|
DUTCH
Administrator Doppelgänger
Date registered: Apr 2006
Location: US, GA, Atlanta
Vehicle(s): 2015 Audi Q7 3.0 TDI,2018 Sprinter
Posts: 9963
| DCX Board Chairman Aims to Undo Schrempp Legacy
This is interesting: “Bischoff is said to have a positive relationship with Zetsche. Both executives worked together in 1976 on the development of the Mercedes-Benz G class.”
DCX board chief aims to undo Schrempp legacy
Jason Stein and Bradford Wernle |
Automotive News | 1:00 am, April 2, 2007
MUNICH, Germany -- Manfred Bischoff, likely to be confirmed as DaimlerChrysler's supervisory board chairman at the company's shareholder meeting Wednesday, April 4, takes his post in the midst of a major crisis.
DaimlerChrysler has put its ailing Chrysler group unit up for sale after intense pressure from German shareholders. Some shareholders want to unload Chrysler so badly that two of them have offered a resolution to rename the company, dumping the "Chrysler" part. The resolution is not likely to pass, according to a company source.
But Bischoff faces more substantive challenges. He is dismantling the legacy of Juergen Schrempp, former management board chairman who resigned last year and was replaced by Dieter Zetsche.
Bischoff's predecessor, Hilmar Kopper, gave unwavering support to Schrempp's plan to transform Daimler-Benz AG into a global industrial powerhouse. Schrempp's biggest feat was the 1998 "merger of equals" with Chrysler.
But the marriage of a luxury carmaker to a volume carmaker was awkward from the start. Chrysler lost about $1.5 billion in 2006, and Zetsche grew increasingly frustrated that he was unable to wring the same concessions from the UAW that General Motors and Ford Motor Co. had received.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manfred Bischoff
Born: April 22, 1942, Calw, Germany
Education: University of Heidelberg, Germany
Career highlights:
1976 - Joined DaimlerBenz, project coordinator for alliance with Steyr-Daimler-Puch
1988 - CFO, Mercedes do Brazil
1989 - CFO, Deutsche Aerospace
1995 - Chairman, Daimler-Benz Aerospace
2000 - Chairman, European Aeronautic, Defense and Space Co.
2007 - Chairman, DaimlerChrysler supervisory board
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No nonsense
Sources say Bischoff, a no-nonsense executive, will be less likely than Kopper to support his management board chairman, especially when it comes to unprofitable operations.
"He (Bischoff) wants to take over a clean slate and wants all of the troublesome legacies of the Schrempp era cleared or a number of feasible scenarios outlined," a company source said. "It's part of the new policy to discuss options openly."
"All options" includes the possible sale or spinoff of the Chrysler group, which Zetsche put on the table on Valentine's Day. Several private equity groups, General Motors and Canadian supplier Magna International Inc. have expressed interest in buying Chrysler. Blackstone and Cerberus Capital Management top the list of private equity groups.
Chrysler employees and dealers have been eager to hear who their new bosses might be.
DaimlerChrysler officials have downplayed expectations that the company will have anything to say about a possible winning buyer at the daylong shareholders meeeting in Berlin. Analysts agree that an announcement of a deal involving Chrysler is unlikely, noting that any Chrysler buyer faces a complex set of issues, the biggest one being what to do about Chrysler's estimated $21 billion health care liability.
'The usual yelling'
"It (the meeting) is going to be the usual yelling and shouting without effect," said Christoph Stuermer, automotive analyst for Global Insight in Frankfurt. Stuermer said the company might announce its list of bidders. "I guess that's the most we're going to hear."
But Bischoff and his fellow directors will get an earful Wednesday from disgruntled German shareholders, many of whom wanted to see Chrysler dumped a long time ago.
Bischoff, 64, is co-chairman of the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co., or EADS, of which DaimlerChrysler owns 15 percent. People familiar with Bischoff said his style differs sharply from that of Kopper.
Good relations with Zetsche
Bischoff is said to have a positive relationship with Zetsche. Both executives worked together in 1976 on the development of the Mercedes-Benz G class.
Industry analysts said Bischoff will be an advocate of global sourcing. Bischoff supported that method of management while leading EADS.
But purchasing policies and other issues are on hold until Chrysler's fate is decided.
Analysts say the issues are too complex for a decision Wednesday. There are too many problems to work through, such as the pension and health care liabilities.
But Adam Jonas, an analyst for Morgan Stanley in London, said the aggressive private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management had a key advantage over other would-be bidders because it has hired former Chrysler COO Wolfgang Bernhard as an adviser.
"Bernhard knows every screw and every bolt in every plant. He would be able to determine what could be sold off to industry buyers. He'd be good for the acquisition and good for the exit and he'd be good for trust with the UAW."
|
|
| |
|
BenzDieselTuner
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: DCX Board Chairman Aims to Undo Schrempp Legacy
i support the dumping of Chrysler 100%..........its my duty as a German..... |
|
| |
|
iNeon
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: DCX Board Chairman Aims to Undo Schrempp Legacy
I guess it made the Benz branch of the family tree look bad whenever Chrysler's machines were more powerful, more reliable, more affordable, more efficient and that the demand for them was higher than that for Benzes, eh?
A company can't rely on cachet alone-- and they're blaming their own reliance on reputation on Chrysler's being part of a dying industry for it. The American automobile industry is dead-- Chrysler can't be blamed for that. Mercedes is using this as a way of covering up a decade and a half of poor decisionmaking-- nothing more.
The R is an expensive and uninspiring Pacifica, the next C is a Sebring clone, the GL *is* a Jeep and I'm STILL not convinced that the 3.5 engines are different from one line to the other. It's too coincidental that Chrysler developed an all-aluminum engine with more power than Benzes 3.2, and that Benz decided to develop an all-new 3.5 in the couple of years between the debut of the 1998 LH cars and the E350.
It isn't all Chrysler, and it isn't all Mercedes. If they'd work together, they'd own-- but Benz is too busy blaming Chrysler for their problems, and Chrysler is too busy designing new SUVS. |
|
| |
|
AsianML
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: DCX Board Chairman Aims to Undo Schrempp Legacy
iNeon - 5/3/2007 8:16 PM I guess it made the Benz branch of the family tree look bad whenever Chrysler's machines were more powerful, more reliable, more affordable, more efficient and that the demand for them was higher than that for Benzes, eh? A company can't rely on cachet alone-- and they're blaming their own reliance on reputation on Chrysler's being part of a dying industry for it. The American automobile industry is dead-- Chrysler can't be blamed for that. Mercedes is using this as a way of covering up a decade and a half of poor decisionmaking-- nothing more. The R is an expensive and uninspiring Pacifica, the next C is a Sebring clone, the GL *is* a Jeep and I'm STILL not convinced that the 3.5 engines are different from one line to the other. It's too coincidental that Chrysler developed an all-aluminum engine with more power than Benzes 3.2, and that Benz decided to develop an all-new 3.5 in the couple of years between the debut of the 1998 LH cars and the E350. It isn't all Chrysler, and it isn't all Mercedes. If they'd work together, they'd own-- but Benz is too busy blaming Chrysler for their problems, and Chrysler is too busy designing new SUVS. Isn't affordable luxury Chrysler's job, not MB?I could argue with some aspects of reliability. Well, more quality than reliability. The R-Class is not related to the Pacifica in any way other than that they're both minivan-ish sports tourers. The Pacfica is based on the Chrysler minivan platform. I'm pretty sure the R doesn't.... I don't get how you can think the C-Class is a Sebring clone either. The Commander is based off of the Grand Cherokee platform, which I'm sure has no relation to the W164 platform. Chrysler and Mercedes are very nice cars in their own respect. But you can't compare the two.
|
|
| |
|
NZ Benz
Expert
Date registered: Apr 2006
Location: New Zealand
Vehicle(s): 1993 300SEL/S320
Posts: 2555
| RE: DCX Board Chairman Aims to Undo Schrempp Legacy
iNeon - 5/3/2007 8:16 PM
I guess it made the Benz branch of the family tree look bad whenever Chrysler's machines were more powerful, more reliable, more affordable, more efficient and that the demand for them was higher than that for Benzes, eh?
A company can't rely on cachet alone-- and they're blaming their own reliance on reputation on Chrysler's being part of a dying industry for it. The American automobile industry is dead-- Chrysler can't be blamed for that. Mercedes is using this as a way of covering up a decade and a half of poor decisionmaking-- nothing more.
The R is an expensive and uninspiring Pacifica, the next C is a Sebring clone, the GL *is* a Jeep and I'm STILL not convinced that the 3.5 engines are different from one line to the other. It's too coincidental that Chrysler developed an all-aluminum engine with more power than Benzes 3.2, and that Benz decided to develop an all-new 3.5 in the couple of years between the debut of the 1998 LH cars and the E350.
It isn't all Chrysler, and it isn't all Mercedes. If they'd work together, they'd own-- but Benz is too busy blaming Chrysler for their problems, and Chrysler is too busy designing new SUVS.
Thats a pretty good, point I can't see any examples of synergy by keeping the two together. Benz just ends up competing with itself and as a result as you mentioned with things like the GL there is no USP (unique selling point) in alot of the Benz cars. If your going to aquire another brand as MB did then let that brand do what it's supposed to do for example let Jeep make SUVs and MB should concerntrate on the Luxary car market like it always had, insted the design a POS like the GL to steal market share from their own damn subsidery company...WTF?  |
|
| |
|
NZ Benz
Expert
Date registered: Apr 2006
Location: New Zealand
Vehicle(s): 1993 300SEL/S320
Posts: 2555
| RE: DCX Board Chairman Aims to Undo Schrempp Legacy
AsianML - 5/3/2007 8:52 PM
iNeon - 5/3/2007 8:16 PM I guess it made the Benz branch of the family tree look bad whenever Chrysler's machines were more powerful, more reliable, more affordable, more efficient and that the demand for them was higher than that for Benzes, eh? A company can't rely on cachet alone-- and they're blaming their own reliance on reputation on Chrysler's being part of a dying industry for it. The American automobile industry is dead-- Chrysler can't be blamed for that. Mercedes is using this as a way of covering up a decade and a half of poor decisionmaking-- nothing more. The R is an expensive and uninspiring Pacifica, the next C is a Sebring clone, the GL *is* a Jeep and I'm STILL not convinced that the 3.5 engines are different from one line to the other. It's too coincidental that Chrysler developed an all-aluminum engine with more power than Benzes 3.2, and that Benz decided to develop an all-new 3.5 in the couple of years between the debut of the 1998 LH cars and the E350. It isn't all Chrysler, and it isn't all Mercedes. If they'd work together, they'd own-- but Benz is too busy blaming Chrysler for their problems, and Chrysler is too busy designing new SUVS. Isn't affordable luxury Chrysler's job, not MB? I could argue with some aspects of reliability. Well, more quality than reliability. The R-Class is not related to the Pacifica in any way other than that they're both minivan-ish sports tourers. The Pacfica is based on the Chrysler minivan platform. I'm pretty sure the R doesn't.... I don't get how you can think the C-Class is a Sebring clone either. The Commander is based off of the Grand Cherokee platform, which I'm sure has no relation to the W164 platform. Chrysler and Mercedes are very nice cars in their own respect. But you can't compare the two.
I think hes talking about the market segments that they compete in, atleast thats how I framed my reply as your right the cars don't share alot of "biological" similarities. |
|
| |
|
AsianML
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: DCX Board Chairman Aims to Undo Schrempp Legacy
NZ Benz - 5/3/2007 8:56 PM iNeon - 5/3/2007 8:16 PM I guess it made the Benz branch of the family tree look bad whenever Chrysler's machines were more powerful, more reliable, more affordable, more efficient and that the demand for them was higher than that for Benzes, eh? A company can't rely on cachet alone-- and they're blaming their own reliance on reputation on Chrysler's being part of a dying industry for it. The American automobile industry is dead-- Chrysler can't be blamed for that. Mercedes is using this as a way of covering up a decade and a half of poor decisionmaking-- nothing more. The R is an expensive and uninspiring Pacifica, the next C is a Sebring clone, the GL *is* a Jeep and I'm STILL not convinced that the 3.5 engines are different from one line to the other. It's too coincidental that Chrysler developed an all-aluminum engine with more power than Benzes 3.2, and that Benz decided to develop an all-new 3.5 in the couple of years between the debut of the 1998 LH cars and the E350. It isn't all Chrysler, and it isn't all Mercedes. If they'd work together, they'd own-- but Benz is too busy blaming Chrysler for their problems, and Chrysler is too busy designing new SUVS. Thats a pretty good, point I can't see any examples of synergy by keeping the two together. Benz just ends up competing with itself and as a result as you mentioned with things like the GL there is no USP (unique selling point ) in alot of the Benz cars. If your going to aquire another brand as MB did then let that brand do what it's supposed to do for example let Jeep make SUVs and MB should concerntrate on the Luxary car market like it always had, insted the design a POS like the GL to steal market share from their own damn subsidery company...WTF? :confuzed:
|
|
| |
|
NZ Benz
Expert
Date registered: Apr 2006
Location: New Zealand
Vehicle(s): 1993 300SEL/S320
Posts: 2555
| RE: DCX Board Chairman Aims to Undo Schrempp Legacy
AsianML - 5/3/2007 9:03 PM
NZ Benz - 5/3/2007 8:56 PM iNeon - 5/3/2007 8:16 PM I guess it made the Benz branch of the family tree look bad whenever Chrysler's machines were more powerful, more reliable, more affordable, more efficient and that the demand for them was higher than that for Benzes, eh? A company can't rely on cachet alone-- and they're blaming their own reliance on reputation on Chrysler's being part of a dying industry for it. The American automobile industry is dead-- Chrysler can't be blamed for that. Mercedes is using this as a way of covering up a decade and a half of poor decisionmaking-- nothing more. The R is an expensive and uninspiring Pacifica, the next C is a Sebring clone, the GL *is* a Jeep and I'm STILL not convinced that the 3.5 engines are different from one line to the other. It's too coincidental that Chrysler developed an all-aluminum engine with more power than Benzes 3.2, and that Benz decided to develop an all-new 3.5 in the couple of years between the debut of the 1998 LH cars and the E350. It isn't all Chrysler, and it isn't all Mercedes. If they'd work together, they'd own-- but Benz is too busy blaming Chrysler for their problems, and Chrysler is too busy designing new SUVS. Thats a pretty good, point I can't see any examples of synergy by keeping the two together. Benz just ends up competing with itself and as a result as you mentioned with things like the GL there is no USP (unique selling point ) in alot of the Benz cars. If your going to aquire another brand as MB did then let that brand do what it's supposed to do for example let Jeep make SUVs and MB should concerntrate on the Luxary car market like it always had, insted the design a POS like the GL to steal market share from their own damn subsidery company...WTF? :confuzed: You can't really call the GL a POS. It's been out for nearly a year now with no major problems. There are problems, but they're mainly related to the transmission which is shared with other models, mainly the ML which had quite a few tranny software problems.
No seriously it might be reliable but a Dihatsu is reliable, it's ugly it's nasty it's something that MB should not be designing. To me more than anything having another SUV that looks like an American SUV is damaging to the MB brand, sure everyone in the states seems to love them but still the MB brand is supposed to be about Euro cars and not boxy SUV school buses. |
|
| |
|
AsianML
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: DCX Board Chairman Aims to Undo Schrempp Legacy
NZ Benz - 5/3/2007 8:57 PM AsianML - 5/3/2007 8:52 PM iNeon - 5/3/2007 8:16 PM I guess it made the Benz branch of the family tree look bad whenever Chrysler's machines were more powerful, more reliable, more affordable, more efficient and that the demand for them was higher than that for Benzes, eh? A company can't rely on cachet alone-- and they're blaming their own reliance on reputation on Chrysler's being part of a dying industry for it. The American automobile industry is dead-- Chrysler can't be blamed for that. Mercedes is using this as a way of covering up a decade and a half of poor decisionmaking-- nothing more. The R is an expensive and uninspiring Pacifica, the next C is a Sebring clone, the GL *is* a Jeep and I'm STILL not convinced that the 3.5 engines are different from one line to the other. It's too coincidental that Chrysler developed an all-aluminum engine with more power than Benzes 3.2, and that Benz decided to develop an all-new 3.5 in the couple of years between the debut of the 1998 LH cars and the E350. It isn't all Chrysler, and it isn't all Mercedes. If they'd work together, they'd own-- but Benz is too busy blaming Chrysler for their problems, and Chrysler is too busy designing new SUVS. Isn't affordable luxury Chrysler's job, not MB? I could argue with some aspects of reliability. Well, more quality than reliability. The R-Class is not related to the Pacifica in any way other than that they're both minivan-ish sports tourers. The Pacfica is based on the Chrysler minivan platform. I'm pretty sure the R doesn't.... I don't get how you can think the C-Class is a Sebring clone either. The Commander is based off of the Grand Cherokee platform, which I'm sure has no relation to the W164 platform. Chrysler and Mercedes are very nice cars in their own respect. But you can't compare the two.
I think hes talking about the market segments that they compete in, atleast thats how I framed my reply as your right the cars don't share alot of "biological" similarities. If they come out with the GLK/MLK that will be a mistake. If they bring back the C-Coupe, that would be a mistake. They should go to Chrysler, or their already there, and Chrysler does a pretty good job with those. I like the R-Class, but I'm still on the fence whether or not they should have made it. The interior is amazingly spacious, especially second row. It's like a cave back there.
The GL I have no problem with. I actually think it's a long needed model. Before that, in order to get a luxury 7-seater, you really had no choice but to go for the GM SUV lineup or the Lincoln Navigator. Some of the new cars from all manufacturers in general should have just been kept as a concept.  |
|
| |
|
AsianML
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: DCX Board Chairman Aims to Undo Schrempp Legacy
NZ Benz - 5/3/2007 9:08 PM AsianML - 5/3/2007 9:03 PM NZ Benz - 5/3/2007 8:56 PM iNeon - 5/3/2007 8:16 PM I guess it made the Benz branch of the family tree look bad whenever Chrysler's machines were more powerful, more reliable, more affordable, more efficient and that the demand for them was higher than that for Benzes, eh? A company can't rely on cachet alone-- and they're blaming their own reliance on reputation on Chrysler's being part of a dying industry for it. The American automobile industry is dead-- Chrysler can't be blamed for that. Mercedes is using this as a way of covering up a decade and a half of poor decisionmaking-- nothing more. The R is an expensive and uninspiring Pacifica, the next C is a Sebring clone, the GL *is* a Jeep and I'm STILL not convinced that the 3.5 engines are different from one line to the other. It's too coincidental that Chrysler developed an all-aluminum engine with more power than Benzes 3.2, and that Benz decided to develop an all-new 3.5 in the couple of years between the debut of the 1998 LH cars and the E350. It isn't all Chrysler, and it isn't all Mercedes. If they'd work together, they'd own-- but Benz is too busy blaming Chrysler for their problems, and Chrysler is too busy designing new SUVS. Thats a pretty good, point I can't see any examples of synergy by keeping the two together. Benz just ends up competing with itself and as a result as you mentioned with things like the GL there is no USP (unique selling point ) in alot of the Benz cars. If your going to aquire another brand as MB did then let that brand do what it's supposed to do for example let Jeep make SUVs and MB should concerntrate on the Luxary car market like it always had, insted the design a POS like the GL to steal market share from their own damn subsidery company...WTF? :confuzed: You can't really call the GL a POS. It's been out for nearly a year now with no major problems. There are problems, but they're mainly related to the transmission which is shared with other models, mainly the ML which had quite a few tranny software problems. No seriously it might be reliable but a Dihatsu is reliable, it's ugly it's nasty it's something that MB should not be designing. To me more than anything having another SUV that looks like an American SUV is damaging to the MB brand, sure everyone in the states seems to love them but still the MB brand is supposed to be about Euro cars and not boxy SUV school buses.
|
|
| |
|
NZ Benz
Expert
Date registered: Apr 2006
Location: New Zealand
Vehicle(s): 1993 300SEL/S320
Posts: 2555
| RE: DCX Board Chairman Aims to Undo Schrempp Legacy
AsianML - 5/3/2007 9:13 PM
NZ Benz - 5/3/2007 9:08 PM AsianML - 5/3/2007 9:03 PM NZ Benz - 5/3/2007 8:56 PM iNeon - 5/3/2007 8:16 PM I guess it made the Benz branch of the family tree look bad whenever Chrysler's machines were more powerful, more reliable, more affordable, more efficient and that the demand for them was higher than that for Benzes, eh? A company can't rely on cachet alone-- and they're blaming their own reliance on reputation on Chrysler's being part of a dying industry for it. The American automobile industry is dead-- Chrysler can't be blamed for that. Mercedes is using this as a way of covering up a decade and a half of poor decisionmaking-- nothing more. The R is an expensive and uninspiring Pacifica, the next C is a Sebring clone, the GL *is* a Jeep and I'm STILL not convinced that the 3.5 engines are different from one line to the other. It's too coincidental that Chrysler developed an all-aluminum engine with more power than Benzes 3.2, and that Benz decided to develop an all-new 3.5 in the couple of years between the debut of the 1998 LH cars and the E350. It isn't all Chrysler, and it isn't all Mercedes. If they'd work together, they'd own-- but Benz is too busy blaming Chrysler for their problems, and Chrysler is too busy designing new SUVS. Thats a pretty good, point I can't see any examples of synergy by keeping the two together. Benz just ends up competing with itself and as a result as you mentioned with things like the GL there is no USP (unique selling point ) in alot of the Benz cars. If your going to aquire another brand as MB did then let that brand do what it's supposed to do for example let Jeep make SUVs and MB should concerntrate on the Luxary car market like it always had, insted the design a POS like the GL to steal market share from their own damn subsidery company...WTF? :confuzed: You can't really call the GL a POS. It's been out for nearly a year now with no major problems. There are problems, but they're mainly related to the transmission which is shared with other models, mainly the ML which had quite a few tranny software problems. No seriously it might be reliable but a Dihatsu is reliable, it's ugly it's nasty it's something that MB should not be designing. To me more than anything having another SUV that looks like an American SUV is damaging to the MB brand, sure everyone in the states seems to love them but still the MB brand is supposed to be about Euro cars and not boxy SUV school buses. To each their own. I think the GL is a long needed one. I don't mind them making bigger vehicles, just don't go smaller and cheaper.
I guess it's good for the states where there are so many SUV's smaller cars are fine in fact there are alot of A class MB's in out larger cities here because they are so easy to drive around and park etc. |
|
| |
|
AsianML
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: DCX Board Chairman Aims to Undo Schrempp Legacy
NZ Benz - 5/3/2007 9:19 PM AsianML - 5/3/2007 9:13 PM NZ Benz - 5/3/2007 9:08 PM AsianML - 5/3/2007 9:03 PM NZ Benz - 5/3/2007 8:56 PM iNeon - 5/3/2007 8:16 PM I guess it made the Benz branch of the family tree look bad whenever Chrysler's machines were more powerful, more reliable, more affordable, more efficient and that the demand for them was higher than that for Benzes, eh? A company can't rely on cachet alone-- and they're blaming their own reliance on reputation on Chrysler's being part of a dying industry for it. The American automobile industry is dead-- Chrysler can't be blamed for that. Mercedes is using this as a way of covering up a decade and a half of poor decisionmaking-- nothing more. The R is an expensive and uninspiring Pacifica, the next C is a Sebring clone, the GL *is* a Jeep and I'm STILL not convinced that the 3.5 engines are different from one line to the other. It's too coincidental that Chrysler developed an all-aluminum engine with more power than Benzes 3.2, and that Benz decided to develop an all-new 3.5 in the couple of years between the debut of the 1998 LH cars and the E350. It isn't all Chrysler, and it isn't all Mercedes. If they'd work together, they'd own-- but Benz is too busy blaming Chrysler for their problems, and Chrysler is too busy designing new SUVS. Thats a pretty good, point I can't see any examples of synergy by keeping the two together. Benz just ends up competing with itself and as a result as you mentioned with things like the GL there is no USP (unique selling point ) in alot of the Benz cars. If your going to aquire another brand as MB did then let that brand do what it's supposed to do for example let Jeep make SUVs and MB should concerntrate on the Luxary car market like it always had, insted the design a POS like the GL to steal market share from their own damn subsidery company...WTF? :confuzed: You can't really call the GL a POS. It's been out for nearly a year now with no major problems. There are problems, but they're mainly related to the transmission which is shared with other models, mainly the ML which had quite a few tranny software problems. No seriously it might be reliable but a Dihatsu is reliable, it's ugly it's nasty it's something that MB should not be designing. To me more than anything having another SUV that looks like an American SUV is damaging to the MB brand, sure everyone in the states seems to love them but still the MB brand is supposed to be about Euro cars and not boxy SUV school buses. To each their own. I think the GL is a long needed one. I don't mind them making bigger vehicles, just don't go smaller and cheaper. I guess it's good for the states where there are so many SUV's smaller cars are fine in fact there are alot of A class MB's in out larger cities here because they are so easy to drive around and park etc.
Edited by AsianML 5/3/2007 9:24 PM
|
|
| |
|
NZ Benz
Expert
Date registered: Apr 2006
Location: New Zealand
Vehicle(s): 1993 300SEL/S320
Posts: 2555
| RE: DCX Board Chairman Aims to Undo Schrempp Legacy
AsianML - 5/3/2007 9:24 PM
NZ Benz - 5/3/2007 9:19 PM AsianML - 5/3/2007 9:13 PM NZ Benz - 5/3/2007 9:08 PM AsianML - 5/3/2007 9:03 PM NZ Benz - 5/3/2007 8:56 PM iNeon - 5/3/2007 8:16 PM I guess it made the Benz branch of the family tree look bad whenever Chrysler's machines were more powerful, more reliable, more affordable, more efficient and that the demand for them was higher than that for Benzes, eh? A company can't rely on cachet alone-- and they're blaming their own reliance on reputation on Chrysler's being part of a dying industry for it. The American automobile industry is dead-- Chrysler can't be blamed for that. Mercedes is using this as a way of covering up a decade and a half of poor decisionmaking-- nothing more. The R is an expensive and uninspiring Pacifica, the next C is a Sebring clone, the GL *is* a Jeep and I'm STILL not convinced that the 3.5 engines are different from one line to the other. It's too coincidental that Chrysler developed an all-aluminum engine with more power than Benzes 3.2, and that Benz decided to develop an all-new 3.5 in the couple of years between the debut of the 1998 LH cars and the E350. It isn't all Chrysler, and it isn't all Mercedes. If they'd work together, they'd own-- but Benz is too busy blaming Chrysler for their problems, and Chrysler is too busy designing new SUVS. Thats a pretty good, point I can't see any examples of synergy by keeping the two together. Benz just ends up competing with itself and as a result as you mentioned with things like the GL there is no USP (unique selling point ) in alot of the Benz cars. If your going to aquire another brand as MB did then let that brand do what it's supposed to do for example let Jeep make SUVs and MB should concerntrate on the Luxary car market like it always had, insted the design a POS like the GL to steal market share from their own damn subsidery company...WTF? :confuzed: You can't really call the GL a POS. It's been out for nearly a year now with no major problems. There are problems, but they're mainly related to the transmission which is shared with other models, mainly the ML which had quite a few tranny software problems. No seriously it might be reliable but a Dihatsu is reliable, it's ugly it's nasty it's something that MB should not be designing. To me more than anything having another SUV that looks like an American SUV is damaging to the MB brand, sure everyone in the states seems to love them but still the MB brand is supposed to be about Euro cars and not boxy SUV school buses. To each their own. I think the GL is a long needed one. I don't mind them making bigger vehicles, just don't go smaller and cheaper. I guess it's good for the states where there are so many SUV's smaller cars are fine in fact there are alot of A class MB's in out larger cities here because they are so easy to drive around and park etc. Not a lot of small cities here. A GL, heck an H2 can get around large cities here perfectly. Heck I personally witnessed an S550, which is longer than an H2, and a GL450 get through HCMC (Saigon ) perfectly fine.
Oh don't get me wrong I drive my W140 round the cities perfectly fine but you are aware that you are working the car more than you would in a smaller one with the traffic and paralell parking on streets etc etc. Thng is cars in the US have always been big so your cities are designed for them ours and parts of Europe are not. |
|
| |
|
AsianML
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: DCX Board Chairman Aims to Undo Schrempp Legacy
NZ Benz - 5/3/2007 9:31 PM AsianML - 5/3/2007 9:24 PM NZ Benz - 5/3/2007 9:19 PM AsianML - 5/3/2007 9:13 PM NZ Benz - 5/3/2007 9:08 PM AsianML - 5/3/2007 9:03 PM NZ Benz - 5/3/2007 8:56 PM iNeon - 5/3/2007 8:16 PM I guess it made the Benz branch of the family tree look bad whenever Chrysler's machines were more powerful, more reliable, more affordable, more efficient and that the demand for them was higher than that for Benzes, eh? A company can't rely on cachet alone-- and they're blaming their own reliance on reputation on Chrysler's being part of a dying industry for it. The American automobile industry is dead-- Chrysler can't be blamed for that. Mercedes is using this as a way of covering up a decade and a half of poor decisionmaking-- nothing more. The R is an expensive and uninspiring Pacifica, the next C is a Sebring clone, the GL *is* a Jeep and I'm STILL not convinced that the 3.5 engines are different from one line to the other. It's too coincidental that Chrysler developed an all-aluminum engine with more power than Benzes 3.2, and that Benz decided to develop an all-new 3.5 in the couple of years between the debut of the 1998 LH cars and the E350. It isn't all Chrysler, and it isn't all Mercedes. If they'd work together, they'd own-- but Benz is too busy blaming Chrysler for their problems, and Chrysler is too busy designing new SUVS. Thats a pretty good, point I can't see any examples of synergy by keeping the two together. Benz just ends up competing with itself and as a result as you mentioned with things like the GL there is no USP (unique selling point ) in alot of the Benz cars. If your going to aquire another brand as MB did then let that brand do what it's supposed to do for example let Jeep make SUVs and MB should concerntrate on the Luxary car market like it always had, insted the design a POS like the GL to steal market share from their own damn subsidery company...WTF? :confuzed: You can't really call the GL a POS. It's been out for nearly a year now with no major problems. There are problems, but they're mainly related to the transmission which is shared with other models, mainly the ML which had quite a few tranny software problems. No seriously it might be reliable but a Dihatsu is reliable, it's ugly it's nasty it's something that MB should not be designing. To me more than anything having another SUV that looks like an American SUV is damaging to the MB brand, sure everyone in the states seems to love them but still the MB brand is supposed to be about Euro cars and not boxy SUV school buses. To each their own. I think the GL is a long needed one. I don't mind them making bigger vehicles, just don't go smaller and cheaper. I guess it's good for the states where there are so many SUV's smaller cars are fine in fact there are alot of A class MB's in out larger cities here because they are so easy to drive around and park etc. Not a lot of small cities here. A GL, heck an H2 can get around large cities here perfectly. Heck I personally witnessed an S550, which is longer than an H2, and a GL450 get through HCMC (Saigon ) perfectly fine. Oh don't get me wrong I drive my W140 round the cities perfectly fine but you are aware that you are working the car more than you would in a smaller one with the traffic and paralell parking on streets etc etc. Thng is cars in the US have always been big so your cities are designed for them ours and parts of Europe are not. If you want to argue or agree about something. Let's make it how ridiculous the options and package setups are. |
|
| |
|
NZ Benz
Expert
Date registered: Apr 2006
Location: New Zealand
Vehicle(s): 1993 300SEL/S320
Posts: 2555
| RE: DCX Board Chairman Aims to Undo Schrempp Legacy
Yup as far back as the W40 you guys have been getting boned on the options from MB, I don't know why I thought America would be full of people wanting all the options on their cars. |
|
| |
|
AsianML
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: DCX Board Chairman Aims to Undo Schrempp Legacy
NZ Benz - 5/3/2007 9:36 PM Yup as far back as the W40 you guys have been getting boned on the options from MB, I don't know why I thought America would be full of people wanting all the options on their cars. :confuzed: That's not the issue. The issue is that you broke the long quote chain.In all seriousness, it's not that we don't want all options. It's just that they're all clumped into one huge package instead of individual. Sometimes you want one thing, but you don't want the other thing that you have to get in order to get the first thing. Make sense?  Having them individuals orderable gives back true meaning to having a custom, factory built car. Not some pre-arranged manufacturer choices.
Edited by AsianML 5/3/2007 9:41 PM
|
|
| |
|
Marsden
Classic MB
Date registered: Apr 2006
Location: Capital City USA
Vehicle(s): Mercedes-Benz
| RE: DCX Board Chairman Aims to Undo Schrempp Legacy
Definitely...to NZB... the problem here is you can only get many of the more desirable options if you choose the larger (guzzling) V-8 engines.
It royally pisses me off because I like luxury and convenience features but I also like decent fuel economy. Obviously a marketing decision, but just as obviously one that seems not to have occurred to the Japanese makers who've been eating Mercedes's lunch for awhile now.. |
|
| |
|
iNeon
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: DCX Board Chairman Aims to Undo Schrempp Legacy
AsianML - 5/3/2007 8:40 PM
NZ Benz - 5/3/2007 9:36 PM Yup as far back as the W40 you guys have been getting boned on the options from MB, I don't know why I thought America would be full of people wanting all the options on their cars. :confuzed: That's not the issue. The issue is that you broke the long quote chain. In all seriousness, it's not that we don't want all options. It's just that they're all clumped into one huge package instead of individual. Sometimes you want one thing, but you don't want the other thing that you have to get in order to get the first thing. Make sense? Having them individuals orderable gives back true meaning to having a custom, factory built car. Not some pre-arranged manufacturer choices.
If you don't see the Sebring(and a dozen other *better* cars) when you look at the w204, something's wrong. The Commander and GL, along with the Pacifica and R share more than MB will ever admit. Same goes for the LH replacements(LY, I think-- 300/Charger/Magnum) and the w210/w211. There is FAR more parts sharing than Benz will ever admit to-- it'd be shoting themselves in the foot to admit an 'inferior' company like Chrysler could beat *Benz* at the same game.
How'd DB let the public know of the 350 Diesel engine problems? The rotten spring perches on w210 models? Have you ever known anyone that owned a w203 coupé? Talk to them about the sunroof. Mercedes(and ALL other automobile manufacturers) have VAULTS filled with information about covered-up mistakes that they passed along to the enduser.
You think it'd be hard for them to change one fastener and re-patent it as a Benz innovation? I don't. |
|
| |
|
NZ Benz
Expert
Date registered: Apr 2006
Location: New Zealand
Vehicle(s): 1993 300SEL/S320
Posts: 2555
| RE: DCX Board Chairman Aims to Undo Schrempp Legacy
AsianML - 5/3/2007 9:40 PM
NZ Benz - 5/3/2007 9:36 PM Yup as far back as the W40 you guys have been getting boned on the options from MB, I don't know why I thought America would be full of people wanting all the options on their cars. :confuzed: That's not the issue. The issue is that you broke the long quote chain. In all seriousness, it's not that we don't want all options. It's just that they're all clumped into one huge package instead of individual. Sometimes you want one thing, but you don't want the other thing that you have to get in order to get the first thing. Make sense? Having them individuals orderable gives back true meaning to having a custom, factory built car. Not some pre-arranged manufacturer choices.
Thats what I was kinda getting at my S320 has more options than most of your W140 S600's simply because in the US market those cars had exclusive options. |
|
| |
|
NZ Benz
Expert
Date registered: Apr 2006
Location: New Zealand
Vehicle(s): 1993 300SEL/S320
Posts: 2555
| RE: DCX Board Chairman Aims to Undo Schrempp Legacy
Marsden - 5/3/2007 10:42 PM
Definitely...to NZB... the problem here is you can only get many of the more desirable options if you choose the larger (guzzling) V-8 engines.
It royally pisses me off because I like luxury and convenience features but I also like decent fuel economy. Obviously a marketing decision, but just as obviously one that seems not to have occurred to the Japanese makers who've been eating Mercedes's lunch for awhile now..
Thats one thing that has occoured to me is the size of the engines that you guys have particulary in your domestic cars, is it possible for a US company to make a powerful engine under 5L? It jsut seems to me that all they understand is that you put more displacement in the engine to make it faster some dont even have dual cams yet! As JC said how can you get such a small amount of HP out of some of these cars.... |
|
| |
