1957 300 C on 2040-cars

Auto blog

PSA unions vote in favor of merger with Fiat Chrysler

PARIS — The majority of unions representing workers at Peugeot maker PSA are in favor of a planned $50 billion merger with Fiat Chrysler, PSA executives and union representatives said. However, the unions said that once the merger deal was signed, they would be seeking detailed information about the plans for the combined company. At a PSA works council meeting, all trade union representatives on the council voted to give a favorable opinion on the merger. "We will remain vigilant about the social impact and await a clearer and more detailed picture of the plan's implications for plants, volume, and how much work will be given to the foundries," said Franck Don, representative of the CFTC union. "But the project in the form it's been presented makes sense because the two groups complement each other, are in good financial health, and thanks to the new format will attain a critical size which is vital in the auto business today." The merger would help the firms pool resources to meet tough new emissions rules and investments in electric and self-driving vehicles, as well as counter a broader downturn in car markets. Securing support from Europe's powerful trade unions will be critical for the merged company, which will employ more than 400,000 staff and operate hundreds of factories worldwide. The deal has stirred concerns in Germany and Britain where plants making Opel and Vauxhall cars have seen jobs cut in recent year as part of a cost-cutting drive. UAW/Unions Chrysler Fiat Citroen Peugeot PSA

Stellantis — seriously? Exploring the pros and cons of Chrysler’s new name

I took Wednesday off. I came in Thursday and Chrysler was renamed Stellantis. Aside from lighting Twitter on fire and drawing a lot of snarky responses from car journalists, the name is actually decent. Let’s look at it from a few angles. For starters, Chrysler, the 95-year-old automaker founded in Detroit by Walter P. Chrysler (his name still adorns everything from a major freeway in Michigan to an iconic art deco skyscraper in New York), isnÂ’t actually Chrysler. ItÂ’s FCA, which stands for Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. The name change actually happened in 2014, which you might have easily missed. The American unit, formerly Chrysler, is known as FCA US in some legal matters, but does not operate independently.   The Stellantis name takes effect in 2021. HereÂ’s why itÂ’s needed: Fiat Chrysler is merging with Group PSA. (Peugeot and Citroen) to form a transatlantic alliance that will be larger than even Ford. Stellantis sounds a lot better than FCA-PSA. Or PSA-FCA. You might poke fun at it, but it beats the alternatives. Or at least it could be worse. Stellantis is the name for the corporate entity that will house Chrysler, Fiat, Peugeot, Citroen, and oh by the way, Opel and Vauxhall, which PSA bought in 2017 when GM unloaded its European arm.  Your Jeep will not say Stellantis on the fender. Your Hemi Hellcat wonÂ’t say “powered by Stellantis” under the hood. Your Fiat 500 or Alfa Romeo Giulia will not have a script “Stellantis" crest. Speaking of that, roll call: HereÂ’s all of the brands that will be housed under the Stellantis umbrella: Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Fiat, Fiat Professional, Mopar, Alfa Romeo, Maserati, Abarth, Ram, Lancia, Peugeot, Citroen, DS, Opel and Vauxhall. ThereÂ’s also a couple of lesser-known subsidiaries, Comau and Teksid, that sell parts. ThatÂ’s 18 brands. They have origins in Detroit, Paris, Turin, Chalton (England), Russelsheim (Germany) and several other places. All of these carmakers have deep histories. No one was going to agree on using someone elseÂ’s name. You might notice Chrysler is still in there. Chrysler as the brandname for the 300 sedan and Pacifica minivan lives on. Stellantis replaces FCA, which replaced Chrysler, as the name of the parent company. Yes, it's a little confusing. HereÂ’s more perspective. Chrysler was once owned by Cerberus, a three-headed dog that guards the gates of hell, according to mythology.

Is it time for American carmakers to give up on dual-clutch transmissions? [w/poll]

Last week, in the midst of Detroit's first days seeking relief in Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code, Automotive News contributor Larry P. Vellequette penned an editorial suggesting that American car companies raise the white flag on dual clutch transmissions and give up on trying to persuade Americans to buy cars fitted with them. Why? Because, Vellequette says, like CVT transmissions, they "just don't sound right or feel right to American drivers." (Note: In the article, it's not clear if Vellequette is arguing against wet-clutch and dry-clutch DCTs or just dry-clutch DCTs, which is what Ford and Chrysler use.) The article goes on to state that Ford and Chrysler have experimented with DCTs and that both consumers and the automotive press haven't exactly given them glowing reviews, despite their quicker shifts and increased fuel efficiency potential compared to torque-converter automatic transmissions.
Autoblog staffers who weighed in on the relevance of DCTs in American cars generally disagreed with the blanket nature of Vellequette's statement that they don't sound or feel right, but admit that their lack of refinement compared to traditional automatics can be an issue for consumers. That's particularly true in workaday cars like the Ford Focus and Dodge Dart, both of which have come in for criticism in reviews and owner surveys. From where we sit, the higher-performance orientation of such transmissions doesn't always meld as well with the marching orders of everyday commuters (particularly if drivers haven't been educated as to the transmission's benefits and tradeoffs), and in models not fitted with paddle shifters, it's particularly hard for drivers to use a DCT to its best advantage.
Finally, we also note that DCT tuning is very much an evolving science. For instance, Autoblog editors who objected to dual-clutch tuning in the Dart have more recently found the technology agreeable in the Fiat 500L. Practice makes perfect - or at least more acceptable.