I see 19 year old Japanese and German Cars on a daily basis. Sure the Japanese ones are usually 82% rust, but they run. Hell my Subaru is 23, and my BMW is 21.

Those 80’s-era domestics(with very few exceptions)were rolling automotive abortions that resembled medieval torture devices but without the quality, especially in the case of Chrysler. 1.5b Dollars and we get the Dodge Aries and 600!?!(The Lancer/Lebaron was not bad, however). ARE YOU KIDDING ME. Chrysler should have been left to die in 1979, it was never a good idea to bail them out, look what they created.

Up here, 80’s domestics have virtually disappeared, you won’t even find them in junkyards. The only American car that I see from that era with any regularity is the Pontiac 6000.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/chrysler_names_83_lebaron?utm_source=slate_rss_1

Assuming various statements out of Cerberus about how they’re in this for the long term and really really do intend to grow the company with compelling new products are bullshit, can we expect to see the great flipping soon after the bailout? Depending on the language in the bailout (guess who’s drafting that) might they be able to back their 18-wheelers up to the window and load up? And then, depending on the language in the legislation, maybe flip this loser while the value is maxed out? It’ll be interesting.

First, the Chrysler loans were private. They weren’t government loans. The government merely guaranteed the loans in the event that Chrysler defaulted. Chrysler could not have obtained the loans without government intervention and the government was on the hook, but it was actually not the government’s money being loaned.

Second, part of the rationale for bailing out Chrysler was that it was a defense contractor. I believe that it may have been developing the Abrams tank at the time. Letting it go under might have, it was argued, jeopardized the defense procurement end of national security. Whether that was accurate or not, it certainly doesn’t apply currently.

Personally, I nominate the 2000 version of Mr. McCain, you know, the pre Rove version…

Being that the K car you saw was at least nineteen years old, I will have to add “Good Call” indeed!!

…. One of Lee’s pet peeves in his auto-biography was that the government made Chrysler get rid of it’s private jets. Lee and the boys had to fly commercial. Could you imagine Rick, Alan, and Bob doing that?

I wonder how many free rides have been provided to the political class on those GM private jets.

Now, they’re going after the tax money directly. A much, much different proposition and not one that fills me, or anyone else it seems, with any sort of the warm and fuzzies. A bad deal that looks to to be throwing money away, and that bowl being presented again; “Please Sir, some more.”

I think the bailout is more palatable to congress now since its miniscule compared to the trillions that the Iraq mess has cost and will continue to cost.

Cite please.

The only (il)logic a bailout follows is this:

To solve a problem, make it bigger.

Yet another example of how throwing money at a problem only makes said problem worse.

$50B these days isn’t that significant. Heck, tons of banks have been losing $5B a quarter thanks to the debt debacle and they’re still around.

Plus, all that has to happen is that Congress (again) buys stock in GM, F, and get a portion of Chrysler. Then, if it’s set up right and if the domestics are still around, congress’ll make back what they spent.

$50B / 250M people = $200 per person.

That’s less than most people spend on gas in a month.

Let’s assume the company could find no commercial insurer for their loans. We are talking Guido vigorish territory. Were they charged that kind of interest? If not, the taxpayers subsidized the loan, and that reduces any returns by a like amount.

The answer to the question of what happens after 50 billion is the same answer the investment banks get, and Fannie Mae gets, and commercial banks get… no problem, we’ll keep giving you more.

Next year the car companies will be back again to ask for another 50billion. And why not?

Finally, that $50 bill, if it goes anywhere, should go to car-buying taxpayers. It’s their money, and if they buy a car- no matter from whom- then the company will have earned that money. Free enterprise is the American way, not turning the automakers into welfare queens.

What I do not understand about America is how it is even possible for the government to support dying companies that still think they can afford exorbitant saleries for their top executives.

Paying Rabid Rick millions while he asks for billions: that’s like as if Brownie were still doing a hell of a job in New Orleans, and being paid like a king, to boot.

“Oh, isn’t that a Maserati in the picture?”

Actually it’s a hybrid (no pun intended). The coach work and interior are Maserati, the drivetrain is Chrysler with the addition, on the top end models of a double overhead cam Maserati sourced 16v head (by Cosworth). In later years it was a true world car: Body by Maserati, electronics, tranny, and running gear by Chrysler, and engine by Mitusbishi.

The car was delayed for several years because, don’t laugh, Maserati could not produce a coach with quality targets that Chrysler was asking for. When it was finally introduced after numerous delays the interest in it had waned. And the LeBaron had been introduced making the TC look like a copy of the LeBaron instead of the other way around.

A good history is here:

http://www.allpar.com/model/tc.html

As for the NYT’s description of the interior, I’ll let you be the judge:

http://www.murrayco.com/Car_Collection/chrysler_TC_maserati_91.html

(Scroll down to the bottom)

Here’s the paradox folks. If one of the big three go bankrupt… their name and sales will go straight to the toilet. Period. This isn’t a, “Well… what if…” scenario. The minute they decide to file Chapter 11 they will lose the majority of their remaining sales base.

Another thing to consider is that a Ford or GM Chapter 11 will effectively make their American competitors that much less marketable. It will for all intended purposes become a complete capitulation of the American-owned auto industry when it comes to car buying. Most anyone who then shops for an ‘American’ car will have to consider the possibility that the maintenance and depreciation of the car will be terrible. Even if that model is truly among the best in that segment it won’t matter.

Chrysler may have a limited impact due to it’s far smaller size and popularity. But a Ford or GM bankruptcy will be a big white flag in the eyes of the public.

The only hope here is that the bailout vote can be delayed until after the election. Tell ‘em what they want to hear in the meantime. Won’t get fooled again…

It was a profitable venture for the government. If I recall correctly, the government held some of Chrysler’s stock as collateral, and when the company bounced back in the early 1980s, the value of those shares soared. The government DID make some money on the Chrysler loan guarantees.

Edward Niedermeyer: The key to Chrysler’s post-bailout success was a well-grounded turnaround plan rooted in solid products.

Excellent article, but a critical key to Chrysler receiving the loan guarantees in the first place was Lee Iacocca. Probably no one else could have orchestrated the public relations campaign that sold the UAW on concessions (without which Congressional Republicans would never have agreed to the bailout) and Congress, President Carter and ultimately the public on the whole idea of the loan guarantees.

Some of his actions in the late 1980s and early 1990s – along with his refusal to retire from Chrysler – tarnished his reputation, but in 1979, the fact that Iacocca was leading Chrysler made the idea of loan guarantees palatable to a skeptical public and federal government.