My only question is this:
If the UAW contributed significantly to Chrysler's downfall to begin with, and now it OWNS 55% of the company (based on article link above) then what hope does Chrysler have going forward?? The UAW didn't do the company any good before - what good could it possibly do now?
I don't know the specifics of it all, but it is kinda like this; if the UAW wants to continue to fund its operations then it will need to start selling off its shares to gain cash. Otherwise they will not have the cash to exist as it has in the past. So as an owner, it will have to change its operating principles to remain viable, or sell of its ownership stake to maintain the status quo. I'm sure someone can provide more detailed info.
Fuel efficient, boring cars aren't bad to the survival of the company. The K cars made Chrysler viable once before, so no reason it couldn't happen again. Then the company has the ability to produce specialty performance cars for the nitch markets that want them.
There is no reason that fuel efficiency and performance cannot go hand in hand. Remember Fiat does own Ferrari, so I doubt they are only into boring fuel efficient cars.
True. there are any number of WRX and other modern 4 bangers that can hand a muscle car its behind in both 1/4 mile times and top speed and get three times the mileage doing it.
What scares me is the government representation in this whole deal. Based on the retoric I've heard come out of Washington, they don't understand the difference between building efficient cars and building cars efficiently. GM and Chrysler are in trouble because they did not build cars efficiently, not because they don't build efficient cars. What the politicos seem to forget is that a lot of Americans want big, V8 powered vehicles that can fit lots of people in them. Detriot simply was building what we wanted and most people wanted big cars. This is again a case of the government thinking we are too dumb to know what we need so they are going to force it via automaker involvement. If I am willing to pay more at the pump to drive what I want, that is called choice. If someone else chooses to spend less of their income on gas, then that is their choice. I prefer the safety that a larger, heavier vehicle affords my family, at the price of paying for gas. BTW, my big a$$ Suburban just knocked down 20 mpg on my vacation over Memerial day. IMO, not too bad for a vehicle the size of a small bus.
