1936 36 Chrylser Imperial Airflow Series C-10 6 Passenger 4 Door Sedan Project on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Stellantis dealers plead that letting Chrysler die is not an option

Executives and dealers have recently cautioned that a dark cloud looms over Chrysler's horizon, and figuring out why doesn't require an MBA from Stanford. And yet, Stellantis dealers say bright days could be ahead, if only the company reinvigorates the Detroit-based brand with long-awaited and much-needed new products. "This whole thing started with Chrysler. I don't want to get emotional about a brand, that's not the case. But, I don't want to see a brand like that left at the sideline and just thrown out to pasture," said David Kelleher, the head of the Stellantis National Dealer Council, in an interview with industry trade journal Automotive News. Kelleher added he would feel "violated" if the 96-year-old carmaker shut down. Keeping it around is relatively easy, but transforming it into a thriving business is far more difficult. Years of underinvestment have crippled the brand. It's almost exclusively dependent on North America, where it sells two models: the 300 and the Pacifica/Voyager duo. Sales in the United States totaled 110,464 units in 2020, down from 126,971 in 2019. To add perspective, Ram, Jeep, and Dodge sold 624,642, 795,313 and 267,328 units, respectively, in 2020.  While enthusiasts and analysts understandably worried Chrysler would die under Stellantis, Kelleher opined that the merger between Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) and PSA Group can make the brand stronger. Products and technology from the French side of the partnership can be leveraged to help Chrysler expand its range and increase its sales while keeping development costs in check, he said. He stopped short of revealing which vehicles he has in mind, but his comments are interesting because PSA's lineup is almost entirely made of up small, European-flavored cars that are diametrically opposed to the models Chrysler's reputation is built on.  Hatchbacks are dropping like flies in the American market, so putting a Chrysler badge on, say, a Peugeot 208 and bringing it to America is out of the question. Wagons are unpopular, too, which leaves crossovers and SUVs. Oddly, the Chrysler brand is not represented in one of the most popular market segments in the United States. PSA doesn't dabble in burly SUVs, like the Jeep Grand Cherokee, but it does small crossovers reasonably well. Could Chrysler move into the space occupied by the Toyota C-HR and the Hyundai Kona, among others?

The Hemi deserves to die | Opinion

Hi. I'm Byron and I love V8s. I want them to stick around for a long, long time. But not all V8s are created equal, and I will not mourn the passing of the modern Hemi. You shouldn't either. While we may agree that its death is untimely, if you ask me, that's only because it came far too late.  Stellantis’ announcement of its new, turbocharged inline-six that is all but guaranteed to kill off the Hemi V8 has led to quite a few half-baked internet takes. The notion being suggested by some, that automotive media were brainwashed into believing the Hemi was in need of replacement, is so far divorced from reality that I openly guffawed at the notion. Journalists have been challenging Chrysler, FCA and now Stellantis for years to deliver better high-performance engines. The response has always been the same: “Why?” Why replace a heavy V8 with a lighter, all-aluminum one? Why repackage powertrains for smaller footprints and better handling vehicles? Why be better when “good enough” sells really, really well? I too mourn the departure of good gasoline-burning engines, but since when was the Hemi one? HereÂ’s a quiz: Name every SRT model with an all-aluminum engine. TimeÂ’s up. If you named any, you failed. They donÂ’t exist. This isnÂ’t GMÂ’s compact, lightweight small-block, nor is it a DOHC Ford Coyote that at least revs high enough to justify its larger footprint. The Hemi is an overweight marketing exercise that happened to be in the right place at the right time. That time was 2003, when Chrysler was still Chrysler — except it was Daimler-Chrysler and the "merger of equals" was doing a bang-up job of bleeding the company's cash reserves dry while doing virtually nothing to address its mounting legacy costs. "That thang got a Hemi?" was emblematic of the whimsical, nostalgia-driven marketing of the colonial half of the "marriage made in heaven." That was 20 years ago. 20 years prior to that, emissions-choked American V8s were circling the drain faster than a soapy five-carat engagement ring in a truck stop sink.

Appeals court delays 'sensible resolution' meeting between GM, Fiat Chrysler CEOs

DETROIT — Three federal appeals judges have delayed a court-ordered meeting between the CEOs of General Motors and Fiat Chrysler to try to settle a lawsuit over corruption by union leaders. U.S. District Court Judge Paul Borman last week ordered GM CEO Mary Barra and FCA CEO Mike Manley to meet before July 1. But GM on Friday asked the federal appeals court in Cincinnati to overturn the order and remove Borman from the case. In an order issued Monday, three appellate judges delayed Borman's order to provide time to consider legal points raised by GM. GM is suing crosstown rival FCA alleging that it got an advantage by paying off United Auto Workers union leaders to reduce labor costs during contract talks. FCAÂ’s former labor chief, Al Iacobelli, is in prison, although the company denies that it directed any prohibited payments. In his order last week, Borman described the lawsuit as a “nuclear option” that would be a “waste of time and resources” for years if he allows the case to move forward. The judge ordered Barra and Manley to sit down without lawyers by July 1 and reach a “sensible resolution of this huge legal distraction.” Borman wants an update from them on a public video conference that same day. Over the weekend he modified the order to allow lawyers to attend the meeting. In a court filing, GM called BormanÂ’s order a “profound abuse” of power. “The court possesses no authority to order the CEOs of GM and FCA to engage in settlement discussions, reach a resolution and then appear alone at a pretrial conference eight days later, without counsel,” GMÂ’s attorneys said. “Second, the court has no business labeling a properly filed federal lawsuit assigned to the court for impartial adjudication ‘a distractionÂ’ or a ‘nuclear option,’” GM said. Borman canÂ’t be viewed as impartial, company lawyers said. The judge declined to comment. In a court filing Monday, Fiat Chrysler lawyers wrote that GM didn't make a good case to remove Borman because judges routinely direct lawsuit parties to talk about settling. The lawyers wrote that GM originally wanted the case assigned to Borman but now apparently is worried that his tough questions mean he will dismiss GM's claims. “GM should not be permitted now to complain that that judge has turned out to be less hospitable to GMÂ’s claims than GM anticipated. Parties are not permitted to engage in such judge shopping," the filing said.