Last bit of Chrysler goes to Fiat

  • Thread starter Scaff
  • 53 comments
  • 3,068 views
FCA-logo-1%25255B4%25255D.jpg

The decision to call this new joint venture "FCA" was the source of great hilarity for the Italian public. You see, "FCA" is a vowel away from a certain (vulgar) word that indicates the female genitalia.

Can't say I'm particularly happy over their decision to move over to the Netherlands; keep in mind that FIAT received a number of bailouts and loans from the Italian State that would send any red-blooded American fuming. But then, the promise of a Maserati-Alfa Romeo sports and luxury division (substantiated by the 4C and the new Maserati lineup) is more than enough to shut me up.
 
Good news everyone! Chrysler made money last year! If you ignore one-time merger-related costs which ultimately resulted in a loss.
Does this mean people who were clinging onto thoughts of post-bailout Chrysler being worse than pre-bailout Chrysler will run out of ammunition to that effect?

Damn those competitive new cars Chrysler, GM and Ford are producing. I want the old crap back!
 
Forgive me for being behind it all, but could one of you kind souls in the loop on these matters give me a brief note on how Chrysler has restructured itself since its Chapter 11? Apart from being sold to Fiat, of course.
 
Forgive me for being behind it all, but could one of you kind souls in the loop on these matters give me a brief note on how Chrysler has restructured itself since its Chapter 11? Apart from being sold to Fiat, of course.
Like GM, they dropped a bunch of old models (though no whole brands, that I'm aware of), refreshed a bunch of others, developed a whole new line of others (some with Fiat) and that's pretty much the long and short of it.

There's been a healthy amount of badge-engineering too which is usually good for the bottom line - see the Chrysler/Lancia tie-ins.

The company certainly seems healthier than it did when paired with Daimler anyway, and I believe they even paid off the government loans too.
 
Yeah, I did know about the badge engineering what with us Britons getting the 'Chrysler' Delta.

So they've pretty much streamlined, gotten their heads together and been careful/sensible with their income?
 
So they've pretty much streamlined, gotten their heads together and been careful/sensible with their income?

Yes and no, at least in North America, anyway.

Since 2011, Chrysler has been really on-target with refreshing models back to at least "acceptable" standards across the board. Shoddy materials have been improved, as well as interior and exterior design, and models with typically high margins (read, SUVs and pickups) have received the largest amount of attention. Splitting Ram off from Dodge gave the 1500 special attention, and it has been critically praised to the highest degree since 2012, and is now making a run for second-best selling truck in the US, a huge deal in terms of sales for the company (enough for GM to properly freak out and promise an update for their Chevrolet/GMC offerings for the 2015 model year). Similarly, the Jeep Grand Cherokee has been pushed to give a full-on assault to the full-size SUV segment, giving Jeep some of their best sales, ever, and becoming a leading part of the profits for Chrysler on the whole.

As for everything else, well, it is hit and miss. Chrysler is still saddled with 20+ years of mediocre to poor quality, reliability and performance here in the US. Aside from the Mopar fanbase (which is a very specific group of folks), they have been mostly been trying to win by undercutting everyone on price, and giving out surprisingly good deals on lease and finance, which can be risky for the company. Reliable fleet sales have continued to be good for the company, particularly police fleet sales, but it is questionable how long rental sales (typically a very large boon for Chrysler) will be with so many of their models going premium, or outside the norm to "sporty."

But, when you're going to be building almost all of your vehicles on the same chassis (see: Dodge Avenger, Chrysler 200, Jeep Cherokee) using the same engines (see: 2.4L Tigershark and 3.2L/3.6L Pentastar) and the same transmissions (ZF 9-speed automatic), it appears that they're taking a page out of the K-Car book once again. It worked spectacularly in the '80s and early '90s, but lazy engineering is part of what nearly killed them (multiple times over, now that I think about it). Still, for the first time in a very long time, I'd consider buying a Chrysler vehicle for myself, and I'd even recommend them to other people. A night/day difference from 2008, when they were the embarrassment of the American automotive industry.
 
There's been a healthy amount of badge-engineering too which is usually good for the bottom line - see the Chrysler/Lancia tie-ins.

Good for the corporate bottom line? Yes. Good for the brands involved? No. Lancia will probably be discontinued as a brand in 2018.
 
They should let Lancia go back to what they used to do.. Mid-range sportscars, slotted underneath Ferrari and Maserati.
 
They should let Lancia go back to what they used to do.. Mid-range sportscars, slotted underneath Ferrari and Maserati.

Actually, what Lancia used to do well in the post-War, pre-FIAT era was luxury sedans and sportcars. Think of the Flavia Sport Zagato and Fulvia HF, which were based on quite small "premium" (for the standards of the Italian market of the period) vehicles, or even better, think of the B20 Aurelia Coupè (which was one of the first 2+2 GT cars, and was based on the then-gargantuan Aurelia).

Keep in mind that back then in Italy a 3-litre engine was monstrous (we're talking about the years before the economic surge of the 60s, when the word "car", in Italy, was synonymous with the Fiat 600 and 500, both named after their engine displacement in cc). Cars like the Aurelia weren't mid-range: they were the equivalent of a Mercedes CLS or an Audi A7 of today.
 
But, when you're going to be building almost all of your vehicles on the same chassis (see: Dodge Avenger, Chrysler 200, Jeep Cherokee) using the same engines (see: 2.4L Tigershark and 3.2L/3.6L Pentastar) and the same transmissions (ZF 9-speed automatic), it appears that they're taking a page out of the K-Car book once again. It worked spectacularly in the '80s and early '90s, but lazy engineering is part of what nearly killed them (multiple times over, now that I think about it).
While that's true, we're not exactly talking re-badging this time. An Avenger is very different from a 200 (not least in their apparent review scores), which is very different from the Cherokee.

Platform sharing is fine - VW has built its empire on it. Sticking a new badge on a Plymouth Reliant and calling it a Dodge Aries is lazy engineering.
 
Platform sharing is fine - VW has built its empire on it. Sticking a new badge on a Plymouth Reliant and calling it a Dodge Aries is lazy engineering.

Absolutely. I recently revisited the Chrysler K Car wiki, and I was surprised by how many cars that I didn't think were on that platform, were. Minivans, sports cars, pseudo luxury sedans, and cheap compacts. Chrysler let the K chassis live for far too long with too little innovation, I don't think they'd do the same these days.
 
Is the UK market even sustainable anymore? I hear of more cars being phased out of UK sales than are being introduced for it. About the only thing this affects would be 300s unless it also means Dodge and Jeep are leaving too.
 
With regards to the UK, Chrysler have the Chevrolet problem; it's a nothing brand. It means absolutely nothing to your average punter. What prestige Chevrolet did have, when the uninformed Brit thinks "Ooh, Corvette! Impala! Camaro!" is instantly wiped away when you find that Chevrolet UK is nothing more than a Daewoo.

Chrysler had the same problem. You might get one or two people who talk about the 300 series and the odd one saying "Ooh, Viper! Charger! Challenger!" but then when they see what Chrysler has offered here it is pretty underwhelming. In Chrysler's defence they did try harder than Chevrolet by offering the 300M, 300C (which was surprisingly popular for what it is) and Crossfire but then when they switched to badge jobs like Chevrolet, they chose Lancia. Lancia. Not a brand with great reputation in Britain.

Your typical Brit, by which I mean someone who isn't heavily into cars, most likely doesn't know that Chrysler/Dodge and GM/Chevrolet make a whole range of cars and not just the classic muscle cars so it doesn't surprise me that they have failed to establish themselves and are pulling out.

I am glad Lancia has been phased out though. I've seen a few 'Lancia Themas' here in continental Europe and it's a sad state. Keep the memories, not the badge jobs.
 
Is the UK market even sustainable anymore? I hear of more cars being phased out of UK sales than are being introduced for it. About the only thing this affects would be 300s unless it also means Dodge and Jeep are leaving too.

It says Chrysler Brand is to exit the UK Market, that means the 300 and Voyager (which has already been phased out) will end production. Dont know if Dodge is sold in the UK, Jeep will be the Focused Chrysler LLC product since they are the only CUV/SUV brand in FCA.
 
It says Chrysler Brand is to exit the UK Market, that means the 300 and Voyager (which has already been phased out) will end production. Dont know if Dodge is sold in the UK, Jeep will be the Focused Chrysler LLC product since they are the only CUV/SUV brand in FCA.

Dodge pulled out of the UK market in 2010 due to poor sales of the Avenger, Journey, Caliber and Nitro.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/dodge-axed-uk
 
Back