1997 Land Rover Defender on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Jaguar CEO says people just don't want EVs right now

"Customers are not impressed with it currently." These are the words of one Ralf Speth, CEO of Jaguar Land Rover, spoke at the Automotive News Europe Congress in Birmingham, England. The "it" Speth is referring to is battery technology, which he characterized as "too heavy, too expensive," and with power density that's "too low." That all could go some way towards explaining why the British automaker has yet to bring an electric vehicle to market, why it killed the C-X75 hybrid-turbine supercar project, and why it only recently started offering hybrid versions of its Range Rover models (and has yet to offer them in the United States). That doesn't mean the company won't pursue electric propulsion in the future, though. According to Automotive News Europe, Speth forecasts that "the next generation of batteries will be higher density, lower weight and the cost will come down." What he didn't say, exactly, is when he expects that next generation of battery tech to come around – or when JLR will start to more closely embrace electric propulsion. In the meantime, Jaguar Land Rover will continue investing in research and development. Since Tata acquired the brands from Ford seven years ago, JLR has quadrupled its R&D budget and doubled the number of engineers on staff. Related Video:

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.

Rising aluminum costs cut into Ford's profit

When Ford reports fourth-quarter results on Wednesday afternoon, it is expected to fret that rising metals costs have cut into profits, even as rivals say they have the problem under control. Aluminum prices have risen 20 percent in the last year and nearly 11 percent since Dec. 11. Steel prices have risen just over 9 percent in the last year. Ford uses more aluminum in its vehicles than its rivals. Aluminum is lighter but far more expensive than steel, closing at $2,229 per tonne on Tuesday. U.S. steel futures closed at $677 per ton (0.91 metric tonnes). Republican U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is weighing whether to impose tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, which could push prices even higher. Ford gave a disappointing earnings estimate for 2017 and 2018 last week, saying the higher costs for steel, aluminum and other metals, as well as currency volatility, could cost the company $1.6 billion in 2018. Ford shares took a dive after the announcement. Ford Chief Financial Officer Bob Shanks told analysts at a conference in Detroit last week that while the company benefited from low commodity prices in 2016, rising steel prices were now the main cause of higher costs, followed by aluminum. Shanks said the automaker at times relies on foreign currencies as a "natural hedge" for some commodities but those are now going in the opposite direction, so they are not working. A Ford spokesman added that the automaker also uses a mix of contracts, hedges and indexed buying. Industry analysts point to the spike in aluminum versus steel prices as a plausible reason for Ford's problems, especially since it uses far more of the expensive metal than other major automakers. "When you look at Ford in the context of the other automakers, aluminum drives a lot of their volume and I think that is the cause" of their rising costs, said Jeff Schuster, senior vice president of forecasting at auto consultancy LMC Automotive. Other major automakers say rising commodity costs are not much of a problem. At last week's Detroit auto show, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV's Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne reiterated its earnings guidance for 2018 and held forth on a number of topics, but did not mention metals prices. General Motors Co gave a well-received profit outlook last week and did not mention the subject. "We view changes in raw material costs as something that is manageable," a GM spokesman said in an email.