1987 Chrysler New Yorker Base Sedan 4-door 2.2l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Auto Mergers and Acquisitions: Suicide or salvation?

We love the Moses figure. A savior riding in from stage right with the ideas, the smarts, and the scrappiness to put things right. Alan Mullaly. Carroll Shelby. Lee Iacocca. Andrew Carnegie. Steve Jobs. Elon Musk. Bart Simpson. Sergio Marchionne does not likely view himself with Moses-like optics, but the CEO of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles recently gave a remarkable, perhaps prophetic interview with Automotive News about his interest and the inevitability of merging with a potential automotive partner like General Motors. Marchionne has been overtly public about his notion that GM must merge with FCA. For a bit of context, GM sold 9.9 million vehicles in 2014, posting $2.8 billion in net income, while FCA sold 4.75 million units and earned $2.4 billion in net income, painting a very rosy FCA earnings-to-sales picture. But that's not the entire picture. Most people in the auto industry still remember the trainwreck that was the DaimlerChrysler "merger" written in what turned out to be sand in 1998. It proved to be a master class in how not to fuse two companies, two cultures, two continents, and two management teams. Oh, it worked for the two individuals at both helms pre-merger. They got silly rich. And the industry itself was in a misty romance at the time with mergers and acquisitions. BMW bought Rolls-Royce. Volkswagen Group bought Bentley, Bugatti, and Lamborghini, putting all three brands into their rightful place in both products and positioning. No marriages there, so no false pretense. Finally, Nissan and Renault got married in 1999. A successful marriage requires several rare elements in this atmosphere of gas fumes and power lust. But a successful marriage requires several rare elements in this atmosphere of gas fumes and power lust, the principle part being honesty. Daimler and Chrysler lied to each other. The heads of each unit, the product planners, and finance all presented their then-current and long-range forecasts to each other with less-than-forthright accuracy. Daimler was the far greater equal and no one from the Chrysler side enjoyed that. The cultures were entirely different, too, and little was done to bridge that gap. Which brings me back to the present overtures by Marchionne to GM. "There are varying degrees of hugs," Marchionne stated in the Automotive News piece. "I can hug you nicely, I can hug you tightly, I can hug you like a bear, I can really hug you." Seriously?

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

FCA US under-reported death and injury claims to NHTSA

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says FCA US significantly under-reported death and injury claims due to flaws in its early warning system. The government first discovered a potential problem with the automaker's reporting in late July, and FCA US has been investigating the issue since. NHTSA claims that the problem appears linked to the way the company gathers and reports safety information. The agency is still investigating how serious the flaws are and their causes. "This represents a significant failure to meet a manufacturer's safety responsibilities," NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind.Rosekind said in a statement. FCA US admits that it "identified deficiencies" in the reporting, but in a statement the company said that it notified NHTSA of the issue immediately. The company promised that it is taking this problem "extremely seriously" and pledged to remedy the situation. In late July, FCA US was hit with a potential $105-million fine by NHTSA for the way the automaker conducted some recalls. As part of that agreement, the company also consented to more rigorous oversight by safety regulators in the future and a buy-back of some affected vehicles. Other automakers have been punished for failing to submit EWR data. Honda incurred a $70 million fine in January from NHTSA for missing 1,729 incidents over 11 years. Ferrari had to pay $3.5 million in 2014 for not sending them in for three years. Statement from NHTSA Administrator, Mark Rosekind, on Fiat Chrysler Automobiles' under-reported discrepancy in FCA's Early Warning Report data September 29, 2015 "In late July, NHTSA notified Fiat Chrysler Automobiles of an apparent discrepancy in FCA's Early Warning Report data. FCA has informed NHTSA that in investigating that discrepancy, it has found significant under-reported notices and claims of deaths, injuries and other information required as part of the Early Warning Reporting system. Preliminary information suggests that this under-reporting is the result of a number of problems with FCA's systems for gathering and reporting EWR data. This represents a significant failure to meet a manufacturer's safety responsibilities. NHTSA will take appropriate action after gathering additional information on the scope and causes of this failure." – Mark Rosekind, NHTSA Administrator. Statement: TREAD Reporting September 29, 2015 , Auburn Hills, Mich.