02 Chrysler Town&country Handicap Van Wheelchair Conversion Entervan No Reserve on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Weekly Recap: Chrysler forges ahead with new name, same mission

Chrysler is history. Sort of. The 89-year-old automaker was absorbed into the Fiat Chrysler Automobiles conglomerate that officially launched this fall, and now the local operations will no longer use the Chrysler Group name. Instead, it's FCA US LLC. Catchy, eh? Here's what it means: The sign outside Chrysler's Auburn Hills, MI, headquarters says FCA (which it already did) and obviously, all official documents use the new name, rather than Chrysler. That's about it. The executives, brands and location of the headquarters aren't changing. You'll still be able to buy a Chrysler 200. It's just made by FCA US LLC. This reinforces that FCA is one company going forward – the seventh largest automaker in the world – not a Fiat-Chrysler dual kingdom. While the move is symbolic, it is a conflicting moment for Detroiters, though nothing is really changing. Chrysler has been owned by someone else (Daimler, Cerberus) for the better part of two decades, but it still seemed like it was Chrysler in the traditional sense: A Big 3 automaker in Detroit. Now, it's clearly the US division of a multinational industrial empire; that's good thing for its future stability, but bittersweet nonetheless. Undoubtedly, it's an emotion that's also being felt at Fiat's Turin, Italy, headquarters as the company will no longer officially be called Fiat there. Digest that for a moment. What began in 1899 as the Societa Anonima Fabbrica Italiana di Automobili Torino – or FIAT – is now FCA Italy SpA. In a statement, FCA said the move "is intended to emphasize the fact that all group companies worldwide are part of a single organization." The new names are the latest changes orchestrated by CEO Sergio Marchionne, who continues to makeover FCA as an international automaker that has ties to its heritage – but isn't tied down by it. Everything from the planned spinoff of Ferrari, a new FCA headquarters in London and the pending demise of the Dodge Grand Caravan in 2016 has shown that the company is willing to move quickly, even if it's controversial. While renaming the United States and Italian divisions were the moves most likely to spur controversy, FCA said other regions across the globe will undergo similar name changes this year. Despite the mixed emotions, it's worth noting: The name of the merged company that oversees all of these far-flung units is Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. Obviously the Chrysler corporate name isn't completely history.

Why FCA-PSA merger is no quick fix for their China problem

BEIJING — Fiat Chrysler and Peugeot owner PSA's merger is unlikely to provide a quick fix to their problems in China, as both companies have long struggled to find the right products at the right price for the world's top car market, analysts say. The companies said on Thursday they aimed to reach a binding deal in the coming weeks to create the world's fourth-biggest automaker by production volume. But scale alone will not make Italian-American Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) and France's PSA Group more competitive in a market where they have been slow to adapt to trends and win over consumers, leading their sales to lag far behind foreign rivals such as Volkswagen and General Motors. PSA does not have enough competitive SUV models, and neither company has enough electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, or enough cars packed with hi-tech features for Chinese tastes, analysts say. In a market where 28 million cars were bought in 2018, FCA sold just 155,215, while PSA sold 257,723, according to consultancy LMC Automotive. At the end of September, FCA had a market share of 0.5% in China's passenger car market, while PSA's was 0.6%. Analysts say they have been squeezed by Japanese and local brands, which have product line-ups better suited to Chinese tastes at cheaper prices. "Both companies are very home-market centred and have failed to adapt to shifts in Chinese market preferences," said Bill Russo, head of Shanghai-based consultancy Automobility Ltd and a former senior Asia-based Chrysler executive. "Neither company has recognized and delivered on the trends of shared, connected and electric vehicles,” Russo said. That makes them ill-prepared to deal with further shifts in the Chinese market, which saw annual sales contract for the first time since the 1990s last year and is expected to see another drop this year. "China's overall market is experiencing a transmission and adjustment period," said Alan Kang, a Shanghai-based senior analyst at LMC Automotive. "It is very hard for these two companies, which do not have enough competitive up-to-date products, to quickly recover with the merger." FCA has a partnership in China with Guangzhou Automobile Group, which said on Thursday it backed the merger. PSA has been trying to reboot its operations in China.

Auto bailout cost the US goverment $9.26B

Depending on your outlook, the US Treasury's bailout of General Motors, Chrysler (now FCA) and their financing divisions under the Troubled Asset Relief Program was either a complete boondoggle or a savvy move to secure the future of some major employers. Regardless of where you fall, the auto industry bailout has officially ended, and the numbers have been tallied. Of the $79.69 billion that the Feds invested to keep the automakers afloat, it recouped $70.43 billion – a net loss of $9.26 billion. The final nail in the coffin for the auto bailout came in December 2014 when the Feds sold its shares in Ally Financial, formerly GMAC. The deal turned out pretty good for the government too because the investment turned a 2.4 billion profit. The actual automakers have long been out of the Treasury's hands, though. The current FCA paid back its loans six years early in 2011, the Treasury sold of the last shares of GM in late 2013. According to The Detroit News, the government's books actually show an official loss on the auto bailouts of $16.56 billion. The difference is because the larger figure does not include the interest or dividends paid by the borrowers on the amount lent. While it's easy to see fault in any red ink on the Feds' massive investment, the number is less than some earlier estimates. At one time, deficits around $44 billion were thought possible, and another put things at a $20.3 billion loss. Outside of just the government losing money, the bailouts might have helped the overall economy. A study from the Center for Automotive Research last year estimated that the program saved 2.6 million jobs and about $284.4 billion in personal wealth. It also indicated that the Feds' reduction in income tax revenue alone from Chrysler and GM going under could have been around $100 billion for just 2009 and 2010, significantly more than any loss in the bailout.