people or the government to come bail them out.
And when they can't afford the gas for their blimp,they ask DC to fix it. When DC says to the maker of the Hummer, "your evil ways are wrong.you must build smaller cars," they short circut the blame from the dufus who bought a vehicle he could not justify or afford to the "Big evil Corporation" that talked him into it.
So now the big evil corporation has to build smaller vehicles and I don't have a choice. It seems a silly logic but government intervention for "my safety" damm near took convertibles off the road. Same concept.
Government can't do it's job and keep Meth Emphitimines out of the country so now I have to show my ID to buy cold medicines. Government can't secure the border so now I have to vette ( investigate the privacy of) any person I hire.
Freedom after freedom is gone so the government can do a sloppy job. More and more, I have to pay for what some one else is too lazy or incompetent to do.
I paid attention in school. Worked hard. I want lots of choices when i'm spending my money. I don't care if the big corporations make a ton of dough "competing" for it. If I make a poor purchasing choice, that is on me. Why do my neighbors have to pay for it?
Yeah. I'm ranting also
roadster with a stick
Last edited by Franc Rauscher; 05-13-2008 at 06:12 PM.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: N.E. Wisconsin
Age: 70
Posts: 1,984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Interesting Chrysler News
An excellent thread with well thought out opinions & rants & every single comment has valid points.
My brain is mush tonight so I can't rant like I'd want to BUT:
1.) Government bail outs are welfare for poorly run companies or those companies without common sense or vision.
2.) No government "program" ever really goes away. Well hardly ever; they did finally kill the Rural Electrification Commission a decade or so ago so I guess miracles can occur.
3.) We Americans certainly do/did ourselves in with the "bigger is better" motto. Absolutely true. A SUV was meant to be a vehicle to get me & my gear down to the nearest trout stream not a status symbol. Some people claim that their SUV makes them feel safer. Well, if size dictates safety then we who don't own Giant Detroit Chrome Mountains should be dying like flies.
4.) Funny too, that the profit margins for SUV's & trucks are substantially higher than for automobiles. A truck used to be a vehicle you bought if you couldn't afford a car!
We can't really blame anyone but ourselves. Frankly, we just don't live long enough to learn what the concept of 'long-term' is.
My brain is mush tonight so I can't rant like I'd want to BUT:
1.) Government bail outs are welfare for poorly run companies or those companies without common sense or vision.
2.) No government "program" ever really goes away. Well hardly ever; they did finally kill the Rural Electrification Commission a decade or so ago so I guess miracles can occur.
3.) We Americans certainly do/did ourselves in with the "bigger is better" motto. Absolutely true. A SUV was meant to be a vehicle to get me & my gear down to the nearest trout stream not a status symbol. Some people claim that their SUV makes them feel safer. Well, if size dictates safety then we who don't own Giant Detroit Chrome Mountains should be dying like flies.
4.) Funny too, that the profit margins for SUV's & trucks are substantially higher than for automobiles. A truck used to be a vehicle you bought if you couldn't afford a car!
We can't really blame anyone but ourselves. Frankly, we just don't live long enough to learn what the concept of 'long-term' is.
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: VA
Age: 48
Posts: 1,782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Interesting Chrysler News
Originally Posted by Franc Rauscher
And when they can't afford the gas for their blimp,they ask DC to fix it. When DC says to the maker of the Hummer, "your evil ways are wrong.you must build smaller cars," they short circut the blame from the dufus who bought a vehicle he could not justify or afford to the "Big evil Corporation" that talked him into it.
So now the big evil corporation has to build smaller vehicles and I don't have a choice. It seems a silly logic but government intervention for "my safety" damm near took convertibles off the road. Same concept.
Government can't do it's job and keep Meth Emphitimines out of the country so now I have to show my ID to buy cold medicines. Government can't secure the border so now I have to vette ( investigate the privacy of) any person I hire.
Freedom after freedom is gone so the government can do a sloppy job. More and more, I have to pay for what some one else is too lazy or incompetent to do.
I paid attention in school. Worked hard. I want lots of choices when i'm spending my money. I don't care if the big corporations make a ton of dough "competing" for it. If I make a poor purchasing choice, that is on me. Why do my neighbors have to pay for it?
Yeah. I'm ranting also
roadster with a stick
So now the big evil corporation has to build smaller vehicles and I don't have a choice. It seems a silly logic but government intervention for "my safety" damm near took convertibles off the road. Same concept.
Government can't do it's job and keep Meth Emphitimines out of the country so now I have to show my ID to buy cold medicines. Government can't secure the border so now I have to vette ( investigate the privacy of) any person I hire.
Freedom after freedom is gone so the government can do a sloppy job. More and more, I have to pay for what some one else is too lazy or incompetent to do.
I paid attention in school. Worked hard. I want lots of choices when i'm spending my money. I don't care if the big corporations make a ton of dough "competing" for it. If I make a poor purchasing choice, that is on me. Why do my neighbors have to pay for it?
Yeah. I'm ranting also
roadster with a stick
Re: Interesting Chrysler News
Originally Posted by cgocifer
Well, some of this is just not true. The Government tries very hard to keep illegal drugs off our streets. The fact is, that for every one offender caught, there are 100 more. Maybe parents should spend more time with their children, keep their homes together, and teach kids not to use the darn drugs. See, we keep going back to blaming the government. It's really our (society's) fault. The government shouldn't have to pay for everyone's f***ups, drug addictions, and other messes that we as a people create. Maybe people should stop looking the other way and do something about the problems they see. At least the ball is finally rolling when it comes to closing down our borders to illegal immigrants. Yep, you have to check peoples back grounds now, but maybe you should have all along. Now it's clean up time. Enjoy!
The government may be trying very hard but I was talking about incompetence, AKA failure.
I live in MO. That is as far from the coasts and our borders north and south as you can reasonably get. The border is over 1,000 miles away, thru many juristictions, Federal, state and local. There is no reason someone, who has no legal right to be here, should be able walk in my door.
If I do background checks on a US citizen, it comes up on my personal computer. And now I know personal info that I personaly believe is none of my business. That invasion of privacy was unheard of just a few short years ago. But you seem to think that's OK. Fine But try calling ICE to report an alien. See how fast they respond.
The government should not have to pay for drug addiction, but it does and we do too because the law or the enforcement of it, blames everyone but the jerk who chose to do the drugs in the first place. So the addicts rob my house, ruin their families and their rewarded with a rehab program, that doesn't work, at my expense. In the end it's my fault cause I didn't spend enough money or time to keep that poor poor devil from doing it in the first place.
Don't even get me started on pedophilia. Or sanctuary cities or cops who pull you over to see if you have a copy of your car insurance but let you go if you can't prove your citizenship status. Not made up. I've been there.
Maybe parents should spend more time with their kids instead of working to pay taxes. Maybe they should be allowed to discipline them without fear of arrest for so called child abuse. And maybe we should let God back in our schools so that the innocent could be protected by their friends and teachers who have learned to value and respect human life.
Since the 1950's the Federal government has made increasingly deeper and deeper inroads into the control of our schools. Sanitising, secularising, quantifying and dumbing down the system.
How's that working out so far?
roadster with a stick.
Last edited by Franc Rauscher; 05-13-2008 at 10:34 PM.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Interesting Chrysler News
Back in 2003 a business owner could basically get a free Hummer paid for by the tax payers.
“Under the new plan, a business owner who purchases a $110,000 Hummer H1 in 2003 can now deduct a total of $106,000 in the first year (see table).
EFFECTS
These changes to the tax code, which were originally intended to spur capital investments by farmers and small businesses that rely on heavier vehicles, have made the purchase of heavy SUVs extremely lucrative for any small business owner, whether or not the vehicle is necessary in their work. It has raised the deduction cap to $100,000 for small businesses, while retaining all other aspects of the tax cut. This makes the purchase of at least 55 large SUVs, passenger vans, and trucks-all priced under $100,000-completely deductible in the first year.”
Here’s the full story:
http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/whitepapers/SUVtaxbreak.htm
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/16232/
http://www.edmunds.com/advice/specialreports/articles/100280/article.html
“Under the new plan, a business owner who purchases a $110,000 Hummer H1 in 2003 can now deduct a total of $106,000 in the first year (see table).
EFFECTS
These changes to the tax code, which were originally intended to spur capital investments by farmers and small businesses that rely on heavier vehicles, have made the purchase of heavy SUVs extremely lucrative for any small business owner, whether or not the vehicle is necessary in their work. It has raised the deduction cap to $100,000 for small businesses, while retaining all other aspects of the tax cut. This makes the purchase of at least 55 large SUVs, passenger vans, and trucks-all priced under $100,000-completely deductible in the first year.”
Here’s the full story:
http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/whitepapers/SUVtaxbreak.htm
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/16232/
http://www.edmunds.com/advice/specialreports/articles/100280/article.html
Re: Interesting Chrysler News
Originally Posted by Franc Rauscher
Stop looking to Washington for the answers. They are all too busy getting re-elected.
Free enterprise works best when it is allow to be free.
Free enterprise works best when it is allow to be free.
As for bigger is better status symbols, gas guzzling monsters and being accountable well I'm sorry but this is the USA and if they want it and pay for it it ain't my business and "those" people may not think much of our XF's. JMHO
Last edited by PAULW; 05-14-2008 at 11:56 AM.
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: VA
Age: 48
Posts: 1,782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Interesting Chrysler News
Well, if certain people have their way, you'll be seing huge tax increases in the near future. Special programs galore! Yippee!
Government isn't perfect, it can't have all the answers. There are too many fingers in the cookie jar. C'mon, you can't tell me society isn't to blame for a large majority of the issues? People who can't afford anything are having more children in order to get more wellfare! There is something wrong with that! There are plenty of people who feel pitty for these poor individuals and think that it is ok, take money from the middle and upper and give to the unfortunate. That's fine, when they truly deserve it. Nobody should be having 5 kids on a 10k dollar per year income because they feel it's their right!
I'm done, back to cars, politics are just never ending arguments.
"In God We Trust!"
Government isn't perfect, it can't have all the answers. There are too many fingers in the cookie jar. C'mon, you can't tell me society isn't to blame for a large majority of the issues? People who can't afford anything are having more children in order to get more wellfare! There is something wrong with that! There are plenty of people who feel pitty for these poor individuals and think that it is ok, take money from the middle and upper and give to the unfortunate. That's fine, when they truly deserve it. Nobody should be having 5 kids on a 10k dollar per year income because they feel it's their right!
I'm done, back to cars, politics are just never ending arguments.
"In God We Trust!"
Last edited by cgocifer; 05-14-2008 at 12:33 PM.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: N.E. Wisconsin
Age: 70
Posts: 1,984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts