"The Treasury reached an agreement with Chrysler LLC's lenders that may help the troubled automaker avoid bankruptcy, a source briefed on the matter said on Tuesday.
The details of the deal were not immediately available, the source said."
And if I read it correctly, Daimler just basically wrote off the $700 million Chrysler owed it, and that's it? Daimler took a real bath on the Chrysler deal, heaven only knows what they were thinking there.
Chrysler is a poison pill, Fiat takes over at its peril.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Daimler also agreed to contribute $400M to Chrysler's pension plans over the next two years. The merger was "officially a disaster from start to finish."
If I was Fiat, i would walk...run as fast as I can from this deal. The UAW will have 55% of the company, no desirable cars on the dealer's lot and no products in the pipeline until late 2010. Why spend the money on this mess?
Do the Opel deal with GM and buy Saturn. Work something out with GM to continue feeding Saturn until you can bring the Opel cars over. GM will have a few plants available that Fiat can use to build cars here.
i will commend Chrysler for getting this done. It's amazing what you can do when someone sets a deadline.
I think they figure they are spending no money, so it can only have an up side. They figure wrongly, of course. This will be a much bigger disaster than the Daimler thing, it may actually cause the bankruptcy of both companies.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
1. An extensive dealership network to sell Fiats/Alfa Romeos. 2. Factories... for ramping up Fiat production to meet future demand.
If this is why Chrysler is so appealing, then we should start the clock until Fiat goes bankrupt. :sick: Sometimes free is not the best option. Spend a little money and you cna get the Saturn network and buy all the plants you want at auction. There are plenty of them available.
Question: What will it mean if the UAW owns 55% of Chrysler? I'm not sure I would want to partner with a company where the labor has the controlling interest. Wouldn't that limit any "changes" that can be made? Like selling off Jeep or the minivans?
My local grocery is employee owned and I know a couple of people who work there. They have the usual management/labor issues, but there's been a big payout for those who stuck it out for years. The current hires will do ok too, so long as the company continues to do ok. No union though.
Here's a list of the biggest 100 employee owned companies in the US. Maybe you'll recognize some of them.
United went this route too years ago, but then filed for bankruptcy and the employee ownership didn't count for anything.
I am curious as to why all the stories seem to say that the UAW is going to own 55% of Chrysler. That's not exactly the same thing in my mind as employee owned. What if the employees decertify the union?
the UAW is going to own 55% of Chrysler. That's not exactly the same thing in my mind as employee owned. What if the employees decertify the union?
I kind of read it as VEBA owning 55%. How that is structured within the UAW would be interesting to see. That is really only going to benefit the old timers with a pension and those already retired. It also says they can sell and make a profit if that is likely. I don't see any incentive for the new hires within the UAW for making the company go. They are just as likely to strike when Chrysler shows a slight profit as before.
Fiat would be crazy to take over any UAW controlled factories. That is more like toxic waste than a sub prime loan bundle.
After reading the article from the Vancoouver Sun, it expressed some of the concerns I had like if jobs need to be cut or if costs need to trimmed.
Fiat has to be desperate to do this deal. Free is not always the best option. They can spend some money and have 100% control over their own operations...and better products. They still haven't solved the problem of the products.
A shut down factory without a workforce is just real estate.
IMHO, Fiat needs working factories, not just the physical plant... A Saturn sale is just the brand name and possibly the dealer network.. With Chrysler, you can hit the ground running (stumbling?).
Obama Said to Plan for Chrysler Bankruptcy, Alliance
April 29 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama aims to announce tomorrow that Chrysler LLC will be placed into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, leading to an alliance with Italian automaker Fiat SpA, people involved in the matter said.
Huh? So it is going bankrupt, so that everyone gets screwed, only to have the "good" parts of Chrysler handed to Fiat on a silver platter for no money down?? Explain to me how that one is good for the taxpayers. Don't forget, a lot of government loans are being forgiven in the process of "bondholder negotiation" that has been going on this month.
I think Fiat has lost a customer for life!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Maybe Obama thinks they have a lot of FIAT money he can spend. :sick:
I think it is a case of hoping Fiat will do something good with a lost cause. They do have a lot more to offer the US consumer in decent fuel efficient cars than any of the domestics. I don't see them being built here with UAW labor. That would be counter productive.
Why be angry at Fiat? Chrysler is headed for Chapter 11, with or without the Fiat deal. Fiat didn't cause Chrysler's predicament, nor is it the party that's screwing the taxpayers. I think blame could be assigned to (in no particular order) the UAW, Chrysler's management, Daimler-Benz, and our lawmakers for the flawed and full-of-loopholes CAFE laws. And maybe the American public shares some blame too, for embracing CAFE instead of a gasoline tax, so they could drive gas guzzlers without suffering direct consequences.
Also, although Fiat won't put up any money, it's certainly taking a risk, as you acknowledged when you suggested in a recent message that the Fiat-Chrysler deal could bring both company's down. The fact that no other company is seriously competing with Fiat for Chrysler supports the notion that the risk-reward potential is rather marginal. Isn't it proper for Fiat management to try to maximize their company's chances for success, while minimizing the risks? What am I missing?
I would take one of these in a diesel that gets 50 MPG over anything the D3 have to offer. Fiat may be what Chrysler needs. Chrysler really has little to offer Fiat aside from the dealers.
An Italian magazine, Quattroroute, says that Fiat has begun work on a hybrid powertrain for small vehicles and that they would likely share its design and engineering with Chrysler. We now know the merger will occur, so this little pup looks like a real likely hybrid coming from Fiatsler. Take a gander!
The hybrid powertrain will likely go in the small Fiat 500 . Also, this powertrain could also go in to the yet to be released Topolino. The hybrid system will be used alongside Fiat's 2 cylinder, 900cc turbocharged engine. Which is an engine about the size of a small motorcycle engine, but it provides sufficient power for the dinky 500.
The hybrid system will use a lithium ion battery, and an all-electric version may be coming in the future as well.
So, Fiat could be the first automaker to incorporate a hybrid system in a very small vehicle. Most vehicles the size of the 500 are either all-electric powered, or as in the Smart car, powered by a diesel gasoline engine. A hybrid system could make an already efficient vehicle all the more efficient, no?
The system very likely will find its way into new smaller Chrysler vehicles when the merger between Chrysler and Fiat occurs. We can say it this way now, the merger happens tomorrow. And just a few short weeks ago many of us thought it was never going to happen. :surprise:
You read my mind. I do think that Fiat has a lot more to offer Chrysler than the other way around. Putting any money into Chrysler seems foolish. They have more liabilities than assets. Though getting into any deal where the UAW has control seems disastrous.
What's really amazing is that the D3 and most every other auto maker decided to compete against each other by building the same type vehicles. If GM built a 200" long sedan, Ford and Chrysler decided they needed to compete there, and they did so right down the line from small car to large and in SUV's and PU's.
But as we see from vehicle designs from Europe and Asia there certainly are many different types of autos that were never offered here in the U.S.
My favorite vehicle owned was a Honda CRX. Now I know it was relatively unsafe, but hey at least it was much better than a motorcycle. But I do enjoy the way smaller cars handle, and would like to see more options in the 2,000 - 2,500 Lb range.
We certainly don't need 1 more 190" long sedan, or the 30th mid-size SUV or cross-over option.
this morning: Chrysler will enter a government-managed Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
And won't the laugh be on them if Fiat buys 50% of Opel instead of going ahead with its Chrysler deal? If that happens, Chrysler will cease to exist. Still wonder about Jeep's fate though.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Sign me up for a cheap jeep. Half price would be nice. What would be even better is someone buy Jeep and put a decent small diesel engine in the Wrangler. They can dump all the other models.
I'm with Kernick. The last car Honda built that was really great was the CRX. I am sure the S2000 is fun to drive also. Just over priced. I think one way or another we will be seeing smaller cars from companies in the EU. Fiat, Skoda even Ford if they get their act together.
Bankruptcy induced fire sales are going to help out China and India big time. Getting all this know how will speed up their eventual domination in automotive. Looking at the past year or two, I expect one of these two countries will end up the buyer of Jeep as well.
Counterpoint: There will be plenty of workers available to make those cars. You can make an agreement with GM to continue supplying Saturn cars for two years until Fiat can get their cars certified in the US. Also the Saturn dealer network is probably the right size for Fiat out of the chute.
Interesting article on Chrysler from Motor World. Pretty realistic POV.
The US government will reduce or eliminate barriers to importing existing Fiat models, giving Fiat an immediate market for it's current products. They can ramp up production to capacity at existing plants, while retooling in the states. The service chain will be an immediate challenge.
Chrysler, and its dealership network, will immediately get economical cars to meet current demand, something Diamler had no interest in developing.
The bloated foolish entity the UAW has become could bring the whole thing down, or could fizzle like a punctured balloon blimp.
I don't think a waiver of DOT and EPA standards would be in the best interest of a company that a lot of people associate with low-quality vehicles.
There'd have to be a warning label: "CUSTOMER: Please take note that this car was not designed and manufactured in accordance with U.S. federal motor vehicle safety standards."
That would be the kiss of death.
Better to wait till the cars can be reengineered to be not only legal but competitive at the same time. No band-aids, please.
Chrysler has announced as of this morning that all of its plants will be closed beginning Monday, and will not reopen until/unless the company emerges from bankruptcy.
There is the possibility that the last Chryslers ever to be built are being built as I write this.....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That sounds an awful lot like they expect Ch11 to turn into Ch7....?? Maybe the hedge funds bought the BK judge already? They have to know they're going to get it right in the wallet during a Ch11, especially after all the holding out they did when everyone else was compromising.
Isn't the official line still that they expect the company to emerge from bankruptcy in 30-60 days? If that's true, and not just a public ruse, then the plant shutdowns are just a way of freezing things long enough to establish how much is actually owed and owned.
1. 30-60 days is extremely optimistic for a bankruptcy of this size. 2. If it goes much longer than that, Chrysler dealers are going to be jumping ship, or just plain failing, left and right, making the odds of a successful exit from bankruptcy that much smaller. 3. Fiat could get hold of a chunk of Opel and just decide it doesn't need the Chrysler deal any more. 4. If everything goes exactly as planned, they have massive excess inventory as it stands, so why would they restart production in 60 days? 4a. It will be two years before Fiat will be able to do any of the things they are targeting in the reorganization, like produce a 40 mpg car in a Chrysler plant, produce a new engine in a Chrysler plant, etc. How are they going to stay in business for those two years? It makes me sick to my stomach if the answer to 4a is the U.S. government will waste BILLIONS more of our dollars on them.
The U.S. only needs and can only support two automakers, and Chrysler isn't one of those two.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It makes me sick to my stomach if the answer to 4a is the U.S. government will waste BILLIONS more of our dollars on them.
It is very depressing that we are selling at least 2 generations down the river with debt that was entirely unnecessary. GM and Chrysler should already be in C7 with auctions going on to get rid of worthless assets. Our economy will be on hold until the dust settles on these crazy schemes to keep a few auto workers making the big bucks.
Better to wait till the cars can be reengineered to be not only legal but competitive at the same time.
But if they get a waiver, they would be legal. In general don't get too hung up on what is legal. What is legal, may not be tomorrow. Laws have and can be changed with a stroke of a pen.
Also because a vehicle does not meet U.S. safety or emissions standards does not necessarily mean as a whole it is worse. For example if you said a vehicle must get better than a 5 on a 1-10 scale in 4 categories, the U.S. vehicle could be a 6,6,6,6 while the foreign vehicle might be a 8,8,8,4. The foreign vehicle while being better in some respects might fail U.S. standards simply for putting less emphasis in 1 particular safety or emissions area.
I agree. The Obama administration should have said in Jan. - "You got all the $ and advice you're going to get. The government was never intended to come in and help you manage your industry. You guys got yourself into this complicated mess, and made bad decisions for many years. Figure it out, or go away and be replaced by more competent companies."
Kernick, you missed my point. If they're granted a waiver, it will make the cars LOOK like they are poorly engineered, unsafe, etc. Whether or not they are actually worse is beside the point--customers will run like hell in the other direction, public perception will be even worse, and the company will fold..
If Fiat were granted a waiver to sell their cars here, my point is that it would be legal, and there would be no note put on the vehicles.
And I really don't the public is that concerned with safety many times. Millions of people drive motorcycles which are far less safe than any car Fiat is going to bring here. And in general if people were practical and "ran like hell" at safety issues, then I'd expect that the millions of people who live along the earthquake fault system on the West Coast wouldn't be there; and people wouldn't move back into New Orleans.
As the Insurance institute just recently published, small cars are less safe than big cars or SUVs. The emissions standards for the EU are stricter in many ways than the US standards. Cars sold in the US many times have cheaper drum brakes in the rear. While the same car sold in the EU will have disc brakes all around. I think the waiver has been granted on many cars over the years. If you look at the crash tests there are many that have no data. I think the government said we trust you as a company to make a safe car so no need to smash a few to prove it. I would think that Fiat could present the test data done in the EU to get clearance to sell them. It is more a matter of having a sales network. The only reason I can see them wanting to deal with Chrysler. I still think they would be crazy to build cars here in old Chrysler facilities with long in the tooth labor issues.
Since front brakes do most of the work, I doubt that there's much difference in braking distances between the same vehicle equipped with rear discs vs. rear drums. I prefer rear drums myself since they last forever, compared to pads and rotors.
"The truth is that today's disc/drum setups are completely adequate for the majority of new cars. Remember that both disc and drum brake design has been vastly improved in the last 20 years. In fact, the current rear drum brake systems on today's cars would provide better stopping performance then the front disc setups of the '70s. And today's front disc brakes are truly exceptional in terms of stopping power. Combined with the fact that between 60 and 90 percent of a vehicle's stopping power comes from the front wheels, it's clear that a well-designed, modern drum brake is all that's required for most rear wheel brake duty."
Watching the president's speech it seemed like he said the government is helping Chrysler structure its BK and is working with Fiat with some government help to make sure the tax payer gets paid back, if I get the quote correct, Fiat could even consider a 100 percent take over. That indicates to me there is some money being offered to sweeten the pot. He said the Canadian government is offering money and the parent companies, both are forgiving loans given to Chrysler. Add to that the loss of the legacy costs and the government picking up the pensions and this deal could be better than what Renault got when it effectively took over Nissan. Renault got control of corporate and finance and didn't have to take on the debt.
The UAW has been a mill stone around the domestics neck for years with things like a labor pool where laid off employees get 100 percent pay for years. I know they were supposed to discontinue that practice but it should have never happened in the first place.
We survived the loss of a manufacturer before and well will this time as well. And just maybe the Italians can do something the Japanese couldn't do. Give us some small cars with some style.
My point was the EU has cars that are probably safer than ours. So to say Fiat would have a hard time getting past the regulators should be a non issue. They have some very small cars which by their size will not fare well in a crash with my Sequoia. Just the nature of the beast. As far as brakes why does Toyota equip the Prius with all wheel disks in the UK and not the US, if they do not do a better job? My 2005 GMC PU had 4 wheel disk brakes, and the new GMCs do not. I think they just go cheapo on US. Personally I cannot remember slamming on my brakes for an emergency stop in the last 30 years. I just want to know I have the best chance if I do need it. I also have not done a brake job on any vehicle of mine for at least the last 10 years. Maybe if I kept them longer. When I find that perfect vehicle I will keep it. I doubt it will be a Fiat or Chrysler.
4 wheel disc brakes are a selling point. So maybe it's just marketing. :shades: It would be entertaining to see braking scores comparing the UK Prius with the US one.
What's Chrysler got going for it? Check out this list of Top-20 selling vehicles in U.S. through April from Reuters. Only the Elantra and Jeep Wrangler gained in sales numbers year to year.
Someone should donate a Fiat 500 to the NTSHA and pay for a crash test. Here's the Euroncap results (5 stars).
The Honda Civic only got 4 stars where the Fiat 500 got five. VW is the car to beat in the safety arena. If Fiat is unable to get their diesels past the regs they will have little to offer the American consumer. If you want a gas guzzling compact buy a Civic or Corolla.
I agree completely. Making a temporary exception to the standards at this exceptional time might be the single best thing our government could do to help the Detroit 3 and American taxpayers.
In my limited knowledge of the European continent I still refer to countries I know little about as part of the Soviet bloc. I should have said defunct Soviet bloc. I did know that Skoda was being built in one of them. And from what I have read they are quite good and great mileage. Something we in this quickly becoming 3rd World USA, are not allowed to purchase. We have RULES you know against getting great mileage. It would upset the balance of power in the auto and oil industry here. Hopefully the sooner GM and Chrysler go away we can get some decent high mileage cars and PU trucks from places that know how to build them.
Yeah, but you never see them on your own car unless you cruise by a plate glass window close to the curb. So why bother. :P
I don't see granting exemptions from safety or smog standards happening either, although I could see the US and Canada adopting some EU standards as "equivalent".
Comments
The details of the deal were not immediately available, the source said."
Chrysler lenders and Treasury reach a deal (Reuters)
The details are still very sketchy.
In case you missed it, Daimler Reaches Deal to Unload Chrysler Stake (NY Times). So they are essentially out of the picture now.
Chrysler is a poison pill, Fiat takes over at its peril.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Daimler Finally Cuts Loose From Chrysler, Loses $1.8B in Q1 (Straightline)
Do the Opel deal with GM and buy Saturn. Work something out with GM to continue feeding Saturn until you can bring the Opel cars over. GM will have a few plants available that Fiat can use to build cars here.
i will commend Chrysler for getting this done. It's amazing what you can do when someone sets a deadline.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
1. An extensive dealership network to sell Fiats/Alfa Romeos.
2. Factories... for ramping up Fiat production to meet future demand.
And they'll get both for no money down. Not exactly a bad deal.
1. An extensive dealership network to sell Fiats/Alfa Romeos.
2. Factories... for ramping up Fiat production to meet future demand.
If this is why Chrysler is so appealing, then we should start the clock until Fiat goes bankrupt. :sick: Sometimes free is not the best option. Spend a little money and you cna get the Saturn network and buy all the plants you want at auction. There are plenty of them available.
Question: What will it mean if the UAW owns 55% of Chrysler? I'm not sure I would want to partner with a company where the labor has the controlling interest. Wouldn't that limit any "changes" that can be made? Like selling off Jeep or the minivans?
Here's a list of the biggest 100 employee owned companies in the US. Maybe you'll recognize some of them.
United went this route too years ago, but then filed for bankruptcy and the employee ownership didn't count for anything.
There's some good speculation in this article:
Chrysler steering closer to 11th-hour salvation (Vancouver Sun)
I am curious as to why all the stories seem to say that the UAW is going to own 55% of Chrysler. That's not exactly the same thing in my mind as employee owned. What if the employees decertify the union?
I kind of read it as VEBA owning 55%. How that is structured within the UAW would be interesting to see. That is really only going to benefit the old timers with a pension and those already retired. It also says they can sell and make a profit if that is likely. I don't see any incentive for the new hires within the UAW for making the company go. They are just as likely to strike when Chrysler shows a slight profit as before.
Fiat would be crazy to take over any UAW controlled factories. That is more like toxic waste than a sub prime loan bundle.
Fiat has to be desperate to do this deal. Free is not always the best option. They can spend some money and have 100% control over their own operations...and better products. They still haven't solved the problem of the products.
IMHO, Fiat needs working factories, not just the physical plant... A Saturn sale is just the brand name and possibly the dealer network.. With Chrysler, you can hit the ground running (stumbling?).
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
April 29 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama aims to announce tomorrow that Chrysler LLC will be placed into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, leading to an alliance with Italian automaker Fiat SpA, people involved in the matter said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a97rZxZqE4S8&refer=worldwide-
Huh? So it is going bankrupt, so that everyone gets screwed, only to have the "good" parts of Chrysler handed to Fiat on a silver platter for no money down?? Explain to me how that one is good for the taxpayers. Don't forget, a lot of government loans are being forgiven in the process of "bondholder negotiation" that has been going on this month.
I think Fiat has lost a customer for life!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think it is a case of hoping Fiat will do something good with a lost cause. They do have a lot more to offer the US consumer in decent fuel efficient cars than any of the domestics. I don't see them being built here with UAW labor. That would be counter productive.
Why be angry at Fiat? Chrysler is headed for Chapter 11, with or without the Fiat deal. Fiat didn't cause Chrysler's predicament, nor is it the party that's screwing the taxpayers. I think blame could be assigned to (in no particular order) the UAW, Chrysler's management, Daimler-Benz, and our lawmakers for the flawed and full-of-loopholes CAFE laws. And maybe the American public shares some blame too, for embracing CAFE instead of a gasoline tax, so they could drive gas guzzlers without suffering direct consequences.
Also, although Fiat won't put up any money, it's certainly taking a risk, as you acknowledged when you suggested in a recent message that the Fiat-Chrysler deal could bring both company's down. The fact that no other company is seriously competing with Fiat for Chrysler supports the notion that the risk-reward potential is rather marginal. Isn't it proper for Fiat management to try to maximize their company's chances for success, while minimizing the risks? What am I missing?
An Italian magazine, Quattroroute, says that Fiat has begun work on a hybrid powertrain for small vehicles and that they would likely share its design and engineering with Chrysler. We now know the merger will occur, so this little pup looks like a real likely hybrid coming from Fiatsler. Take a gander!
The hybrid powertrain will likely go in the small Fiat 500 . Also, this powertrain could also go in to the yet to be released Topolino. The hybrid system will be used alongside Fiat's 2 cylinder, 900cc turbocharged engine. Which is an engine about the size of a small motorcycle engine, but it provides sufficient power for the dinky 500.
The hybrid system will use a lithium ion battery, and an all-electric version may be coming in the future as well.
So, Fiat could be the first automaker to incorporate a hybrid system in a very small vehicle. Most vehicles the size of the 500 are either all-electric powered, or as in the Smart car, powered by a diesel gasoline engine. A hybrid system could make an already efficient vehicle all the more efficient, no?
The system very likely will find its way into new smaller Chrysler vehicles when the merger between Chrysler and Fiat occurs. We can say it this way now, the merger happens tomorrow. And just a few short weeks ago many of us thought it was never going to happen. :surprise:
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
But as we see from vehicle designs from Europe and Asia there certainly are many different types of autos that were never offered here in the U.S.
My favorite vehicle owned was a Honda CRX. Now I know it was relatively unsafe, but hey at least it was much better than a motorcycle. But I do enjoy the way smaller cars handle, and would like to see more options in the 2,000 - 2,500 Lb range.
We certainly don't need 1 more 190" long sedan, or the 30th mid-size SUV or cross-over option.
And won't the laugh be on them if Fiat buys 50% of Opel instead of going ahead with its Chrysler deal? If that happens, Chrysler will cease to exist. Still wonder about Jeep's fate though.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I'm with Kernick. The last car Honda built that was really great was the CRX. I am sure the S2000 is fun to drive also. Just over priced. I think one way or another we will be seeing smaller cars from companies in the EU. Fiat, Skoda even Ford if they get their act together.
Interesting article on Chrysler from Motor World. Pretty realistic POV.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/30/autos/chrysler_dead_or_alive.fortune/index.htm
Chrysler, and its dealership network, will immediately get economical cars to meet current demand, something Diamler had no interest in developing.
The bloated foolish entity the UAW has become could bring the whole thing down, or could fizzle like a punctured
balloonblimp.There'd have to be a warning label: "CUSTOMER: Please take note that this car was not designed and manufactured in accordance with U.S. federal motor vehicle safety standards."
That would be the kiss of death.
Better to wait till the cars can be reengineered to be not only legal but competitive at the same time. No band-aids, please.
There is the possibility that the last Chryslers ever to be built are being built as I write this.....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
1. 30-60 days is extremely optimistic for a bankruptcy of this size.
2. If it goes much longer than that, Chrysler dealers are going to be jumping ship, or just plain failing, left and right, making the odds of a successful exit from bankruptcy that much smaller.
3. Fiat could get hold of a chunk of Opel and just decide it doesn't need the Chrysler deal any more.
4. If everything goes exactly as planned, they have massive excess inventory as it stands, so why would they restart production in 60 days?
4a. It will be two years before Fiat will be able to do any of the things they are targeting in the reorganization, like produce a 40 mpg car in a Chrysler plant, produce a new engine in a Chrysler plant, etc. How are they going to stay in business for those two years? It makes me sick to my stomach if the answer to 4a is the U.S. government will waste BILLIONS more of our dollars on them.
The U.S. only needs and can only support two automakers, and Chrysler isn't one of those two.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It is very depressing that we are selling at least 2 generations down the river with debt that was entirely unnecessary. GM and Chrysler should already be in C7 with auctions going on to get rid of worthless assets. Our economy will be on hold until the dust settles on these crazy schemes to keep a few auto workers making the big bucks.
But if they get a waiver, they would be legal. In general don't get too hung up on what is legal. What is legal, may not be tomorrow. Laws have and can be changed with a stroke of a pen.
Also because a vehicle does not meet U.S. safety or emissions standards does not necessarily mean as a whole it is worse. For example if you said a vehicle must get better than a 5 on a 1-10 scale in 4 categories, the U.S. vehicle could be a 6,6,6,6 while the foreign vehicle might be a 8,8,8,4. The foreign vehicle while being better in some respects might fail U.S. standards simply for putting less emphasis in 1 particular safety or emissions area.
And I really don't the public is that concerned with safety many times. Millions of people drive motorcycles which are far less safe than any car Fiat is going to bring here. And in general if people were practical and "ran like hell" at safety issues, then I'd expect that the millions of people who live along the earthquake fault system on the West Coast wouldn't be there; and people wouldn't move back into New Orleans.
"The truth is that today's disc/drum setups are completely adequate for the majority of new cars. Remember that both disc and drum brake design has been vastly improved in the last 20 years. In fact, the current rear drum brake systems on today's cars would provide better stopping performance then the front disc setups of the '70s. And today's front disc brakes are truly exceptional in terms of stopping power. Combined with the fact that between 60 and 90 percent of a vehicle's stopping power comes from the front wheels, it's clear that a well-designed, modern drum brake is all that's required for most rear wheel brake duty."
Brakes: Drum vs. Disc
Nice diversion from Fiats and Chrysler.
The UAW has been a mill stone around the domestics neck for years with things like a labor pool where laid off employees get 100 percent pay for years. I know they were supposed to discontinue that practice but it should have never happened in the first place.
We survived the loss of a manufacturer before and well will this time as well. And just maybe the Italians can do something the Japanese couldn't do. Give us some small cars with some style.
For it did meet the European standards... which is no small feat.
Now, if we were talking about a Malayasian Proton... I'd agree with your sentiment.
What's Chrysler got going for it? Check out this list of Top-20 selling vehicles in U.S. through April from Reuters. Only the Elantra and Jeep Wrangler gained in sales numbers year to year.
Someone should donate a Fiat 500 to the NTSHA and pay for a crash test. Here's the Euroncap results (5 stars).
2) Rear discs because drums look crappy behind open alloy wheels..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Yeah, but you never see them on your own car unless you cruise by a plate glass window close to the curb. So why bother. :P
I don't see granting exemptions from safety or smog standards happening either, although I could see the US and Canada adopting some EU standards as "equivalent".