Talk:Chrysler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Companies Portal This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the assessment scale.

	Cars Portal This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Previously unsectioned comments 2 something forgotten? 3 Category:Defunct companies? 4 Luxury? 5 Logos 6 Chrysler American Based? 7 NPOV - Merger section 8 Defense 9 Adjustable brake pedal 10 Image found on commons 11 Split article - Chrysler Group and Chrysler (car division) 12 Global Warming denial 13 Kerkorian Confusion 14 Requested move 14.1 Survey 14.2 Discussion 15 Chrysler, Chrysler Division, and Chrysler Holdings articles 16 Fair use rationale for Image:Logo pentastar.gif 17 "Privately controlled" vs. "Privately held" 18 Old Logo 19 List of vehicles made 20 Pronunciation

[edit] Previously unsectioned comments

Are you sure that Maxwell and Willys-Overland merged into The Chrysler Corporation? I can't find it anywhere on this page: http://www.chryslerclub.org/histry.htm // Morten Bojsen-Hansen // raz0 .at. worldonline .dot. dk

Yes, I think this is accurate. Maxwell was the more important component: http://www.allpar.com/history/maxwell.html Willys came in by indirection, via Kaiser and American Motors: http://www.willystech.com/faqs/Breakout/WOGeneralHistory.html BTW, DaimlerChrysler made use of the Willys name just last year: http://www.rockcrawler.com/features/newsshorts/03october/jeep_willys.asp - RivGuySC 29 June 2005 04:36 (UTC)

[edit] something forgotten?

Wasn't Chrysler also producing the "Davy Crockett" nuclear weapon, and the Redstone roket??!!

[edit] Category:Defunct companies?

Why is this article in Category:Defunct companies? Chrysler is very much still around, in the same way that CompuServe and Bank One are not defunct. — Jesse's Girl 12:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It may be fair to call Willys and Maxwell defunct, but not an organization that's still very much in the marketplace and just reports to a different corporate structure. RivGuySC 29 June 2005 04:36 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm going to remove this category. --Cholmes75 16:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Luxury?

Can anybody defend the last edit calling Chrysler a "luxury" manufacturer? They did make some luxury cars, but basically they always presented a full lineup across the whole market. Today, since it's clear that Mercedes is the top of the corporate food chain, I'd say that's less accurate than ever. RivGuySC 29 June 2005 04:36 (UTC)

I don't think they have anything 'luxury' at all right now. No more IMperial. I don't think the Neon is very luxurious.Gzuckier 29 June 2005 15:03 (UTC)

The Chrysler Corporation (and DC's current Chrysler Group) are not luxury manufacturers, but I would say that "Chrysler" is a luxury marque. As for the comment about Mercedes-Benz, I would say that while Mercedes is the top of the luxury line, not everyone can afford one, so they have a lesser luxury line for other shoppers. — Jesse's Girl | Please talk! 15:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Chrysler is not a luxury car brand since less than half of all vehicles it sells feature a base MSRP of $38,000 - look under luxury car to find the defenition as well as list of luxury car manufactueres. Chrysler is a middle-class semi-luxury car brand. The Chryler 300C is the only is the only proper luxury car in the Chryler line-up. Gerdbrendel 10:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Logos

"The design shown at the top of the page is an adaptation of the original winged logo which Chrysler used on its cars at its inception in 1924. The logo was revived for the Chrysler divisions in the mid-1990s but again was slowly phased-out after the Daimler "merger"." I think this latest edit is inaccurate. The winged design is still there on the newest Chryslers. RivGuySC 00:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chrysler American Based?

Actually it is incorrect to claim that Chrysler is a Detroit based car manufacturer since the Daimler-Chrysler coperation's heaquaters are in Stuttgard, Germany. Gerdbrendel 10:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the Chrysler Group's headquarters are in Auburn Hills, Michigan. So, that would make DaimlerChrysler a German-American company. --ApolloBoy 18:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The main Chrysler headquarters is in the US but the parent company is headquartered in Germany. There are also Chrysler units in Canada, Mexico, etc. but I presume they report to Chrysler's Auburn Hills headquarters who, in turn, report to Stuttgart.

A similar analogy might be made about Glaxo Smithkline. Glaxo has a headquarters in Philadelphia which used to be as high as you could go (when Smithkline Beecham was around). Now, the highest level is in the UK.VK35 23:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV - Merger section

I've added the NPOV tag to this article. The section on the merger has some language in it that is clearly not neutral: "As if on cue," "tailspin," etc. are all quite charged. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 15:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The section was vandalized by 152.163.100.135. Some of it was fixed ("Daimler of England"), but some of it still remains ("Anglo-German superiority", Chrysler having owned Mercedes since '75). Since the current version is flat out wrong and makes no sense whatsoever, I will just restore the pre-152.163.100.135 version of this section. The language still needs some attention, though. Bal00 13:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Not that I doubt it, but could we have some data on the superior quality of Chrysler vs. Mercedes cars? ProhibitOnions 21:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defense

This article is heavy on the auto operations. It needs more on military products such as the M-60, M1, Redstone, etc. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adjustable brake pedal

User:24.132.86.126 added the following on 8 May 2006:

In 2002, the company was the first to introduce the adjustable break pedal.

(diff)

I found references to this feature in model year 2003 Chrysler vehicles, but I can't seem to find a definitive reference that states they were the first, does anyone have a source? Sertrel 13:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

PONTIAC Grand Ville and Bonneville had adjustable pedals in the mid 70s (pre-downsized B-body).

[edit] Image found on commons

- User:Leonard G. 23:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split article - Chrysler Group and Chrysler (car division)

This article should be split into two - one discussing the U.S. operations called "Chrysler Group" as a whole, and another discussing the Chrysler division of the Chrysler Group. KansasCity 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, definitely needs to be split. 24.176.58.44 17:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)J

Agree! Both the corporation and the Chrysler marque have enough data and history to warrant separate pages. Plus, the corporation is the various brands (Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, etc.), both active and defunct (Plymouth, DeSoto, Imperial), plus MoPar, Airtemp, TorqueFlite, Fluid Drive, etc., while the Chrysler marque would be limited to the various Chrysler models down through the years, from Sebring, 300, etc. on back to Windsor, Saratoga, New Yorker, etc.

Agree! It's less confusing that way. Bkissin 23:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Especially now that Chrysler is an independent company again.--Janus657 13:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming denial

There is an article link where Van Jolissaint denies global warming. That isn't mentioned in the article, though. So, should that be removed or something? --Jnelson09 20:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kerkorian Confusion

CZMarlin wrote "There is no confusion between the billionaire and the doctor." No justification is given for this statement which is in direct opposition to personal experience. However, I will avoid reverting as the consensus seems to be that it is not needed.130.156.29.61 14:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no entry stating "not to be confused with Kirk Kerkorian" anywhere in the article about doctor Jack Kevorkian. Nor is the doctor mentioned as potentially confusing to readers of the article about billionaire Kirk Kerkorian. It seems that the readers of these who articles are not confused between the two people. Therefore it seems logical NOT to mention Jack Kevorkian in this article about Chrysler, where the investor and businessman Kirk Kerkorian plays a part in the history of the company. Thank you -- CZmarlin 22:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems logical to me that two similar names might well be confused at first glance, particularly in an about a car company, as opposed to the examples you gave. Again, I speak from experience. Furthermore, the doctor's 'mention' was strictly limited to a disclaimer, while the investor's 'part in the history of the company' got the additional details it deserved. I should know, I'm the one who inserted it. You're welcome.130.156.29.50 16:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 07:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chrysler, Chrysler Division, and Chrysler Holdings articles

Shouldn't all things relating to the Chrysler Brand be left in this article, eliminate the Chrysler (Division) article, and leave all the Corporate stuff in the Chrysler Holdings article?

I agree with you totally on this one, the way it is now is archaic. unfortunately wikipedia is too much of a bureaucracy for simple, smart changes like your suggestion to happen. Black Harry (T|C) 22:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, it would be less confusing to have the Chrysler article focus on the automobile brand (as do the Dodge and Jeep articles) and the corporate history in the Chrysler Holdings article. Moreover, there is bound to be continuing cooperation with Daimler on the business side of things that will need to be reported, but not necessarily fit very well in the articles about the Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep brands. Once again, only my $0.02 - CZmarlin 01:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. When Cerberus' acquisition of the 80% of Chrysler from Daimler is completed, the corporate history should go to a page called Chrysler Holding, while the Chrysler (division) page should be moved to the current Chrysler page. Again, this should be done after the acquisition is completed. KansasCity 16:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the buyout fails, which by all indications it won't, then shouldn't the Chrysler Brand be located here anyway? Companies name is DiamlerChrysler, not Chrysler Black Harry

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Logo pentastar.gif

Image:Logo pentastar.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Image fair use rationale added. --Scheinwerfermann 13:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Privately controlled" vs. "Privately held"

I think we're being far too broad on just constitutes a "private company" for categorization purposes. With regards to Chrysler, nobody doubts that of course it's privately-controlled company because it's majority shareholder Cerberus Capital Management is privately held. But is Chrysler privately held? If you click on Private as it currently stands, you get the Privately held company article. Privately held is being very specific, and strictly speaking Chrysler is not completely under private ownership. It is not in the same league as Cargill, Mars, Inc., Koch Industries, etc. Close, but not quite. The problem is that Daimler AG (a public company) continues to hold a minority stake in the company. So if you buy shares in Daimler you are getting at least a nominal stake in Chrysler. With a privately held company, this should not happen under any circumstance, no matter how Forbes and other respected publications describe the company.

Joint venture on the other hand is a broader term, especially in the sense that there is no rule I'm aware of as to just what the "percentages" have to be for a company to be called a "joint venture." The relative size of the stakes is pretty much irrelevant, even if the shares were split 99-1 between the partners, you could still call it a "joint venture." Of course most times companies choose to create joint ventures they do so with relatively even stakes, because it normally doesn't make much sense for one company to invite another to enter into a joint venture with like a five percent stake, or perhaps even a 19.9% stake like Daimler kept of Chrysler. But that doesn't mean that if such an arrangement is made (as it was in Chrysler's case), then somehow it "doesn't qualify" to be a joint venture.

A similar example I would like to point users to is The Mosaic Company. If Chrysler is simply a "private company" end of story, then arguably Mosaic should be declared so as well. After all, its majority shareholder (Cargill) is private, right? Problem is that unlike Cargill, Mosaic shares are traded on the New York Stock Exchange, so to simply declare Mosaic "Private" would be silly. On the other hand, to just say it's "Public" might be slightly misleading since the minority shareholders who choose to invest in Mosaic are essentially silent partners. So the best description of Mosaic, of course, is Privately-controlled public company.

The same principle should apply to Chrysler. No, its shares do not trade directly but those of a still-significant shareholder (Daimler) do trade publicly. There more than enough truly private firms with articles here that companies that are "almost" privately held like Chrysler should not be categorized with them. Private implies privately held i.e. that Chrysler is just like Cargill, etc. when it's not. That sort of blunt classification, frankly, is amateur. Privately-controlled joint venture is not.

Forbes can use a broad classification system to group and describe companies if they like. We can do better.

Rupertslander (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Logo

On the current Chrysler website, the pentastar logo is nowhere to be found. Have they decided to predominantly use the winged logo? I am not a car expert. --Tkgd2007 (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of vehicles made

H'mm. Are we sure the list of Chrysler-made vehicles is really necessary here? The list as it stands has problems — it's by no means exhaustive, and its categories are oddly misalphabetised D, C, J for some reason. Both of those problems could easily be fixed, but while an exhaustive list would be unwieldy in an article, but whether a fix should go ahead is not as good a question as whether we could simply and cleanly link to List of Chrysler vehicles, List of Dodge automobiles, List of Jeep vehicles, and List of Plymouth vehicles? Those four links would fit neatly into this article, and those four pages are much better suited to the exhaustive, organised presentation of the model chronology, as it seems to me. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Please add a proper IPA template for the pronunciation of Chrysler. I have heard their advertisements say /krai:zler/ when all along I thought it was /krai:sler/. Perhaps note both of them. Jidanni (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)