• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

People don't seem too impressed......

Cal

Well-known member
........with Chrysler's "thank you" ad. Read the comments below;

http://blog.chryslerllc.com/blog.do?id=564&p=entry
 

Steve

Well-known member
I would be willing to bet that few of the posters even own Chrysler products..

this one caught my eye...
And when you advertise the HEMI, mention the fuel mileage... everyone thinks they get 10 miles to the gallon at best

having owned an 05 Jeep, the mileage is poor compared to a car, but even pulling a 5500lb trailer to Florida I was averaging better then 14MPG with ethanol blend fuel, in July heat,..

a few years ago I pulled my 69 mustang on a duel axle car trailer back from out west in December and averaged 16MPG.

I haul trailers to port Elizabeth at least once a month with most loads weighing well over 3000lbs and it has never been below 12 even in New York city type driving..

I don't drive below the speed limit much, so to get 10 they must be really doing something really wrong.

he even contradicts himself in the post..

The interior design and materials are great and the Hemi gets 26 mpg/hwy!

it has more hp then my 5.7 345hp that I have..and is hyped to get 20% better MPG.. so by his own claim it went from 10mpg.. to 26 in 07

in two years Chrysler was able to squeeze not only extra horsepower out, but much better fuel economy..

while I would think getting 26mpg is a great feat for any hemi,



wonder what it'll tow?
 

Steve

Well-known member
if they can get 26to 30mpg out of the 5.7 hemi.. with gains in horsepower and torque... and get that with the jeep.. what will it get with the proposed and already tested hybrid hemi?

Chrysler has taken advantage of the hybrid system to expand the range of use of the MDS cylinder shut-off mechanism on the 5.7L Hemi V-8.
As for the hybrid drive system, transitions between electric drive, four cylinder and eight cylinder modes were completely seamless just as they were on the Tahoe. Unlike the four-cylinder hybrid systems that I've tried, the engine startup was imperceptible except for the muted sound of the Hemi.

that is a Jeep that would get me off my (chair) and into a dealership..

the hybrid or the "Expected in 2009 is a Cummins V6 turbodiesel," would both make me take another look at a new Jeep..
 

Cal

Well-known member
I don't know how many own Chrysler products, anyone can post anything on blog comments, but a quick read through and I only saw one that was happy about the deal......and he was UAW.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Cal said:
I don't know how many own Chrysler products, anyone can post anything on blog comments, but a quick read through and I only saw one that was happy about the deal......and he was UAW.

I'm not happy with any of the democrat led Bail Out deals, and the ad was a waste of money.

but I felt that many of the comments against Chrysler were from people who don't own or will not own American cars or trucks, yet have no problem attacking their products.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Steve said:
I'm not happy with any of the democrat led Bail Out deals, and the ad was a waste of money.

but I felt that many of the comments against Chrysler were from people who don't own or will not own American cars or trucks, yet have no problem attacking their products.

I've never driven anything but American made. A truck front end should last longer than 50K. I'll never be a customer again. It is not about mileage for me. It is about dragging loaded trailers through pastures.

Don't tell me about a Cummins being heavy either. Ford and Chevy diesels don't wreck the front end.

They can keep selling their trucks to city folks who never get off of the pavement.
 

MsSage

Well-known member
but I felt that many of the comments against Chrysler were from people who don't own or will not own American cars or trucks, yet have no problem attacking their products
Since I own a ford I cant comment? I am VERY upset at the bail out. I am even more upset they wasted money on the ad. I am sure the ad company made a good bit just from designing it :roll:
 

Steve

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
Steve said:
I'm not happy with any of the democrat led Bail Out deals, and the ad was a waste of money.

but I felt that many of the comments against Chrysler were from people who don't own or will not own American cars or trucks, yet have no problem attacking their products.

I've never driven anything but American made. A truck front end should last longer than 50K. I'll never be a customer again. It is not about mileage for me. It is about dragging loaded trailers through pastures.

Don't tell me about a Cummins being heavy either. Ford and Chevy diesels don't wreck the front end.

They can keep selling their trucks to city folks who never get off of the pavement.

I do alot of hauling and have only had a few problems but they were in the first 5000 miles.. trans went twice.. they just replaced it and it's been fine since,..

but I do agree they are making trucks for city not for real world use.. I would make a comment about how the SUV's are made for the city ladies but I would probably get fifty comments on that alone... they sure ain't making them to work hard or go off road. I've had to get the damn stability control shut off as it would get me stuck in a puddle if I was towing a trailer.

Chrysler could do better, alot better. it seems as they took a big dive under Mercedes,., which also is selling crappy cars now...
 

Steve

Well-known member
MsSage said:
but I felt that many of the comments against Chrysler were from people who don't own or will not own American cars or trucks, yet have no problem attacking their products
Since I own a ford I cant comment? I am VERY upset at the bail out. I am even more upset they wasted money on the ad. I am sure the ad company made a good bit just from designing it :roll:

the blog appeared to be about the ad, but most of the comments were about Chrysler cars, I took exception to a few as it appeared they didn't even own an American car, by the false claims in the comments..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
Cal said:
I don't know how many own Chrysler products, anyone can post anything on blog comments, but a quick read through and I only saw one that was happy about the deal......and he was UAW.

I'm not happy with any of the democrat led Bail Out deals, and the ad was a waste of money.

but I felt that many of the comments against Chrysler were from people who don't own or will not own American cars or trucks, yet have no problem attacking their products.

So now Bush, Paulson, and Cox are Democrats eh :???: :wink: :lol: :lol: :p
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
Cal said:
I don't know how many own Chrysler products, anyone can post anything on blog comments, but a quick read through and I only saw one that was happy about the deal......and he was UAW.

I'm not happy with any of the democrat led Bail Out deals, and the ad was a waste of money.

but I felt that many of the comments against Chrysler were from people who don't own or will not own American cars or trucks, yet have no problem attacking their products.

So now Bush, Paulson, and Cox are Democrats eh :???: :wink: :lol: :lol: :p

it has been quite clear by the votes and speeches given by both sides. that it is a "Democrat led bail" out.. but they can't even seem to get their misguided policy through with an overwhelming majority.

Every time Bush has sided with the Democrats, I have disagreed with him..

so where does that put you? Do you follow those at the coffee shop, or follow the Democratic senators and congreaseman you voted for, or Obama who in speeches agreed with Bush... or do you stand with the conservatives and republicans and say the bail outs are a mistake..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
I'm not happy with any of the democrat led Bail Out deals, and the ad was a waste of money.

but I felt that many of the comments against Chrysler were from people who don't own or will not own American cars or trucks, yet have no problem attacking their products.

So now Bush, Paulson, and Cox are Democrats eh :???: :wink: :lol: :lol: :p

it has been quite clear by the votes and speeches given by both sides. that it is a "Democrat led bail" out.. but they can't even seem to get their misguided policy through with an overwhelming majority.

Every time Bush has sided with the Democrats, I have disagreed with him..

so where does that put you? Do you follow those at the coffee shop, or follow the Democratic senators and congreaseman you voted for, or Obama who in speeches agreed with Bush... or do you stand with the conservatives and republicans and say the bail outs are a mistake..

Bush/Paulson came begging to Congress for the Fatcat Banker bailout-- Bush went around Congress after Congress did not give it to them- and gave the Big 3 Automakers money... Looks to me like these have been "Bush led" bailouts....

The only thing I oppose on the bailouts is that they did not put much more restrictions and reservations on where the money could be spent- and that all these CEO's that ran their companies into ruin can't still make multi million dollar salaries and bonus's like they are doing- and there is no accountability or transparency in how the money is being handed out or spent......

Elseways I think Bush has run this country's economy into such a disastrous state that the bailouts are necessary- and the Trillion dollar Recovery plan are the only thing that will keep the country's head above water....
Might as well spend it rebuilding America- rather than Bush policy of sending it all to Iraq to rebuild their country and for the profiteering of every Mullah of that country....
 

Steve

Well-known member
OT
The only thing I oppose on the bailouts is that they did not put much more restrictions and reservations on where the money could be spent-

and there is no accountability or transparency in how the money is being handed out or spent......

that was the Democratic leadership that made that bill.. Bush just rubberstamped it.. how did the democrats you voted for vote on that bill?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
OT
The only thing I oppose on the bailouts is that they did not put much more restrictions and reservations on where the money could be spent-

and there is no accountability or transparency in how the money is being handed out or spent......

that was the Democratic leadership that made that bill.. Bush just rubberstamped it.. how did the democrats you voted for vote on that bill?

My Democrat Senators voted one for it ( I didn't vote for him)- the one I did, voted against it because he believed their was not enough oversight and regulation put on how Bush could dole it out to his FatCat elitist buddies...Which we now see is coming true...

Bush/Paulson/Cox/Greenspan now realize how terribly they mismanaged the economy (only Greenspan will admit it) and that things are much worse than they can, or probably should say (altho few folks have much confidence left in the Bush crew to lose anyway).....
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
OT
The only thing I oppose on the bailouts is that they did not put much more restrictions and reservations on where the money could be spent-

and there is no accountability or transparency in how the money is being handed out or spent......

that was the Democratic leadership that made that bill.. Bush just rubberstamped it.. how did the democrats you voted for vote on that bill?

My Democrat Senators voted one for it ( I didn't vote for him)- the one I did, voted against it because he believed their was not enough oversight and regulation put on how Bush could dole it out to his FatCat elitist buddies...Which we now see is coming true...

Bush/Paulson/Cox/Greenspan now realize how terribly they mismanaged the economy (only Greenspan will admit it) and that things are much worse than they can, or probably should say (altho few folks have much confidence left in the Bush crew to lose anyway).....

so other then your hatred of Bush..and who mismanaged the banks..

we agree that the bail out was a mistake.. and it was pushed though by the democratic leadership.. and that Obama supported both the bank bail out and the auto bail out..

Only I think that the bad banks should have failed and the money should have been re-invested in the sound and stable banks..not the failing ones.. so I don't support the financial bail out at all..
 

Steve

Well-known member
OT
Bush/Paulson/Cox/Greenspan now realize how terribly they mismanaged the economy (only Greenspan will admit it) and that things are much worse than they can, or probably should say (altho few folks have much confidence left in the Bush crew to lose anyway).....

Old Timer.. maybe you could explain this one for me.. if no one has confidence in Bush, and think he is so stupid.. why did a overwhelming majority of Democratic leadership in both houses (including Obama) follow his lead, not once, but twice on the bail out plans?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
OT
Bush/Paulson/Cox/Greenspan now realize how terribly they mismanaged the economy (only Greenspan will admit it) and that things are much worse than they can, or probably should say (altho few folks have much confidence left in the Bush crew to lose anyway).....

Old Timer.. maybe you could explain this one for me.. if no one has confidence in Bush, and think he is so stupid.. why did a overwhelming majority of Democratic leadership in both houses (including Obama) follow his lead, not once, but twice on the bail out plans?

I didn't say Democratic leadership or Congressmen-- I said few folks have confidence in Bush- meaning Joe Blow of Mainstreet America...Few supported the Bush originated, Bush pushed plan...

And when did Congress vote for the Auto Bailout :???: Bush did that on his own without a Congressional vote.....
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
OT
Bush/Paulson/Cox/Greenspan now realize how terribly they mismanaged the economy (only Greenspan will admit it) and that things are much worse than they can, or probably should say (altho few folks have much confidence left in the Bush crew to lose anyway).....

Old Timer.. maybe you could explain this one for me.. if no one has confidence in Bush, and think he is so stupid.. why did a overwhelming majority of Democratic leadership in both houses (including Obama) follow his lead, not once, but twice on the bail out plans?

I didn't say Democratic leadership or Congressmen-- I said few folks have confidence in Bush- meaning Joe Blow of Mainstreet America...Few supported the Bush originated, Bush pushed plan...

And when did Congress vote for the Auto Bailout :???: Bush did that on his own without a Congressional vote.....

I didn't say the democratic leadership was competent enough to get a bill passed that they pushed hard to pass,.. I said why did they follow Bush's lead if Bush is so stupid?.. is the democratic leadership stupider then most folks?

here let me rephrase it for you..

it doesn't matter who you said but I will reword the question.. .

.. if few folks have confidence in Bush..and think Bush is stupid, Why did the democratic leadership in both houses (including Obama) follow his lead, not once, but twice on the bail out plans?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
OT

Old Timer.. maybe you could explain this one for me.. if no one has confidence in Bush, and think he is so stupid.. why did a overwhelming majority of Democratic leadership in both houses (including Obama) follow his lead, not once, but twice on the bail out plans?

I didn't say Democratic leadership or Congressmen-- I said few folks have confidence in Bush- meaning Joe Blow of Mainstreet America...Few supported the Bush originated, Bush pushed plan...

And when did Congress vote for the Auto Bailout :???: Bush did that on his own without a Congressional vote.....

I didn't say the democratic leadership was competent enough to get a bill passed that they pushed hard to pass,.. I said why did they follow Bush's lead if Bush is so stupid?.. is the democratic leadership stupider then most folks?

here let me rephrase it for you..

it doesn't matter who you said but I will reword the question.. .

.. if few folks have confidence in Bush..and think Bush is stupid, Why did the democratic leadership in both houses (including Obama) follow his lead, not once, but twice on the bail out plans?

Because they became aware of how dire the times were- and realized they had been smoke screened by Bush and crew for months with their "the economy is fine", "the fundamentals of the economy are strong", "no problems exist" "everything is hunkydory" rhetoric-- and something had to be done quickly to keep the whole economy from imploding....That meant the Bush plan...
But the majority of the people across the country did not support it- and have no faith in GW being able to even wipe his own rear without messing that up too.....

Its plumb comical- how you Bush BKers won't admit that it was GW that came crawling to Congress for help- after his incompetence had let things get so bad....
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
I didn't say Democratic leadership or Congressmen-- I said few folks have confidence in Bush- meaning Joe Blow of Mainstreet America...Few supported the Bush originated, Bush pushed plan...

And when did Congress vote for the Auto Bailout :???: Bush did that on his own without a Congressional vote.....

I didn't say the democratic leadership was competent enough to get a bill passed that they pushed hard to pass,.. I said why did they follow Bush's lead if Bush is so stupid?.. is the democratic leadership stupider then most folks?

here let me rephrase it for you..

it doesn't matter who you said but I will reword the question.. .

.. if few folks have confidence in Bush..and think Bush is stupid, Why did the democratic leadership in both houses (including Obama) follow his lead, not once, but twice on the bail out plans?

Because they became aware of how dire the times were- and realized they had been smoke screened by Bush and crew for months with their "the economy is fine", "the fundamentals of the economy are strong", "no problems exist" "everything is hunkydory" rhetoric-- and something had to be done quickly to keep the whole economy from imploding....That meant the Bush plan...
But the majority of the people across the country did not support it- and have no faith in GW being able to even wipe his own rear without messing that up too.....

Its plumb comical- how you Bush BKers won't admit that it was GW that came crawling to Congress for help- after his incompetence had let things get so bad....

It seems the democratic leadership are so used to their own incompetence they have no problem following Bush (whom they believe is stupid and incompetent),.. when it is a dire situation..

Hell, I would never follow someone I felt was incompetent
when I see it is a dire situation I follow my own lead and that of family and friends I trust, not some guy I think is stupid and incompetent..
 
Top