Auto critic quits due to his Chrysler 200 review alteration

Apparently the advertiser was a DEALER, not Chrysler. So anybody getting their panties in a bunch over some big corporation like Chrysler influencing the review/reviewer is simply wrong.

Either way, the paper shouldn't have edited it online, nor should they have caved to an advertiser (though we know they're gonna, as who is it that PAYS to have these journalists write? Uh huh, the advertisers.) he has the right to say what he wants, even though I actually disagree with both the factual content and the jaded journalistic mentality behind it.
 
I'm surprised they actually admitted they were under advertiser pressure to change it. In the Jeff Gerstman incident Gamespot never claim to have fired him for giving a bad review to Kane and Lynch. This is why I trust smaller review sites more than the big names, they are probably just using google ads instead of having specific advertising contracts with the game companies. Too bad this is not really possible with the auto review industry.
 
Just a dealership? That newspaper's soul comes cheap.
 
Looking at the original vs edited piece on Jalopnik, the edits actually make sense. They just deleted rants, which didn't add any value to the original article. Although I do admit that it should have been done by the editors when the original article was to be published.
 
Genesis_73 said:
lets face it, the 200 is a pretty rubbish piece of cheap engineering and design
Click to expand...

Have you seen one down there yet? As far as being a car goes, it has better build quality and ameneties (and reliability) than either of your cars (though not as stylish, sexy and good sounding as your Alfa ;) )
 
Merc63 said:
Have you seen one down there yet? As far as being a car goes, it has better build quality and ameneties (and reliability) than either of your cars (though not as stylish, sexy and good sounding as your Alfa ;) )
Click to expand...

Did you really just compare the build quality and amenities of a brand new model and 30 year old classics?

The worst part about the 200 is that it'll be sold in Europe as a Lancia...
 
Last edited:
Having seen some past Lancias, I'd say that the quality difference will probably not be noticeable - at least not in the long term. :p Well, except for the fact that it won't randomly burst into flames. That will be an improvement over Lancias of old. :p
 
Last edited:
rickhamilton620 said:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...d-a-chrysler-he-likes-its-called-the-sebring/

Very interesting indeed....we have a case of wishy-washyness in Aisle 1.
Click to expand...

It's disingenuous to say the Sebring convertible was the same four door. They were quite different vehicles despite being on the same platform. The convertible still sucked, but it sucked a lot less and "cheap convertible" makes up for a lot. The four door just sucked, full stop. It was truly miserable.

The review cited by TTAC was the Sebring convertible. The 200 review was of the four door.

Put it to you this way. A lot of women (middle aged or very young) bought the Sebring convertible because they liked it when the sedan literally made them nauseous with its awfulness.
 
Last edited:
Spectre said:
Having seen some past Lancias, I'd say that the quality difference will probably not be noticeable - at least not in the long term. :p Well, except for the fact that it won't randomly burst into flames. That will be an improvement over Lancias of old. :p
Click to expand...

Well that reaks of jealousy. But okay whatever.
 
mpicco said:
Well that reaks of jealousy. But okay whatever.
Click to expand...

No, it reeks of former Italian car ownership plus travel to Europe.

There is a reason they got kicked out of the US market.
 
Lancia didnt go bankrupt, so to stop selling cars where it's not financially viable was the right decision. Chrysler should have taken that hint decades ago.
 
The critic did a Q&A for Jalopnik, he wouldn't comment on the Jalopnik redesign. :lol:
 
AiR said:
Lancia didnt go bankrupt, so to stop selling cars where it's not financially viable was the right decision. Chrysler should have taken that hint decades ago.
Click to expand...

Chrysler wouldn't have gone bankrupt if Mercedes hadn't raided them for cash and then screwed them. They went from the most profitable car company in the world immediately pre-merger to the hollowed-out shell of a car company.
 
Spectre said:
the most profitable car company in the world
Click to expand...
You're going to have to provide some evidence of that for me to believe you, I have a hard time seeing Chrysler as ever being either the most profitable in terms of overall volume or per car. Chryslers of 1997 were hardly vanguards of quality or performance.
 
Last edited:
AiR said:
You're going to have to provide some evidence of that for me to believe you, I have a hard time seeing Chrysler as ever being either the most profitable in terms of overall volume or per car. Chryslers of 1997 were hardly vanguards of automotive products.
Click to expand...

http://money.cnn.com/1998/05/07/deals/benz/

By the mid-1990s, Chrysler was the most profitable car company in the world.
Click to expand...

http://www.slate.com/id/2654/

That may seem an odd conclusion, when you consider that Chrysler is both more profitable than Daimler--earning $2.8 billion last year on $61 billion in sales, where Daimler earned $1.8 billion on $69 billion in sales--and vastly more efficient.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I looked up some numbers and it's correct that Chrysler did 0.4% more profit than GM and Ford (excluding credit profits) in 1997. But as the article from Slate says, already in 1998 Chrysler didnt have any competitive passenger cars in their portfolio. Thirteen years later, they still don't.
 
Last edited:
Yes and no. The LH cars were competitive for the era, and the Neons were doing well. There was another generation of cars under development at the time of the merger, which would have produced more competitive cars, but Mercedes killed most of those within two years and moved all development decisions to Stuttgart. Chrysler's weakness was in their mid-size cars (they sucked) and lack of a true top-end vehicle for the Chrysler brand.

Mercedes literally doubled or tripled the development time for any Chrysler model, and then forced Chrysler to pay higher prices for components than their other divisions. In addition, Mercedes forced several models down Chrysler's throat that just didn't make any sense (Dodge Nitro, Jeep Compass). One good example of the cluelessness of Mercedes was a few years ago when Mercedes told Chrysler that the next Ram was to have a Mercedes diesel engine - that was half the horsepower and torque of the competing diesels (as well as the prior engine) - instead of the next-generation Cummins diesel. Angry fan, owner and dealer backlash killed that idea.

That's not to say that Chrysler didn't make mistakes of its own, like the Aspen, but the supermajority of the blame for Chrysler's current woes can be laid at the doorstep of Mercedes and not at Chrysler HQ. Now, if you want to talk about American corporate stupidity, GM's right over there..... but Chrysler got screwed through really no fault of its own.
 
Last edited:
mpicco said:
Did you really just compare the build quality and amenities of a brand new model and 30 year old classics?
Click to expand...

yes, for a reason. If what we drive is acceptable, then how is something vastly better "rubbish? exactly? it's not supposed to compete with Audi A8s and Mercedes C classes. It's a basic midsize car that is on par with cars that most of the world already find acceptable in fit, finish, and quality. It may be average, but that doesn't make it "rubbish" exept to princesses with a sense of entitlement.

New cars of all sort are so good these days that even the worst of them tend to be better cars than what we already find acceptable as daily drivers. What I'm responding to is the retarded hyperbole of the internet bench racer, very similar to the way a sporting coupe that, say runs the quarter mile in 12.9 seconds is a rocketship that any enthusiast woudl be proud to own, and it's competition, that "only" runs the quarter in 13.0 is a "slow dog" that anyone driving should be embarassed to be seen in.

The worst part about the 200 is that it'll be sold in Europe as a Lancia...
Click to expand...

the worst part is that it's still probably a better car than anything Lancia has sold there in decades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top