2008 Chrysler Limited on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Renault delays decision on merger with Fiat Chrysler

PARIS — Renault has delayed a decision on whether to merge with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, a deal that could reshape the global auto industry as carmakers race to make electric and autonomous vehicles for the masses. The deal still looks likely, but faced new criticism Tuesday from Renault's leading union and questions from its Japanese alliance partner Nissan. The French government is also putting conditions on the deal, including job guarantees and an operational headquarters based in France. The French carmaker's board will meet again at the end of the day Wednesday to "continue to study with interest" last week's merger proposal from FCA, Renault said in a statement. A Renault board meeting Tuesday to study the deal was inconclusive. The company didn't explain why, but a French government official said board members don't want to rush into a deal and are seeking agreement on all parts of the potential merger. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in line with government policy, told The Associated Press the conditions outlined by France's finance minister still "need to be met." France and Italy are both painting themselves as winners in the deal, which could save both companies 5 billion euros ($5.6 billion) a year. But workers worry a merger could lead to job losses, and analysts warn it could bog down in the challenges of managing such a hulking company across multiple countries. And a possible loser is Japan's Nissan, whose once-mighty alliance with Renault and Mitsubishi is on the rocks since star CEO Carlos Ghosn's arrest in November. Nissan CEO Hiroto Saikawa cast doubt Tuesday on whether his company will be involved in a Renault-Fiat Chrysler merger — and suggested adding Fiat Chrysler to the looser Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi alliance instead. Saikawa said in a statement that the Renault-Fiat Chrysler deal would "significantly alter" the structure of Nissan's longtime partnership with Renault, and Nissan would analyze its contractual relationships to protect the company's interests. If Renault's board says "yes" to Fiat Chrysler, that would open the way for a non-binding memorandum of understanding to start exclusive merger negotiations. The ensuing process — including consultations with unions, the French government, antitrust authorities and other regulators — would take about a year. A merger would create the world's third-biggest automaker, worth almost $40 billion and producing some 8.7 million vehicles a year.

Detroit and Silicon Valley: When cultures collide

Culture is a subject that rarely, if never, gets discussed when traditional auto companies buy — or hugely invest — in Silicon Valley-based companies. The conversation surrounding the investments is usually about how the tech looks appealing and how it's an appropriate step to move the automakers toward autonomy. Culture — the way things are done, the expectations, and the approaches — is something that is overlooked only at one's peril. The potential cultural gap is almost always evident in the obligatory photos of the participants in these deals, with is essentially a photo op of auto execs with their Silicon Valley counterparts. The former — rocking jeans and no ties — look like parochial school kids playing hooky. Don't worry: The regimental outfits will be back in place once they get back in the Eastern time zone. Consider what happened back in 1998 when Daimler bought Chrysler. First of all, there was a denial in Detroit that it happened. It was positioned as a "merger of equals." Which it wasn't. In any corporate situation, when one has more than 50 percent of the business, it owns the whole thing. And the German company was in the proverbial driver's seat. People who were around Auburn Hills back then kept their heads down and their German Made Simple books at hand. Things did not go well. Daimler had had enough by 2007, when it offloaded Chrysler to Cerberus Capital Management — which brought ex-Home Depot CEO Bob Nardelli into the picture, which is a story onto itself. But when you think about the Daimler-Chrysler situation, realize that these were two car companies (at least the Mercedes part of the Daimler organization), so they had that in common, and the language of engineers is something of an Esperanto based on math, so there was that, too. Yet it simply didn't work. It doesn't take too many viewings of HBO's Silicon Valley to know that the business people in that part of the world are far more aggressive than people who ordinarily head and control car companies in Detroit. About 20 years ago, a book came out about the founder of Oracle titled The Difference Between God and Larry Ellison* - and the asterisk on the book jacket leads to: God Doesn't Think He's Larry Ellison. It would be hard to imagine a book about a Detroit executive, even a book that had the decided bias that the tome about Ellison evinces, that would be quite so searing. Sure, there are egos. But they are still perceived to be, overall, "nice" people.

Killing the Dart and 200 might lower FCA's fuel economy burden

Killing the Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200 could allow FCA US to take advantage of an intriguing quirk in the next decade's fuel economy regulations. By increasing its ratio of trucks versus cars, the automaker might not need to worry so much about hitting the more stringent efficiency rules. At first thought, it might seem harder for an automaker with a ton of trucks to meet the government's mandated 54.5 mile per gallon corporate average fuel economy for 2025. However, every company doesn't need to hit that lofty figure, according to The Detroit Free Press. The exact target varies by the product mix between trucks and cars. "While passenger car and light truck categories have separate CAFE targets, it's still true that more trucks versus cars in a company lineup means a lower combined CAFE target," Brandon Schoettle, Project Manager Sustainable Worldwide Transportation at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, told Autoblog. "While passenger car and light truck categories have separate CAFE targets, it's still true that more trucks versus cars in a company lineup means a lower combined CAFE target." FCA US' current product blend has 80 percent pickups and CUVs, which means the company stands to benefit from a lower fuel economy target. It might not seem entirely fair environmentally, but this is a great move from a business perspective. The new CAFE rules aren't set in stone, according to The Detroit Free Press, but potentially taking advantage of the regulation is just one more reason to cut the Dart and 200. Modern crossovers also aren't gas guzzlers like older SUVs, which could make it easier to hit the fuel economy target. "Utilities offer practicality and versatility that cars do not, and now, built on car architectures, they do not penalize consumers on fuel economy as they once did," AutoTrader Senior Analyst Michelle Krebs told Autoblog. Schoettle warns that FCA is still making a gamble by killing the small sedans. "Depending on the previous sales volumes and how much these vehicles might have exceeded their specific CAFE targets, it's possible that these cars helped earn CAFE credits for FCA that they could bank for future use," he said. "Future sales breakdowns [car vs.