It seems that Chrysler spent some $500K or more on full page ads in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today and other publications last week to "Thank" the American public for the bailout loan.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/img/ThankYouAmerica.jpg

The ad was also posted on Chrysler's corporate blog.

American taxpayers, already unhappy about being forced to give their tax $ to help a mis-managed company, clearly expressed their unhappiness on how their tax money is being spent in the blogs comments.

A torrent of hellfire backlash was posted in the comments on their blog site. So much so, after 6 or so hours of this, and a growing interest and hits from social bookmarking sites like Digg, Twitter and StumbleUpon over the commotion, Chrysler removed the ad and deleted all the comments...

Consumerist has the story here: Chrysler Buys Ads Thanking You For Tax Money, You Get Pissed, Chrysler Censors You

Just a sampling of the reaction from an angry US public on the "Thank You" ad:

What a total waste of money. That useless ad money could have been put into research and development to make better quality and fuel efficient vehicles. This has got to be the most expensive thank you card ever written, providing better products would be just as sufficient.

Way to blow hundreds of thousands of dollars on a useless ad campaign that will surely only worsen your public image. We weren't buying your cars before because they are all gas guzzling, unreliable, uninteresting cars that look like they were styled by the coleman plastic cooler division, inside and out. So then you steal our money through the government so you can waste more of it on useless ads, and you have the audacity to remind us all about it. Go to hell Chrysler. I was not going to buy one of your vehicles before, and I certainly am never going to do so after this.

I signed up just to add comments in response to your ad of properly slapping the American public in the face with insensitivity and pride. Money that was "taken" from the American people wasted on advertising thanking the people the money was taken from is audacious. I don't know whether to loathe you for your insensitivity in the matter or praise you for your boldness. Clearly the move this advertising campaign was dreamed up and approved by individuals who has no contact with the average American. The problem with your company and that of many American companies is the ridiculous financial separation of upper management from that of the average middle income American. Your outrageous income and ability to choose to isolate yourselves mentally, financially, and emotionally from the consumer you serve has lead to the financial ruin of your company. However, I'm sure this is of no concern to you or your upper management team because even if your company fail, you will have your golden parachute stitched with the money taken from the pockets of people who are loosing their homes, their jobs, and their ability to provide for their family (some of these people work for your company).

We were forced to help you. Thank us by acting responsible for a change. This ad is the equivalent to salt poured on an open wound. If you had any common sense, you would be ashamed.

Depending on placement, full page ads placed in the Wall Street journal can cost over $200,000, not to mention the other publications where this ad was placed. So, at least a quarter of a million dollars of our money was spent on an ad thanking us for our contribution. A contribution that the majority did not want to make. This ad screams "Hey, look what we are doing with your tax dollars, lol." This ad is yet another example of frivolous and clueless spending. Thank us by using OUR money to make your company profitable, not with a meaningless ad. As the old saying goes,"Actions speak louder than words."

It wasn't enough for you to run Home Depot into the ground, you had to take down a domestic auto manufacturer down too? Nardelli, you're a piece of work, I often wish American culture mirrored Japanese culture in the generational shame brought about by a family member.

I'm boycotting you. My whole family is boycotting you. My mother and my father, my brothers and sisters, my sons and daughters. Just thought I'd let you know.

You are NOT WELCOME! What an insult upon injury. Chrysler is morally bankrupt, proven by this ad thanking the very people they've stolen from. There is nothing that could ever tempt me to buy your product and it appears much of America feels the same.

Dear Chrysler: I don't like to pay for things twice, so since I've already paid to bail you out of your mess, I won't be buying any of your vehicles. Yours Truly, A great great grand nephew of Walter P Chrysler

You are not welcome, thieves. Your crappy, ugly cars will now sell even less, thanks to your ignorance and hubris. You better hope the government keeps printing money for you, because you aren't getting any of ours anytime soon.

You are not welcome! Shame on you, Mr. Nardelli! Shame on all the morally bankrupt greedy, overpaid deadbeats at Cerberus! I feel sorry for the employees at Chrysler, but the fact is they do not build products that the public wants to buy. It is certainly not the fault of most of these employees, that most of the public does not want to buy these products, but life is not fair. Chrysler should be put out of its misery and Chrysler employees will have to find other jobs, just like other hardworking Americans do. It isn't easy. But hey, life sucks. Just like Chrysler products.

If it comes down to Chrysler or walking.......we'll walk. I'll put my kids on a mule before I'll put them in a Chysler. Suck it, you parasites.

Nardelli screwed up Home Depot. Now his incompetence is at the helm of Chrysler. Is he putting any of his 222 million golden parachute from HD on the line at Chrysler? I just bought an Xterra, made in the USA. Sorry Jeep


Boneheaded move Chrysler, but why am I not surprised?

LOL...  nice....  Great thread, btw.

i think the US is just going to end up getting out of the car business. the japanese, germans, and koreans seem to have handed us our ass in this department.

i think the US is just going to end up getting out of the car business. the japanese, germans, and koreans seem to have handed us our ass in this department.


And it's a damned shame too, considering how awesome our cars used to be. :-\\

As for Chrysler.....F*CK YOU.

i think the US is just going to end up getting out of the car business. the japanese, germans, and koreans seem to have handed us our ass in this department.


I disagree.  I think (and hope) that UNIONS will get out of the American car business.  About the only profitable plants that produce cars in America are non-union.

At this point in time, there really is no such thing as an American, European, or Japanese car.  Most car manufacturers have plants in America, Europe, and several other areas, and the parts come from various places as well.  About the only distinction that can really be made is that companies like Ford have American designed cars, but even that is changing.

For example, I drive a Saturn Astra, which is sold under several different brands throughout the world, but despite being under the Saturn nameplate here, all of these cars are made in Belgium.  I believe they were designed by Europeans as well.

On the other hand, something like 65% of Toyota Camrys are made in America, despite being Japanese designed.  All Porsche Boxsters are made in Mexico, despite being German designed.

For the most part, the auto market is very international in production.  All that seems to matter in the end is whether or not production is profitable.  Being non-unionized is a good way to remain lucrative.

I disagree.  I think (and hope) that UNIONS will get out of the American car business.  About the only profitable plants that produce cars in America are non-union.

At this point in time, there really is no such thing as an American, European, or Japanese car.  Most car manufacturers have plants in America, Europe, and several other areas, and the parts come from various places as well.  About the only distinction that can really be made is that companies like Ford have American designed cars, but even that is changing.

For example, I drive a Saturn Astra, which is sold under several different brands throughout the world, but despite being under the Saturn nameplate here, all of these cars are made in Belgium.  I believe they were designed by Europeans as well.

On the other hand, something like 65% of Toyota Camrys are made in America, despite being Japanese designed.  All Porsche Boxsters are made in Mexico, despite being German designed.

For the most part, the auto market is very international in production.  All that seems to matter in the end is whether or not production is profitable.  Being non-unionized is a good way to remain lucrative.

could always use child workers and slaves while we're at it.  ::)

could always use child workers and slaves while we're at it.  ::)


Well, when it comes to Mexico...  you never know...  lol

But seriously...  Isn't it obvious that most of why GM is falling is because of unrealistic demands by unions?  Do you know how much these pensions have cost GM over the years?

  Being non-unionized is a good way to remain lucrative.



For who?

Well, when it comes to Mexico...  you never know...  lol

But seriously...  Isn't it obvious that most of why GM is falling is because of unrealistic demands by unions?  Do you know how much these pensions have cost GM over the years?
evidently a bunch of the expenses have to do with health care costs. if we nationalized health care that would save the automakers a bunch in labor costs. it doesn't have to come from yet another union-busting exercise.

For who?


The company, of course.  Unions might be needed in other industries (like Walmart perhaps), but in the auto market, they do much better without them.

Observe the difference in profitability between a typical GM plant and the Toyota plant in Indiana.

evidently a bunch of the expenses have to do with health care costs. if we nationalized health care that would save the automakers a bunch in labor costs. it doesn't have to come from yet another union-busting exercise.


Yes and no.  I definitely support socialized healthcare, partially for the reason you mentioned.  Still, I'm no fan of unions either.  GM should follow Toyota's example.

Chrysler is dead meat, that government "loan" was a complete waste of money.

Chrysler just signed this deal with Fiat, where Fiat will put up zero cash and has no commitment to put up any cash in the future.  Fiat assumes no debt of Chrysler's.  Fiat gets 35% ownership of Chrysler, and in return for all of this, Fiat gets to sell its cars ar Chrysler dealerships, and Chrysler gets access to Fiat's small car technology.

Even if Fiat's technology is good, Chrysler will be bankrupt well before that technology could be brought to market for Chrysler.  Chrysler needs a short term plan and they don't have one.  The Fiat deal is like throwing a drowning man some steel plate and a welding torch, and telling him "now build yourself a boat".  ::)

The company, of course.  Unions might be needed in other industries (like Walmart perhaps), but in the auto market, they do much better without them.

Observe the difference in profitability between a typical GM plant and the Toyota plant in Indiana.



I've said this before.  If the unions are to be ousted and the line workers work at the lower compensation levels like the Japanese Compannies, the the upper management should do the same.  In the Japanese model the highest paid workers are paid on a scale to the lowest paid workers.  For some reason the brakes go on when that is suggested.

Meh, I look at it this way, you lend a junkie a buck for a the bus, you know he's not going to take the bus, he knows he's not going to take the bus, you both know he's not gonna pay you back...but it's nice for the junkie to say thank you!
:P

(I have a better analogy, but it's too vulgar for this board!)

And yeah, Mac's right.  General Motors never made no dough when the union had a seat at the bargaining table.  GM did real lousy in the fifties and sixties, not like today.
:D

I've said this before.  If the unions are to be ousted and the line workers work at the lower compensation levels like the Japanese Compannies, the the upper management should do the same.  In the Japanese model the highest paid workers are paid on a scale to the lowest paid workers.  For some reason the brakes go on when that is suggested.


Hey, I personally agree, but that's for the company to decide, not me.

And yeah, Mac's right.  General Motors never made no dough when the union had a seat at the bargaining table.  GM did real lousy in the fifties and sixties, not like today.
:D


Unions weren't a problem back then because the global economy was quite different.  Japanese automakers were quite primitive back then.  With competition much more fierce today than back then, unions are an unnecessary liability.

I've said this before.  If the unions are to be ousted and the line workers work at the lower compensation levels like the Japanese Compannies, the the upper management should do the same.  In the Japanese model the highest paid workers are paid on a scale to the lowest paid workers.  For some reason the brakes go on when that is suggested.


I agree.  It isn't fair that the "lowly" hourly wage earner has to take a cut in pay but the bigwigs still make mega bucks and get raises and bonuses.  These companies are top heavy and need to start the slashing there or they will go bye bye. 

Chrysler is dead meat, that government "loan" was a complete waste of money.

Chrysler just signed this deal with Fiat, where Fiat will put up zero cash and has no commitment to put up any cash in the future.  Fiat assumes no debt of Chrysler's.  Fiat gets 35% ownership of Chrysler, and in return for all of this, Fiat gets to sell its cars ar Chrysler dealerships, and Chrysler gets access to Fiat's small car technology.

Even if Fiat's technology is good, Chrysler will be bankrupt well before that technology could be brought to market for Chrysler.  Chrysler needs a short term plan and they don't have one.  The Fiat deal is like throwing a drowning man some steel plate and a welding torch, and telling him "now build yourself a boat".   ::)


Fiat just bought stock in Chrysler. Go figure.

I'm staunchly "Buy American" when it comes to cars, but I'd buy a Kia before I'd buy a Chrysler.

There's a few Chrysler products I like, like the 300 luxury sedan or perhaps a Jeep (not to mention that the new Dodge Challenger is totally badass but I've outgrown that phase), but when it comes to small cars or mainstream midsize sedans, what Chrysler has to offer in those segments are complete turds compared to the competition.


Ford will almost certainly survive, and GM most likely will too, but I don't think Chrysler will be around much longer.  :(

Fiat just bought stock in Chrysler. Go figure.

I'm staunchly "Buy American" when it comes to cars, but I'd buy a Kia before I'd buy a Chrysler.




KIA! Say it ain't so

KIA! Say it ain't so


Fiat did not even put up any money for their "shares" in Chrysler.  They just put up some technology.

I remember the old saying.  Fiat is an acronym for "Fix it Again, Tony".  ;D

This is actually the reason I often avoid saying "thank you."  ;D

I remember the old saying.  Fiat is an acronym for "Fix it Again, Tony".  ;D

I owned a Fiat for seven years and >100k miles - the best-driving car I've ever owned.  The only mechanical problem was the exhaust getting broken on speed humps when I had a full load on board.  Their small car technology today is pretty damn good, and probably worth a few hundred million and a year or two in development time & cost.  Is it too late for Chrysler?  Quite possibly.


I'm staunchly "Buy American" when it comes to cars, but I'd buy a Kia before I'd buy a Chrysler.

So is "Kia" an acroynm for "Keep It American"?  ;)

On-topic: I do wonder where the decision was made to say "thank you" in such an expensive way - do you think the board actually said "let's spend half a million of the money on an ad..."?  Seems almost as stupid as flying in a private jet to a meeting to ask for a huge bailout...

I owned a Fiat for seven years and >100k miles - the best-driving car I've ever owned.  The only mechanical problem was the exhaust getting broken on speed humps when I had a full load on board.  Their small car technology today is pretty damn good, and probably worth a few hundred million and a year or two in development time & cost.  Is it too late for Chrysler?  Quite possibly.
So is "Kia" an acroynm for "Keep It American"?  ;)

On-topic: I do wonder where the decision was made to say "thank you" in such an expensive way - do you think the board actually said "let's spend half a million of the money on an ad..."?  Seems almost as stupid as flying in a private jet to a meeting to ask for a huge bailout...


KIA = Killed In Action.
:o

My father had a Fiat in the early '70s.  Sometimes he drove the car, sometimes the car drove him...drove him crazy! The thing was horrible in the cold and the snow of the New England winters.  The weather's a little milder in Italy!

KIA = Killed In Action.
:o

My father had a Fiat in the early '70s.  Sometimes he drove the car, sometimes the car drove him...drove him crazy! The thing was horrible in the cold and the snow of the New England winters.  The weather's a little milder in Italy!

That always used to be the problem with Fiats: the Italian climate meant that bodywork was always rust-prone, even though the mechanics weren't bad.  That changed one or two decades ago - nowadays they're as good as anything.  Some friends of mine have a Punto they've owned for ten years or so.. we run a Ulysse that isn't the best thing on four wheels, but like a lot of old Fiats it just keeps going.

http://lampoon.rwinters.com/NL134-May1981.jpg

wow, that's edgy. :o

http://lampoon.rwinters.com/NL134-May1981.jpg

wow, that's edgy. :o


Hey, Mr. NatLamp, I remember that issue.  I also remember, "If you don't buy this magazine, we'll shoot this dog!"
8)

Here's another one:

Wells Fargo Cancels Las Vegas Trip, Takes Out Ad In NYT To Blame Media

Here's another one:

Wells Fargo Cancels Las Vegas Trip, Takes Out Ad In NYT To Blame Media


haha, i was expecting this link to go to the onion. seriously.

haha, i was expecting this link to go to the onion. seriously.


I wish it would have, but sadly, no. :P

I wish it would have, but sadly, no. :P
ah just like the name of one of my favorite political blogs!

http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/16913.html

ah just like the name of one of my favorite political blogs!

http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/16913.html


Sucked me in.  I've been reading it nonstop for the past twenty minutes and only came back to reality when Jason came in here and yelled at me. ;D

*puts in blog favorites list*

Sucked me in.  I've been reading it nonstop for the past twenty minutes and only came back to reality when Jason came in here and yelled at me. ;D

*puts in blog favorites list*
we need to trade blog lists sometime. my need for good quality humor blogging is vast, but many are stupid. sadlyno is hysterical. definitely should read any and all posts making fun of debbie scheissel, whatever her name is. they are downright CRUEL. it's hilarious.

we need to trade blog lists sometime. my need for good quality humor blogging is vast, but many are stupid. sadlyno is hysterical. definitely should read any and all posts making fun of debbie scheissel, whatever her name is. they are downright CRUEL. it's hilarious.


Mine aren't really political, and you've already discovered the magic of The Bloggess, but I have a few others that are hilarious and/or cool.  Suburban Punk is pretty fun, but she doesn't update a lot due to switching jobs and being pregnant.  Black Hockey Jesus is always surreal.  For an historical viewpoint, I have Svensto, an almost 90 year old woman (she's the grandmother of the lady who does the Daily Coyote website) who has lived more adventures than a lot of people ever will.

Then there are the food blogs... ;D

Chrysler should've NEVER been cut-off by Mercedes-Benz and absorbed by either Ford, Nissan, or even Rolls-Royce!

Chrysler should've NEVER been cut-off by Mercedes-Benz and absorbed by either Ford, Nissan, or even Rolls-Royce!

??? Huh?
Don't understand your statement. Daimler (Mercedes Benz) wisely left Chrysler because Mopar was a brick and it was pulling MB down.
The shared platforms between the two was actually beneficial to both, but MB took on more than it could really handle. Its arguably agreed that the overall quality of most of MB cars suffered during their partnership (not directly because of Chrysler) but just an lack of focus on their prime product.
The LAST thing Ford needs is to absorb anything. One of the biggest problems with US automakers is that they were too big. Ford just sold off Jaguar and Land Rover, and Aston Martin not too long before that, and is still looking to get rid of Volvo. Ford has issues of its own just trying to stay afloat, the last thing they need is to absorb Chrysler's slow march to death.
Nissan? Already has its own issues too with Renault.
Rolls Royce? Huh? Rolls Royce is a tiny company, couldn't afford to support themselves and was saved/purchased by VW a decade ago, then fought over and sold to and now owned by BMW.
If you're suggesting that BMW take over or any part of Chrysler, never gonna happen. ::) If BMW's past history in taking over sagging car brands (i.e. British Leyland) is any guide, then that would surly spell Chrysler's doom.

Besides FIAT just went in on 35% of Mopar (but takes on none of Chrysler's debt in doing so). Who knows, maybe this will be a godsend for them. Chrysler has no small cars in their line up, and with FIAT on board we're slated to get the new 500 next year.
http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2007/07/fiat_500_launch.jpg

??? Huh?
Don't understand your statement. Daimler (Mercedes Benz) wisely left Chrysler because Mopar was a brick and it was pulling MB down.
The shared platforms between the two was actually beneficial to both, but MB took on more than it could really handle. Its arguably agreed that the overall quality of most of MB cars suffered during their partnership (not directly because of Chrysler) but just an lack of focus on their prime product.
The LAST thing Ford needs is to absorb anything. One of the biggest problems with US automakers is that they were too big. Ford just sold off Jaguar and Land Rover, and Aston Martin not too long before that, and is still looking to get rid of Volvo. Ford has issues of its own just trying to stay afloat, the last thing they need is to absorb Chrysler's slow march to death.
Nissan? Already has its own issues too with Renault.
Rolls Royce? Huh? Rolls Royce is a tiny company, couldn't afford to support themselves and was saved/purchased by VW a decade ago, then fought over and sold to and now owned by BMW.
If you're suggesting that BMW take over or any part of Chrysler, never gonna happen. ::) If BMW's past history in taking over sagging car brands (i.e. British Leyland) is any guide, then that would surly spell Chrysler's doom.

Besides FIAT just went in on 35% of Mopar (but takes on none of Chrysler's debt in doing so). Who knows, maybe this will be a godsend for them. Chrysler has no small cars in their line up, and with FIAT on board we're slated to get the new 500 next year.
http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2007/07/fiat_500_launch.jpg


Okay, fudge it!

Chrysler must go!

Rolls Royce? Huh? Rolls Royce is a tiny company, couldn't afford to support themselves and was saved/purchased by VW a decade ago, then fought over and sold to and now owned by BMW.
Not quite - VW bought Rolls Royce the company, but because of a legal loophole (there are a few RR companies, not just the car manufacturer - other ones make aero engines & nuclear sub engines) they didn't actually buy the rights to use the name "Rolls Royce" - BMW got in with that; so now VW make what used to be sold as RR and sell them as Bentleys, BMW get to sell Rolls Royces, though they're a BMW-designed beastie now.

...but the new Fiat 500 is rather cute

Not quite - VW bought Rolls Royce the company, but because of a legal loophole (there are a few RR companies, not just the car manufacturer - other ones make aero engines & nuclear sub engines) they didn't actually buy the rights to use the name "Rolls Royce" - BMW got in with that; so now VW make what used to be sold as RR and sell them as Bentleys, BMW get to sell Rolls Royces, though they're a BMW-designed beastie now.

...but the new Fiat 500 is rather cute

Yep, you're right on RR. I just mentioned that they "fought" to make it simpler...its still confusing to many. Germans fighting over the crown jewel of the British automobile industry. Especially since BMW had torpedoed British Leyland/BMC after their takeover previously, so the VW/BMW battle over RR/Bentley was more than a bit difficult to take by most...Ford having (now sold) Jag, Land Rover and Aston Martin too, seems like dark times. British auto industry is almost gone. The trademark of MG was bought out by a Chinese firm last year too. So the British automotive industry almost totally taken over by outside interests due to mismanagement, union manipulation, shortsighted design and planning.

Heck VW and Toyota are emerging as two of the largest automakers of the world and most don't even realize it. The "Big Three" of the US aren't even players anymore

Hard to say, but overall, after the smoke has cleared, the Germans won in the business realm (the automotive industry) what they couldn't in WWII so to speak. BMW, the makers of German aircraft, wartime motors and military components taking possession of the name of Rolls Royce (automobiles) & Mini. VW taking ownership of Bentley, Lamborghini, Seat, & Bugatti just to name a few, there isn't much else they don't own or have controlling interest in now.

I'd say a very good warning or foresight in comparison to whats going on in the US.
VW and BMW are looking to take up a good share from the bones of whats left over from Mopar's demise and GM's mismanagement in the US. And the Japanese have been following the same path for some time now in controlling market share of the US market...FIAT, Renault and even Peugeot, gone from these shores for years are now drooling over the possibilities too.

I shouldn't even mention the Chinese wave of automakers just waiting to flood the US shores with cheap inexpensive cars in the upcoming years.

I, more than anyone, know its a global market now, and if the US automakers loose out due to poor products and bad management and design then they deserve to pass on, but its sad to see the US and UK fall out of the running in the auto industry due to arrogance and short sighted management.  :(

Hey, but the FIAT 500 is pretty cool and cute, and it'll give the Mini a run for its money and sell like hotcakes.

I, more than anyone, know its a global market now, and if the US automakers loose out due to poor products and bad management and design then they deserve to pass on, but its sad to see the US and UK fall out of the running in the auto industry due to arrogance and short sighted management.  :(

Too true...

All I gotta say is...  Fiats rock!  The 500 looks sweet.

Actually, Chrysler was not doing bad when Daimler took them over (I was a supplier to Chrysler then).  But then DC simply let the product line languish and went towards the "bigger is better" models and eventually Chrysler became a stone around their neck.

I think DC lost something like 80% of their investment in Chrysler when they sold them off, and Cerberus is taking an even worse haircut on their investment.  A most amazing destruction of capital, for sure.

I once went to a Chrysler stamping plant in the early 1990's, to review some claims that we had with them.  The plant executive was a real napoleon case.  He stood up and said "Listen, my company could buy your company any time we want to!" to which I replied "name your price, I am sure my share holders would be willing to sell if you want!".  Wanker... he shut up then.

All I have to say to them is "Adios, mofos..."

Yeah that Chrysler/Mercedes merger didn;t work I mean the only good thing Chrysler got out of it was the platform for the Chrysler 300 which was a Mercedes Benz platform.

Chrysler even before the Mercedes Benz merger was the lowest cost producer af any automaker in the car industry I read in the late 90's I think. Than Bob Eaton one of the heads at Chrysler at the time panicked and said we need another partener so they got Benz to partener up with . So, when the merger with Mercedes-Benz happened it was learned Eaton would retire in 2 years so from 1999-2001 Eaton would be in charge of Chrysler along with Jurgen Shremph(a guy who worked for Benz.) Lee Iacoca who Eaton took over  said Chrysler would have been still a good automaker had he not had Bob Eaton to succeed him.

There were rumors on the net a few years ago that Chrysler would have done deal with Honda twiice once in the early 90's and once in the late 90's I think instead of Benz. In addition Chrysler made a mistake in keeping Mitsubishi when it could have purchased a part of Nissan in the late 90's. Nissan had loads of debt at the time which Mitsubishi didn;t in 1999 and Chrysler knew Mitsu well because of their partenerships in the 80's and 90's. Instead Renault purchased Nissan. Nissan by 2004 was a very profitbale automaker while Mitsubishi was reeling because off the bad 0/0/0 deals they made with car buyers in the US in 2004

So, basically they could have prospored with either Honda or Nissan but instead but instead picked Benz and Mitsu.

Benz tried to make Chrysler a mid luxury kind of car company with Chrysler's offerings and it just didn't work.