the germanification of Chrysler

[Mullen, Shaun]

Mercedes is indeed having problems with its M-class SUV and has from the
outset.  I do believe, however, that that has less to do with where it is
made (Nomex on) than how and with what it is made.  Consumers Reports last
year said candidly that the M-class would have been its top-rated SUV had
the Merc not had so many problems.  It gave its highest marks to the Lexus
RX300.  A close friend has had an RX300 for some time and I've put several
hundred miles on it.  It is a fabulously engineered, impeccibly mannered and
incredibly well built vehicle.  I'm not about to abandon my beloved
quattros, but it has changed my mind about how good SUVs can really be.

While we're on the subject of quality: Volvo, which does not make any of its
vehicles in Alabama, let alone the U.S., has been having a run of terrible
quality problems over the last couple of years.  Again, I think this has
less to do with who it's corporate parent now is (Nomex still on), let alone
where Volvos are made (the troublesome ones are made in Sweden) than
good-old self-inflicted wounds.

Finally, I really don't give a crap if Chrysler loses it's American
front-office edge.  Nor should anyone else who appreciates how rapidly
changing and dynamic the car biz is right now.  While Chrysler has turned
out some real head-turning stuff in recent years, it was living on borrowed
time.  Its designs, for the most part, have been cutesy and transitory --
bold for the sake of being bold, not bold in as way that will look great in
5, 10 or 25 years.  The quality of Chrysler's fleet, generally, is crap.
It's a rare Chrysler review in Consumer Reports or the buff books that
doesns't include some mention of crappy fitment, crappy interior pieces,
crappy transmissions or something else that is yet another indication that
Chrysler has become much more adept at designing and marketing than
improving quality.  The market place is unforgiving.  Chrysler was bound to
take a fall sooner or later.

Shaun Mullen
Yorklyn, DE