More like: "Ruined an already bad brand", if you ask me.

Analysts say the departure of DaimlerChrysler chief executive J=FCrgen
Schrempp marks the merciful end of a failed expansion strategy. The
stock market greeted the announcement.

J=FCrgen Schrempp's exit does not exactly come as a surprise. The
DaimlerChrysler CEO has faced intense criticism from analysts and
shareholders for his ambitious strategy of international development.

"The supervisory board and J=FCrgen Schrempp agree that the end of 2005
would be the perfect time for a change in leadership," the
DaimlerChrysler supervisory board said Thursday in a tersely-worded
statement leaving out the usual words of thanks for the outgoing boss.

Hours later in another surprise development, the Web site Germany's
Manager-Magazin reported that Mercedes boss Eckhard Cordes had asked
the DaimlerChrysler supervisory board to dissolve his contract. The
board had requested time to mull the issue, the magazine wrote, quoting
"informed sources."

Cordes apparently cited the lack of complete support from the
supervisory board for his difficult job of restructuring Mercedes as
one reason for his wish to step down.


Schrempp "ruined a good brand"


Under Schrempp's leadership, Daimler acquired Chrysler only to see the
company enter a serious downward spiral.



=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
I had high hopes for Chrysler when I heard Daimler was buying it.

And look what happened: Horrible model after horrible model. I figured
that horrible PT Cruiser was already greenlighted before the buyout, so
I let that one go. But then I saw the 300.. and the Crossfire... and
one awful design after another.... embarrassing.

Chrysler went the exact OPPOSITE of what Mercedes-Benz has achieved and
innovated. They build pointless pieces of garbage- not that it was any
better before Daimler stepped in, mind you.

"rst" > writes:
>
> Hours later in another surprise development, the Web site Germany's
> Manager-Magazin reported that Mercedes boss Eckhard Cordes had asked
> the DaimlerChrysler supervisory board to dissolve his contract. The
> board had requested time to mull the issue, the magazine wrote, quoting
> "informed sources."
>
> Cordes apparently cited the lack of complete support from the
> supervisory board for his difficult job of restructuring Mercedes as
> one reason for his wish to step down.

Interesting -- I wonder what Cordes's relationship with Zetsche is
like? I could easily imagine that he's decided to leave before
getting fired....
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
skype: jjpfeifferjr

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, rst wrote:

> I had high hopes for Chrysler when I heard Daimler was buying it. And
> look what happened: Horrible model after horrible model. I figured that
> horrible PT Cruiser was already greenlighted before the buyout, so I let
> that one go. But then I saw the 300.. and the Crossfire... and one
> awful design after another.... embarrassing. Chrysler went the exact
> OPPOSITE of what Mercedes-Benz has achieved and innovated. They build
> pointless pieces of garbage- not that it was any better before Daimler
> stepped in, mind you.

+--------------------------------------+
\ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 /
\ \ 1 9 /
\ 0 \ 10 /
\ \ TROLL-O-METER /
\ \ /
\ \ /
\___\______________________/
\ /
\....................../


+----------+
| PLEASE |
| DO NOT |
| FEED THE |
| TROLLS |
+----------+
| |
| |
.\|.||/..

I don't think your criticisms square with the facts. Chrysler is
pretty successful right now. They are the only manufacturer of the big
three that is turning a profit at the present time because their cars
are the only ones (of the big three) selling right now. While I don't
especially care for the styling of some of their present offerings, I
certainly am happy with my old Chrysler iron. It is Mercedes that is
not doing well financially.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I don't think your criticisms square with the facts. Chrysler is
> pretty successful right now. They are the only manufacturer of the big
> three that is turning a profit at the present time because their cars
> are the only ones (of the big three) selling right now. While I don't
> especially care for the styling of some of their present offerings, I
> certainly am happy with my old Chrysler iron. It is Mercedes that is
> not doing well financially.
>

I think a lot of people in this group don't really understand that what
motivates automakers is to sell cars.

They don't sell cars to the general population. Nor do they sell to the
population of people who actually have a clue about how a car works.
Nor do they sell to the population of people who actually have a clue
as to what the difference is between a good car and a POS.

Automakers sell to a select group of people called "New car buyers"
who are comprised of a majority of people who have more money
than they know what to do with, and therefore buy or lease brand new
vehicles every year (or every other year) and a minority of people who
buy a new car once a decade. This group is extremely fickle in it's
tastes and appears to make buying decisions based on the opinions of
a group of car pundits who know even less than they do (if possible)
and who seem to judge a car by how many and how large the cup
holders are in it, and who hold forth in forums that regularly appear
in the sorts of periodicals one regularly finds in the local dentists
office waiting rooms, or stuck in airplane seat backs.

Chrysler figured this out and managed to get a group of air-heads
plugged into venues that other air-heads hang out in, and who
came up with some of the ugliest (to normal people) designs
imaginable - designs embraced by this totally-disconnected-from-
reality group of consumers known as New Car Buyers.

Ford and GM didn't do this and so their more mundane but practical
designes fell "out of fashion" as they were lacking enormous front
ends, little slitty windows, and wheels the size of manhole covers.

Ted

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
.umich.edu...
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, rst wrote:
>
>> I had high hopes for Chrysler when I heard Daimler was buying it. And
>> look what happened: Horrible model after horrible model. I figured that
>> horrible PT Cruiser was already greenlighted before the buyout, so I let
>> that one go. But then I saw the 300.. and the Crossfire... and one
>> awful design after another.... embarrassing. Chrysler went the exact
>> OPPOSITE of what Mercedes-Benz has achieved and innovated. They build
>> pointless pieces of garbage- not that it was any better before Daimler
>> stepped in, mind you.
>
> +--------------------------------------+
> \ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 /
> \ \ 1 9 /
> \ 0 \ 10 /
> \ \ TROLL-O-METER /
> \ \ /
> \ \ /
> \___\______________________/
> \ /
> \....................../
>
>
> +----------+
> | PLEASE |
> | DO NOT |
> | FEED THE |
> | TROLLS |
> +----------+
> | |
> | |
> .\|.||/..

Dan, I assume you are pretending to be a Troll; very funny.
The only thing "horrible" about my 01 PT Cruiser Limited automatic is its
very wide turning circle, lack of power, and only fair fuel economy.
Otherwise it is interesting to look at, very flexible in its use
configurations and [except for the sway bar components] very well built and
reliable.

Richard.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, "Richard" >

> Dan, I assume you are pretending to be a Troll; very funny. The only
> thing "horrible" about my 01 PT Cruiser Limited automatic is its very
> wide turning circle, lack of power, and only fair fuel economy.
> Otherwise it is interesting to look at, very flexible in its use
> configurations and [except for the sway bar components] very well built
> and reliable.

Richard, you thundering moron, you've done it again. Failed to read
carefully enough to discern who said what and who responded to it how. And
now you've misattributed to me what somebody else said. Idiot.

Ted Mittelstaedt > wrote in message
...

> wrote in message
oups.com...
I don't think your criticisms square with the facts. Chrysler is
pretty successful right now. They are the only manufacturer of the big
three that is turning a profit at the present time because their cars
are the only ones (of the big three) selling right now. While I don't
especially care for the styling of some of their present offerings, I
certainly am happy with my old Chrysler iron. It is Mercedes that is
not doing well financially.


I think a lot of people in this group don't really understand that what
motivates automakers is to sell cars.

They don't sell cars to the general population. Nor do they sell to the
population of people who actually have a clue about how a car works.
Nor do they sell to the population of people who actually have a clue
as to what the difference is between a good car and a POS.

Automakers sell to a select group of people called "New car buyers"
who are comprised of a majority of people who have more money
than they know what to do with, and therefore buy or lease brand new
vehicles every year (or every other year) and a minority of people who
buy a new car once a decade. This group is extremely fickle in it's
tastes and appears to make buying decisions based on the opinions of
a group of car pundits who know even less than they do (if possible)
and who seem to judge a car by how many and how large the cup
holders are in it, and who hold forth in forums that regularly appear
in the sorts of periodicals one regularly finds in the local dentists
office waiting rooms, or stuck in airplane seat backs.

Chrysler figured this out and managed to get a group of air-heads
plugged into venues that other air-heads hang out in, and who
came up with some of the ugliest (to normal people) designs
imaginable - designs embraced by this totally-disconnected-from-
reality group of consumers known as New Car Buyers.

Ford and GM didn't do this and so their more mundane but practical
designes fell "out of fashion" as they were lacking enormous front
ends, little slitty windows, and wheels the size of manhole covers.

Ted

____________________________________


Marketing and image are EVERYTHING!!!!!!

NoName wrote:
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Marketing and image are EVERYTHING!!!!!!
>
>


Whereas engineering, quality manufacturing and servicing are not?

Actually the Ford 500 would sell like hotcakes if it had an engine and if
the driver didn't have to shoe horn is legs into position. The area for the
driver's bottom half is incredibly cramped and I am not a big guy.


"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> I don't think your criticisms square with the facts. Chrysler is
>> pretty successful right now. They are the only manufacturer of the big
>> three that is turning a profit at the present time because their cars
>> are the only ones (of the big three) selling right now. While I don't
>> especially care for the styling of some of their present offerings, I
>> certainly am happy with my old Chrysler iron. It is Mercedes that is
>> not doing well financially.
>>
>
> I think a lot of people in this group don't really understand that what
> motivates automakers is to sell cars.
>
> They don't sell cars to the general population. Nor do they sell to the
> population of people who actually have a clue about how a car works.
> Nor do they sell to the population of people who actually have a clue
> as to what the difference is between a good car and a POS.
>
> Automakers sell to a select group of people called "New car buyers"
> who are comprised of a majority of people who have more money
> than they know what to do with, and therefore buy or lease brand new
> vehicles every year (or every other year) and a minority of people who
> buy a new car once a decade. This group is extremely fickle in it's
> tastes and appears to make buying decisions based on the opinions of
> a group of car pundits who know even less than they do (if possible)
> and who seem to judge a car by how many and how large the cup
> holders are in it, and who hold forth in forums that regularly appear
> in the sorts of periodicals one regularly finds in the local dentists
> office waiting rooms, or stuck in airplane seat backs.
>
> Chrysler figured this out and managed to get a group of air-heads
> plugged into venues that other air-heads hang out in, and who
> came up with some of the ugliest (to normal people) designs
> imaginable - designs embraced by this totally-disconnected-from-
> reality group of consumers known as New Car Buyers.
>
> Ford and GM didn't do this and so their more mundane but practical
> designes fell "out of fashion" as they were lacking enormous front
> ends, little slitty windows, and wheels the size of manhole covers.
>
> Ted
>
>