Are they goners? Pictures of car brands on life support

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10549128/?pg=8#anc_AutoProject_LifeSupport_2006

 

Who knows? Usually you're just one hit away from big success. Chrysler, in
the 80's was on life support before the K-car came out. If they made it
with such a lousy car anyone can!

 

Only two things helped Dodge survive the 90's, The purchase of the
sucessful Jeep line in 89 and the use of the Cummins in their HD
pickups. Without them, Chysler would have likely faded away.

 

The loan from the US government allowed them to keep things going. Then the
K-car and the first 7 year/70K mile warranty are what allowed Chrysler to
generate the cash to design the Minivan and then purchase Jeep.

Bob

 

THis is true but without the Jeep purchase and the CTD, they would
have faded back away in 90's and likely would be worse of today if
they had not been bought out too.

 

I vote minivan sales.

I think they came out with the first and probably best in initial quality.
Afterall that's what keeps a car company alive, the people that come in and
buy a new car every two years not people like me that find a car they like
and drive it until it dies or no longer meets their needs.
Anyone that holds onto a Caravan past 100,000km (think transmission here
people) probably won't be real impressed unless they baby it and keep up on
the maintenance.

 

I do agree that minivan sales did help too but it was not enough to
carry them alone and mini vans have been dying slowly since mid 90's
as the SUV craze took over. Kinda said because they are more fuel
efficent than SUV today and likely safer overall too.

 

This is all related since the original Chrysler Minivan (1984 model year I
think) was based on the K-car's frame and power train (2.5L transverse
mounted 4 cylinder and 3 speed transaxle).

Bob

 

Yes, I think the K-car was a turning point and it definitely revived the
company but if they hadn't decided to expand the Omni/Horizon into a van I
think they would have lost a lot of momentum by the end of the 80's.

 

Side note, The Omni with 2.2L engine was one of my favorite small cars. I
also had a 1977 Oldsmobile Delta 88 coupe with a 350 just after the Omni.
Bit of a difference in fuel economy but about the same acceleration.

 

You must have had the 2.2L turbo ... possibly a rare Omni GLH? I had a 1987
Lebaron GTS with the 2.2L turbo as well. A slight hesitation off a dead
start, but once the turbo kicked in it took off ... and had great steering
and brakes too.

 

No turbo, I figured 2.2 was fairly common since my friend had one too (mine
was auto, his manual) He (well his parents) also had an 84 Caravan with the
same 2.2L and let me tell you it wasn't much of a performer in the van.
A few years later I bought an Omni (84 I think) with the 1.6L Peugeot
engine, just not the same :-(

 

There wasn't a loan from the US government to Chrysler. There were loan
guarantees, IOW the US Gov. cosigned for loans.

Ken

 

Ken,

Yes, you are correct in that the government was the guaranteeor and not the
originator of the loan. Although more accurate, it is not relevant to the
points I made regarding the success of the K-car and the Minivan providing
the basis for Chrysler's purchase of Jeep.

Bob

 

Bob,

I agree with what you said here. The relevance is that saying that Chrysler
received a loan from the US Gov furthers an inaccurate belief that many have
held for the last 20-odd years.

Best Wishes,

Ken