2013 Fiat 500c Pop on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Fiat Chrysler, surprise, had to buy a lot of emissions credits

The world of carbon emissions uses some unusual units of measure. Take, for example, 8.2 million megagrams. Who needs to know how much that is? Someone at Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, that's who. FCA had to buy that many greenhouse-gas emissions credits from greener automakers, Reuters says, citing a report from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Because its vehicles' collective fuel economy continues to trail the industry average, FCA purchased the emissions credits at of the end of 2014 in order to meet US emissions regulations. About two-thirds of those credits were acquired from Toyota, while the rest were purchased from Tesla and Honda. Daimler and Ferrari, not surprisingly, were among the other automobile companies that had to acquire emissions credits in order to meet US greenhouse gas regulations. Because the price for these credits is set privately by the companies, the EPA didn't disclose how much FCA had to pay to stay on the green side. The reason for the millions FCA likely spent is because the company is making a slow progress building and selling cleaner cars. The company did increase average fuel efficiency by about one mile per gallon to almost 22 mpg for the 2015 model year, but it wasn't enough. Such a performance likely only put the automaker in a last-place tie with General Motors. The emissions credits purchased from Tesla are notable because that California-based maker of electric vehicles has long generated substantial revenue by selling various credits to its less-electrified counterparts. In 2013, Tesla sold more of California's ZEV credits than any other automaker, but Nissan took that title in 2014. While these are not the same as the EPA's GHG credits, they do offer another way to track which automakers are meeting the targets and which need help. Related Video: News Source: ReutersImage Credit: Flickr/Ian YVR Government/Legal Green Chrysler Fiat Fuel Efficiency mpg

Ferrari to launch new model every year, keep production limited

You've no doubt perused the big news coming out of Fiat-Chrysler's headquarters in Auburn Hills, MI today. But at the end of the brand discussions, Sergio Marchionne spoke briefly about an incredibly important, low-volume part of the Fiat-Chrysler empire: Ferrari.
"You do need one of these cars in your driveway," Marchionne joked. And while other brand heads today lined out detailed plans for future product, Sergio's words about Ferrari's next five years were very simple, and very vague.
Marchionne confirmed that Ferrari will launch a new car every year between now and 2018. The cars will have a four-year lifecycle, after which, "M" versions will be produced, with a separate four-year cadence. No specific models were mentioned during Marchionne's presentation.

FCA is setting a five-year strategy: Here's how the last one played out

We're slightly more than four years removed from Sergio Marchionne last five-year plan for FCA, a tell-all where the Italian-American automaker divulged its plans for the 2014 through 2018 model years. It was a grand affair, where Sergio told FCA investors that all was right in Auburn Hills, Alfa Romeo and Maserati were making comebacks, and the fifth-gen Dodge Viper received a mid-cycle refresh. You can read every last one of those past predictions right here. We're on our way to Europe to see Sergio's sequel, coming out Friday straight from FCA's Italian headquarters. (Bloomberg reports a plan to expand Jeep and Ram globally, combine Alfa Romeo and Maserati into a single division for an eventual spinoff, and downsizing Fiat and Chrysler. Also, EVs.) But before we arrive in Italy and find out exactly what Marchionne has planned for 2019 through 2023 as his last act as CEO, let's take a minute to tally up the results of his last term based on the same scoresheet we used in 2014. Now, we're only five months into 2018, so much of this — including vehicles like the Ram HD and Jeep Grand Wagoneer — could still debut this year. For those, we'll mark things TBD. We're not going to draw any conclusions or make any objectionable remarks. We're simply going to let the stats speak for themselves.