You are here:
Auto News >
Iacocca and Snoop are homies

Iacocca and Snoop are homies

Posted Aug 5th 2005 8:00PM

CommentsAdd

Well, if you though Jason Alexander and Iacocca were strange together, you may be surprised how well Iacocca teams up with another celebrity. Snoop Dogg and Iacocca spending a little quality time on the golf course, for shizzle. Couldn't resist, We're sorry. The D-O-Double-G and Iacocca make a fitting pair. There is something about old white auto executives and rappers that meshes so well. This is very funny. They should be releasing the commerical on Chrysler.com if you haven't seen it on TV. Thanks to Grenamier for the tip.

Category: Car Buying

New Features

2009 Most Satisfied Owners
Toyota Recalls Gas Pedals
Most Reliable Cars
Toyota Recall

2010 Cars

Add a Comment

Sign in »

28 Comments

Filter by:

Bob P

#20.. Tard... Your comment about why Mopar needed help, just shows you dont know much about the Corporate history of Chrysler.. and its infamous mismanagement before the Iacocca Era..Personally I think Lee did an awsome job turning it around.. Now its almost '06 can we say Deja vous ? The General is in basically the same trouble..........

December 31 2005 at 10:50 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Michael A. Lange

The most recent pairing of Iacocca & Snoop Dog is evidence that Chrysler, if not corporate in general......cares not who represents them. Obviously, the creative genius behind the design of their autos does not extend itself to the abilities of their marketing department. "Fashizzle I fazzizle"? Gives us a break! What is the commercials purpose? I doubt sincerely that it prompts anyone to run out and purchase their cars. I think it's about time that the media in general, pays heed to the inadvertent message it sends; whether advertising pizza, cell phones or automobiles. It's bad enough that unlike the old days where "father knew best" and was cast or profiled as one to be respected....that today, he's shown as a buffoon; without the media exasperating matters further by showing todays youth that any idiot proficient in Ebonics....could become a bona fide /glorified celebrity. I would hate to be the struggling, intelligent articulate dad who finds himself and his lack of success, being compared by his son (who aspires for that "bling bling" in the form of spinners on a golf cart or any other vehicle) to any of the various baggy clothes, dew rag wearing, rap blaring, blunt smoking Snoop dog types that entities like Chrysler support, if not created. Were they not Celebes of sorts, they'd probably be found looting during some riot or natural catastrophe.

September 02 2005 at 2:33 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Mal Fuller

Dear Retard, Well at least you had someone check your spelling this time. We DO have a difference of opinion on '80s vintage Chrysler products and also just who's embarrassing themselves. A good perspective can be gleaned from the "K"-car vs. GM "X"-body comparison. The 1980s were a nightmare of early computers trying to control cantankerous feedback carbs. (That's short for carburetors, Retard.) Having a background in electronics and spelling, I was successful in dealing with feedback carb problems. Since most techs weren't, the reputation of all these cars suffered. There were no electronics associated with the '81-'85 2.6L Mitsubishi equipped "K"-cars, but the Mukuni carb was over the heads of most techs. I drew business from all over my state servicing these carbs during their heyday. The 2.6L/Mukuni setup was also used in some of the '86-'87 minivans. What did you drive during the '80s Retard or didn't you have your driver's license yet?

August 07 2005 at 3:01 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

iQuack

The K car from Chrysler did drive better than the horrible X car from GM--at least the ones I rented back then. The X car (Chevy Citation) bottomed when drving over a wet cigarette and it stumbled and hesitated because the carburetor couldn't cope with emission control plumbing at that time. The K car had great seats, seating position and visibility from tall windows and narrow posts. It ran smoother and had a better ride, too.

August 07 2005 at 2:23 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Bryan

HAHAHA, too funny! My sister, bless her soul, drove an Aries in college....and I know for a FACT it was a POS...as I was the one who WORKED on it. 200K flawless miles....uh huh, ...boy, aren't YOU the Company Man....a 400, a Minivan, and a K!...you really ARE one loopy SOMB&%^%H, now aren't you? I think you may be on the wrong forum here dude...you REALLY are embarassing yourself.

August 07 2005 at 1:10 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Mal Fuller

Hey Retard, My mother and "fater" were 41 years old when when I was born. While this STILL doesn't give you enough information to figure my age I'm sure it won't stop you from further pointless speculation. I was self-employed in the automotive repair business during the "K" era. I drove an '81 Dodge Aries wagon past 200,000 miles without overhaul. Rust finally did it in. How many "K"-cars did you own Retard? By the way I'm not a nice guy!

August 07 2005 at 12:57 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Bryan

Mal, I'm sure you're a nice guy, and you're showing your age by dating your fater ...so I do feel a little regret in what I said to you...but ...but GDammit, that K-car was an utter PIECE of crap...and Anyone who has a tinge on automotive blood running in their veins knows this. I apologize for saying what I did...but the truth speaks for itself... ...crap is crap ....is crap. Please don't tell me you'd pay money for one of those pieces today...even if it was brand new, sitting on the lot with an American flag waving from its whip antenna....surely you woudn't.

August 07 2005 at 2:30 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

iQuack

Makes you think that maybe if Chrysler had failed in 1979, other companies would have picked up the pieces and demand for GM and Ford cars would have increased accordingly. Auto jobs in the aggregate might have remained much the same as workers were hired by Chrysler's competitors. So U.S. Government guarantees saved Chrysler so that 20 years later it would be a German company anyway. There's nothing wrong with German ownership of Chrysler, but there might have been something wrong with saving Chrysler in the first place by putting taxpayer funds at risk.

August 07 2005 at 2:13 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Bryan

Why did Chrysler NEED a bailout...ie, guaranteed LOANS??? Do you see this as somthing Admirable?? Something to be Proud of?...taxpayer's bailing out Chrysler Corp? Anyone...and I mean ANYONE who reads this blog or any other auto forum...who proudly states in front of the entire world what a WONDERFUL car the K-Car is/was....is a 'Tard!!!

August 07 2005 at 2:00 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Mal Fuller

Hey #17 a/k/a "my Lord", I'm not now, nor have I ever been employed by ANYONE in the automobile business. Ironically, my father, also Mal Fuller worked for Ford from 1928 until 1966. If the "K"-Car was so bad, I wonder how our government had its loan money returned in such a short time. Chrysler Corp. sales were mostly "K"-Cars during this era.

August 06 2005 at 10:35 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply