It's halftime in America....................

[Dave Lehnert]

And our second half is about to begin.

Second year in a row that Chrysler had a good commercial during the game.
Love the positive message.

[Bruce Page]

I thought it was a great commercial. Eastwood was a perfect choice to narrate.

[Van Huskey]

Buy their cars or else, do you feel lucky punk?

I agree good commercial, my favorite of the recent Chrysler was the ones to tout the "new" Grand Cherokee, it made my wife and me want to buy one, even with Chryslers legendary reliability issues. Wieden and Kennedy is really a great ad agency, not sure if they are still using them but the "Imported from Detroit" campaign was their pitch.

[Mike Archambeau]

Definitely a good message and applies to more than just Chrysler cars and trucks. If every company in the USA got the same attitiude we would definitely be back at the top of our game. Lets hope some of those corporate titans are paying attention..........

[Scott T Smith]

A great message; thanks for sharing.

[Gary Hodgin]

Good commercial. Clint sounded convincing.

[Eric Franklin]

I liked the commercial but was disappointed to find out that it wasn't even filmed in Detroit. The commercial was filmed in LA and New Orleans and the footage from Detroit was old footage.

http://http://www.onlocationvacations.com/2012/02/07/chryslers-detroit-super-bowl-ad-was-actually-filmed-in-new-orleans/

[John McClanahan]

At least it was made in America. Not all cars are built in Detroit, either.

[Phil Thien]

I didn't like it.

Chrysler is now majority owned by Fiat.

Previously it had merged with Daimler, but seemed to be controlled by Daimler.

Previous to that, it was bailed-out by the US taxpayers.

Previous to that, it was owned by mostly US shareholders.

This is progress?

No high-fives from me, Mr. Eastwood.

[Rick Potter]

I'm with Phil on this one. When our family watched it we thought it was an ineffective car commercial, and that it almost looked like a political ad.

Actually, we thought the commercials as a whole were really lame compared to last year. Half time show was boring too, nothing original there.

The game, however, was great. Tension till the end. I am not a sports fan, but this game was exciting.

Rick Potter

[Bob Turkovich]

I didn't like it.

Chrysler is now majority owned by Fiat.

Previously it had merged with Daimler, but seemed to be controlled by Daimler.

Previous to that, it was bailed-out by the US taxpayers.

Previous to that, it was owned by mostly US shareholders.

This is progress?

No high-fives from me, Mr. Eastwood.

Yes, Phil, it is progress. Let me try to explain.

First of all, to set the record straight, I am a Chrysler retiree. I retired in November, 2008 after 36 1/2 years in Product Development. My position, at the time of retirement, was as a Senior Manager in the Powertrain Engineering Organization. I've been back at Chrysler (in Engineering) as a part time contributor since March of last year but not in the role I was in before retiring.

Second, let's get the chronological order of events correct.

1.) Owned by US shareholders
2.) "Merged" w/ Daimler under the guise of equal partners which ended up being a de-facto takeover by Daimler (thank you Bob Eaton).
3.) Sold off to Cerberus Capital Management - a private equity firm. Bob Nardelli (ex-CEO of Home Depot) was brought in to lead the company. (It was during this period that I retired.)
4.) Government-supported bankrupcy which required a managing partner hence, the controlling interest of Fiat.

Two major changes have occurred during my 2 1/4 year hiatus.

Under Cerberus there was a major push to source business to Third World countries. As an example, I had to attend bi-weekly 6:30 AM "stand-up" meetings with upper management where I had to review my plans for a continual percentage increase in business (for the components I was responsible for) to China, India or Eastern Europe. Evalaution of the quality of the offshore sources was left to staffing in those countries. This resourcing activity, in addition to constant de-contenting of the product, was intended to improve short term profitability with little or no regard for long term viability. These two issues were major contributors in my decision to retire (note: although I was 57 at the time, I was not forced out...).

I have noticed since my return that both of these issues have dramatically changed and the internal focus is clearly on long term viability. First, I see no directive for offshore sourcing. Second, significant money is being put back into the product. There is a collabrative relationship between Chrysler and Fiat personnel. (The Daimler relationship was much more strained). I would have loved to have had an opportunity to work in my pre-retirement position under the current environment.

I would consider keeping jobs here and putting out a better product progress.

Chrysler employs over 50,000 people (not to mention thousands in the supply base) - most of them in the US. Five of the eight major assembly plants are located in the US (2 in Canada, one in Mexico). Five of the six major component plants are located in the US ( the 6th in Mexico). Over 90% of the Product Development is in the US.

There is another active thead on SMC - up to 11 pages - lamenting the loss of American jobs to overseas. If given a choice, I'd rather have the jobs stay here - with money being put back into the product to keep jobs here - regardless of where the leadership of the company resides. If the underlying message to the ad was that, then I'm fine with it.


Soapbox over.

[Phil Thien]

Yes, Phil, it is progress. Let me try to explain.

First of all, to set the record straight, I am a Chrysler retiree. I retired in November, 2008 after 36 1/2 years in Product Development. My position, at the time of retirement, was as a Senior Manager in the Powertrain Engineering Organization. I've been back at Chrysler (in Engineering) as a part time contributor since March of last year but not in the role I was in before retiring.

Second, let's get the chronological order of events correct.

1.) Owned by US shareholders
2.) "Merged" w/ Daimler under the guise of equal partners which ended up being a de-facto takeover by Daimler (thank you Bob Eaton).
3.) Sold off to Cerberus Capital Management - a private equity firm. Bob Nardelli (ex-CEO of Home Depot) was brought in to lead the company. (It was during this period that I retired.)
4.) Government-supported bankrupcy which required a managing partner hence, the controlling interest of Fiat.



I was going back to the days of Lee Iococca (the first taxpayer bailout).



Two major changes have occurred during my 2 1/4 year hiatus.

Under Cerberus there was a major push to source business to Third World countries. As an example, I had to attend bi-weekly 6:30 AM "stand-up" meetings with upper management where I had to review my plans for a continual percentage increase in business (for the components I was responsible for) to China, India or Eastern Europe. Evalaution of the quality of the offshore sources was left to staffing in those countries. This resourcing activity, in addition to constant de-contenting of the product, was intended to improve short term profitability with little or no regard for long term viability. These two issues were major contributors in my decision to retire (note: although I was 57 at the time, I was not forced out...).

I have noticed since my return that both of these issues have dramatically changed and the internal focus is clearly on long term viability. First, I see no directive for offshore sourcing. Second, significant money is being put back into the product. There is a collabrative relationship between Chrysler and Fiat personnel. (The Daimler relationship was much more strained). I would have loved to have had an opportunity to work in my pre-retirement position under the current environment.

I would consider keeping jobs here and putting out a better product progress.

Chrysler employs over 50,000 people (not to mention thousands in the supply base) - most of them in the US. Five of the eight major assembly plants are located in the US (2 in Canada, one in Mexico). Five of the six major component plants are located in the US ( the 6th in Mexico). Over 90% of the Product Development is in the US.

There is another active thead on SMC - up to 11 pages - lamenting the loss of American jobs to overseas. If given a choice, I'd rather have the jobs stay here - with money being put back into the product to keep jobs here - regardless of where the leadership of the company resides. If the underlying message to the ad was that, then I'm fine with it.


Soapbox over.

Did you see the commercial?

The ad was basically a conceptual rip-off of Reagan's "It's Morning in America Again" ad.

To sell more cars, some advertising agency wrapped Chrysler in the US flag, and attempted to inflate viewer egos about our ability to come back from the precipice of disaster.

But what did "we" actually do?

From my perspective, all "we" did was a good job shopping Chrysler to anyone willing to take a shot.

Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled tens of thousands of jobs were saved. And I'm doubly thrilled that Fiat isn't as concerned with shifting production of components overseas as the previous ownership.

But "we" don't get to pat each other on the back for that.

It would seem to me that it is Fiat and the French that deserve any credit for saving Chrysler.

As a country, we aren't going to make forward progress until we can look in the mirror and be honest with ourselves.

[Stephen Cherry]

I wouldn't even consider a Chrysler product. When I bought my pickup truck, I looked at them, with the cummins engine- but I got a bad vibe from each one. Lots of rusted out doors (no excuse for this, it's not 1973 anymore). Many just did not shift right. I ended up with an old Ford, which has yet to disapoint.

And Clint eastwood won't change my mind.


Think about it, Toyota has made the corolla forever, what is the comparable Chrysler product? In my opinion, hopefully it is actually half time, but I don't see Chrysler as even being in the game.

[Phil Thien]

And BTW, Rick Potter is right. It was a terrible commercial not just because of the revisionist history turned propaganda. It is a terrible commercial because, even if it succeeds in making us feel good about ourselves, maybe interested in buying a new car, it barely does anything to make us want to buy a Chrysler vs. any other US brand of car (like GM or Ford).

The purpose of advertising is to get people to buy YOUR product.

That commercial missed the mark, IMHO.

[Dave Lehnert]

I am surprised with all the negative feed back with the ad. All I saw was a positive message about Americans.

[Bryan Morgan]

I didn't like it.

Chrysler is now majority owned by Fiat.

Previously it had merged with Daimler, but seemed to be controlled by Daimler.

Previous to that, it was bailed-out by the US taxpayers.

Previous to that, it was owned by mostly US shareholders.

This is progress?

No high-fives from me, Mr. Eastwood.


Who cares who owns them or where they are built. I'd never own another Chrysler product. In fact, everyone I've ever known who has owned at least one Chrysler product will never own another. I rank them with Lada.

[Jim Koepke]

It would seem to me that it is Fiat and the French that deserve any credit for saving Chrysler.

The French were involved? I thought Fiat was Italian, as in "Fix It Again Tony."


It was a terrible commercial not just because of the revisionist history turned propaganda.

Wow, I also missed all of that. I thought it was about Chrysler and how they are going to make sure we hear their engines roar.


In fact, everyone I've ever known who has owned at least one Chrysler product will never own another.

I felt that way after owning a Dodge Caravan. Guess what, when it came time to buy a used truck the best deal was on a Dodge Ram Pick Up.

jtk

[Van Huskey]

The French were involved? I thought Fiat was Italian, as in "Fix It Again Tony."





You beat me to it, Fiat is indeed Italian (Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino). Fiat is also the parent company of Ferrari.

I find it interesting that so many people watching a football game completely missed the real meaning. It was a halftime speech! A halftime speech is not about patting yourself on the back, whether you are up by 45 or down by 21 points it is about inspiring the "team" to do better. It is about going back out and extending the lead or bucking up and pulling the team back into a position to win. If we as a "team" are cynical we can't win, if the ad didn't instill some hope then we need to find something that can, Chrysler tried maybe more companies/people should.

[Phil Thien]

Who cares who owns them or where they are built. I'd never own another Chrysler product. In fact, everyone I've ever known who has owned at least one Chrysler product will never own another. I rank them with Lada.

Well, I currently own a Dodge Caravan, and wouldn't hesitate to buy another Dodge product.

The only reason I went w/ a Honda this time around was the access to service. The Honda dealer is two miles away. The Dodge dealer is over ten.

[Phil Thien]

You beat me to it, Fiat is indeed Italian (Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino). Fiat is also the parent company of Ferrari.

I find it interesting that so many people watching a football game completely missed the real meaning. It was a halftime speech! A halftime speech is not about patting yourself on the back, whether you are up by 45 or down by 21 points it is about inspiring the "team" to do better. It is about going back out and extending the lead or bucking up and pulling the team back into a position to win. If we as a "team" are cynical we can't win, if the ad didn't instill some hope then we need to find something that can, Chrysler tried maybe more companies/people should.

Yep, sorry for mistaking Fiat for French.

But on the rest of it, I'm afraid I disagree. I don't want hope. Hope leads to all sorts of problems.

Hopeful people buy houses they can't afford. And they buy new cars when their old cars would suffice. The hopeful save less for a rainy day.

What this country needs is a major dose of reality.

There are at least a dozen major "things" we need to do, as a country. I'd post a list, but I'm afraid it would be seen as too political.

Going over the list in my head, though, it occurs to me that every item is commonsensical.

So let me close by saying this.

Once we, as a country, start using some common sense, I'll start having some hope.

[Greg Peterson]

Once we, as a country, start using some common sense, I'll start having some hope.

This will take at least generation or two. That is provided that history books in the future do not paint the golden era of the middle class as an abject failure or less than an ideal time in the past. Between Citizens United and ALEC, I am afraid the game is pretty much over for us.

Machiavelli always trumps common sense.

I enjoyed the commercial, but I agree, as a commercial for Chrysler/Jeep it failed. I found the message quaint and a little patronizing, but I liked the visual aspects of it. And I liked Clint. He gave it gravitas.

[David Weaver]

Who cares who owns them or where they are built. I'd never own another Chrysler product. In fact, everyone I've ever known who has owned at least one Chrysler product will never own another. I rank them with Lada.

I agree. They overdid it with they're attempt at retro design, and forgot to actually make the cars good reliable cars (not that they've been doing that for a while). Remember what they were in the 60s? (well, I don't, i wasn't born then, but I know about their cars). Their base cars and their mid and upper mid cars were "sort of plain" but ran forever. They had great reliable engines in base models and great performance engines above that, and then somehow, they lost focus. It was over for them in the mid 70s.

And as far as I read, they have a comparatively high repair rate, coupled with really high price parts (at least they did) now the ownership uncertainty of the last few years.

If they had 10 years under their belt of going back to simple cars that worked on progressive engineering and incremental change, like anyone with a brain would do now that toyota and honda set the bar (and may be large enough to be susceptible to competition), I might consider one. I don't see that happening.

Instead, I see the probability that they continue to make goofy looking cars with huge rims (which lead to surprise expensive tires on a low or mid priced car down the road) and poor reliability. Cars where they put a sticker on that says $35k but they're really willing to sell it for $20-couple.

I saw part of the commercial, but it wasn't enough to keep my attention for the whole time. It doesn't change what the cars are in my opinion - as you say, the lada of the united states (though maybe in a prettier wrapper).

One of my parting thoughts - back in the late 90s, I knew a guy working at a chrysler dealer pretty well - he was a mechanic. He was always driving a ford back then (no clue what he drives now). He said to me "if you saw what i have to fix at work, you'd never buy a Chrysler product, either". That's only the story of one guy, but I always got a kick out of it because he said it often and very persuasively.

[Phil Thien]

One of my parting thoughts - back in the late 90s, I knew a guy working at a chrysler dealer pretty well - he was a mechanic. He was always driving a ford back then (no clue what he drives now). He said to me "if you saw what i have to fix at work, you'd never buy a Chrysler product, either". That's only the story of one guy, but I always got a kick out of it because he said it often and very persuasively.

You may be able to find Ford and GM mechanics that would say the same things about those cars. I haven't had many problems w/ my Dodge Caravan. I could be unique.

But, when it comes to the aesthetics of modern Chrysler products, you were spot-on.

This is just the sort of missing common-sense I'm talking about.

How the heck did those designs get from drawing board into production?

I don't know how any design team can justify a body design that is so polarizing.

I know people that HATE the looks. I know people that don't "like" things about current Camry or Accord designs. But most anyone could "live" with it. Few "hate" them. But I know people that simply HATE PT Cruisers (for instance).

[David Weaver]

You may be able to find Ford and GM mechanics that would say the same things about those cars. I haven't had many problems w/ my Dodge Caravan. I could be unique.

Right, that's why I added it at the end. Some of the humor in this mechanic's fervor is lost in translation on the internet, it was just fun to hear him pop off about this or that grand cherokee where someone screwed up the function of a door by leaning on it when it was open, etc.

Most of the mechanics I know, unless they are chasing status, drive older japanese cars now - like 15 years old, because parts are still available for them, you can get them for a song. As my local body mechanic says "I can get it for $2,000, drive it for a few years, and sell it for $2,000".

I have heard a lot of the same complaints about the accords and camrys (ies?) "i know I should get it, but they're too boring looking". That's what my wife told me after her dad made suggestions to her, and right before we met, she bought a turbocharged volkswagen :mad:

As far as the vans go, I haven't heard much bad about them - that's Chrysler's exception vehicle. Especially early on with the base vans, they were like the old chryslers - no frills, just turn the key and go.

I was a minivan fan until the manufacturers all decided that they should creep up on 5000 pounds in curb weight. Now most of them, regardless of brand, are gas hogging pigs - especially if you live in the hills like I do where all of the traffic lights are at the bottoms of hills (necessarily for safety, I guess).

[Van Huskey]

But on the rest of it, I'm afraid I disagree. I don't want hope. Hope leads to all sorts of problems.

Hopeful people buy houses they can't afford. And they buy new cars when their old cars would suffice. The hopeful save less for a rainy day.

.


Taking the risk of falling down the rabbit hole of semantics I feel I must point this out. One who has no hope is hopeless. Hopeless people do far more illogical and dangerous things than people with hope. Hope is the engine that drives humanity to do great things, lack of hope drives them to do terrible things.

People who are hopeful don't buy things they can't afford, that is lack of reason hope or the lack of hope can drive people to the same reckless act.

You may indeed not need hope, though I doubt it, but I would submit you would not enjoy living in a world devoid of hope. Hope and reason are far from being mutually exclusive.

[Mike Archambeau]

Yes, Phil, it is progress. Let me try to explain.

First of all, to set the record straight, I am a Chrysler retiree. I retired in November, 2008 after 36 1/2 years in Product Development. My position, at the time of retirement, was as a Senior Manager in the Powertrain Engineering Organization. I've been back at Chrysler (in Engineering) as a part time contributor since March of last year but not in the role I was in before retiring.

Second, let's get the chronological order of events correct.

1.) Owned by US shareholders
2.) "Merged" w/ Daimler under the guise of equal partners which ended up being a de-facto takeover by Daimler (thank you Bob Eaton).
3.) Sold off to Cerberus Capital Management - a private equity firm. Bob Nardelli (ex-CEO of Home Depot) was brought in to lead the company. (It was during this period that I retired.)
4.) Government-supported bankrupcy which required a managing partner hence, the controlling interest of Fiat.

Two major changes have occurred during my 2 1/4 year hiatus.

Under Cerberus there was a major push to source business to Third World countries. As an example, I had to attend bi-weekly 6:30 AM "stand-up" meetings with upper management where I had to review my plans for a continual percentage increase in business (for the components I was responsible for) to China, India or Eastern Europe. Evalaution of the quality of the offshore sources was left to staffing in those countries. This resourcing activity, in addition to constant de-contenting of the product, was intended to improve short term profitability with little or no regard for long term viability. These two issues were major contributors in my decision to retire (note: although I was 57 at the time, I was not forced out...).

I have noticed since my return that both of these issues have dramatically changed and the internal focus is clearly on long term viability. First, I see no directive for offshore sourcing. Second, significant money is being put back into the product. There is a collabrative relationship between Chrysler and Fiat personnel. (The Daimler relationship was much more strained). I would have loved to have had an opportunity to work in my pre-retirement position under the current environment.

I would consider keeping jobs here and putting out a better product progress.

Chrysler employs over 50,000 people (not to mention thousands in the supply base) - most of them in the US. Five of the eight major assembly plants are located in the US (2 in Canada, one in Mexico). Five of the six major component plants are located in the US ( the 6th in Mexico). Over 90% of the Product Development is in the US.

There is another active thead on SMC - up to 11 pages - lamenting the loss of American jobs to overseas. If given a choice, I'd rather have the jobs stay here - with money being put back into the product to keep jobs here - regardless of where the leadership of the company resides. If the underlying message to the ad was that, then I'm fine with it.


Soapbox over.

Thank you for sharing your story, I always enjoy getting an inside perspective. It sure sounds like things are looking up for Chrysler and that is good for American workers, their families, and our country.

btw....the first new car I ever purchased was a Jeep CJ7 with the Renegade package. It had the removable hardtop. Boy we did have fun in that machine. It carried me back and forth to college, and it explored the two track dirt roads in Michigan's Upper Penninsula. It went real good in the snow :) I probably should have kept it for a toy.....perhaps someday I will buy another Jeep and relive some great memories.......or help my son explore the pleasures of trail riding in a topless Jeep...........

[Phil Thien]

Taking the risk of falling down the rabbit hole of semantics I feel I must point this out. One who has no hope is hopeless. Hopeless people do far more illogical and dangerous things than people with hope. Hope is the engine that drives humanity to do great things, lack of hope drives them to do terrible things.

People who are hopeful don't buy things they can't afford, that is lack of reason hope or the lack of hope can drive people to the same reckless act.

You may indeed not need hope, though I doubt it, but I would submit you would not enjoy living in a world devoid of hope. Hope and reason are far from being mutually exclusive.

Interesting.

I'm working off the dictionary definition of hope (see below). IMHO, people having a "feeling of expectation and desire" may make irrational decisions. That is all.

Here, Ben Franklin said it best:
"He that lives upon hope will die fasting."
Benjamin Franklin


hope/hōp/




Noun:



A feeling of expectation and desire for a certain thing to happen.






Verb:



Want something to happen or be the case: "he's hoping for compensation"; "I hope that the kids are OK".






Synonyms:

noun. expectation - expectancy - expectance - trust - promise
verb. trust - expect - anticipate