fuzzymoomoo Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 Today in news that shouldn't surprise anyone: https://www.yahoo.com/news/jeep-could-worth-more-without-194300130.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 (edited) I'd be willing to bet that the bulk of FCA's profits actually come from Ram and Jeep, without them, the rest of FCA would sink by the bow very quickly. Both are more important to FCA in paying for all the offset debt than their one time sale. Edited July 18, 2017 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 I'd be willing to bet that the bulk of FCA's profits actually come from Ram and Jeep, without them, the rest of FCA would sink by the bow very quickly. Both are more important to FCA in paying for all the offset debt than their one time sale. No need to make any bets...it is the truth. Daimler tried their best to kill Jeep with impossibly crappy cars (3rd gen GC / Compass / Patriot / 2nd gen Liberty). If Jeep is still around and stronger than ever after that, they seem to be impervious to anything. Ram is still really based on the strength of one vehicle and only one bad redesign away from a sales tank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 Daimler tried their best to kill Jeep with impossibly crappy cars (3rd gen GC / Compass / Patriot / 2nd gen Liberty). If Jeep is still around and stronger than ever after that, they seem to be impervious to anything. Well they did launch before gas prices spiked, so that helped...but you can't deny that Jeep still is toxic to its owners... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomcat68 Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 Well they did launch before gas prices spiked, so that helped...but you can't deny that Jeep still is toxic to its owners... I have a different theory. Jeep is used to prop up toxic owners, but they are too toxic for even Jeep to be a benefit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbone Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 I have a different theory. Jeep is used to prop up toxic owners, but they are too toxic for even Jeep to be a benefit. I think it's more this^^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 I have a different theory. Jeep is used to prop up toxic owners, but they are too toxic for even Jeep to be a benefit. I don't think Daimler was hurting too much when they bought Chrysler...then again they didn't they raid any money they had before selling them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomcat68 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 I don't think Daimler was hurting too much when they bought Chrysler...then again they didn't they raid any money they had before selling them?T It would be hard to argue that they weren't toxic. They exhibited poor descision making buying the company to "combine synergies", then run them like two different companies anyway, rarely sharing platforms. The only benefit was that they got a better price from suppliers. Then they dumped Chrysler for a fraction of what it was worth, and I believe they hade to pay some of Chryslers pension obligations and some other debt which was almost as if they paid the buyers to take the headache off their hands. So in a nutshell, it's like they got married to use their spouse's Costco card and paid a fortune for the divorce. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.