What it shows is that there is a big schism in terms of how important people believe manufacturing is to America’s economic future.

This company was already stripped by th Germans even before the three-headed dog got in the act. Within a period of five years Daimler took the most advanced and successful R&D center in the U.S. and stripped it. Both of authority and money.

The 300C should have been released as a 2003. Due to Daimler’s dictatorial directives it was not able to come out until 2005.

The Dakota was slated to become the ‘new’ alternative to the S10 and Ranger. Chrysler had $850 million budgeted for it on the belief that pickup truck buyers wanted a larger and more substantial pickup. They were right… but Daimler disagreed. Chrysler wasn’t able to capitalize on what turned out to be excellent market research.

The 2nd Gen Neon was supposed to be a far more athletic vehicle with styling as unique as the first generation. Daimler shut it down in favor of a more ‘mainstream’ vehicle that could compete more directly with the Civic and Corolla. Dumb move. The Neon turned out to be a boring and pointless car. All of the brand equity that was in that name was shot within five years.

The Germans made decisions with virtually no real knowledge of Chrysler’s role in the North American or regard for the ‘American’ underlings’. They stripped the company of cash, delayed product development, ignored unhappy customers, and pretty much put Chrysler into the hole that they are now in. It may not have been their attention. But it was most certainly their responsiblility and their fault.

I don’t fault Cerebreus for going forward the way they are at all. Like Chrysler in the early 1980’s, this company simply can’t afford to invest in all the R&D it would take to make it the leader of the pack in all the segments where it sells. There’s simply too many. Instead they’re going to use other successful platforms out there, rebadge them, and perhaps tweak them a bit to have these vehicles better suit their customers preferences. So long as the platforms are good ones, it should give them better product than they have now. It should also allow them to focus on those vehicles where their skill sets are a good match (pickups, medium duty trucks, minivans) instead of ones where they simply don’t have it at the moment (subcompact, compact and midsized cars).

My recollection is that DaimlerChrysler went through a big tussle with the unions over this. They wanted to make it a Dodge for the much bigger distribution network, but were at odds with the union over details and for some reason first started building them as Freightliners and added the Dodge name later. My memory is foggy on it all though.

You can then buy a Mercedes grille, 3 pointed star, badges, etc. to put the MB back on the Sprinter. I don’t know about Canada but the Sprinter was never officially labeled a Mercedes south of the border.

But Manufaturing other peoples cars might not be a bad idea if they build them good since they are failing in the design end for themselves. I don’t see it helping them much with the red ink though.

If Dodge/Chrysler can’t even badge engineer correctly, they are in trouble.

They seem to get it right with the Sprinter van. Up here in Vancouver I have seen them badged as Dodge, Frieghtliner, and Mercedes Benz.

And I saw something on our fleet manager’s desk about the Sterling Bullet, a medium duty truck that appears to be based on the Dodge Ram.

Something for everyone!

(As the shirt says…”Sarcasm is just another service….)