2005 Chrysler Pt Cruiser Touring Wagon 4-door 2.4l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

FCA-Renault merger faces tall odds delivering on cost-cutting promises

FRANKFURT/DETROIT — Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and Renault promise huge savings from a mega-merger, but such combinations face tall odds because of the industry's long product cycles and problems translating deal blueprints into real world success, industry veterans told Reuters. BMW's 1994 purchase of Rover, and Daimler's 1998 merger with Chrysler both made sense on paper. The companies promised to hike profits by combining vehicle platforms and engine families. Both combinations proved unworkable in reality, and were unwound. Renault and Nissan, which have been in an alliance since 1999 designed to share vehicle components, have only managed to use common vehicle platforms in 35% of Nissan's products despite an original target of 70%, according to Morgan Stanley. FCA and Renault have raised the stakes for themselves by ruling out plant closures. That increases the pressure to achieve more than $5 billion in promised annual savings from pooling procurement and research investments. The two companies have yet to fill in many of the blanks in the merger plan put forward by Fiat Chrysler. Renault's board is expected to act soon to accept the proposal, but that would lead only to a memorandum of understanding to pursue detailed operational and financial plans. A final deal and the legal combination of the two companies could take months to complete if all goes well. Pressure to cut automotive pollution is driving the latest round of consolidation. Automakers are looking at multibillion-dollar bills to develop electric and hybrid cars and cleaner internal combustion engines. Fiat Chrysler and Renault are betting they can design common electric vehicle systems, then sell more of them through their respective brands and dealer networks, cutting the cost per car. Developing all-new electric vehicles can bring more opportunities to share costs from the outset, industry experts said. "With the emergence of connected, autonomous, electric and shared vehicles, carmakers face immediate investments, so new opportunities for sharing costs have emerged," said Elmar Kades, managing director at Alix Partners. However, most electric vehicles lose money. This is a challenge for city car brands in Europe in particular. Both Renault and Fiat rely heavily on this segment for sales.

Chrysler recalls 1.2 million Ram pickup trucks

Chrysler has announced that it will issue three separate recalls that will cover as many as 1.2 million Ram pickup trucks for "steering-system tie rods that may have been misaligned during assembly or steering-system service." The vast majority of these trucks were sold in the United States, though some trucks in Mexico, Canada or overseas will be called in, as well.
The largest of the three recalls covers an estimated 842,400 model-year 2003-2008 Ram 2500 and 3500 trucks. Two smaller campaigns will bring 294,000 model-year 2008-2012 Ram 2500 and 3500 pickups, chassis cabs and 2008 Ram 1500 4x4 Mega Cabs; plus 43,500 model-year 2008-2012 Ram 4500 and 5500 4x4 chassis cabs into the dealer to be checked and repaired if necessary.
This is a very large recall, and Chrysler says it is "casting the net wider than necessary to identify those vehicles that require repair." The automaker estimates that "as many as 726,000 may not need repair."

Move over Audi, now Chrysler has a beef with Tesla's claims

In the same week that Audi said "not so fast" to some claims from Tesla, Chrysler has responded to a new press release from the California-based EV-maker by saying "not exactly, Tesla." The statement, released through the company's blog, comes in response to Tesla claiming it was "the only American car company to have fully repaid the government." Chrysler notes that it, too, recently paid back Uncle Sam from its 2008 bailout. Similar to Audi's recent press release, which was eventually and mysteriously deleted from the German automaker's site, Chrysler is both right and wrong in its statement.
Tesla specifically said that it had paid back the Department of Energy loans that many automakers received - including Fisker and VPG Autos - while Chrysler's retort argues Tesla is "unmistakably incorrect" since it repaid the government in 2011 a full six years early. Technically, the statements from both automakers are correct, but Tesla's startup loan originated from the DoE, while Chrysler's loan came in bailout form from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Further, as The Detroit News notes, Chrysler's loan still cost taxpayers well over a billion dollars after all was said and done - those negative assets tied to "old Chrysler" in the bankruptcy did not require repayment.