Chrysler Concordev 2000 Lxi on 2040-cars

Auto blog

FCA posts $716m profit in 2014, has big plans for 2015

In practically every metric, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles announced growing worldwide earnings for 2014 in its latest financial release. The automaker sold 4.608 million vehicles globally for the year, a 6-percent jump, and total revenue grew 11 percent to 96.090 billion euros ($109 billion). Profits before taxes also increased by 161 million euros ($182 million) from last year to 1.176 billion euros ($1.3 billion). However, net profits did tumble by 1.319 billion euros ($1.5 billion) to a total of 632 million euros ($716 million). These figures put FCA slightly ahead of what some analysts expected. According to Automotive News, the company's adjusted earnings before taxes and interest of 3.651 billion euros ($4.1 billion) beat a forecast figure of 3.4 billion euros ($3.9 billion). Regionally, Europe is showing signs of a comeback. FCA lost 109 million euros ($123 million) there in 2014, but that was almost a triumph compared to the 506 million euro ($573 million) loss in 2013. According to Automotive News, North America played a major role in the company's success, accounting for 55 percent of its revenue. While these annual figures show growth, FCA is even more optimistic about its prospects in 2015. The company is forecasting shipments of between 4.8 and 5 million vehicles worldwide next year. It also estimates earnings before interest and taxes to reach 4.1 billion and 4.5 billion euros ($4.6 billion – $5.1 billion). You can read FCA's full results in PDF format, here. While this release focuses on worldwide figures, FCA US, previously known as Chrysler Group, announces its US results on February 3. News Source: Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Automotive News - sub. req. Earnings/Financials Chrysler Fiat FCA fiat chrysler automobiles

The next steps automakers could take after sales drop again in April

DETROIT (Reuters) - Major automakers on Tuesday posted declines in U.S. new vehicle sales for April in a sign the long boom cycle that lifted the American auto industry to record sales last year is losing steam, sending carmaker stocks down. The drop in sales versus April 2016 came on the heels of a disappointing March, which automakers had shrugged off as just a bad month. But two straight weak months has heightened Wall Street worries the cyclical industry is on a downward swing after a nearly uninterrupted boom since the Great Recession's end in 2010. Auto sales were a drag on U.S. first-quarter gross domestic product, with the economy growing at an annual rate of just 0.7 percent according to an advance estimate published by the Commerce Department last Friday. Excluding the auto sector the GDP growth rate would have been 1.2 percent. Industry consultant Autodata put the industry's seasonally adjusted annualized rate of sales at 16.88 million units for April, below the average of 17.2 million units predicted by analysts polled by Reuters. General Motors Co shares fell 2.9 percent while Ford Motor Co slid 4.3 percent and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV's U.S.-traded shares tumbled 4.2 percent. The U.S. auto industry faces multiple challenges. Sales are slipping and vehicle inventory levels have risen even as carmakers have hiked discounts to lure customers. A flood of used vehicles from the boom cycle are increasingly competing with new cars. The question for automakers: How much and for how long to curtail production this summer, which will result in worker layoffs? To bring down stocks of unsold vehicles, the Detroit automakers need to cut production, and offer more discounts without creating "an incentives war," said Mark Wakefield, head of the North American automotive practice for AlixPartners in Southfield, Michigan. "We see multiple weeks (of production) being taken out on the car side," he said, "and some softness on the truck side." Rival automakers will be watching each other to see if one is cutting prices to gain market share from another, he said, instead of just clearing inventory. INVESTORS DIGEST BAD NEWS Just last week GM reported a record first-quarter profit, but that had almost zero impact on the automaker's stock. The iconic carmaker, whose own interest was once conflated with that of America's, has slipped behind luxury carmaker Tesla Inc in terms of valuation.

This or That: 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 vs. 1984 Pontiac Fiero

Welcome to another round of This or That, where two Autoblog editors pick a topic, pick a side and pull no punches. Last round pitted yours truly against Associate Editor Brandon Turkus, and my chosen VW Vanagon Syncro narrowly defeated Brandon's 1987 Land Rover. In fact, it was, by far, the closest round we've seen, with 1,907 voters seeing things my way (for 50.8 percent of the vote) versus 1,848 votes for Brandon's Rover (49.2 percent). Sweet, sweet victory! For this latest round of This or That, I've roped Editor Greg Migliore into what I think is a rather fun debate. We've each chosen our favorite terrible cars, setting a price limit of $10,000 to make sure neither of us went too crazy with our automotive atrocities. I think we've both chosen terribly... and I mean that in the best way possible. 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 Jeremy Korzeniewski: Why It's Terrible: Taken in isolation, the Chrysler Crossfire isn't necessarily a terrible car. In fact, it drives pretty darn well, and there's a lot of solid engineering under its slinky shape. Problem is, that engineering was already rather long in the tooth well before Chrysler ever got its hands on it, having come from Mercedes-Benz, which used the basic chassis and drivetrain in a previous version of its SLK coupe and roadster. Granted, the SLK was an okay car, too, but even when new, it hardly set the world on fire with sporty driving dynamics. Chrysler took these decent-but-no-more bits and pieces from the Mercedes parts bin – remember, this car was conceived in the disastrous Merger Of Equals days – and covered them with a rather attractive hard-candy shell. Unfortunately, the super sporty shape wrote checks in the minds of buyers that its well-worn mechanicals were simply unable to cash, though an injection of power courtesy of a supercharged V6 engine in the SRT6 model, as seen here, certainly helped ease some of those woes. In the end, Chrysler was left with a so-called halo car that looked the part but never quite performed the part. It was almost universally panned by critics as an overpriced parts-bin special, which, I must add, was damningly accurate. As a result, sales were very slow, and within the first few months, dealers were clearancing the car at cut-rate prices, just to keep them from taking up too much of the showroom floor. Why It's Not That Terrible, After All: I can speak from personal experience when discussing the Chrysler Crossfire. You see, I owned one. Well, sort of...