Jump to content

Talk:Chrysler/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Previously unsectioned comments

Are you sure that Maxwell and Willys-Overland merged into The Chrysler Corporation? I can't find it anywhere on this page: http://www.chryslerclub.org/histry.htm // Morten Bojsen-Hansen // raz0 .at. worldonline .dot. dk

Yes, I think this is accurate. Maxwell was the more important component: http://www.allpar.com/history/maxwell.html Willys came in by indirection, via Kaiser and American Motors: http://www.willystech.com/faqs/Breakout/WOGeneralHistory.html BTW, DaimlerChrysler made use of the Willys name just last year: http://www.rockcrawler.com/features/newsshorts/03october/jeep_willys.asp - RivGuySC 29 June 2005 04:36 (UTC)


Category:Defunct companies?

Why is this article in Category:Defunct companies? Chrysler is very much still around, in the same way that CompuServe and Bank One are not defunct. — Jesse's Girl 12:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It may be fair to call Willys and Maxwell defunct, but not an organization that's still very much in the marketplace and just reports to a different corporate structure. RivGuySC 29 June 2005 04:36 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm going to remove this category. --Cholmes75 16:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Luxury?

Can anybody defend the last edit calling Chrysler a "luxury" manufacturer? They did make some luxury cars, but basically they always presented a full lineup across the whole market. Today, since it's clear that Mercedes is the top of the corporate food chain, I'd say that's less accurate than ever. RivGuySC 29 June 2005 04:36 (UTC)

I don't think they have anything 'luxury' at all right now. No more IMperial. I don't think the Neon is very luxurious.Gzuckier 29 June 2005 15:03 (UTC)
The Chrysler Corporation (and DC's current Chrysler Group) are not luxury manufacturers, but I would say that "Chrysler" is a luxury marque. As for the comment about Mercedes-Benz, I would say that while Mercedes is the top of the luxury line, not everyone can afford one, so they have a lesser luxury line for other shoppers. — Jesse's Girl | Please talk! 15:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Chrysler is not a luxury car brand since less than half of all vehicles it sells feature a base MSRP of $38,000 - look under luxury car to find the defenition as well as list of luxury car manufactueres. Chrysler is a middle-class semi-luxury car brand. The Chryler 300C is the only is the only proper luxury car in the Chryler line-up. Gerdbrendel 10:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Logos

"The design shown at the top of the page is an adaptation of the original winged logo which Chrysler used on its cars at its inception in 1924. The logo was revived for the Chrysler divisions in the mid-1990s but again was slowly phased-out after the Daimler "merger"." I think this latest edit is inaccurate. The winged design is still there on the newest Chryslers. RivGuySC 00:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Chrysler American Based?

Actually it is incorrect to claim that Chrysler is a Detroit based car manufacturer since the Daimler-Chrysler coperation's heaquaters are in Stuttgard, Germany. Gerdbrendel 10:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the Chrysler Group's headquarters are in Auburn Hills, Michigan. So, that would make DaimlerChrysler a German-American company. --ApolloBoy 18:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The main Chrysler headquarters is in the US but the parent company is headquartered in Germany. There are also Chrysler units in Canada, Mexico, etc. but I presume they report to Chrysler's Auburn Hills headquarters who, in turn, report to Stuttgart.
A similar analogy might be made about Glaxo Smithkline. Glaxo has a headquarters in Philadelphia which used to be as high as you could go (when Smithkline Beecham was around). Now, the highest level is in the UK.VK35 23:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV - Merger section

I've added the NPOV tag to this article. The section on the merger has some language in it that is clearly not neutral: "As if on cue," "tailspin," etc. are all quite charged. ⇒ BRossow T/C 15:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The section was vandalized by 152.163.100.135. Some of it was fixed ("Daimler of England"), but some of it still remains ("Anglo-German superiority", Chrysler having owned Mercedes since '75). Since the current version is flat out wrong and makes no sense whatsoever, I will just restore the pre-152.163.100.135 version of this section. The language still needs some attention, though. Bal00 13:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Not that I doubt it, but could we have some data on the superior quality of Chrysler vs. Mercedes cars? ProhibitOnions 21:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Adjustable brake pedal

User:24.132.86.126 added the following on 8 May 2006:

In 2002, the company was the first to introduce the adjustable break pedal.

(diff)

I found references to this feature in model year 2003 Chrysler vehicles, but I can't seem to find a definitive reference that states they were the first, does anyone have a source? Sertrel 13:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

PONTIAC Grand Ville and Bonneville had adjustable pedals in the mid 70s (pre-downsized B-body).

Image found on commons

Chrysler 6-62 4-Door Sedan 1931

- User:Leonard G. 23:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Split article - Chrysler Group and Chrysler (car division)

This article should be split into two - one discussing the U.S. operations called "Chrysler Group" as a whole, and another discussing the Chrysler division of the Chrysler Group. KansasCity 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, definitely needs to be split. 24.176.58.44 17:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)J
Agree! Both the corporation and the Chrysler marque have enough data and history to warrant separate pages. Plus, the corporation is the various brands (Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, etc.), both active and defunct (Plymouth, DeSoto, Imperial), plus MoPar, Airtemp, TorqueFlite, Fluid Drive, etc., while the Chrysler marque would be limited to the various Chrysler models down through the years, from Sebring, 300, etc. on back to Windsor, Saratoga, New Yorker, etc.
Agree! It's less confusing that way. Bkissin 23:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Especially now that Chrysler is an independent company again.--Janus657 13:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming denial

There is an article link where Van Jolissaint denies global warming. That isn't mentioned in the article, though. So, should that be removed or something? --Jnelson09 20:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Kerkorian Confusion

CZMarlin wrote "There is no confusion between the billionaire and the doctor." No justification is given for this statement which is in direct opposition to personal experience. However, I will avoid reverting as the consensus seems to be that it is not needed.130.156.29.61 14:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no entry stating "not to be confused with Kirk Kerkorian" anywhere in the article about doctor Jack Kevorkian. Nor is the doctor mentioned as potentially confusing to readers of the article about billionaire Kirk Kerkorian. It seems that the readers of these who articles are not confused between the two people. Therefore it seems logical NOT to mention Jack Kevorkian in this article about Chrysler, where the investor and businessman Kirk Kerkorian plays a part in the history of the company. Thank you -- CZmarlin 22:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems logical to me that two similar names might well be confused at first glance, particularly in an about a car company, as opposed to the examples you gave. Again, I speak from experience. Furthermore, the doctor's 'mention' was strictly limited to a disclaimer, while the investor's 'part in the history of the company' got the additional details it deserved. I should know, I'm the one who inserted it. You're welcome.130.156.29.50 16:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Chrysler → Chrysler Holding LLC — This will be the new name of the the Chrysler Group once DiamlerChrysler completes the sale to a private equity firm. This will also help eliminate potential confusion between the Chrysler Group and one of it brands, Chrysler —Black Harry (T|C) 01:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Well then, should it be moved to The Chrysler Group, or to Chrysler Holding? This would fit in with the Ford Motor Company.
  • Oppose And the reason for those conventions is that Chrysler's legal name may be expected to change again, the next time some MBA successfully peddles a new bright idea for restructuring the automobile industry, but we will still call them Chrysler. More service to the encyclopedia by wondering about how to fold this into the history when it fades into the past. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
It will avoid problems in identifying the differences in operations, products, etc. because the two entities will continue to also have cooperation in certain markets and products. Just my $0.02 -- CZmarlin 14:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 07:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Chrysler, Chrysler Division, and Chrysler Holdings articles

Shouldn't all things relating to the Chrysler Brand be left in this article, eliminate the Chrysler (Division) article, and leave all the Corporate stuff in the Chrysler Holdings article?

I agree with you totally on this one, the way it is now is archaic. unfortunately wikipedia is too much of a bureaucracy for simple, smart changes like your suggestion to happen. Black Harry (T|C) 22:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, it would be less confusing to have the Chrysler article focus on the automobile brand (as do the Dodge and Jeep articles) and the corporate history in the Chrysler Holdings article. Moreover, there is bound to be continuing cooperation with Daimler on the business side of things that will need to be reported, but not necessarily fit very well in the articles about the Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep brands. Once again, only my $0.02 - CZmarlin 01:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. When Cerberus' acquisition of the 80% of Chrysler from Daimler is completed, the corporate history should go to a page called Chrysler Holding, while the Chrysler (division) page should be moved to the current Chrysler page. Again, this should be done after the acquisition is completed. KansasCity 16:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, if the buyout fails, which by all indications it won't, then shouldn't the Chrysler Brand be located here anyway? Companies name is DiamlerChrysler, not Chrysler Black Harry

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo pentastar.gif

Image:Logo pentastar.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Image fair use rationale added. --Scheinwerfermann 13:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"Privately controlled" vs. "Privately held"

I think we're being far too broad on just constitutes a "private company" for categorization purposes. With regards to Chrysler, nobody doubts that of course it's privately-controlled company because it's majority shareholder Cerberus Capital Management is privately held. But is Chrysler privately held? If you click on Private as it currently stands, you get the Privately held company article. Privately held is being very specific, and strictly speaking Chrysler is not completely under private ownership. It is not in the same league as Cargill, Mars, Inc., Koch Industries, etc. Close, but not quite. The problem is that Daimler AG (a public company) continues to hold a minority stake in the company. So if you buy shares in Daimler you are getting at least a nominal stake in Chrysler. With a privately held company, this should not happen under any circumstance, no matter how Forbes and other respected publications describe the company.

Joint venture on the other hand is a broader term, especially in the sense that there is no rule I'm aware of as to just what the "percentages" have to be for a company to be called a "joint venture." The relative size of the stakes is pretty much irrelevant, even if the shares were split 99-1 between the partners, you could still call it a "joint venture." Of course most times companies choose to create joint ventures they do so with relatively even stakes, because it normally doesn't make much sense for one company to invite another to enter into a joint venture with like a five percent stake, or perhaps even a 19.9% stake like Daimler kept of Chrysler. But that doesn't mean that if such an arrangement is made (as it was in Chrysler's case), then somehow it "doesn't qualify" to be a joint venture.

A similar example I would like to point users to is The Mosaic Company. If Chrysler is simply a "private company" end of story, then arguably Mosaic should be declared so as well. After all, its majority shareholder (Cargill) is private, right? Problem is that unlike Cargill, Mosaic shares are traded on the New York Stock Exchange, so to simply declare Mosaic "Private" would be silly. On the other hand, to just say it's "Public" might be slightly misleading since the minority shareholders who choose to invest in Mosaic are essentially silent partners. So the best description of Mosaic, of course, is Privately-controlled public company.

The same principle should apply to Chrysler. No, its shares do not trade directly but those of a still-significant shareholder (Daimler) do trade publicly. There more than enough truly private firms with articles here that companies that are "almost" privately held like Chrysler should not be categorized with them. Private implies privately held i.e. that Chrysler is just like Cargill, etc. when it's not. That sort of blunt classification, frankly, is amateur. Privately-controlled joint venture is not.

Forbes can use a broad classification system to group and describe companies if they like. We can do better.

Rupertslander (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

On the current Chrysler website, the pentastar logo is nowhere to be found. Have they decided to predominantly use the winged logo? I am not a car expert. --Tkgd2007 (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

List of vehicles made

H'mm. Are we sure the list of Chrysler-made vehicles is really necessary here? The list as it stands has problems — it's by no means exhaustive, and its categories are oddly misalphabetised D, C, J for some reason. Both of those problems could easily be fixed, but while an exhaustive list would be unwieldy in an article, but whether a fix should go ahead is not as good a question as whether we could simply and cleanly link to List of Chrysler vehicles, List of Dodge automobiles, List of Jeep vehicles, and List of Plymouth vehicles? Those four links would fit neatly into this article, and those four pages are much better suited to the exhaustive, organised presentation of the model chronology, as it seems to me. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Please add a proper IPA template for the pronunciation of Chrysler/Archive 1. I have heard their advertisements say /krai:zler/ when all along I thought it was /krai:sler/. Perhaps note both of them. Jidanni (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Pentastar

It is irrelevant whether certain Chrysler models used the winged medallion or not. And I know for a fact certain 1996-2000 Plymouth Voyagers used the pentastar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.96.119 (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Present Alliances

I suggest create a section about present alliances (i.e. with Tata and with Fiat). --193.145.201.52 (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Virgil Exner

Hi, I would welcome any inputs from Chrysler afficionados to my enquiry at Talk:Virgil Exner#Design work. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Defense

This article is heavy on the auto operations. It needs more on military products such as the M-60, M1, Redstone, etc. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

CGCSL

This article makes no mention of Chrysler Group (China) Sales Co. Ltd. (CGCSL). CGCSL is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chrysler and provides its footprint in China. Certainly seems like it is something worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.66.122.247 (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Grammar?

Yikes. 30 years of brain drain has really hurt Detroit. This article is one of the worst written wikis I've ever seen.--Mlprater (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Your complaint is a non sequitur, since people all over the world — not just from Detroit — have contributed to this article. It does need a great deal of cleanup work, so please pitch in and work to improve it! —Scheinwerfermann T·C20:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Chrysler Building

Was the company ever headquartered in New York, or was that some sort of branch office? Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Chrysler never actually occupied the Chrysler Building in NYC, although they did call for its construction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.53.162 (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Chrysler Financial Services

In the infobox under "divisions" Chrysler Financial Services is listed. I thought that as of 2007 Chrysler Financial Services became a totally independent company? --173.106.154.90 (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Chrysler still exists - remember WP:CRYSTAL

Several hours ago, I changed the past tense in the lead to present tense, but it was later changed back. Yes, Chrysler has now filed for bankruptcy, but that doesn't mean the company no longer exists. Let's not confuse bankruptcy with liquidation, which is not always the end result in these situations. Although liquidation is possible, Chrysler will not cease to exist unless/until all is said and done, and as of this moment should be spoken of in the present tense. In addition, I don't think the infobox should have a "fate" entry until we can determine the company's ultimate fate. Besides, Chapter 11 is not a "fate". It is a transitional process that can have a wide variety of results. Later on, if a "fate" entry is warranted, it might say "Merged with Fiat", "Liquidated", etc. But it's not our job to speculate at this point. Of course, any feedback or alternate viewpoints are welcome. szyslak (t) 08:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Daimler-Chrysler

An article needs to be created for Daimler-Chrysler. It currently redirects to Daimler which doesn't really cover DC, and is very Germany / Mercedes centric. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

created article on Chrysler bankruptcy

The section on the bankruptcy was getting a little long. I've moved the section to Chrysler bankruptcy and eliminate some of the detail. Both article and section could probably stand some copy editing. Ronnotel (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Megan McArdle

See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Chrysler. Either way, this might increase the traffic on this article. Bovlb (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly a case of poor reading comprehension on her part.Alanmjohnson (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Management

I noticed that in the infobox, it says that C. Robert Kidder is the Chairman and CEO. First, Bob Nardelli is going to be the CEO of Chrysler until it emerges from Chapter 11, however long that may be. Second, from my understanding, Kidder is just becoming Chairman, and Sergio Marchionne is going to become CEO. I have sources to back up Marchionne becoming the CEO. Karrmann (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge Chrysler with Chrysler Group LLC

Chrysler Group LLC should be merged into the Chrysler article, which should then be renamed Chrysler Group. KansasCity (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose No, let them stay separte. There will be continuing fights in court by Chrysler LLC that have nothing to do with Chrysler Group LLC, and the new company will have some issues that are completely different than the old company. It's a new company, though it owns much of the assets of the old company. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Nonsense, unless they stop calling the new company Chrysler then it will be still be Chrysler and as such will still be in this article. This is just another change of ownership.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a diferent company. Different stockholder owners. Different CEO. Different owners of debt, different assets, though substantially similar to Chrysler LLC, different liabilities, different challenges, different corporate entity. Need one say more. It merely purchased the assets of a dead company, with the same name. Bankruptcy is about tearing a company apart, it is not the same company. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Nothing you mentioned is significant enough to consider it a new company requiring its own article. In a century or so of existence companies tend to go through these sorts of changes. There is no argument for creating a new article. Chrysler is just implanting itself in a new shell created specifically for it. This does not justify creating a new article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Support If this article stays separate, then technically we should split Chrysler LLC from the company under Daimler, and that from pre-Daimler Chrysler. Truth is, these sorts of reorganizations usually contain the changes Yellowdesk mentions, but none is really going to think of them as different companies in anything other than a technical sense. See the history of railroading in the US for numerous examples. oknazevad (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chrysler/Archive_1&oldid=1043867325"