1971 Fiat 500l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Marchionne says the Chrysler 200 and Dodge Dart were terrible investments for FCA

In a press conference during the Detroit Auto Show, Sergio Marchionne was quite candid about why the Chrysler 200 and Dodge Dart were discontinued altogether without replacement. He essentially said they weren't worth the trouble. "I can tell you right now that both the Chrysler 200 and the Dodge Dart, as great products as they were, were the least financially rewarding enterprises that we've carried out inside FCA in the last eight years," Marchionne said. "I don't know one investment that was as bad as these two were." Marchionne was responding to a question about whether he felt the company's shift toward trucks and SUVs and sacrifice in sedan development was shortsighted. Marchionne said he felt that the market would likely continue to be strong for trucks and SUVs, and that the sedan market requires enormous investment that might not pay off. He used the 200 and Dart as examples. When we tried out the 200 and the Dart, we had mixed feelings. We enjoyed the 200's potent V6, pleasant interior, and solid handling. However, it was lacking in space (especially in the rear seat area), and doesn't drive any better than the top vehicles in the midsize sedan class. As for the Dart, it was fairly roomy, and had great infotainment thanks to Uconnect, but lackluster handling and a surprising amount of weight left it only average. With that in mind, it's probably not a bad idea to get rid of the 200 and Dart. The sedan segment is shrinking, and FCA can only afford to invest in areas where it can be a class-leader. Related Video:

Automakers not currently promoting EVs are probably doomed

Okay, let's be honest. The sky isn't falling – gas prices are. In fact, some experts say that prices at the pump will remain depressed for the next decade. Consumers have flocked to SUVs and CUVs, reversing the upward trend in US fuel economy seen over the last several years. A sudden push into electric vehicles seems ridiculous when gas guzzlers are selling so well. Make hay while the sun shines, right? A quick glance at some facts and figures provides evidence that the automakers currently doubling down on internal combustion probably have some rocky years ahead of them. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles is a prime example of a volume manufacturer devoted to incremental gains for existing powertrains. Though FCA will kill off some of its more fuel-efficient models, part of its business plan involves replacing four- and five-speed transmissions with eight- and nine-speed units, yielding a fuel efficiency boost in the vicinity of ten percent over the next few years. Recent developments by battery startups have led some to suggest that efficiency and capacity could increase by over 100 percent in the same time. Research and development budgets paint a grim picture for old guard companies like Fiat Chrysler: In 2014, FCA spent about $1,026 per car sold on R&D, compared with about $24,783 per car sold for Tesla. To be fair, FCA can't be expected to match Tesla's efforts when its entry-level cars list for little more than half that much. But even more so than R&D, the area in which newcomers like Tesla have the industry licked is infrastructure. We often forget that our vehicles are mostly useless metal boxes without access to the network of fueling stations that keep them rolling. While EVs can always be plugged in at home, their proliferation depends on a similar network of charging stations that can allow for prolonged travel. Tesla already has 597 of its 480-volt Superchargers installed worldwide, and that figure will continue to rise. Porsche has also proposed a new 800-volt "Turbo Charging Station" to support the production version of its Mission E concept, and perhaps other VW Auto Group vehicles. As EVs grow in popularity, investment in these proprietary networks will pay off — who would buy a Chevy if the gas stations served only Ford owners? If anyone missed the importance of infrastructure, it's Toyota.

Fiat Chrysler posts $690M Q1 loss

If there is one thing that should be remembered when looking at quarterly and annual earnings, it's that the headline numbers rarely tell the whole story when it comes to an automaker's health. Chrysler's first-quarter earnings are just such an example.
Yes, the Auburn Hills-based manufacturer lost $690 million, which is quite a large sum of money. The reasons for the loss, according to Chrysler, were "Unfavorable infrequent items," which includes a $504 million payment to rid itself of the debts it took on for prepaying the UAW's VEBA healthcare trust. Chrysler was also hit with a $672 million charge to the UAW, which was part of a deal that allowed Fiat to purchase the remaining shares of Chrysler owned by the VEBA.
Ignoring those one-time deals, the first quarter was quite a successful one for Chrysler. It would have made $486 million if you erased the merger costs, which would have been a year-over-year increase of $320 million. Even more promising is the fact that Chrysler snagged the largest increase in market share of any automaker during Q1 at 1.1 percent, bringing its overall share to 12.7 percent of the US market. Chrysler saw a 30-percent improvement in sales of trucks and SUVs, along with an 11-percent increase in year-over-year sales and a 23-percent increase in revenue, to $19 billion.