What is populat in Chicago may not be the same for the rest of North America. Sadly, what people love is not always enough to break the minimum sales needed to make money. DC is keeping correct books - the problem is they are not selling enough vehicles to make money. Having enough vehicles on hand for 120 days of potential sales should tell you that vehicle is not selling well. - 30 to 60 days is the accepted figure And with lots full of so many unsold cars, Chrysler is spending too much money on labour (slow the production lines dowm to the sales rate), too mich on storage fees (those lots have to be paid for) and too much interest on loans and insurance (Chrysler has to pay the interest and storage insurance on those vehicles until they are shupped). And also too much money going out the door on low/no intrerest loans (Chrysler has to pay the difference between what the buyer pays and what the banks charge) and cash-back (pure profit out the window). Chrysler has tied all its money and production into hemi V8 engines and big trucks, SUVs etc. And they are just not selling. Chrysler all but abandoned the auto market during the Holden era, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Chrysler's auto mix is poor - some hi-perf vehicles, a convertible, a compact hatchback and a mid-sized sedan. No samll cars, no basic economy vehicles, no family vehicles. When the family-sized Concorde, LHS and Intrepid were dropped and not replaced, Chrysler abandoned over 300,000 prospectove car buyers. Dropping Plymouth was a mistake - but a mistake that goes back to 1973. Plymouth sales almost hit a million that year, and it seems Chrysler said, "Well that was fun. What do we do now?" The Plymouth Sebring became the Cordoba, no Diplomat/LeBaron version, no down-sised Gran Fury for two years, no version of the GTS/Lancer. the Daytona/Laser, the Dynasty/New Yorker, the Intrepid/Concorde, a Neon only after dealer pressure, and the Breeze after even more dealer pressure. Then nothing at all. It took Chrysler 25 years to kill Plymouth. What a waste. Hopefully the Imperial will proceed. In that price range, and with the underpinnings shared with the 300/Daytona/Msgnum, they should make money. Bill Vancouver. BC ----- Original Message ----- From: Bogart3147@xxxxxxx To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 4:47 PM Subject: Re: IML: Chrysler News Then we could MAKE them bring back the Imperial, preferably as a limited production, fully loaded luxury car. If it were me, I'd offer a 2-door, 4-door, convertible, AND a wagon. And bring back that suspension! I understand I've only had mine for a couple of days, but I've gone so many miles and the ride is to die for. If I've said it a thousand times, I'll say it once, that my 1965 Crown can glide across washboard surfaces better then my mother's 2005 Mercedes-Benz. She actually admitted it would, too. However, there is a different perspective to selling out Chrysler, although I can't believe they're not making money. My boss has a 2005 Town & Country (loves it), and those 300's are very popular here in the Chicagoland area. There's some new Dodge wagon, I forget the name, that's popular here, too. It's small, but tall. Not including all the new Dodge Chargers I've seen. I'd like to know how they keep the books. Maybe Damlier sluffs all losses over to Chrysler division. Who knows? Anyway, if Chrysler folds, Imperials could be like Packards, i.e., extremely desirable and sought after. I've checked E-Bay and even a parts car can be a few thousand, not to mention the cost of a restored one. I'd hate to see what Chrysler did to AMC happen again. When Chrysler bought AMC, they just wanted the Jeep Division, and, instead of trying to make the automobile area more viable, they just discarded it. As with everything else, it probably all had to do with money, but, if I had been Chrysler at the time, I would have considered reviving the Nash and Hudson nameplates and targeted the mid-sized, $18,000-$28,000 price range. But that's my opinion. Currently, if Chrysler really is posting all these losses, one of the major shortfalls is not the product, but they don't make any inexpensive cars. Since they dropped the Neon, do they have anything less than about $20,000? It appears that the entire line-up of Chrysler and Mercedes-Benz is upper-middle to the sky's-the-limit. What about the person who wants a new car, but can only afford $12,000-$15,000? I don't think Chrysler offers anything like that right now. As usual, Chrysler products have top marks in a lot of categories and the styling is phenomenal, but they're expensive. They NEVER should have dropped Plymouth. In that division they made great cars at price everyone could afford, albeit more than a Chevrolet, but a better car overall, too. I apologize for rambling, but I don't want to see Chrysler fall, nor do I want to see it go into the hands of people that don't know what they're doing and cheapen the product. Just as Volvo has the reputation for safety, Chrysler has always had the reputation for engineering. It would be wonderful to see the legacy continue. Timothy 1965 Crown 4 door See what's free at AOL.com. ----------------- http://www.imperialclub.com ----------------- This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm