LaSorda: Chrysler Tried to Hook-Up With Toyota. And Everyone Else.

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

No, really. The Detroit News reports that prior to its Chapter 11 filing, Chrysler sought to sell off parts of the company to everyone. “Chrysler sent letters to parties, primarily in China, whom we thought would be potentially interested in purchasing our assets,” writes ChryCo’s Tom LaSorda in a bankruptcy filing affidavit. “Over the next two months, several companies, including Beijing Automotive Industry Holding Co., Tempo International Group, Hawtai Automobiles, and Chery Automotive Co., expressed interest in purchasing specific vehicles, powertrains, intellectual property rights, distribution channels and automotive brands.” But guess what? Not even these ambitious firms were tempted to spend a dime on Chrysler’s alleged assets. And the major OEMs in the global auto game? Chrysler’s efforts to form alliances with Nissan, GM, Volkswagen, Tata Motors, Magna, GAZ, Hyundai, Honda and Toyota “have been determined and undertaken in good faith but have met uniformly without success,” admits LaSorda.

Chrysler approached Toyota last June, suggesting that “Toyota use Chrysler’s excess capacity to build new products or work to develop advanced technology vehicles, such as hybrids.” A month later, Toyota wrote back saying thanks but no thanks. It only took Honda a single day last December to politely decline Chrysler’s offer. Nissan took a little more time to decide against a Chrysler tie-up. Rumors of a Chrysler-Nissan alliance were thick in 2008, as executives met half a dozen times, even exchanging term sheets. “In May, the teams reported that an alliance between Chrysler and Nissan could generate operational synergies on a gross cash basis of more than $11.8 billion in cash flow for Chrysler only ($18 billion for both companies),” says LaSorda. And still no deal emerged, reportedly because Nissan couldn’t commit enough financing resources. Even after those talks fell apart, Chrysler went back to Nissan looking for another deal as its position crumbled further late last year. No deal.

But really, “the hedge funds” are to blame for Chrysler’s bankruptcy. Just ask the Michigan House of Representatives.

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 16 comments
  • Wsn Wsn on May 01, 2009
    psarhjinian : May 1st, 2009 at 1:42 pm It didn’t work because: a) Companies that could afford it already had decent products and didn’t need the help** I want to add that it also depends on whether the companies line up is bloated or not. Toyota has a large number of models, so they considered for longer. Honda is very careful not to add unnecessary models and declined in one day. Chrysler might have better luck with Daimler, since Daimler has 3432 AMG models in its lineup. Wait, oh, Daimler was Chrysler's ex. Well ...
  • Brettc Brettc on May 01, 2009

    Yes, the Routan comment was dripping with sarcasm, too bad it's hard to tell on the interwebs. Thanks for the numbers on the Routan, Edward N. I've gotta subscribe to Automotive News I guess. The total production number vs total sales doesn't quite match up! I wouldn't be surprised to see them discontinue it and have some good deals on the remaining inventory soon. Not that I'd ever buy one though. I'd buy a Sprinter first.

  • MaintenanceCosts I wish more vehicles in our market would be at or under 70" wide. Narrowness makes everything easier in the city.
  • El scotto They should be supping with a very, very long spoon.
  • El scotto [list=1][*]Please make an EV that's not butt-ugly. Not Jaguar gorgeous but Buick handsome will do.[/*][*] For all the golf cart dudes: A Tesla S in Plaid mode will be the fastest ride you'll ever take.[/*][*]We have actual EV owners posting on here. Just calmly stated facts and real world experience. This always seems to bring out those who would argue math.[/*][/list=1]For some people an EV will never do, too far out in the country, taking trips where an EV will need recharged, etc. If you own a home and can charge overnight an EV makes perfect sense. You're refueling while you're sleeping.My condo association is allowing owners to install chargers. You have to pay all of the owners of the parking spaces the new electric service will cross. Suggested fee is 100$ and the one getting a charger pays all the legal and filing fees. I held out for a bottle of 30 year old single malt.Perhaps high end apartments will feature reserved parking spaces with chargers in the future. Until then non home owners are relying on public charge and one of my neighbors is in IT and he charges at work. It's call a perk.I don't see company owned delivery vehicles that are EV's. The USPS and the smiley boxes should be the 1st to do this. Nor are any of our mega car dealerships doing this and but of course advertising this fact.I think a great many of the EV haters haven't came to the self-actualization that no one really cares what you drive. I can respect and appreciate what you drive but if I was pushed to answer, no I really don't care what you drive. Before everyone goes into umbrage over my last sentence, I still like cars. Especially yours.I have heated tiles in my bathroom and my kitchen. The two places you're most likely to be barefoot. An EV may fall into to the one less thing to mess with for many people.Macallan for those who were wondering.
  • EBFlex The way things look in the next 5-10 years no. There are no breakthroughs in battery technology coming, the charging infrastructure is essentially nonexistent, and the price of entry is still way too high.As soon as an EV can meet the bar set by ICE in range, refueling times, and price it will take off.
  • Jalop1991 Way to bury the lead. "Toyota to offer two EVs in the states"!
Next