An interesting dialogue. There's a few corrections that I have: 1. The production of the 4.7 L V8 did not run only 5 years. It ran closer to 15 years. 2. The LX platform was not an old Mercedes e-class platform. It was apparently an in-house platform that used Mercedes parts bin parts from the s & e class of the early to mid-2000s. 3. Fiat management did at least invest money in a proper transmission in the ZFHP 8 and the interiors. Fiat deserves credit for finally giving Chrysler arguably the best transmission in the industry and some of the best interiors in their class. 4. The LX platform was planned before the merger. It's worth noting that while Chrysler lacked a V8 sports car or muscle car in the '90s, the Camaro and firebird were failing. The personal luxury coupe market with the Thunderbird/cougar / Mark 8 were also losing sales. Chrysler's attempt was to use rebagged Mitsubishis like the 3000GT since their attempts of using muscle cars, personal luxury coupes, and pony cars had not been successful in the later years. The front wheel drive coupes with turbo engines worked in the '80s for Chrysler but That strategy failed in the '90s but we have the luxury of hindsight of seeing that now. It might also be a factor that if somebody is buying a Chrysler product they actually want a Chrysler product not a rebadged Mitsubishi. I will agree with you that this problem began with Lee iacocca. The sign of the end was how he handled the ultra Drive debacle. Chrysler had once been regarded positively for their transmissions even having other companies wanting to buy them. The ultra Drive destroyed their reputation for this. But even worse, he wasn't willing to accept defeat on it. He stuck with it and it took nearly 10 years before the transmission became acceptable when they developed ATF + 4 transmission fluid. Even then it wasn't the gold standard for reliability. Lee iacocca was slow and sluggish to be competitive with their competitors. They didn't have an in-house V6 until 1990 for the front wheel drive vehicles. In that time he had made the effort to buy AMC, do the vanity project of the Chrysler TC by Maserati, do the Lamborghini purchase, but having an in-house V6 was less important to him than that. Then there's his refusal to understand that people liked the Taurus and were tired of opera windows, hubcaps, vinyl roofs, hood ornaments, and other such things. Bob Lutz was the person trying to help him see clearly and his reward for that was putting Bob Eaton in charge. Bob Eaton who was involved with the GM X car. If that wasn't a big enough red flag I don't know what is. It's no surprise that given what a failure the x car was for General motors, Bob Eaton's management failed to navigate the quality problems with the neon especially the head gasket issues. Then let's look at the 2.7 L V6. The timing chain driven water pump And poor ventilation made it a ticking time bomb for oil sludge and other problems. The other frustrating thing from this time was when Chrysler actually had good engines, they barely used them. The 3.3 V6 might not be the most exciting engine (aside from the Can-Am racing application that nobody knows about anymore) But it was as reliable as the day was long like the slant six was. If they would have designed the cloud car and the Mitsubishi coupes to utilize that engine their reputation would be a lot better today. Then there's the 3.5, while not quite as durable as the 3.3, it still was more reliable than the 2.7 by a long shot and for its time was actually fairly powerful for its class especially the second generation version in 1999. If that could have been equipped to their mid-size sedan and coupe in the early 2000s they really would have had something. Chrysler never needed Mercedes. The whole merger never made sense. Chrysler of that time was very innovative and had lots of successful joint ventures going on such as the Tri-Tech engine with Mini, New venture gear with General motors, diamond Star motors. The technology that they didn't have that they needed they could buy such as the AW-4 transmission for the Jeep Cherokee XJ (which frankly should have been the template for pretty much all their vehicles), Cummins provide the diesel for the trucks, the VM Motori provided the diesels for the European market, Mitsubishi radios for used in some models, some GM parts were used on the Viper as was the mirrors from the stealth, etc. The primary thing that Chrysler needed was better reliability. The problem is Mercedes wasn't Toyota, they were Mercedes with their own set of problems. And the things that they were good at didn't translate so well for Chrysler. The G-Tronic 5 speed was a decent transmission but it couldn't be used to replace the ultra drive in the front wheel drive vehicles, so the core problem was not solved. Instead of doing a joint venture on a four-cylinder engine which is going to be the least profitable engine by its nature, Chrysler instead was forced to do a joint venture with Hyundai and Mitsubishi in which Mercedes was not forced into sharing. And of all the companies, the one with the least experience was the template (namely Hyundai). Also notice how Mercedes treated The Chrysler crossfire as an example of how they treated Chrysler. When Chrysler was independent, they got a copy of the 3000GT using almost all of its technology save for the adaptable spoiler. When developing the Chrysler crossfire, instead of sharing the current body style SLK much in the same way and trying to sell the same car to not only Mercedes but also to Chrysler customers, they instead gave Chrysler their old platform from the previous generation with the previous engine and transmission. Considering the fact that the SLK had been using a recirculating ball steering system, a 3.2 L V6 that was less powerful than Chrysler's own 3.2 L V6 that had been introduced about 6 years beforehand, and the dirt cheap interior finishes from the Mercedes parts bin used on the crossfire, the car proved to be an epic failure. If Mercedes would have either just let Chrysler stylize The current SLK and make no other changes or let Chrysler use the platform but use their own in-house powertrain and develop their own interior from their own parts bin, the car would have been a lot more competitive especially if they could have used the Hemi V8 (despite its problems). The interiors became extremely cheap during Mercedes era and styling aside from a few models was absolutely horrible. The regular improvements in engine output for the V6 engine family came to an end as soon as Mercedes took over. What's destroyed the company is bad management. And it's been going on for a very long time. I hope it changes.
Eaton set the deal in place to sell to Mercedes. Mercedes took the money Chrysler made in the 90s and used it for Mercedes and told us at Chrysler school flat out that they will never make Chrysler as good as Mercedes.
I dunno about all that 3 gen Hemi smack your talking ,while the 5.7’s might have valvetrain problems, I haven’t had any problems with my Redeye yet .I’m really happy with it…
It was Bob Eaton that sold Chrysler out to Daimler-Benz. "Minimum" Bob Nardelli ran Chrysler like GE where he came from before he was at Home Depot. He invested nothing, and ran it like a bank. Had Chrysler stayed scrappy, like Iaccoca remade it to be, It would still be a going concern today. The 5.7 Hemi's not bad. Nothing that swapping with a Hellcat oil pump won't fix. Short of that, change your oil more often.
At the end of the day, Lee iacocca's ego and greed lead him to undermine Bob Lutz from the top Job by hiring Bob Eaton. He tried to mastermind a takeover with fellow investor Kirk kerkorian which led Bob Eaton into panic mode and into the arms of a financially starving Mercedes Benz.
For me, and I was fresh out of college in 1988 when I hired in... the real blame in Chrysler's demise was Iacocca. By pushing aside Lutz (because Iacocca did not care for Lutz). The reins were handed over to Bob Eaton. A real shame, as Lutz was a genuine car guy. And the man who ran Chrysler. Also, let's not forget that Iacocca and Kerkorian (Tracinda Corp.) attempted a hostile take-over of Chrysler in 1995. Up to that point, I believe the 13 story building at the tech center (the building the minivan built) was going to be called the Iacocca building. I agree with everything you said...Eaton sold out Chrysler. And why Eaton believed this was necessary is a mystery to me. Diamler did nothing except take the money out of Chrysler. And forced Chrysler to use their components (E chassis). Daimler then sold out to Cerberus in 2007. Cerberus struggled to run this car company, and profits were down due to difficult times that led to the big 3 bailout. As a result, the company did nothing except de-content and take cost out of the product. Sad times. Product was "on-hold" sort of speak. So, what was once an engineering powerhouse turned into a financial company. In 2009 Cerberus went from saying "can't wait for the next 100 years", etc...to a few weeks later abandoning it. They were all too-happy to leave when our government stepped in to save what was left of Chrysler (during the chapter 11 big 3 bailout), and thus creating the merger with Fiat that became FCA. I do not give Fiat any credit for the Pentastar v6, as it was on the drawing board before the FCA bailout. It was called the Phoenix v-6 in the planning stage. GM got word of the name, and Chrysler had to change it to Pentastar. Fiat reaped the sales that Chrysler made at this time. Chrysler financially supported Fiat. And Sergio knew this. I will add, I did respect Sergio Marchionne, and I believe he actually wanted Chrysler to survive. Sadly he passed away in 2018. After that, the company absorbed with PSA/Fiat and became Stellantis. With Stellantis, the red-tape in Engineering increased over 10 fold (FCA did this too, as we had to merge their systems, and get their approvals). Suddenly, departments within Chrysler that were created to support Engineering, turned into places that created data bases and requirements for Engineer to complete. Engineering became the enemy in this foreign owned financial company. Stellantis also started outsourced much of engineering. Do to so many engineers being forced to leave/retire with all these changes in company ownerships, and hardships. Stellantis "flipped a switch overnight" to working on electric vehicles. I am retired now. If Chrysler can become an electric vehicle leader, and in the interim sell vehicles Americans want to buy, will remain to be seen. Yes, for me, the real Chrysler is no more (it started with Diamler), and has no chance of coming back.
Chrysler was not "forced" to use the W210 chassis. The LX chassis was allready developed prior to the merger. It is, however, correct that they raided the Stuttgart partsbin for a lot of parts afterwards. All Daimler parts were simplyfied for ease of production and lesser pricerange..
In 1990 my Oldsmobile dealership had brand new 1989 Chrysler M-bodies on our lot for sale. They arrived from the closed Buena Park Chrysler-Plymouth store which the family had owned. They were cool sedans that did of course look just like 1977 Dodge Diplomats and Chrysler LeBarons!
Lets hope Frank Rhodes buys CDJR as well as bring Plymouth back as a budget brand so that it can be back as the Chrysler Corporation and back to it former glory.
Dodge, Chrysler, Ram, Jeep products have been rated the worst in reliability by Consumer Reports going back to the 1980s. Why has Chrysler never fixed this in all these years? It's no secret people won't buy Chrysler products because they are considered lemons. Certainly in the world of car building it has to be known what makes a reliable quality car.
Lee Iaccoca not only made the worst cooperation even more of a joke with the K car. He ruined the whole american car industry buy pushing horribly made fwd econ boxes.
The 2 other V8s that can be just as robust (if not more robust) as the 5.0L Coyote V8 is the 5.7L I-Force V8 in the 07-21 Toyota Tundra and the 5.6L Endurance V8 in the Nissan Titan.
You speak the truth. Life long Chrysler man (64) I always had a Dodge truck. The one I'm hanging onto is my 09 w/Hemi. Yes cam problems but, When I rebuilt it in 2020 I used an engraver to scribe a line on the top side of the lifter and installed a HV oil pump. Almost 200K and going strong. Sad to say I will not buy another Ram new again.
The glorified stockbrokers in charge now lack the imagination to see beyond quarterly returns. Their "innovation" consists of cutting costs (quality, reliability, service, workers) to become more "efficient." Companies die from this crass brand pillaging, so wave bye-bye.
I’m a 46 year old guy and my parents first new car was a 1985 Plymouth voyager and we as a family went back to cdpe for a used Omni and a 1986 Dodge lancer turbo it’s a shame what’s going on and too little to late.
I liked the styling of the Dart when they brought it out, but when I heard it was powered by a 1.4L turbo Fiat engine, not for my money. The 1.4L in a Fiat 500 has a 0 - 60 time of 18 seconds, and the Dart looks bigger and heavier than the 500. The Dart was designed to fail, likely from not knowing the American market and not malice. The result was the same. It's a shame that the company who engineered the torqueflight, hemi and the leaning tower of power made so very many bad decisions. Auto manufacturing companies should be run buy car guys and gals, with emphasis on engineering quality and safety first and desirabilty a close second.
The only way that I could see "Real" Chrysler Corporation return with a tidal wave renaissance/golden age with it, is through PLYMOUTH, as in a group of wealthy car people with great "connections" take Plymouth division but make it a stand along baby company that has risen from old dust & ashes like a Phoenix with remastered or refreshed 1957 cars to sale.
I think you’re a bit off on “no performance” marketed in the 80’s. The turbo Daytonas (I had a Turbo 5-speed in 1985) were competitive for the times. My 2012 Charger RT AWD has 257,000 miles on that 5.7 Hemi you claim is garbage. Some of your comments about their leadership are accurate. You could do similar rundowns on GM, Ford, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, etc. I don’t know any car maker that made perfect cars or hit their markets perfectly.
i have a 81 new yorker and a diplomat and a 91 new yorker i think they are all great cars they are from different eras of chrysler hope somebody that cares will invest money in the company they have been shortchanged by many
Iacocca saved Chrysler with the K-car, but pimped it too long without fixing the bad issues. Transaxles. Head gaskets. Valve guides..by the early '90's Chrysler was in the financial straights again. Even the new Ram in '94. Paint fell off. Transmissions failed. Cracks between the valves. LH's were also trash. Burnt valves. Transaxles made of glass. Terrible headlight spread pattern. The Intrepid cop car? Voted the worst cop car ever. Neon. 3-speed auto. Leaky headgaskets, especially on the DOHC version. Bob Eaton & crew sealed the tomb. They got in bed with Daimler, colluding to disguise the takeover as a "Merger of Equals." First Gen 3 Hemi? Con rods thick as a paper clip. Piston slap. Cam & lifter failure in later cars. Chrysler just quit thinking "Into the future" years back..."Ma Mopar" was always cutting corners in the worst ways, blowing their own kneecaps off. Best thing for this trash? Go broke. Sell it and re-org it.
@DJsClassicGarage my dad worked for Kerkorian (did contract work) back in the '90's. Pretty funny how that all played out, because while Iacocca was right about what was going to happen, I don't know if it would've turned out any better.
Why did you leave out the highlights of Chrysler’s success. The Minivan was massive hit with the public when it came out. The restyled Rams of the 90s , another massive boost. The whole retro line up and push which we are still feeling. And the Stealth! (Granted, it was a rebadged GT3000.) Even for a minute, the Challenger was out selling the Mustang and Camaro. (Even on its overweight aged platform.)
lol love your descriptive explanations of hour Chrysler corp dissolved to what it I’d today. It’s so sad and tragic. But honestly, the other two supposed automakers Ford, and GM seem to be taking a page out of Stillantus play book by giving up on cars and focusing only on SUV’s, and trucks.
Stellantis isn't the only company that's gurting. GM and Ford are selling unreliable junk as well.. While all American companies are peddling crappy SUVs and trucks, Toyota is cleaning up selling Camrys and Corollas. So despite American companies' claims that no one wants to buy sedans, Toyota and Honda are proving otherwise. If I were in charge pf a car company, I'd bring nack a simple, reliable but stylish 2 door pillarless hardtop model and offer it with a choice of powertrains. I'd test it throughly before releasing it. Why do customers have to be testers of beta released automobiles?
It should be said though, Chryslers cars are roomier, very comfortable and though dated quite handsome vehicles. They also have produced more power than ANYONE. I am NOT a Mopar fan. But these statements ARE true. I agree with everything you said it's a shame.
Yah, bad company but who isn't now?? SUVs killed half the cars. ALL cars were a POS from 1980 to 1996 or so. The 1997 Olds Intrigue and Pontiac Grand Prix were really nice, IMO. I hear all the new trucks have V8 lemons and the 10 speed gears SUCK. KIAs were fire traps. I don't know about sales the last 2 years, but around here there's a fricking Jeep on every block. Now I see Tesla cars everywhere I look and it's COLD here. Rubber transmissions suck, that's why I didn't get an Outback. My BIL loved his 2002 I think, 300M for 6 years and then my sister drove it 4 years or so. After a BMW lemon, now they both have Benz SUVs. Then I bought the 1st year 2005 Chrysler 300 V6 and so did LOTS of people. It was a PERFECT big car IMO. I had it for 15 glorious years really, but I was too broke and only drove it 73,000 Km, 2.5 mile RT to work. LOL. NO rust, original brakes and battery. I knew the hemi would be a doggie, so that's why I saw 6 of them at a used car lot this past summer. I ride bikes in summer. LOL. Then I decided I wanted a better car in winter and a wagon for my bikes. Got a 2018 demo Volvo V90 AWD with the high bottom. It's fabulous too, but worse gas mileage. And still it sucks at carrying a bike inside.
Mopar is the country music of the automotive world. Everyone says they were great back in the day but they sucked back then too. Just as country is lame compared to classic rock
Stellantis should have left electrics alone - period dot. Let other companies spend all the R&D money to design a wonderful battery pack, charging system and electric motors. In another 10 years when it is all sorted out - license their technology.
An interesting dialogue. There's a few corrections that I have:
1. The production of the 4.7 L V8 did not run only 5 years. It ran closer to 15 years.
2. The LX platform was not an old Mercedes e-class platform. It was apparently an in-house platform that used Mercedes parts bin parts from the s & e class of the early to mid-2000s.
3. Fiat management did at least invest money in a proper transmission in the ZFHP 8 and the interiors. Fiat deserves credit for finally giving Chrysler arguably the best transmission in the industry and some of the best interiors in their class.
4. The LX platform was planned before the merger. It's worth noting that while Chrysler lacked a V8 sports car or muscle car in the '90s, the Camaro and firebird were failing. The personal luxury coupe market with the Thunderbird/cougar / Mark 8 were also losing sales. Chrysler's attempt was to use rebagged Mitsubishis like the 3000GT since their attempts of using muscle cars, personal luxury coupes, and pony cars had not been successful in the later years. The front wheel drive coupes with turbo engines worked in the '80s for Chrysler but That strategy failed in the '90s but we have the luxury of hindsight of seeing that now. It might also be a factor that if somebody is buying a Chrysler product they actually want a Chrysler product not a rebadged Mitsubishi.
I will agree with you that this problem began with Lee iacocca. The sign of the end was how he handled the ultra Drive debacle. Chrysler had once been regarded positively for their transmissions even having other companies wanting to buy them. The ultra Drive destroyed their reputation for this. But even worse, he wasn't willing to accept defeat on it. He stuck with it and it took nearly 10 years before the transmission became acceptable when they developed ATF + 4 transmission fluid. Even then it wasn't the gold standard for reliability. Lee iacocca was slow and sluggish to be competitive with their competitors. They didn't have an in-house V6 until 1990 for the front wheel drive vehicles. In that time he had made the effort to buy AMC, do the vanity project of the Chrysler TC by Maserati, do the Lamborghini purchase, but having an in-house V6 was less important to him than that. Then there's his refusal to understand that people liked the Taurus and were tired of opera windows, hubcaps, vinyl roofs, hood ornaments, and other such things. Bob Lutz was the person trying to help him see clearly and his reward for that was putting Bob Eaton in charge. Bob Eaton who was involved with the GM X car. If that wasn't a big enough red flag I don't know what is. It's no surprise that given what a failure the x car was for General motors, Bob Eaton's management failed to navigate the quality problems with the neon especially the head gasket issues. Then let's look at the 2.7 L V6. The timing chain driven water pump And poor ventilation made it a ticking time bomb for oil sludge and other problems. The other frustrating thing from this time was when Chrysler actually had good engines, they barely used them. The 3.3 V6 might not be the most exciting engine (aside from the Can-Am racing application that nobody knows about anymore) But it was as reliable as the day was long like the slant six was. If they would have designed the cloud car and the Mitsubishi coupes to utilize that engine their reputation would be a lot better today. Then there's the 3.5, while not quite as durable as the 3.3, it still was more reliable than the 2.7 by a long shot and for its time was actually fairly powerful for its class especially the second generation version in 1999. If that could have been equipped to their mid-size sedan and coupe in the early 2000s they really would have had something.
Chrysler never needed Mercedes. The whole merger never made sense. Chrysler of that time was very innovative and had lots of successful joint ventures going on such as the Tri-Tech engine with Mini, New venture gear with General motors, diamond Star motors. The technology that they didn't have that they needed they could buy such as the AW-4 transmission for the Jeep Cherokee XJ (which frankly should have been the template for pretty much all their vehicles), Cummins provide the diesel for the trucks, the VM Motori provided the diesels for the European market, Mitsubishi radios for used in some models, some GM parts were used on the Viper as was the mirrors from the stealth, etc. The primary thing that Chrysler needed was better reliability. The problem is Mercedes wasn't Toyota, they were Mercedes with their own set of problems. And the things that they were good at didn't translate so well for Chrysler. The G-Tronic 5 speed was a decent transmission but it couldn't be used to replace the ultra drive in the front wheel drive vehicles, so the core problem was not solved. Instead of doing a joint venture on a four-cylinder engine which is going to be the least profitable engine by its nature, Chrysler instead was forced to do a joint venture with Hyundai and Mitsubishi in which Mercedes was not forced into sharing. And of all the companies, the one with the least experience was the template (namely Hyundai). Also notice how Mercedes treated The Chrysler crossfire as an example of how they treated Chrysler. When Chrysler was independent, they got a copy of the 3000GT using almost all of its technology save for the adaptable spoiler. When developing the Chrysler crossfire, instead of sharing the current body style SLK much in the same way and trying to sell the same car to not only Mercedes but also to Chrysler customers, they instead gave Chrysler their old platform from the previous generation with the previous engine and transmission. Considering the fact that the SLK had been using a recirculating ball steering system, a 3.2 L V6 that was less powerful than Chrysler's own 3.2 L V6 that had been introduced about 6 years beforehand, and the dirt cheap interior finishes from the Mercedes parts bin used on the crossfire, the car proved to be an epic failure. If Mercedes would have either just let Chrysler stylize The current SLK and make no other changes or let Chrysler use the platform but use their own in-house powertrain and develop their own interior from their own parts bin, the car would have been a lot more competitive especially if they could have used the Hemi V8 (despite its problems). The interiors became extremely cheap during Mercedes era and styling aside from a few models was absolutely horrible. The regular improvements in engine output for the V6 engine family came to an end as soon as Mercedes took over.
What's destroyed the company is bad management. And it's been going on for a very long time. I hope it changes.
I didn’t have time to read the entire book !
@anthonyjoyce7198 Lol. Don't worry. It's going to be re-released in a multi volume series.
Eaton set the deal in place to sell to Mercedes. Mercedes took the money Chrysler made in the 90s and used it for Mercedes and told us at Chrysler school flat out that they will never make Chrysler as good as Mercedes.
yeah I remember reading back then that Daimler said that.
I dunno about all that 3 gen Hemi smack your talking ,while the 5.7’s might have valvetrain problems, I haven’t had any problems with my Redeye yet .I’m really happy with it…
Marcionne - blew billions trying to bring Italian brands back to the NA market.
It was Bob Eaton that sold Chrysler out to Daimler-Benz. "Minimum" Bob Nardelli ran Chrysler like GE where he came from before he was at Home Depot. He invested nothing, and ran it like a bank. Had Chrysler stayed scrappy, like Iaccoca remade it to be, It would still be a going concern today. The 5.7 Hemi's not bad. Nothing that swapping with a Hellcat oil pump won't fix. Short of that, change your oil more often.
At the end of the day, Lee iacocca's ego and greed lead him to undermine Bob Lutz from the top Job by hiring Bob Eaton. He tried to mastermind a takeover with fellow investor Kirk kerkorian which led Bob Eaton into panic mode and into the arms of a financially starving Mercedes Benz.
For me, and I was fresh out of college in 1988 when I hired in... the real blame in Chrysler's demise was Iacocca. By pushing aside Lutz (because Iacocca did not care for Lutz). The reins were handed over to Bob Eaton. A real shame, as Lutz was a genuine car guy. And the man who ran Chrysler.
Also, let's not forget that Iacocca and Kerkorian (Tracinda Corp.) attempted a hostile take-over of Chrysler in 1995. Up to that point, I believe the 13 story building at the tech center (the building the minivan built) was going to be called the Iacocca building.
I agree with everything you said...Eaton sold out Chrysler. And why Eaton believed this was necessary is a mystery to me. Diamler did nothing except take the money out of Chrysler. And forced Chrysler to use their components (E chassis). Daimler then sold out to Cerberus in 2007. Cerberus struggled to run this car company, and profits were down due to difficult times that led to the big 3 bailout. As a result, the company did nothing except de-content and take cost out of the product. Sad times. Product was "on-hold" sort of speak. So, what was once an engineering powerhouse turned into a financial company. In 2009 Cerberus went from saying "can't wait for the next 100 years", etc...to a few weeks later abandoning it. They were all too-happy to leave when our government stepped in to save what was left of Chrysler (during the chapter 11 big 3 bailout), and thus creating the merger with Fiat that became FCA.
I do not give Fiat any credit for the Pentastar v6, as it was on the drawing board before the FCA bailout. It was called the Phoenix v-6 in the planning stage. GM got word of the name, and Chrysler had to change it to Pentastar. Fiat reaped the sales that Chrysler made at this time. Chrysler financially supported Fiat. And Sergio knew this. I will add, I did respect Sergio Marchionne, and I believe he actually wanted Chrysler to survive. Sadly he passed away in 2018. After that, the company absorbed with PSA/Fiat and became Stellantis.
With Stellantis, the red-tape in Engineering increased over 10 fold (FCA did this too, as we had to merge their systems, and get their approvals). Suddenly, departments within Chrysler that were created to support Engineering, turned into places that created data bases and requirements for Engineer to complete. Engineering became the enemy in this foreign owned financial company. Stellantis also started outsourced much of engineering. Do to so many engineers being forced to leave/retire with all these changes in company ownerships, and hardships. Stellantis "flipped a switch overnight" to working on electric vehicles. I am retired now. If Chrysler can become an electric vehicle leader, and in the interim sell vehicles Americans want to buy, will remain to be seen.
Yes, for me, the real Chrysler is no more (it started with Diamler), and has no chance of coming back.
Eaton sold Chrysler out because he got a $200 Million dollar windfall for himself.....That's the only reason he did the merger.
Chrysler was not "forced" to use the W210 chassis. The LX chassis was allready developed prior to the merger.
It is, however, correct that they raided the Stuttgart partsbin for a lot of parts afterwards. All Daimler parts were
simplyfied for ease of production and lesser pricerange..
Yep, that is why I started there his lack of planning and his grudges set up all future failure.
In 1990 my Oldsmobile dealership had brand new 1989 Chrysler M-bodies on our lot for sale. They arrived from the closed Buena Park Chrysler-Plymouth store which the family had owned. They were cool sedans that did of course look just like 1977 Dodge Diplomats and Chrysler LeBarons!
Well Done Dennis..... absolutely great job..❤
Lets hope Frank Rhodes buys CDJR as well as bring Plymouth back as a budget brand so that it can be back as the Chrysler Corporation and back to it former glory.
First car at 16 years old was a Dodge Coronet 440- $500 beater (fun car).
I loved the Red Green Show when they modified Chrysler K-cars 😎!
Dodge, Chrysler, Ram, Jeep products have been rated the worst in reliability by Consumer Reports going back to the 1980s. Why has Chrysler never fixed this in all these years? It's no secret people won't buy Chrysler products because they are considered lemons. Certainly in the world of car building it has to be known what makes a reliable quality car.
They have been junk since the 50's they have and always will have the worst electrical systems.
Lee Iaccoca not only made the worst cooperation even more of a joke with the K car. He ruined the whole american car industry buy pushing horribly made fwd econ boxes.
Because of CAFE, Chrysler had no alternative but to build the K-car.
The 2 other V8s that can be just as robust (if not more robust) as the 5.0L Coyote V8 is the 5.7L I-Force V8 in the 07-21 Toyota Tundra and the 5.6L Endurance V8 in the Nissan Titan.
You speak the truth. Life long Chrysler man (64) I always had a Dodge truck. The one I'm hanging onto is my 09 w/Hemi. Yes cam problems but, When I rebuilt it in 2020 I used an engraver to scribe a line on the top side of the lifter and installed a HV oil pump. Almost 200K and going strong. Sad to say I will not buy another Ram new again.
Good information and I am sad over the loss of such an American iconic company
The glorified stockbrokers in charge now lack the imagination to see beyond quarterly returns. Their "innovation" consists of cutting costs (quality, reliability, service, workers) to become more "efficient." Companies die from this crass brand pillaging, so wave bye-bye.
I’m a 46 year old guy and my parents first new car was a 1985 Plymouth voyager and we as a family went back to cdpe for a used Omni and a 1986 Dodge lancer turbo
it’s a shame what’s going on and too little to late.
Wow. So Divine Brown got Lee Iacocca too? Unbelievable. Divine Brown is a menace. Can't believe she's the one who took down Chrysler. Great video!
@@James_St._James LoL
I liked the styling of the Dart when they brought it out, but when I heard it was powered by a 1.4L turbo Fiat engine, not for my money. The 1.4L in a Fiat 500 has a 0 - 60 time of 18 seconds, and the Dart looks bigger and heavier than the 500. The Dart was designed to fail, likely from not knowing the American market and not malice. The result was the same. It's a shame that the company who engineered the torqueflight, hemi and the leaning tower of power made so very many bad decisions. Auto manufacturing companies should be run buy car guys and gals, with emphasis on engineering quality and safety first and desirabilty a close second.
Chrysler did not file bankruptcy in the 70s. They did get government gaianteed loans. They paid those back
As bad as things are, Chrysler is, today, the most profitable side of Stellantis, they have no choice but to fix it and fix it fast.
The only way that I could see "Real" Chrysler Corporation return with a tidal wave renaissance/golden age with it, is through PLYMOUTH, as in a group of wealthy car people with great "connections" take Plymouth division but make it a stand along baby company that has risen from old dust & ashes like a Phoenix with remastered or refreshed 1957 cars to sale.
I think you’re a bit off on “no performance” marketed in the 80’s. The turbo Daytonas (I had a Turbo 5-speed in 1985) were competitive for the times. My 2012 Charger RT AWD has 257,000 miles on that 5.7 Hemi you claim is garbage. Some of your comments about their leadership are accurate. You could do similar rundowns on GM, Ford, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, etc. I don’t know any car maker that made perfect cars or hit their markets perfectly.
i have a 81 new yorker and a diplomat and a 91 new yorker i think they are all great cars they are from different eras of chrysler hope somebody that cares will invest money in the company they have been shortchanged by many
Congrats on 1,000.... now 1.23k
Hal Sperlich started development of K car before Iacocca came to Chrysler. Iacocca was just a good marketer.
Iacocca saved Chrysler with the K-car, but pimped it too long without fixing the bad issues. Transaxles. Head gaskets. Valve guides..by the early '90's Chrysler was in the financial straights again.
Even the new Ram in '94. Paint fell off. Transmissions failed. Cracks between the valves. LH's were also trash. Burnt valves. Transaxles made of glass. Terrible headlight spread pattern. The Intrepid cop car? Voted the worst cop car ever. Neon. 3-speed auto. Leaky headgaskets, especially on the DOHC version.
Bob Eaton & crew sealed the tomb. They got in bed with Daimler, colluding to disguise the takeover as a "Merger of Equals."
First Gen 3 Hemi? Con rods thick as a paper clip. Piston slap. Cam & lifter failure in later cars.
Chrysler just quit thinking "Into the future" years back..."Ma Mopar" was always cutting corners in the worst ways, blowing their own kneecaps off.
Best thing for this trash? Go broke. Sell it and re-org it.
My thoughts exactly, pretty sad.
@DJsClassicGarage my dad worked for Kerkorian (did contract work) back in the '90's. Pretty funny how that all played out, because while Iacocca was right about what was going to happen, I don't know if it would've turned out any better.
Thanks for that great summary of the downfall. Learned a lot 👍🏻
I heard that dodge just confirmed today that the hemi is returning next year for the 2026 models
These guys are bright crooks like their fathers and grandfather.
Good video. Sad, but interesting. And I'd add the Chevy LS engines to the "indestructible" list.
I can name dozens of v8's made in the past that are more reliable than the coyote lol
SBC still unbeatable to this day.
Why did you leave out the highlights of Chrysler’s success. The Minivan was massive hit with the public when it came out. The restyled Rams of the 90s , another massive boost. The whole retro line up and push which we are still feeling. And the Stealth! (Granted, it was a rebadged GT3000.)
Even for a minute, the Challenger was out selling the Mustang and Camaro. (Even on its overweight aged platform.)
lol love your descriptive explanations of hour Chrysler corp dissolved to what it I’d today. It’s so sad and tragic. But honestly, the other two supposed automakers Ford, and GM seem to be taking a page out of Stillantus play book by giving up on cars and focusing only on SUV’s, and trucks.
UAW produces high wages and poor quality control…end of story🤨🤨
Stellantis isn't the only company that's gurting. GM and Ford are selling unreliable junk as well..
While all American companies are peddling crappy SUVs and trucks, Toyota is cleaning up selling Camrys and Corollas.
So despite American companies' claims that no one wants to buy sedans, Toyota and Honda are proving otherwise.
If I were in charge pf a car company, I'd bring nack a simple, reliable but stylish 2 door pillarless hardtop model and offer it with a choice of powertrains.
I'd test it throughly before releasing it. Why do customers have to be testers of beta released automobiles?
It should be said though, Chryslers cars are roomier, very comfortable and though dated quite handsome vehicles. They also have produced more power than ANYONE. I am NOT a Mopar fan. But these statements ARE true. I agree with everything you said it's a shame.
Excuuuuse me. Try an old GLH
It was fun but would take a mustang gt anyday,
Nissan is also dead, so is Jaguar.
Jaguar Self inflicted their death. Nissan had French quality.
Totally agree brother
Jag is changing ...
to Telletubby Corp.
I used to own a jag. That wood was friggin awesome and the engine purred just like a cat.
Yah, bad company but who isn't now?? SUVs killed half the cars. ALL cars were a POS from 1980 to 1996 or so. The 1997 Olds Intrigue and Pontiac Grand Prix were really nice, IMO. I hear all the new trucks have V8 lemons and the 10 speed gears SUCK. KIAs were fire traps.
I don't know about sales the last 2 years, but around here there's a fricking Jeep on every block. Now I see Tesla cars everywhere I look and it's COLD here. Rubber transmissions suck, that's why I didn't get an Outback.
My BIL loved his 2002 I think, 300M for 6 years and then my sister drove it 4 years or so. After a BMW lemon, now they both have Benz SUVs.
Then I bought the 1st year 2005 Chrysler 300 V6 and so did LOTS of people. It was a PERFECT big car IMO. I had it for 15 glorious years really, but I was too broke and only drove it 73,000 Km, 2.5 mile RT to work. LOL. NO rust, original brakes and battery. I knew the hemi would be a doggie, so that's why I saw 6 of them at a used car lot this past summer.
I ride bikes in summer. LOL.
Then I decided I wanted a better car in winter and a wagon for my bikes. Got a 2018 demo Volvo V90 AWD with the high bottom. It's fabulous too, but worse gas mileage.
And still it sucks at carrying a bike inside.
Modern cars are not meant to last as long as we drive them. Transmissions are the weak link
GM's CEO brought us all day breakfast at Mcdonald's.... :/
The real Mopar cars ended in the early 70's. Trucks ended in the early 90's. Just my opinion.
Mopar is the country music of the automotive world. Everyone says they were great back in the day but they sucked back then too. Just as country is lame compared to classic rock
@The0utmode
Oh boy.
leee iacocca saved Chrysler
Stellantis should have left electrics alone - period dot. Let other companies spend all the R&D money to design a wonderful battery pack, charging system and electric motors. In another 10 years when it is all sorted out - license their technology.
Dodge has been JUNK for years
another click
same old same old