A few weeks ago we heard that Chrysler would be rehiring designers and engineers to help kick-start the companies product refresh-a-thon. After all, seven major reskins in 18 months weren’t going to happen with Chrysler’s bankruptcy-level staffing, which saw some departments covered by “only a few people.” Well, according to the Freep, Chrysler has hired back a total of 14 UAW-represented white-collar staff. And that’s it. Per a Chrysler statement:
Chrysler Group continually evaluates its human resources with the goal of assuring that its workforce is well-qualified and effective. At this time, no decisions have been made regarding an increase in salaried staffing levels.
How excited are you for these skeleton crew facelifts? Always on point with a silver lining, the Freep quotes a Detroit-based consultant who reminds us that “the good news for automotive employers looking for people is that they are available in big numbers in this town. Three years ago you might have paid them x. Today you could get them for half x.” Still, none of this sounds like the kind of change we can proverbially believe in. Especially because a PT Cruiser with the world’s fanciest lipstick is still a PT Cruiser.
And a Sebring is still a…
14 people is probably the right number to come up with a 5 year plan.
Oh, you want to actually implement that plan? More like 14,000.
If Chrysler can hire someone as talented as Gordon Buehrig, a staff of one will suffice.
Last part of the article is interesting. With a massive talent pool out of work, a company like Fiatsler could acquire a nucleus of heavy hitters for real change ,……………….. for pocket change.
50merc,
You beat me to it.
To the rest of the group, keep in mind that the 1936 Cord 810 was designed (from scratch) by a crew of something like five people under the leadership of Gordon Buehrig.
And at the time, the Auburn-Cord-Deusenberg company was in financial straits that make Chrysler’s condition look positively optimistic.
Unfortunately, A-C-D ultimately failed two years later; but that doesn’t mean a lack of resources necessarily dooms a company to sub-standard product.
No, I’m not expecting Chrysler to pull off the same miracle.
Looking at the back end of the Sebring replacement above brings to mind my latest auto design rant:
Why is it that automakers have started putting HUGE emblems on their cars? I don’t want nor need a logo the size of a dinner plate (or in the case of the Sebring, a surf board) on my car. I already KNOW what brand it it. If anyone else is wondering, I’ll tell them.
Restraint, people, restraint! Walter Dorwin Teague to the rescue…
panzerfaust :
October 14th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
And a Sebring is still a…
“….P.O.S.”
There is no Chrysler turnaround. Take away the life support, taxpayer money, and it can’t generate enough revenue from sales to cover the development costs of replacements. Not enough vehicles being sold for the market to support a last place contender. Chrysler is pining for the fjords. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Parrot The only real decision is whether relatively successful divisions of Chrysler get to be donor organs to a company that can sustain itself or if the good parts of Chrysler die too.
Poor design and engineering is just part of the equation. Unless Chrysler can concurrently address their glaring build quality and reliability issues (e.g. interiors that don’t steadily disassemble themselves over time and a powertrain that doesn’t leak fluids like a Chinese dam), the only turnarounds are going to be done by customers as they quickly leave the dealership after a test drive.
So the “Auburn-Cord-Deusenberg company” went under the initials ACDC?
Cool!
Is it just me that finds it funny that they shot that picture in Windsor, not Detroit?
One sit-down in a Dodge Journey at a national auto show when it was being introduced, then a rental Chrysler minivan were enough to put me off even considering any of their stuff.
Plus I resent the fact that I’ve been volunteered to provide hard-earned money to prop-up a failed company without having any voice in the matter.
Therefore, like many here, I won’t even consider a GM or Chrysler product ever again. Until such time as all of the loans are paid off and monies taken from bondholders is returned (i.e. – never).
Retarded Sparks,
Sorry, Auburn-Cord-Deusenberg is always referred to as ACD. Period.
In my opinion, smaller design teams are far more focused on what the final product will be than huge commitee style groups who dilute design ideas with a thousand different inputs.
What do I really think is happening? You won’t see any real new designs from Chrysler any more – these guys will merely be figuring out how to attach North American style body panels onto a Fiat body shell/floorpan.
…these guys will merely be figuring out how to attach North American style body panels onto a Fiat body…
If Chrysler wants to sell Fiats in the US, they need to worry about quality, not appearance. Unreliability, not styling or driving qualities, is the reason every Italian brand has failed. The only exceptions are the likes of Ferrari and Lamborghini whose buyers don’t care about such things.
Why isn’t that stunning car above the Sebring. The next sebring is staring everyone in the face and they don’t realize it.
Actually, I heard just today from an insider that the 200C is back on. When I asked half-jokingly whether Mike Donoughe might be back (completing the circle of resigned positions since leading up Project D), I was told that he apparently got into a shouting match with Jim Press in front of a mixed audience (including non-Chrysler), and that was the end of him.
Here’s another good one: Chrysler may or may not have backed out of booking a certain famous old automotive family home for a dinner party when it was made clear that there could be no smoking in the house.
I’m sure our tax money is in capable, rational hands.
Thank God I never have to make choices like this…
That picture vaguely reminds me of this classic ad..
http://www.robocoparchive.com/info/car8.JPG
Count me as an uber contrarian here – Chrysler can and should be saved. The Jeep franchise alone is a crown jewel worthy of any automakers attention and desire.
It wouldn’t take much if Chrysler had competent upper management to JV up with a partner (Magna anyone?) to supplant their passenger car offerings with a more competitive line, and they could rely on agreements with other automakers to source transmissions and more motors to bring economies of scale and lower development costs to the table, while they’re at it.
Really?
Seems as though Chrysler brand ranked above average on 3 year studies as well as the Dodge Grand Caravan was the TOP rated minivan.
No doubt Chrysler has work to do but Chrysler is not the overall “crap” most in this site portray them to be.
BTW, Chrysler beat Mercedes Benz on this 3 year durability Power’s report.
…and the MB fans want to put on Chrysler’s back the failing of the pointed head 3 star.
Imagine that.
http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2009/10/chrysler-above-average-mercedes-in-long-term-reliability
I just read yesterday that Chrysler got top prize in a contest, multiple times!
Including first place.
The “contest” was cars with the most miserable, lowest resale value and the Sebring convertible took top prize, with the Dodge Grand Caravan taking one of the other top prizes.
Yet another reason to avoid this company like the bubonic plague.