2004 Dodge Ram 1500 Srt-10 Custom Matte Black Paint And Wheels, Nav, Flawless on 2040-cars

Auto blog

The mad genius of killing the Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200

Sergio Marchionne isn't crazy. At least not with respect to the recent announcement that Fiat Chrysler Automobiles will cease production of the Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200. Instead of crazy I'd call this CEO ruthlessly pragmatic, and perhaps short-sighted. The latest revisions to FCA's most recent five-year plan tell some truths about the company's finances. In other words, it can't afford to build mainstream sedans. With only 87,392 units sold in 2015, the Dart is an also-ran in the segment. The axe falls easily there - Chrysler hasn't had a compact-car hit since the second-generation Neon. The 200 isn't so cut and dried: Last year sales increased 52 percent, and the 177,889 total for 2015 is more than those for the Subaru Legacy and Kia Optima. But looking at the overall FCA picture the Chrysler 200 has to go, at least from a short-term perspective. The vehicles that make big money – Ram trucks; Jeep's Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, and Wrangler – can't be made fast enough. FCA can't afford to idle the 200's Sterling Heights, MI, assembly plant to cut back on inventory when other plants are running flat out. It seems crazy to throw away 265,000 sales, but FCA is leaving money on the table by not building more profitable vehicles. The Wirecutter's Senior Autos Editor (and former Autoblogger) John Neff agrees. "As bold as it looks from the outside, he's really making a safe bet that their money is better spent on designing better and building more crossovers and trucks. He's probably right about that." But according to Jessica Caldwell, Executive Director of Strategic Analytics at Edmunds, "FCA's strategy of eliminating the Dart and 200 might be short-sighted if gas prices were to rise and Americans, once again, flocked to small vehicles. FCA must have plans to expand the lineup of small SUVs and position them as small-car alternatives in terms of price and fuel efficiency for this strategy to make sense." FCA's latest announcement focuses mainly on the profitable brands and nameplates. There's hardly a mention of Chrysler, Dodge, or Fiat. And future planning is where the plot holes appear. This realignment cuts dead weight from the product portfolio, but FCA's latest announcement focuses mainly on the profitable brands and nameplates. There's hardly a mention of Chrysler, Dodge, or Fiat. So what's Sergio up to? David Sullivan of AutoPacific thinks Marchionne is still looking for another CEO to hug.

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

Fiat Chrysler wins top Total Quality Award for first time

The Strategic Vision Total Quality Awards are 20 years old in 2015, and Chrysler has never topped the awards before. Until now, that is. Fiat Chrysler takes the overall award on the corporate level with six segment leaders from Fiat, Dodge, Jeep, and Ram. The Fiat 500 won Small Multi-Function Car, the 500e won Small Alternative Powertrain, the Dodge Challenger tied at the top in the Specialty Coupe category alongside the very un-coupe Mini Cooper Countryman, the Jeep Wrangler Unlimited took the Entry SUV category, the Dodge Durango won in Mid-Size SUV, and Ram took the overall in Best Non-Luxury Brand. The accolade means FCA has gone from one segment winner in 2010 to overall victory in five years. Cars have gotten so good, says Strategic Vision, that it is harder than ever to win. In fact, says the group, 18 years ago 85 percent of all vehicle brands had more than half a problem per vehicle. This year, no brand has more than half a problem per vehicle. The organization measures "over 155 specific aspects of the customer's experience," and scores are based on input from more than 46,000 customers. Other notables in and near the winner's circle include Volkswagen and General Motors, who tied for second place on the corporate scale, one point behind FCA. The Mini Cooper Roadster scored the highest of any model, the Corvette Stingray Convertible and Coupe scored the second- and third-highest. The Chevrolet Colorado is the first domestic Standard Pickup winner in more than ten years, and the Nissan Titan carried the Full-Size Pickup category. The press release below has all the details on how winners and losers are selected, and the full list of automakers and how they finished. "The Customer's 'Total' Experience Defines Quality, Fiat Chrysler Scores Highest in Total Quality," says Strategic Vision The 2015 Total Quality Awards® SAN DIEGO, Friday, July 17, 2015 — Unknown to many, when some consumer research firms rank a car company's quality performance they often do so by simply "counting problems." In the past, this may have been acceptable, but in today's modern and efficient manufacturing world the difference between the worst brand and best brand is LESS than half-a-problem per vehicle. Thus, any "quality ranking" based on this method is severely lacking in the complete picture of the "Total" Quality experience that customers actually use to judge their product ownership.