But you’re a Ford guy. Some Chrysler innovations worked out well, including power convertible tops, automatic overdrive systems, power windows, power steering and alternators to name a few.
On Apr 28, 2014, at 3:43 PM, Ken Waller <[email protected]> wrote: > In my circles Chrysler has been known for many engineering break-throughs > most of which fell short in the execution. > >> But please, let's not divert from the entertaining Leica bashing. :-) >> it's somewhat closer to the supposed topic of this forum. > > And here I thought the supposed topic of this forum was Pentax ! > > Kenneth Waller > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Colen" <[email protected]> > Subject: Fwd: OT: The Leica T succeeds in pissing me off. > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: OT: The Leica T succeeds in pissing me off. >> Date: April 27, 2014 at 1:52:14 PM PDT >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >> >> Far as I'm concerned, Paul, Chrysler was always a failure. Even worse crap >> than GM. I'm glad the Italians control them now. > > MOPAR has made some winners and some losers. At 200,000 miles, many of which > spent towing, my van is starting to show it’s age, but I bet it’ll still do a > better job of towing your Mercedes than your Mercedes will do towing it. As > to performance, it has probably turned a faster lap time at Thunderhill than > your Mercedes ever has as well. With 360 God fearing all American cubic > inches the mileage isn’t the best, but if I put in all of the seats and > didn’t drive with a lead foot, I could probably get upwards of 130 passenger > miles per gallon. > > Yeah, my tongue spent a bit of time in my cheek in the above paragraph, but > every car company has strengths and weaknesses. I’m glad that you like your > car, that’s all that matters for you. The only car Mercedes has made in > recent memory that has held any appeal to me is the Smart, but I’m not into > luxobarges. On the other hand Chrysler made the Viper GTS, and until you’ve > had eight liters of V10 pass you on the track at full song you simply cannot > comprehend the concept of priapism in a can. > > Everyone in the automotive industry that I’ve heard or read has pretty much > said what Paul did. Daimler came in, raped over Chrysler. When there seems > to be a consensus among people who know more about the automotive industry > than you do about Apple computers, I suspect that there might be something to > what they say. I might not ask Paul for advice on which iPad to buy, but > considering that he’s worked for both of the auto companies under discussion, > I have a hunch that he’s not just blowing smoke out of his ass. > >> >> And Audi is a brand-engineered VW. > > And Porsches are nothing but VWs with a hormone imbalance, or as I’ve heard > them described “A really bad idea that has been meticulously perfected”. Even > so, you might want to chat with John Buffum about Audis deficiencies. > >> >> But please, let's not divert from the entertaining Leica bashing. :-) >> it's somewhat closer to the supposed topic of this forum. > > I don’t think anyone has serious complaints with Leicas, just their prices > and some of the people who own them. > > :-) > >> >> Godfrey >> >> >>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Paul Stenquist <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Oh my! You do invent your own reality, don’t your? I was there when Daimler >>> and Chrysler “merged," working on the Chrysler ad biz, so I’ll educate you. >>> Chrysler never owend" Daimler. Eaton and the rest of Chrysler mangement >>> sold out to Daimler for a huge amount of cash. Daimller was calling all the >>> shots. Hell, they sent Dieter Zetsche, who is now Daimler CEO, here to run >>> the Chrylser group. (Zetsche was a nice guy. We had a good time at Daytona >>> when Dodge premiered in NASCAR, but his loyalty was definitely to the >>> motherland.) At the time, Mercedes was not doing well, but Chrysler had 9 >>> billion dollars in the bank. Daimler emptied Chrysler’s piggy bank in a >>> matter of years, then left town, leaving a broke and decimated Chrylser >>> behind. Cerebus dragged the carcass around for a few years, then Marchione >>> came to town and saved Chrysler. Unlike Daimler, Marchione really means it. >>> He wants Chrylser to succeed. And they are. >>> >>> I worked on the Mercede-Benz ad biz as well at McCaffrey & McCall in the >>> 1980s. (My commercial, “Interview” iis still considered the best Mercedes >>> spot of all time and it won the Gold Clio for best automotive spot of >>> 1990.) Mercedes was on a roll when I wrote that commercial, but withing >>> months Lexus and Infiniti came on the scene, and Daimler panicked. They >>> told me they could no longer be “Emgineered Like No Other Car In the >>> World.” It was too arrogant. And they took a lot of content out of the cars >>> so they could match the prices of the Japanese cars. I bailed and went to >>> Detroit, and Mercedes quality declined. But the Germans are smart and they >>> have a huge pool of engineering talent to draw on. Mercedes has made gains >>> in recent years, but they never quite recovred. In many ways, they still >>> trail BMW and Audi. And of course it’s heresy in the PC world, but Cadillac >>> is producing better products than Mercedes for some segments — the ATS vs. >>> the C-Class and the CTS vs. the E-class. Mercedes has a future, but they’re >>> not the world leader they were in the 1980s. >>> >>> Here’s “Interview,” if you’d like to see it: >>> http://stenquist.org/Paul/MercedesEngineer.htm >>>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Plenty of them around here. But their quality did suffer a bit through the >>>> years of Chrysler ownership. They were sensible to get rid of Chrysler, >>>> even at a loss. >>>> >>>> G >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Apr 26, 2014, at 2:42 PM, Paul Stenquist <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Not many ten year old Mercs though. Intimately familiar with that >>>>> company. Unfortunately. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
