Hi all:
My understanding was that the buyout WAS for the european distribution
network(and it's attendant client base) that Rootes had in place. That
simple. Or, that complicated.
I tend to think of English car companies as small, but I gather that
Rootes was a powerhouse in England (at least
pre-British-Leyland-the-company-that-ate-eveything). Like GM, Ford and
Chrysler itself, Rootes was an amalgam of other companies (Singer,
Sunbeam, Hillman, Humber, Talbot and probably others) brought under one
umbrella.
It probably seemed like a good idea to purchase an existing
distibutorship network along with it's existing client base (I know it
seemed like a good idea to me when I purchased my company in 1990--4
months before the U.S. economy in general and California's construction
industry in particular tanked until '97--Economic recovery my A**, Mr
Bush!). Based on my own experiences, Chrysler may not have retained the
entire client base, but that, like Californias' construction depression
of the '90's, couldn't have been forseen.
Chrysler had produced over 60,000 Barracudas in 1967 alone. For them a
company that averaged less than 8,000 Alpines a year and less than 2,000
Tigers a year--well, those numbers wouldn't even constitute blips on
Chrysler's corporate radar. Not that they didn't try to keep the
Tiger. But since Chryslers' smallblock V8 had the dizzy at the back and
since the only engine that would fit those 2,000 cars a year (without a
major redesign {$$$!}) came from a rival automaker......
Best Regards
David Sosna
DrMayf wrote:
>Was just sitting here after looking at the SHelby Display, and wondering,
>Just what the heck did Chrysler buy Rootes for, anyway? They dropped the
>Tiger, Alpine went away and whats left? The name? Certainly Rootes had no
>real outstanding automotive processes to be owned...so Why? They didn't gain
>a lot of dealership floor space, nor marketing, nor sales. so Why? They did
>build th baby barracuda, but that was a loser also. so Why?
>
>
>I suppose there are words and stories around as to why, but I wonder really,
>why?
|