I agree with you that Georgia's wages sound on the low-side. On the other hand living in New England for a number of years, I know that many of the better paying jobs are in public positions. MA, CT, and RI have public-worker pay and pension packages far beyond what most professionals do.
I don't begrudge a professor with a PhD making $100K/year, or the clerk at the DMV making $40K/yr, but many of us do begrudge cities of 20K hiring Planners and school administrators for $120K/yr with nice pensions.
I think a fair wage for a factory worker w/high school diploma to earn is about $15/hr + benefits. I can see skilled operators making $25/hr + benefits here in the U.S.
To make more than this though puts you at a decided disadvantage, when the company can a bunch of Mexicans or Chinese to do the same jobs happily for $5/hr + minimal benefits. Thus we see Fiat keeping open a Mexican plant, while saying bye to the U.S. workers.
I think Fiat has a right to do that normally, except the U.S. government intervention wasn't normal-conditions. I really wish that since we were throwing the play-book out on government-business practices, I wish Obama and Congress had made Cerberus and its wealthy owners put all their resources into Chrysler. Obama let Cerberus walk away from the mess, with all their other businesses and private funds intact. They gambled, lost, invoked corporate bankruptcy laws, and walked away.
Sometimes I wish a Joseph Stalin-lite was in charge here, and they could have a fair-trial and fair-hanging of these guys.
Don't forget, Cerberus was very connected with both political parties, and particularly the Republicans who were in office at the time. K Street and the special interest lobbyists decide for us yet once again thanks to political contributions!
The Wall Street Journal reported today that Jim Press, who had spent 37 years with Toyota before joining Chrysler, and whom some give credit for much of Toyota's success in North America, is expected to leave Chrysler by the end of November.
according to the article in Today's WSJ, "Mr. Press has been stripped of many of his responsibilities (by CEO Sergio Marchione), and recent misteps have strained his relationship with Chrysler dealers...The departure comes two months after Mr. Marchione's initial management shakeup, which created a flatter structure of 23 executives, including Mr. press, reporting directly to him...In his current position, Mr. Press - unlike unlike the three executives in charge of the Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep brands - doesn't have any direct operational control over departments that Mr. Marchione is concentrating on to lead the turnaround."
Not really much of a surprise, what with a new owner and all. He has all that Cerberus baggage around him. Maybe Penske or Tesla will hire him.
"It had been widely speculated that the ever-optimistic Press -- who served as Chrysler president under majority ownership of Cerberus Capital Management LLC and prior to the company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy -- would leave not long after the company's post-Chapter 11 restructuring and resulting management control by Italy's Fiat S.p.A."
do you mean someone who'd kill and torture just hundreds of thousands instead of millions?
Yes, that would just about cover those on death-row, lobbyists, and the few % of really corrupt politicians and Wall Street scam artists. :P Oh and we could have had people like that aircraft-bomber the Scots just pardoned.
That'll take too long. The Avenger platform is so old it may as well have fins on it, and I from what I hear it was universally rated as worse than the Tata Nano. :shades: They need to get a replacement to the US market ASAP to get something faintly credible out there for the midsize category.
Maybe Chrysler/Fiat is not going to compete in all categories. It takes a lot of resources to compete/redesign vehicles for small, medium, large cars and SUV's, PU's, vans ...
With Chrysler's size and Fiat's European bias towards small cars, maybe there's not enough business for Chrysler to compete financially. There are many businesses that do not try to be all things to all people.
If I were Fiat and had Chrysler I would let Chrysler sell its existing vehicles until they dropped below a certain number (maybe 10K/year) and then end them. What I would want is to bring 3 or 4 outstanding models to market and sell 200K - 300K of each/year. Avoid spending the hundreds of millions to update a or create a new model (X how many models you have) that gets put into a plant and then never recover your $.
Fiat would be better off doing a few models very, very well then spending the money to try and be in every market with a hurried but expensive design, with mediocre impact.
Unfortunately, the midsize sedan market, while not the most glitzy or glamorous, is the bread and butter of most members of the American auto market as far as sales volume. Not having a presence in that market is a real bad thing. Having the Avenger there is just about equivalent.
They'd be better off dumping most of the bigger stuff...Charger, Challenger, Avenger, Magnum, and particularly the horrid Nitro. (Leave the 300c and halo it up a bit, give up on referring to the Caliber as a car and admit that it's a small SUV).
Unfortunately, the midsize sedan market, while not the most glitzy or glamorous, is the bread and butter of most members of the American auto market.
But most of the manufacturers have been losing money with their strategy. Having worked in a Mfg. company for many years as an engineer with an MS degree in Project Management, I'm leaning towards the problem being - too much product development money being spent on too many models, the models not selling enough to cover the expenses, because they're selling models similar to many competitors.
And they were losing $ when the economy was good and buying 17M/year; so what chance do they have in this economy selling less of each vehicle?
No, Chrysler/Fiat had better sit down and figure out what they are or can do really, really well and focus on that. If they don't that (or GM and other brands don't) then they're going to continue to pile-up losses. It is not good enough now for Chrysler to come out with a new mid-size car and say it is 2% bigger than an Accord and gets 1 mpg better, and is $1,500 less. Chevrolet has a Malibu like that, but it is not lighting the world on fire (or even saving GM because they have 10 losers for 1 slight winner).
Chrysler needs to work towards a few sensational "got to have" high-volume models (think '64 Mustang), and forget about the paradigms of different divisions for luxury trims, and having a car and truck in every size.
If I were Chrysler my lineup would be a) a small diesel car getting 50mpg, b) a small diesel pickup (base it on the Jeep Liberty chassis), c) the Viper (even though it might lose a little $), d) the Jeep Wrangler, e) any good Fiat models.
Everything else would get sold off, converted or closed.
Unfortunately, Chrysler can't do sensational right now, they have NOTHING. That has to come from Fiat. The Alfa can give a Fusion a run for its money if done properly, which is important given how Fusion is beating the pants off of anything else.
They do need a small Fiat-sourced car but that will take time. They could use a small pickup but the only small pickup left in the US is the Ranger, really. Chrysler can't even think about taking on the Tacoma and Frontier: that's just asking for trouble at this point.
I do agree with keeping the Viper and the Wrangler around. Those are two of Chrysler's remaining strengths (the other is the RAM). But they need actual cars, and given how old and bad the Avenger is, it makes sense to start there (the Caliber is relatively new).
Of course, they could also start by ditching the 300-based models, but there still seems to be some actual demand for them...mostly with new grilles and 25 inch spinner rims with millimeter-tall sidewalls, but still... :shades:
I agree with kernick on this one. I'd go a little further, though--what Fiat does best is "cheap and cheerful." I see Fiat as a direct competitor for Kia at the low end. Perhaps a quick solution would be to bring back the Neon nameplate for an entry-level, fun, cheap line of cars, including several different body styles (hatch, mini-MPV, coupe, sedan) based on existing Fiat engineering, with both gas and diesel versions.
Beyond that, yeah, keep the Viper and the Wrangler, and maybe revive the idea of the Scrambler using a Wrangler chassis. And yes, absolutely, offer diesel engines for both the Wrangler and the Scrambler offshoot.
Unfortunately, Chrysler can't do sensational right now, they have NOTHING. That has to come from Fiat.
I got tired of writing Chrysler-Fiat so I just starting writing Chrysler - that is all.
The Alfa can give a Fusion a run for its money if done properly, which is important given how Fusion is beating the pants off of anything else.
I haven't seen the Fusion's sales numbers, but the mid-size market is crowded. You have Hyundai, Ford, Chevy, Toyota, Honda .... all there at the "pie" already. I would not want to go into a crowded market unless I had a significantly better product. "run for its money if done properly" does not sound like that case.
Business is a lot like war or sports. You do not want to take on someone where their strength is, unless you are strong enough to be absolutely sure of winning. You want to find the weaknesses. The auto industry in this country is pretty strong (saturated), except for small cars and diesel vehicles. This is where Fiat must strike, as neither Chrysler or Fiat do not have good/great reputation in the U.S. Fiat-Chrysler must then have some luck in future events that gasoline does not go down in price 2-3 years from now (unlikely).
I would suggest to Chrysler/Fiat to take the engineers and $ who might go into designing 15 of their current models, and concentrating those resources into 3 or 4 projects, and do those 3-4 projects really well and quickly.
They'd be better off having 3-4 really great vehicles making money, then 15 vehicles developed fairly slowly and poorly because of less resources, that each lose $.
PRESS RELEASE: The following is a joint statement from Nissan and Chrysler
Nissan and Chrysler today announced a mutual agreement to end three OEM vehicle-supply projects announced last year.
For the past several months, teams from both companies have been studying the viability of the projects in light of significant changes in business conditions since the projects were announced in January and April of 2008.
Today, it was decided it was in the best interests of both companies to end the projects.
The projects had involved:
1. Nissan providing to Chrysler a compact sedan for the South American market beginning this year.
2. Nissan providing to Chrysler a small vehicle for global markets beginning in 2010.
3. Chrysler providing to Nissan a full-size pickup truck starting in 2011.
A separate agreement involving the supply of transmissions from Nissan affiliate JATCO to Chrysler remains unchanged. That agreement has been in effect since 2004.
The rest of the article suggests this could be problematic for Nissan. Now they have to scramble to find a replacement for the Titan and Armada.
I'd say they could keep selling the current Titan for another few years without losing too much ground to the competition. The Armada, though it's a very nice vehicle, is a leftover from when every company had to have a full-size SUV--it could disappear from the market tomorrow, and few would notice.
Small cars are the wrong place to start too. Between Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Ford, Subaru, Mazda, Kia, Mitsu....there are just too many excellent entries out there for smaller cars: that's asking for even more punishment than the midsize market. At least in the midsize market Kia is less of a factor, as are Mazda and Mitsu (Subaru is a bit niche).
I'm not sure how you're defining small cars, but most of these manufacturers don't sell small cars as I'm speaking of, with the mpg I'm speaking of. Out of the companies you list I'd say only Honda (Fit) and Toyota (Yaris) have small cars. OK Ford will soon have the Fiesta. Then you have the Mini and the Smart-Car. Do we have to mention that Chevy Metro as a competitor?
What do these cars get for mpg 35? maybe 40? There certainly is a big gap here for a Mini-size car (2,000Lb curb wt.) with 1.0L turbo- diesel getting 50+Mpg. How about a Ford Ranger size pickup with 2.0L turbo-diesel getting 35+mpg?
Ok so you're not talking small cars, you're talking subcompact cars and not compact cars. That is a different story: the market is not nearly as saturated there. You're right about the Ford Fiesta, which should be an instant "Danger Will Robinson!" to any subcompact manufacturer.
The Fit is also excellent, as is the Versa and Accent, but Toyota is strangely behind in this segment, back there with Chevy. (Face facts, the Smart and the Mini are in another class). Also, while the Accent is good, it's coming due for a redesign, so now might be a good time to do better. Chrysler might be able to have a go there but I still think it will take a lot to federalize an existing subcompact or design a new one, and they might not have that time.
Below a subcompact, I'm not sure the market is there. Smart is doing some sales, but they're very much a niche vehicle right now, and don't have wide acceptance
And an outdated Ford Ranger with a 35 MPG diesel will be....an aoutdated Ford Ranger, just with better MPG. :shades:
It's easier to make a small car distinctive--and therefore appealing--because the bar is pretty low. Buyers will forgive a small car for being noisier and less comfortable if it's reliable and fun to drive, and if it has some imagination. Clever use of space, interesting style and color.
Consider the Kia Soul, the Honda Fit, the first-generation Scion xB, the VW New Beetle, and the PT Cruiser. None of them are especially fast, nor especially quiet, nor especially comfortable. They're all adequate, but none have the across-the-board competence of the Civics and Corollas and Elantras that dominate the compact market. But they don't need it. Each has a certain charm, a sense of uniqueness, a bit of whimsy with which to leaven their fundamental entry-level virtues. Also, each one generated waiting lists when it first hit the market.
That's what Fiat-sler needs to be doing with its future products. The company will never build a car that competes successfully against the Camrys, Accords, Civics, and Corollas of the US market--and it should not try to do so. It should re-configure itself as a purveyor of clever, entertaining niche vehicles that people will want purely because they're fun.
Chrysler can only survive by developing products for niche markets. I believe their best shot is to focus on the RWD market. The 300 and Charger are RWD. There is a market for RWD sports sedans. It's not a bad strategy. Subaru focuses on AWD perhaps Chrysler can do the same with RWD. Also, it enables them to avoid going head to head in the major categories (mid-size sedan). For example, someone interested in a Camry, will look at the Accord, Malibu, Fusion, Sonata, etc. There are too many competitors in this market. However, someone looking at a mid-size sports sedan (e.g. BMW) may consider a Chrysler built (FIAT / Alfa Romeo designed) car. There are fewer players in this type of market. This is the type of niche market that Chrysler needs to compete in successfully.
Ok so you're not talking small cars, you're talking subcompact cars and not compact cars.
LOL. A subcompact is more a small car than a compact! Autos are a global commodity, so also think globally. I'm talking global small cars. Cars that are safe and clean enough to be used in Europe and Japan. Don't just think of what is today - with a stroke of a pen the rules for what can be sold here can be changed.
Below a subcompact, I'm not sure the market is there.
Maybe not today. But since decisions that Fiat/Chrysler make today on what their vehicle lineup should be take time; about 2 years to get a new model, then you ask what will people in the U.S. want in 2 years. I see the U.S. going thru fundamental change with this last recession. We as a society have just rung up a lot of debt, and will continue to. And fuel is not getting any cheaper - demand will increase, and the U.S. $ is weaker. I would bet cheap, high mpg vehicles will be in demand for the next decade. You can look back on this in 10 years, and see if I was right.
Chrysler ought to hire this guy, and start making this tomorrow. Sell them in Walmart for $2,999 del. Plan on selling 3 million of them to kids 16-22. These could be as prevalent as cell phones.
Exactly. One competitor and not ten. Build a compact sports sedan, a poor man's BMW and sell it for $4,000 cheaper. How many buyers out there can not afford, for whatever reason, a new BMW but buy a used one? There is a market for this buyer. The question is can Chrysler / Fiat capture it? The first car of the alliance is expected to be something based on the Fiat 500. This is a sub-compact cart. Is it better to place this car as a competitor with the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, new Ford Fiesta, Hyundai Accent, etc. where there are 5 or 6 strong competitors or to make the car so it competes with the Mini where there is only one competitor?
Taking on Mini is a big mistake...people buy Minis because they're Minis, not because they're looking for a subcompact. And people buy used BMWs because they're looking for a used BMW, not a slightly cheaper RWD sports car. This is the same problem as looking to take on Honda: the brand loyalty is so entrenched that any manufacturer is just setting themselves up for a fall. This is why both manage to get away with being more expensive than the competition, because their buyers would never consider their competition anyway. They're buying the name.
Targeting VW is probably a better idea. Nissan buyers can be picked off (harder though: people buy Nissans for the tranny). Hyundai and Ford buyers are targetable. People loyal to the brands GM is axing (god knows why) are very targetable obviously. But taking on the ultra-heavyweights in the industry right away is a mistake: they have a long way to go to build up reputation before they can try and compete there without being laughed at.
Honda: the brand loyalty is so entrenched that any manufacturer is just setting themselves up for a fall. 90% of them yes, they don't ever try a different cars. But 10% cured from disease. Had Honda 2 times, never again.
And people buy used BMWs because they're looking for a used BMW, not a slightly cheaper RWD sports car. Exactly!!! People who buy used "M" series do not cross-shop with anything else, but new buyers could be attracted by a good RWD car. I know lot of people who bought new infiniti instead of bmw.
What's scary is that it could happen. Most stuff before '01 is buried in the archives somewhere, but lots of the regulars started posting around here in '98 - '99.
Haven't thought much about how it would be pronounced, but image isn't an issue because I was only suggesting that name, tongue in cheek, for purposes of this discussion. As to whether the Fiat-Chrysler alliance fizzles or sizzles, we'll have to wait to see how it plays out.
The lower cost of Mexican assembly potentially improves the car's chance for profitable sales in North America.
Well, I would have never guessed that. Will the wasted billions result in any job creation in the USA? Will it even save any jobs in the USA? Or is it just going to pay the retirements of the fat cat executives forced out like with GM? :sick:
It's fairly hard to tell what sort of losses Chrysler is experiencing as the market has been distorted by Cash-4-Clunkers, but anyone want to guess how much more $ Chrysler will lose during those 18 months before the 1st Fiat is sold?
Is it $500M/month? $750M/month? With no new product during that time, I can't see their market-share doing anything but decline, and thus large losses.
One other thing - in good times how much per year will Chrysler/Fiat expect to make? With interest then how long will it take to make up for the loans Chrysler already receeived + what they'll lose in the next 18 months?
The Fiat 500 with 1.3L diesel would get my attention. Will it beat the Polo diesel to our shores? Either would be catapulted to the top of the mileage heap. Can Chrysler/Fiat hang on that long?
I'd be very happy to see the Fiat 500 in diesel form here as well. The Polo and Fiesta diesels too. May the best vehicle win. In today's economy I think 50 mpg would sell very well, if (and only if) customers' fears about unreliability can be successfully allayed.
reasonable price usually does a lot to sway me over to their argument.
Great body style, great stereo and a few other amenities besides a good powertrain track record. Reading up on Mitsubishi and how they operated helped sway me to buy one of their cars. The fact that their engines were reliable, the 10 year and 100,000 mile Warranty was offered, and the great new Lancer GTS bodystyle for 2008 that I love was available really won me over. I haven't been disappointed, in fact I love the car more now than on March 21, 2007, the day my wife and I bought the car from Avondale Mitsubishi, located 9 miles due west from the city of Phoenix, AZ.
In all honesty I am thinking now that the 500's body may be a tad small for my liking. Need more researching and discussing. If they really safety-it up a lot I'll be more interested than I am. I do like the 500's nubby little body. Cute as a button.
High Risk means high rewards. it also means big losses. Car companies are not like houses. you can't come in and "re-paint the walls, change the carpet, update the bathrooms" and expect to make a huge profit. This isn't "Flip this Car Company".
This gives me some satisfaction knowing that Cerberus is losing investors after dumping Chrysler on us. :P
Well I still think our corporate laws allowed Cerberus off-the-hook for the majority of losses while running Chrysler. Another of my anaolgies:
It was like Cerberus purchased a used car, the 5th in the household. While taking it home they had a big wreck, causing losses for other people. Cerberus wrecked their car and they were out that money; but they went home, still having their other 4 cars, and their bank accounts untouched - not having to use those assets to reimburse others for the losses they caused. Meanwhile the people, businesses, and government all paid for the damages incurred from Cerberus's actions. Cerberus was not held responsible for the future expenses of the accident, saying to the government - "you now own the results of our wreck and the future obligations we've incurred".
Here's a "comforting" article quoting the Fiat CEO that he is surprised at how bad off Chrysler is. I guess he should have read some of our posts on Edmunds.
Yeah, I saw that. Seems the last people involved with Chrysler who had a plan were the folks at Daimler and their plan was to suck out all the money and dump the carcass on somebody else.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
1) Fiat is considered the major decision-maker with Chrysler when they only own 20% of Chrysler?
2) Fiat didn't put any cash into Chrysler, and doesn't intend to, so how did they get 20% ownership?
It sounds to me like the U.S. government gave Chrysler to Fiat for nothing, as Fiat was unwilling to otherwise take on trying to turn Chrysler around. The U.S. government did this so that they could justify getting Cerberus off the hook, keeping Chrysler from immeidately liquidating and saving UAW jobs temporarily? So Fiat ended up with a "No-Lose" situation; which they plan on discontinuing most Chrysler models, but retaining the Chrysler name, and selling Mexican-made Fiats through the Chrysler distributor ship?
Is this what most of you guys understand of this whole deal? That's what I get out of the comments that Fiat didn't invest any money in Chrysler and never will.
Comments
I don't begrudge a professor with a PhD making $100K/year, or the clerk at the DMV making $40K/yr, but many of us do begrudge cities of 20K hiring Planners and school administrators for $120K/yr with nice pensions.
I think a fair wage for a factory worker w/high school diploma to earn is about $15/hr + benefits. I can see skilled operators making $25/hr + benefits here in the U.S.
To make more than this though puts you at a decided disadvantage, when the company can a bunch of Mexicans or Chinese to do the same jobs happily for $5/hr + minimal benefits. Thus we see Fiat keeping open a Mexican plant, while saying bye to the U.S. workers.
I think Fiat has a right to do that normally, except the U.S. government intervention wasn't normal-conditions. I really wish that since we were throwing the play-book out on government-business practices, I wish Obama and Congress had made Cerberus and its wealthy owners put all their resources into Chrysler. Obama let Cerberus walk away from the mess, with all their other businesses and private funds intact. They gambled, lost, invoked corporate bankruptcy laws, and walked away.
Sometimes I wish a Joseph Stalin-lite was in charge here, and they could have a fair-trial and fair-hanging of these guys.
Oh, do you mean someone who'd kill and torture just hundreds of thousands instead of millions?
according to the article in Today's WSJ, "Mr. Press has been stripped of many of his responsibilities (by CEO Sergio Marchione), and recent misteps have strained his relationship with Chrysler dealers...The departure comes two months after Mr. Marchione's initial management shakeup, which created a flatter structure of 23 executives, including Mr. press, reporting directly to him...In his current position, Mr. Press - unlike unlike the three executives in charge of the Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep brands - doesn't have any direct operational control over departments that Mr. Marchione is concentrating on to lead the turnaround."
"It had been widely speculated that the ever-optimistic Press -- who served as Chrysler president under majority ownership of Cerberus Capital Management LLC and prior to the company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy -- would leave not long after the company's post-Chapter 11 restructuring and resulting management control by Italy's Fiat S.p.A."
AutoObserver
Yes, that would just about cover those on death-row, lobbyists, and the few % of really corrupt politicians and Wall Street scam artists. :P Oh and we could have had people like that aircraft-bomber the Scots just pardoned.
The Alfa Romeo "heir 159" will be in US market.
With Chrysler's size and Fiat's European bias towards small cars, maybe there's not enough business for Chrysler to compete financially. There are many businesses that do not try to be all things to all people.
If I were Fiat and had Chrysler I would let Chrysler sell its existing vehicles until they dropped below a certain number (maybe 10K/year) and then end them. What I would want is to bring 3 or 4 outstanding models to market and sell 200K - 300K of each/year. Avoid spending the hundreds of millions to update a or create a new model (X how many models you have) that gets put into a plant and then never recover your $.
Fiat would be better off doing a few models very, very well then spending the money to try and be in every market with a hurried but expensive design, with mediocre impact.
They'd be better off dumping most of the bigger stuff...Charger, Challenger, Avenger, Magnum, and particularly the horrid Nitro. (Leave the 300c and halo it up a bit, give up on referring to the Caliber as a car and admit that it's a small SUV).
But most of the manufacturers have been losing money with their strategy. Having worked in a Mfg. company for many years as an engineer with an MS degree in Project Management, I'm leaning towards the problem being - too much product development money being spent on too many models, the models not selling enough to cover the expenses, because they're selling models similar to many competitors.
And they were losing $ when the economy was good and buying 17M/year; so what chance do they have in this economy selling less of each vehicle?
No, Chrysler/Fiat had better sit down and figure out what they are or can do really, really well and focus on that. If they don't that (or GM and other brands don't) then they're going to continue to pile-up losses. It is not good enough now for Chrysler to come out with a new mid-size car and say it is 2% bigger than an Accord and gets 1 mpg better, and is $1,500 less. Chevrolet has a Malibu like that, but it is not lighting the world on fire (or even saving GM because they have 10 losers for 1 slight winner).
Chrysler needs to work towards a few sensational "got to have" high-volume models (think '64 Mustang), and forget about the paradigms of different divisions for luxury trims, and having a car and truck in every size.
If I were Chrysler my lineup would be a) a small diesel car getting 50mpg, b) a small diesel pickup (base it on the Jeep Liberty chassis), c) the Viper (even though it might lose a little $), d) the Jeep Wrangler, e) any good Fiat models.
Everything else would get sold off, converted or closed.
They do need a small Fiat-sourced car but that will take time. They could use a small pickup but the only small pickup left in the US is the Ranger, really. Chrysler can't even think about taking on the Tacoma and Frontier: that's just asking for trouble at this point.
I do agree with keeping the Viper and the Wrangler around. Those are two of Chrysler's remaining strengths (the other is the RAM). But they need actual cars, and given how old and bad the Avenger is, it makes sense to start there (the Caliber is relatively new).
Of course, they could also start by ditching the 300-based models, but there still seems to be some actual demand for them...mostly with new grilles and 25 inch spinner rims with millimeter-tall sidewalls, but still... :shades:
Beyond that, yeah, keep the Viper and the Wrangler, and maybe revive the idea of the Scrambler using a Wrangler chassis. And yes, absolutely, offer diesel engines for both the Wrangler and the Scrambler offshoot.
I got tired of writing Chrysler-Fiat so I just starting writing Chrysler - that is all.
The Alfa can give a Fusion a run for its money if done properly, which is important given how Fusion is beating the pants off of anything else.
I haven't seen the Fusion's sales numbers, but the mid-size market is crowded. You have Hyundai, Ford, Chevy, Toyota, Honda .... all there at the "pie" already. I would not want to go into a crowded market unless I had a significantly better product. "run for its money if done properly" does not sound like that case.
Business is a lot like war or sports. You do not want to take on someone where their strength is, unless you are strong enough to be absolutely sure of winning. You want to find the weaknesses. The auto industry in this country is pretty strong (saturated), except for small cars and diesel vehicles. This is where Fiat must strike, as neither Chrysler or Fiat do not have good/great reputation in the U.S. Fiat-Chrysler must then have some luck in future events that gasoline does not go down in price 2-3 years from now (unlikely).
I would suggest to Chrysler/Fiat to take the engineers and $ who might go into designing 15 of their current models, and concentrating those resources into 3 or 4 projects, and do those 3-4 projects really well and quickly.
They'd be better off having 3-4 really great vehicles making money, then 15 vehicles developed fairly slowly and poorly because of less resources, that each lose $.
Nissan and Chrysler today announced a mutual agreement to end three OEM vehicle-supply projects announced last year.
For the past several months, teams from both companies have been studying the viability of the projects in light of significant changes in business conditions since the projects were announced in January and April of 2008.
Today, it was decided it was in the best interests of both companies to end the projects.
The projects had involved:
1. Nissan providing to Chrysler a compact sedan for the South American market beginning this year.
2. Nissan providing to Chrysler a small vehicle for global markets beginning in 2010.
3. Chrysler providing to Nissan a full-size pickup truck starting in 2011.
A separate agreement involving the supply of transmissions from Nissan affiliate JATCO to Chrysler remains unchanged. That agreement has been in effect since 2004.
The rest of the article suggests this could be problematic for Nissan. Now they have to scramble to find a replacement for the Titan and Armada.
What do these cars get for mpg 35? maybe 40? There certainly is a big gap here for a Mini-size car (2,000Lb curb wt.) with 1.0L turbo- diesel getting 50+Mpg. How about a Ford Ranger size pickup with 2.0L turbo-diesel getting 35+mpg?
The Fit is also excellent, as is the Versa and Accent, but Toyota is strangely behind in this segment, back there with Chevy. (Face facts, the Smart and the Mini are in another class). Also, while the Accent is good, it's coming due for a redesign, so now might be a good time to do better. Chrysler might be able to have a go there but I still think it will take a lot to federalize an existing subcompact or design a new one, and they might not have that time.
Below a subcompact, I'm not sure the market is there. Smart is doing some sales, but they're very much a niche vehicle right now, and don't have wide acceptance
And an outdated Ford Ranger with a 35 MPG diesel will be....an aoutdated Ford Ranger, just with better MPG. :shades:
Consider the Kia Soul, the Honda Fit, the first-generation Scion xB, the VW New Beetle, and the PT Cruiser. None of them are especially fast, nor especially quiet, nor especially comfortable. They're all adequate, but none have the across-the-board competence of the Civics and Corollas and Elantras that dominate the compact market. But they don't need it. Each has a certain charm, a sense of uniqueness, a bit of whimsy with which to leaven their fundamental entry-level virtues. Also, each one generated waiting lists when it first hit the market.
That's what Fiat-sler needs to be doing with its future products. The company will never build a car that competes successfully against the Camrys, Accords, Civics, and Corollas of the US market--and it should not try to do so. It should re-configure itself as a purveyor of clever, entertaining niche vehicles that people will want purely because they're fun.
Of course, 50 mpg wouldn't hurt either.
LOL. A subcompact is more a small car than a compact! Autos are a global commodity, so also think globally. I'm talking global small cars. Cars that are safe and clean enough to be used in Europe and Japan. Don't just think of what is today - with a stroke of a pen the rules for what can be sold here can be changed.
Below a subcompact, I'm not sure the market is there.
Maybe not today. But since decisions that Fiat/Chrysler make today on what their vehicle lineup should be take time; about 2 years to get a new model, then you ask what will people in the U.S. want in 2 years. I see the U.S. going thru fundamental change with this last recession. We as a society have just rung up a lot of debt, and will continue to. And fuel is not getting any cheaper - demand will increase, and the U.S. $ is weaker. I would bet cheap, high mpg vehicles will be in demand for the next decade. You can look back on this in 10 years, and see if I was right.
Yeah, it's called BMW. Do you REALLY want to pit Alfa-Chrysla-Fia against the Bruiser of Bavaria?
http://khmernz.blogspot.com/2009/08/angkor-333-2010-cambodian-home-made-car.html-
I thought I'd nearly seen all the new car designs out there, but I guess not!
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Targeting VW is probably a better idea. Nissan buyers can be picked off (harder though: people buy Nissans for the tranny). Hyundai and Ford buyers are targetable. People loyal to the brands GM is axing (god knows why) are very targetable obviously. But taking on the ultra-heavyweights in the industry right away is a mistake: they have a long way to go to build up reputation before they can try and compete there without being laughed at.
90% of them yes, they don't ever try a different cars. But 10% cured from disease. Had Honda 2 times, never again.
Exactly!!! People who buy used "M" series do not cross-shop with anything else, but new buyers could be attracted by a good RWD car. I know lot of people who bought new infiniti instead of bmw.
Especially true of the G35/G37.
Hey, neat name, or how about using "Fisler" for this discussion?
Okay, I promise to do this, but only if you promise to remind me if I forget to do it in 10 years.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Fiat-Chrysler Signaling Early Strategy Moves (AutoObserver)
Well, I would have never guessed that. Will the wasted billions result in any job creation in the USA? Will it even save any jobs in the USA? Or is it just going to pay the retirements of the fat cat executives forced out like with GM? :sick:
Is it $500M/month? $750M/month? With no new product during that time, I can't see their market-share doing anything but decline, and thus large losses.
One other thing - in good times how much per year will Chrysler/Fiat expect to make? With interest then how long will it take to make up for the loans Chrysler already receeived + what they'll lose in the next 18 months?
Don't we?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
What would it take? Massive warranty?
Great body style, great stereo and a few other amenities besides a good powertrain track record. Reading up on Mitsubishi and how they operated helped sway me to buy one of their cars. The fact that their engines were reliable, the 10 year and 100,000 mile Warranty was offered, and the great new Lancer GTS bodystyle for 2008 that I love was available really won me over. I haven't been disappointed, in fact I love the car more now than on March 21, 2007, the day my wife and I bought the car from Avondale Mitsubishi, located 9 miles due west from the city of Phoenix, AZ.
In all honesty I am thinking now that the 500's body may be a tad small for my liking. Need more researching and discussing. If they really safety-it up a lot I'll be more interested than I am. I do like the 500's nubby little body. Cute as a button.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
If it helps, Cerberus is still burning money and losing investors left and right. (Business Week)
This gives me some satisfaction knowing that Cerberus is losing investors after dumping Chrysler on us. :P
It was like Cerberus purchased a used car, the 5th in the household. While taking it home they had a big wreck, causing losses for other people. Cerberus wrecked their car and they were out that money; but they went home, still having their other 4 cars, and their bank accounts untouched - not having to use those assets to reimburse others for the losses they caused. Meanwhile the people, businesses, and government all paid for the damages incurred from Cerberus's actions. Cerberus was not held responsible for the future expenses of the accident, saying to the government - "you now own the results of our wreck and the future obligations we've incurred".
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/16/autos/fiat_chrysler/index.htm?postversion=200909- 1614
1) Fiat is considered the major decision-maker with Chrysler when they only own 20% of Chrysler?
2) Fiat didn't put any cash into Chrysler, and doesn't intend to, so how did they get 20% ownership?
It sounds to me like the U.S. government gave Chrysler to Fiat for nothing, as Fiat was unwilling to otherwise take on trying to turn Chrysler around. The U.S. government did this so that they could justify getting Cerberus off the hook, keeping Chrysler from immeidately liquidating and saving UAW jobs temporarily? So Fiat ended up with a "No-Lose" situation; which they plan on discontinuing most Chrysler models, but retaining the Chrysler name, and selling Mexican-made Fiats through the Chrysler distributor ship?
Is this what most of you guys understand of this whole deal? That's what I get out of the comments that Fiat didn't invest any money in Chrysler and never will.