1926 Chrysler 50 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Detroit and Silicon Valley: When cultures collide

Culture is a subject that rarely, if never, gets discussed when traditional auto companies buy — or hugely invest — in Silicon Valley-based companies. The conversation surrounding the investments is usually about how the tech looks appealing and how it's an appropriate step to move the automakers toward autonomy. Culture — the way things are done, the expectations, and the approaches — is something that is overlooked only at one's peril. The potential cultural gap is almost always evident in the obligatory photos of the participants in these deals, with is essentially a photo op of auto execs with their Silicon Valley counterparts. The former — rocking jeans and no ties — look like parochial school kids playing hooky. Don't worry: The regimental outfits will be back in place once they get back in the Eastern time zone. Consider what happened back in 1998 when Daimler bought Chrysler. First of all, there was a denial in Detroit that it happened. It was positioned as a "merger of equals." Which it wasn't. In any corporate situation, when one has more than 50 percent of the business, it owns the whole thing. And the German company was in the proverbial driver's seat. People who were around Auburn Hills back then kept their heads down and their German Made Simple books at hand. Things did not go well. Daimler had had enough by 2007, when it offloaded Chrysler to Cerberus Capital Management — which brought ex-Home Depot CEO Bob Nardelli into the picture, which is a story onto itself. But when you think about the Daimler-Chrysler situation, realize that these were two car companies (at least the Mercedes part of the Daimler organization), so they had that in common, and the language of engineers is something of an Esperanto based on math, so there was that, too. Yet it simply didn't work. It doesn't take too many viewings of HBO's Silicon Valley to know that the business people in that part of the world are far more aggressive than people who ordinarily head and control car companies in Detroit. About 20 years ago, a book came out about the founder of Oracle titled The Difference Between God and Larry Ellison* - and the asterisk on the book jacket leads to: God Doesn't Think He's Larry Ellison. It would be hard to imagine a book about a Detroit executive, even a book that had the decided bias that the tome about Ellison evinces, that would be quite so searing. Sure, there are egos. But they are still perceived to be, overall, "nice" people.

2015 Chrysler 200 snags EPA ratings of 18 mpg city and 29 highway

While Chrysler hasn't officially announced fuel economy figures for its new 200 sedan, the information for one model has just leaked out thanks to the US Department of Energy's FuelEconomy.gov website. It certified the 200 with the 295-horsepower and 262-pound-feet 3.6-liter Pentastar V6, nine-speed automatic and all-wheel drive as getting 18-miles-per-gallon city, 29-mpg highway and 22-mpg combined.
Last year's front-wheel drive 200 with a less-powerful version of the Pentastar was rated at 19-mpg city, 29-mpg highway and 22-mpg combined. That means that buyers are getting more power and all-wheel drive traction at almost no loss in economy. However, compared to current, all-wheel drive sedan competitors, the Chrysler comes in the middle. The Ford Fusion with all-wheel drive with the 2.0-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder has 240 hp and 270 lb-ft of torque is somewhat down on power but bests it in economy at 22-mpg city, 31-mpg highway and 25-mpg combined. The current Subaru Legacy 3.6R loses in both metrics with 256 hp and 247 lb-ft and a rating of 18-mpg city, 25-mpg highway and 20-mpg combined. However, Subaru claims the next generation with the same engine will boast 20-mpg city, 28-mpg highway and 23-mpg combined. But these numbers are just estimates from the automaker at the moment, and they haven't yet been certified by the EPA yet.
The numbers for the four-cylinder and front-wheel drive 200 drivetrains are not yet available, but Chrysler has been promising the sedan gets an estimated 35-mpg highway with the 184-hp and 173-lb-ft Tigershark 2.4-liter four-cylinder engine. We won't know for sure until it's certified, but we'll keep you posted.

Question of the Day: Most heinous act of badge engineering?

Badge engineering, in which one company slaps its emblems on another company's product and sells it, has a long history in the automotive industry. When Sears wanted to sell cars, a deal was made with Kaiser-Frazer and the Sears Allstate was born. Iranians wanted new cars in the 1960s, and the Rootes Group was happy to offer Hillman Hunters for sale as Iran Khodro Paykans. Sometimes, though, certain badge-engineered vehicles made sense only in the 26th hour of negotiations between companies. The Suzuki Equator, say, which was a puzzling rebadge job of the Nissan Frontier. How did that happen? My personal favorite what-the-heck-were-they-thinking example of badge engineering is the 1971-1973 Plymouth Cricket. Chrysler Europe, through its ownership of the Rootes Group, was able to ship over Hillman Avanger subcompacts for sale in the US market. This would have made sense... if Chrysler hadn't already been selling rebadged Mitsubishi Colt Galants (as Dodge Colts) and Simca 1100s as (Simca 1204s) in its American showrooms. Few bought the Cricket, despite its cheery ad campaign. So, what's the badge-engineered car you find most confounding? Chrysler Dodge Automakers Mitsubishi Nissan Suzuki Automotive History question of the day badge engineering question