Bristol minus Chrysler?
 

It seems that Chrysler (along with GM and Ford) are doomed, at least in their current form.

So what does that mean for Bristol?

Do they buy up as much power train stock as possible (probably quite cheaply), or do they start looking for a replacement power train asap?

Bristol minus Chrysler?
 

Apparently not only are the big three making cars that their
customers don't want and unwittingly produced what Bristol owner's
do, but they are also paying their workers $20 ($69 an Hour!!!!)
more than other car manufacturers in the States like Toyota, Honda,
VW etc. The US Senate thought it would be helpful to the situation
if they took an appropriate drop and made that a condition of a bail
out. The Unions couldn't agree, they being a far sighted lot, as are
our own, so now it sounds as though they are still going to be
bailed out, but with money intended to save the banks. Nobody wants
to see thousands out of a job, but it does seem unfair on other more
responsible companies when all are finding it extremely hard.

Bristol is like Morgan and can hoover up an engine from anywhere,
although it probably won't do what counterfeit Morgan manufacturers do
in the NW of the States and fit their cars with Japanese Pick up truck
engines and drive trains!

Ashley

Bristol minus Chrysler?
 

Hi all -

The entire situation with the "Big Three" is fairly complex, with
enough bad guys to go around.

Over the last 20+ years, their reputation for "quality" has been poor
in the opinion of most US buyers. I think this hasn't been a correct
perception for as much as 10 years. So their market share has
declined. Later, company managers thought they had a winning
strategy in producing mostly (large) SUVs and trucks and this worked
for a while. US buyers ate this up and also got board with the
horsepower craze - if it didn't have at least 250 hp, the car/truck
was only fit for poor students or secretaries. If the car/truck
didn't grow 2" in every direction with each model revision and add
200 lbs, it was a loser. Sort of matched the weight & girth growth
of the population.

Unions and their retirees got more each contract renewal. Managers
carved out large salaries and bonuses for themselves. They never
developed a "Plan B" for producing interesting, right-sized cars or
trucks. They did nothing to change the "large, high HP" perceptions
as being essential to a "good car". And they larded up everything
with DVD players, GPS, refrigerators (!), etc.

Perhaps the major failing is the lack of any nimble ability to shift
direction - when faced with gas prices that doubled in a few months
and sales that were falling off a cliff, I read nothing about new
products that would be available in less than "years". Where was
any sense of crisis?

I've read two biographies of Walter P. Chrysler and recommend them
highly. He had the working experience and management skills to build
a great company.

It would be tragic to see his namesake company disappear, but there's
probably no one at Chrysler now worthy enough to shine his
shoes. Same at Ford and GM.

Bob
(2 American cars in the driveway)

Where is Lee Iaccoca when you need him?

Bristol minus Chrysler
 

Bristol production is so tiny that there should not be a problem in sourcing drive trains etc. When MG-Rover went under (I believe JCB?) bought the spares business guaranteeing supply for at least ten years so if Chrysler went under I would foreseeing a similar situation occurring. Making 3 or 4 Blenheims a year won't tax Chryslers supply of engines (they haven't made the Blenheim engine for a few years now, last used in a Jeep - I think).

I read somewhere (a couple of years ago) that the replacement for the Blenheim will use Mercedes drive trains.

TBC