Separating Benz and Chrsyler [Archive]

View Full Version : Separating Benz and Chrsyler

Max Ima

05-26-2001, 01:19 PM

There's an interesting article at thecarconnection.com, which offers Chrysler some advice. A lot of it makes sense, but the writer believes that there sould be no sharing btwn Benz, Chrysler and Mitsu. No shared parts. No shared platforms. Nothing. What do you think?

thearabian

05-26-2001, 05:58 PM

Zed

05-27-2001, 08:00 AM

**DONOTDELETE**

05-27-2001, 08:37 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Max Ima:
There's an interesting article at thecarconnection.com, which offers Chrysler some advice. A lot of it makes sense, but the writer believes that there sould be no sharing btwn Benz, Chrysler and Mitsu. No shared parts. No shared platforms. Nothing. What do you think?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thats not a great idea at all, probably why he writes for a magazine and doesn't work for a manufacturer. lexus and toyota share parts and platforms, acura and honda share parts and platforms, ford lincoln and jaquar share parts and platforms, nissan n infinti do, vw audi porshe do. its a way of keeping costs down by not having to develop a whole new car from the ground up everytime, they just go into the parts bin and grab parts that are already proven to be good, meaning we get new reliable cars more rapidly. its not like a chysler will have an e55 body, it just might be using the rear wheel drive system and frame. if they don't start sharing parts and get some good looking reliable cars out the door they are both going down. i was reading that if daimlerchrysler doesn't get their act together they could be subject to a hostile takeover, and the only car companie with the cash to do that is toyota, imagine that.

Hudson

05-30-2001, 11:30 AM

When I was asked in 1998 about the "merger" between Daimler-Benz and Chrysler, I was all for it. It made perfect sense for "niche maker" Mercedes-Benz to link up with "mass-marketer" Chrysler. Chrysler would get their quality know-how and Mercedes-Benz would get Chrysler's ability to produce low-cost vehicles. "Marriage made in heaven."

I was misinformed. The "Germans" (the folks formerly employed by Daimler-Benz) don't know how to run a volume-manufacturer any more than Chrysler knew about producing a $100,000 luxury car. The "takeover" of Chrysler is a sad turn of events.

I would love to see Chrysler go solo again. Toyota could very well pick up Chrysler (or DaimlerChrysler) without much financial problem, but they wouldn't. Except for the commercial truck operations, DaimlerChrysler offers Toyota nothing.

Toyota will be a major player in Europe in the next decade. They're alread a major player in North America and are getting there in South America. Absorbing DaimlerChrysler would only confuse their product line. Why have Mercedes-Benz and Lexus? Why have Toyota and Dodge? Toyota's too smart to become ANOTHER General Motors.

As for the platform sharing, it does dilute the brand. Cadillac and Lincoln were impressive names until they began sharing platforms with the lesser brands. Economies of scale demand that companies share more parts within their varied products, but they don't have to share everything.

GM and VW are two excellent examples of the problems with this. The Pontiac Bonneville, Oldsmobile Aurora, and Cadillac DeVille share platforms...how can (basically) one vehicle range from $25k (Bonneville) to $65k (DeVille, and yes it goes that high)? VW is already showing problems in Europe where bargain-priced Skodas and SEATs compete with similar but more costly VWs and Audis.

Lexus and Toyota brands share platforms, but they are well disguised in the US and Europe. The Toyota counterparts to the LS430 and IS300 are not sold in these markets, where badging means much.

Wowzers, I agree on a few points. But Jaguar is losing points, in many people's minds, by sharing platforms between the S-Type and the Lincoln LS and, more importantly, the X-Type and Ford Mondeo.

There's a point where the economics of platform sharing will dilute the value of the brand. Mercedes-Benz cannot allow Chrysler to use its platforms. Transmissions, axles, and other parts are fine and invisible, but the basic architecture of the vehicle will do nothing but damage the Mercedes-Benz image.

Nismo

05-30-2001, 11:41 AM

Jaguar--in my opinion--is already being reduced to nothing more than a fancy Ford. Jaguars are becoming a dime a dozen nowadays. Cheapening the brand may have been a good Ford idea for increasing sales, but what's smart for short-term sales is not always what's best for long-term brand identity.

**DONOTDELETE**

05-30-2001, 02:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Nismo:
Jaguar--in my opinion--is already being reduced to nothing more than a fancy Ford. Jaguars are becoming a dime a dozen nowadays. Cheapening the brand may have been a good Ford idea for increasing sales, but what's smart for short-term sales is not always what's best for long-term brand identity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

bmws are a dime a dozen, does being popular mean something is bad. i see a lot of jag s-types and thats most likely cause its a cool looking car, and the x-type is fitting a hole that was in jags market-the engine may be a ford but check out its performance-enough to match bmw's. i really don't feel like researching what platforms are being shared by car companies but i do know its not a ford-jag concept. the lexus rx-300+es300 are built on the camry platform, does the audi a6 and vw passat look familiar. they all do it, cars sharing platforms has nothing to do with "cheapening" the name. its like framing two houses the same size, but in one house u have the works, marble floors etc and in the other house u just have the regular junk, big difference between the two.

hiwayman17

05-30-2001, 04:13 PM

BMWs may be "common" but their heritage remains true. Jag, on the other hand, has been dragged so far away from it's heritage it isn't funny. Jaguar has had reliability problems that certainly needed addressing, but Fords plan to make 400,000 Jags per year is insane. Those numbers kill any chance for Jag to remain "exclusive". Also remember, Ford's plan is not to build great Jaguars, Ford's plan is to mass produce cars with the Jaguar name.

I have no problem with platform sharing--with one stipulation. I think it is great if a Jaguar developed platform is used as the basis for building a great Ford car, but I don't think Ford platforms should be used to build mediocre Jaguars. The mystique, the intangible qualities and the feeling one gets from driving a Jag disappears for most "car people" when you know that there is a Ford underneath it all.

Volkswagen went about it the right way--they shared their very good Audi/VW platforms with Seat and Skoda, but they may have stretched the sharing to the limit. They made those cars so good and relatively cheap, it is creating problems with VW and Audi in terms of losing sales to their cheaper counterparts.

'87 Sentra

05-30-2001, 08:42 PM

I agree with platform sharing. Toyota is doing it well with the Lexus since these vehicles are fairly distictive from their toyota counterparts (with the exception of the ES).

In the case of daymlerchrysler, I think they should introduce the attention to detail, and quality of Mercedez into chryslers, since some of their vehicles have terrible quality control. I also think that they should never let anything chrysler come near any benz vehicles, since that would cheapen the perception of quality these vehicles enjoy.

Use the good to make the crap better, but do not spread crap onto the good.

Hudson

05-31-2001, 05:16 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by hiwayman17:
BMWs may be "common" but their heritage remains true. Jag, on the other hand, has been dragged so far away from it's heritage it isn't funny.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BMW is a volume luxury car maker, like Mercedes-Benz. Jaguar is not, or hasn't been in the past. Part of the allure of a Jaguar is that your neighbor doesn't have one. So far, Jaguar's "platform sharing" with Ford hasn't built a bad car. The S-Type is a fine car and the X-Type, from my experience with it, seems competitive and fun. Jaguar heritage is luxury on the sporting side. They've not deviated from that. The XJ-Series is still one of the best cars around and the S-Type and XK-Series are fine automobiles. Jaguar, itself, did plenty of engineering work on the S-Type's DEW98 platform and the X-Type's CD132 platform, enough to make them Jaguar platforms and not just cribbed Ford platforms.

With Jaguar, my primarily problem is volume. Jaguar's should not be common. They should not compete with BMW on volume...in any category. Let the 3-Series beat the X-Type in sales, but keep demand so high on the Jaguar as to keep it's resale value well above that of the BMW. Do the same with the other models. Ford? Are you listening? Brand has value, don't squander it.

Nismo

05-31-2001, 11:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by hiwayman17:
Jag has been dragged so far away from it's heritage it isn't funny. Ford's plan is not to build great Jaguars, Ford's plan is to mass produce cars with the Jaguar name.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree whole-heartedly. From a strictly business point of view, the idea is not too bad--mass producing Jaguars--afterall, businesses exist to make profit, and when it comes to profit, more is better than less. However, as a car aficianado, I think Ford is redefining the Jaguar brand, and the first thing to go will be exclusivity.

thearabian

05-31-2001, 05:54 PM

and jag will lose all sex appeal 10 years from now...

Hudson

05-31-2001, 06:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by thearabian:
and jag will lose all sex appeal 10 years from now...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's kinda my point. Cadillac and Lincoln were quite exclusive cars before World War II, but they went for volume (first Cadillac and, later, Lincoln) and lost much of their image. How many people would put Cadillac in the same class with Mercedes-Benz today, but they were in that class (or above).

hiwayman17

06-01-2001, 03:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>From a strictly business point of view, the idea is not too bad--mass producing Jaguars--afterall, businesses exist to make profit, and when it comes to profit, more is better than less. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm going to nick pick...this statement isn't really about "business". It is about economics and economies of scale. Economics is all about hard facts/hard numbers. Business is more of an all encompassing concept. Anyone making a business decision about mass producing Jaguars should also consider why people buy cars and what is going to be lost when Ford Mondeo heater controls end up in a Jaguar. The economics of the situation may be great, but the qualities that made a Jaguar a Jaguar begins to get lost.

Obviously Ford made both an economic and a business decision to do what they are now doing with Jaguar. Ford certainly isn't making traditional Jags. Ford is mass producing cars that simply wear a Jaguar nameplate.

Hudson

06-01-2001, 07:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by hiwayman17:
I'm going to nick pick...this statement isn't really about "business". It is about economics and economies of scale. Economics is all about hard facts/hard numbers. Business is more of an all encompassing concept. Anyone making a business decision about mass producing Jaguars should also consider why people buy cars and what is going to be lost when Ford Mondeo heater controls end up in a Jaguar. The economics of the situation may be great, but the qualities that made a Jaguar a Jaguar begins to get lost.

Obviously Ford made both an economic and a business decision to do what they are now doing with Jaguar. Ford certainly isn't making traditional Jags. Ford is mass producing cars that simply wear a Jaguar nameplate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Until that last paragraph, I was with you. The X-Type is a Jaguar (designed and engineered by Jaguar staff) but based on the Mondeo's CD132 platform. Ford may be missing the point of Jaguar by expanding the brand to such high volumes. The cache of the brand could be (and most likely WILL BE) lost as volumes rise.

hiwayman17

06-02-2001, 01:19 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>The X-Type is a Jaguar (designed and engineered by Jaguar staff) but based on the Mondeo's CD132 platform.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will wholeheartedly disagree with you on this one point...do you really think Jag engineers would have made the X a front wheel drive car? I don't think so. So the engineer's hands where pretty much tied by FORD. The car is AWD simply because Ford didn't want to attempt to sell a front wheel drive Jag. I have read all the stories that say if you try to find the Mondeo chassis under the X, it would be difficult since Jag engineers made so many changes. But you really have to ask, why Jaguar engineers had to make changes in the first place. And the answer is that they were working with a foreign chassis and tried to make it their own.

To me this is the only indication I need that Jaguar was dragged, kicking and screaming, from Jaguar territory directly into the Ford camp. The car is a compromise.

I still think Ford Motor Company is going about this all wrong. Ford needed a new Mondeo, Jag needed a new "baby". Why didn't Ford just let Jag engineers go wild and do the new design. Then the new Jag chassis could have served as the basis of a really great new Mondeo. It sounds bad when you say the new Jag is based on a Ford, but it doesn't sound bad at all when you say the new Ford is based on a Jag.

**DONOTDELETE**

06-02-2001, 01:22 PM

http://motortrend.com/june01/jagxtype/jagxtype.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Hudson:
That's kinda my point. Cadillac and Lincoln were quite exclusive cars before World War II, but they went for volume (first Cadillac and, later, Lincoln) and lost much of their image. How many people would put Cadillac in the same class with Mercedes-Benz today, but they were in that class (or above).
-----------------------------------------
these are two completely different things. caddy and lincoln were in their own classes competing with each other since they were created, they never really had any outside competition to make them great, all they were concerned about was outselling each other. they have fallen behind lexus, mercedes and whoever else because they decided to sit on their azzes while the sales where great. meanwhile the import luxury cars where continuing to get better and better, refining, making better engines, improving quality and by the time ford and gm started think about redesigns they were already passed by. gm and ford are still building big boats with floaty rides like they've been doing for 50 years and people don't want that crap anymore unless they are 65 years old. now that the majority of people are buying imported luxury cars, gm and ford are finally taking things seriously, forced to make better cars. we'll have to see what the new lincoln n cadillac lines will do to change peoples opinions of them. i think the 02 escalde is a nice start. i also hear ford will be droppin a v-12 in the new towncar.

quote:hiwayman17
I have read all the stories that say if you try to find the Mondeo chassis under the X, it would be difficult since Jag engineers made so many changes. But you really have to ask, why Jaguar engineers had to make changes in the first place. And the answer is that they were working with a foreign chassis and tried to make it their own.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

-----------------------------------------

are u people trying to sound like rich snobs or what? the jag engineers had to make so many changes because they want the car to ride and feel like a jag. its the same concept as the bmw engineers who were working on the new m3, yes they had to start out with the base 3series chassis, but in the end they had an incredible sportscar because they made so many changes to the orginal. a chassis can be improved to luxury car standards, this isn't rocket science. some points are valid, but those work mostly for the true blue bloods, like being exclusive. there are some compromises in materials on certain jags, like some faux wood here and there, but that is because they are trying so hard to keep the price competitive with the other luxury brands. 4wd+awd have to be one of the hottest features on cars today and to stay on level playing ground with the 3series(the king) that has it as do others, the jag also has to have it. honestly five years ago jaguar wasn't even on my list as a possible luxury car that i would want, now it is.
http://motortrend.com/june01/jagxtype/1.html

**DONOTDELETE**

06-02-2001, 01:35 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by wowzers:
http://motortrend.com/june01/jagxtype/jagxtype.jpg

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's one sweet Jag!!!!!
Side profile and side indentations remind me of BMW 7 series...