Chrysler: Sales, Marketing, and Financial News
03-18-2015 | 08:21 PM
#41
Azine Jabroni
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 9,156
Likes: 2,159
From: Austin, TX
This is so good for Chrysler. Encouraging considering Fiat's recent struggles in Europe.
@ Hellcats...
07-28-2015 | 10:31 AM
#44
99 TL, 06 E350
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,030
Likes: 164
From: Toronto
Gov't: Fiat Chrysler Must Offer to Buy Back 500,000 Pickups
Wow how bad can this be???
Gov't: Fiat Chrysler Must Offer to Buy Back 500,000 Pickups - ABC News
Gov't: Fiat Chrysler Must Offer to Buy Back 500,000 Pickups - ABC News
Fiat Chrysler must offer to buy back from customers more than 500,000 Ram pickup trucks and other vehicles in the biggest such action in U.S. history as part of a costly deal with safety regulators to settle legal problems in about two dozen recalls.
The Italian-American automaker also faces a record civil fine of up to $105 million. In addition, owners of more than a million older Jeeps with vulnerable rear-mounted gas tanks will be able to trade them in or be paid by Chrysler to have the vehicles repaired.
The settlement is the latest sign that auto safety regulators are taking a more aggressive approach toward companies that fail to disclose defects or don't properly conduct a recall.
The Ram pickups, which are the company's top-selling vehicle, have defective steering parts that can cause drivers to lose control. Some previous repairs have been unsuccessful, so Fiat Chrysler agreed to the buyback, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Owners also have the option of getting them repaired, the agency said in documents released Sunday.
The older Jeeps have fuel tanks located behind the rear axle, with little to shield them in a rear crash. They can rupture and spill gasoline, causing a fire. At least 75 people have died in crash-related fires, although Fiat Chrysler maintains they are as safe as comparable vehicles from the same era.
Both the Jeep and Ram measures are part of a larger settlement between the government and the automaker over allegations of misconduct in 23 recalls covering more than 11 million vehicles. Besides the civil penalty, which was reported Saturday by The Associated Press, Fiat Chrysler agreed to an independent recall monitor and strict federal oversight. It's another step in NHTSA's effort to right itself after being criticized for lapses in some highly-publicized safety recalls.
"Today's action holds Fiat Chrysler accountable for its past failures, pushes them to get unsafe vehicles repaired or off the roads and takes concrete steps to keep Americans safer going forward," Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in the statement.
In a separate statement, Fiat Chrysler said it accepted the consequences of the agreement "with renewed resolve to improve our handling of recalls and re-establish the trust our customers place in us."
NHTSA has been involved in vehicle buybacks in the past, but never one of this size. A buyback usually happens when a problem is so serious that it can't be fixed and the vehicles need to be removed from service.
Under the agreement, Fiat Chrysler has to buy back the Ram trucks for the purchase price, minus depreciation.
It's unclear just how many Rams the automaker will have to repurchase, but the cash outlay could be substantial. According to Kelly Blue Book, a 2010 Dodge Ram 1500 — one of the smaller, less-expensive trucks involved in the recalls — could fetch $20,000 in a dealer trade-in, assuming the truck has 60,000 miles on it and is in "good" condition. At that rate, if Chrysler had to buy back even a quarter of the trucks at issue, it could spend $2.5 billion.
Fiat Chrysler said more than 60 percent of the trucks already have been fixed, and the company is allowed to repair and resell the trucks it buys back.
The Italian-American automaker also faces a record civil fine of up to $105 million. In addition, owners of more than a million older Jeeps with vulnerable rear-mounted gas tanks will be able to trade them in or be paid by Chrysler to have the vehicles repaired.
The settlement is the latest sign that auto safety regulators are taking a more aggressive approach toward companies that fail to disclose defects or don't properly conduct a recall.
The Ram pickups, which are the company's top-selling vehicle, have defective steering parts that can cause drivers to lose control. Some previous repairs have been unsuccessful, so Fiat Chrysler agreed to the buyback, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Owners also have the option of getting them repaired, the agency said in documents released Sunday.
The older Jeeps have fuel tanks located behind the rear axle, with little to shield them in a rear crash. They can rupture and spill gasoline, causing a fire. At least 75 people have died in crash-related fires, although Fiat Chrysler maintains they are as safe as comparable vehicles from the same era.
Both the Jeep and Ram measures are part of a larger settlement between the government and the automaker over allegations of misconduct in 23 recalls covering more than 11 million vehicles. Besides the civil penalty, which was reported Saturday by The Associated Press, Fiat Chrysler agreed to an independent recall monitor and strict federal oversight. It's another step in NHTSA's effort to right itself after being criticized for lapses in some highly-publicized safety recalls.
"Today's action holds Fiat Chrysler accountable for its past failures, pushes them to get unsafe vehicles repaired or off the roads and takes concrete steps to keep Americans safer going forward," Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in the statement.
In a separate statement, Fiat Chrysler said it accepted the consequences of the agreement "with renewed resolve to improve our handling of recalls and re-establish the trust our customers place in us."
NHTSA has been involved in vehicle buybacks in the past, but never one of this size. A buyback usually happens when a problem is so serious that it can't be fixed and the vehicles need to be removed from service.
Under the agreement, Fiat Chrysler has to buy back the Ram trucks for the purchase price, minus depreciation.
It's unclear just how many Rams the automaker will have to repurchase, but the cash outlay could be substantial. According to Kelly Blue Book, a 2010 Dodge Ram 1500 — one of the smaller, less-expensive trucks involved in the recalls — could fetch $20,000 in a dealer trade-in, assuming the truck has 60,000 miles on it and is in "good" condition. At that rate, if Chrysler had to buy back even a quarter of the trucks at issue, it could spend $2.5 billion.
Fiat Chrysler said more than 60 percent of the trucks already have been fixed, and the company is allowed to repair and resell the trucks it buys back.
07-29-2015 | 03:10 AM
#46
Race Director
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,391
Likes: 634
From: Alexandria, VA
According to Kelly Blue Book, a 2010 Dodge Ram 1500 — one of the smaller, less-expensive trucks involved in the recalls — could fetch $20,000 in a dealer trade-in, assuming the truck has 60,000 miles on it and is in "good" condition. At that rate, if Chrysler had to buy back even a quarter of the trucks at issue, it could spend $2.5 billion.
Fiat Chrysler said more than 60 percent of the trucks already have been fixed, and the company is allowed to repair and resell the trucks it buys back.
Fiat Chrysler said more than 60 percent of the trucks already have been fixed, and the company is allowed to repair and resell the trucks it buys back.
09-01-2015 | 10:13 PM
#47
Azine Jabroni
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 9,156
Likes: 2,159
From: Austin, TX
Won’t Back Down: Sergio Marchionne Still Pushing for Fiat-Chrysler/GM Merger
It would break my heart of Alfa was a GM product.
Fiat-Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne is still pushing for what he sees as an inevitable merger with General Motors, despite months of rejected meetings and ignored phone calls.
The man in the black sweater hit hard in a recent interview with Automotive News, claiming that combining with the world’s second-largest automaker could generate $30 billion a year in revenue, or roughly $5 billion more than what both companies earn separately. Marchionne first proposed the idea in March through a direct e-mail to GM CEO Mary Barra. The GM executive said any meeting would be a “distraction” and that GM has been “merging with ourselves.”
“You may reject the deal but you can’t reject the discussion,” Marchionne said. “If you’re refusing to talk to me, and you have seen nothing, you either think you’re above it all, or you think the capital markets are full of schmucks that owe you something.” Marchionne said that while he has “obviously made some arbitrary assumptions about which architectures survive, which engines survive,” he has looked at every plant and car and has a lot of graphs proving his point.
“Look, the combined entity can make $30 billion a year in cash. Thirty. Just think about that [expletive] number,” he said.
GM has not publicly commented about the potential deal since Barra publicly commented on Marchionne’s overtures in May. Former GM chairman Bob Lutz has gone on record as the resident devil’s advocate within the industry, and he fully supports the merger. “I was always in favor of GM acquiring Chrysler, and I honestly think it would deserve a serious look now. You would get synergies . . . which would be massive,” he said. Lutz was at GM when it considered buying out Chrysler in 2008.
Marchionne has been hunting for a “partner” particularly to bolster Fiat, which itself merged with Chrysler shortly after the Detroit automaker filed for bankruptcy in 2009. Marchionne was the mastermind in that deal, grabbing company stock for next to nothing, shedding dealers, paying back Chrysler’s government loans, and infusing cash into Auburn Hills. But instead of propping up both companies, the resultant Fiat-Chrysler is lopsided. Chrysler and its American brands are soaring while Fiat and its Italian brands (save for Ferrari) slump overseas.
Fiat-Chrysler’s NYSE listing last fall failed to attract significant investment, and Marchionne—since announcing an aggressive five-year plan to boost sales 60 percent—is under pressure to grow while facing high pension costs in the U.S., fighting slim market share in Europe, and playing catch-up in China. The Ferrari IPO, expected to net several billion sometime this quarter, will help. But in Marchionne’s eyes, it’s not enough. “I tell you that you can make X billion more by being together, I guarantee you that I can carry half the market,” he said.
The man in the black sweater hit hard in a recent interview with Automotive News, claiming that combining with the world’s second-largest automaker could generate $30 billion a year in revenue, or roughly $5 billion more than what both companies earn separately. Marchionne first proposed the idea in March through a direct e-mail to GM CEO Mary Barra. The GM executive said any meeting would be a “distraction” and that GM has been “merging with ourselves.”
“You may reject the deal but you can’t reject the discussion,” Marchionne said. “If you’re refusing to talk to me, and you have seen nothing, you either think you’re above it all, or you think the capital markets are full of schmucks that owe you something.” Marchionne said that while he has “obviously made some arbitrary assumptions about which architectures survive, which engines survive,” he has looked at every plant and car and has a lot of graphs proving his point.
“Look, the combined entity can make $30 billion a year in cash. Thirty. Just think about that [expletive] number,” he said.
GM has not publicly commented about the potential deal since Barra publicly commented on Marchionne’s overtures in May. Former GM chairman Bob Lutz has gone on record as the resident devil’s advocate within the industry, and he fully supports the merger. “I was always in favor of GM acquiring Chrysler, and I honestly think it would deserve a serious look now. You would get synergies . . . which would be massive,” he said. Lutz was at GM when it considered buying out Chrysler in 2008.
Marchionne has been hunting for a “partner” particularly to bolster Fiat, which itself merged with Chrysler shortly after the Detroit automaker filed for bankruptcy in 2009. Marchionne was the mastermind in that deal, grabbing company stock for next to nothing, shedding dealers, paying back Chrysler’s government loans, and infusing cash into Auburn Hills. But instead of propping up both companies, the resultant Fiat-Chrysler is lopsided. Chrysler and its American brands are soaring while Fiat and its Italian brands (save for Ferrari) slump overseas.
Fiat-Chrysler’s NYSE listing last fall failed to attract significant investment, and Marchionne—since announcing an aggressive five-year plan to boost sales 60 percent—is under pressure to grow while facing high pension costs in the U.S., fighting slim market share in Europe, and playing catch-up in China. The Ferrari IPO, expected to net several billion sometime this quarter, will help. But in Marchionne’s eyes, it’s not enough. “I tell you that you can make X billion more by being together, I guarantee you that I can carry half the market,” he said.
The following users liked this post:
00TL-P3.2 (09-02-2015)
09-02-2015 | 10:12 AM
#49
Azine Jabroni
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 9,156
Likes: 2,159
From: Austin, TX
Agreed on this. There would be so many badges lost under this kind of arrangement. Dodge and Chrysler brands would vanish. Alfa would probably be left overseas. Adding a bunch of American brands would be the opposite of GM's strategy that got them out of trouble.
The following users liked this post:
Sarlacc (01-02-2016)
01-02-2016 | 11:04 AM
#51
Team Owner
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 30,487
Likes: 4,416
From: In an igloo
I cant imagine a merger being good for anyone either. I like the brand competition. I like the higher amount of product choices. I like how different companies focus on different things they deem to be important.
05-31-2018 | 01:22 PM
#52
Race Director
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,391
Likes: 634
From: Alexandria, VA
Tea leaves are notoriously imprecise when it comes to divining the future, but as Fiat Chrysler Automobiles CEO Sergio Marchionne has left us no other signs about what the next five years hold for the automaker he is about to leave, tea leaves will have to do.
And here's what they tell me: I think Marchionne plans to announce on Friday at FCA's investor day in Balocco, Italy, that the long-starved Chrysler brand will soon follow Maxwell and DeSoto and Plymouth into oblivion.
A source told a European colleague that such an announcement could come Friday, but the rumor is officially unconfirmed. Yet, Marchionne may have tipped his hand in January at the Detroit auto show when he answered a question about FCA's 2016 move away from cars in favor of SUVs and pickups in North America.
Read his quote, and see if you can tell what's missing: "Our commitment [to passenger cars] continues to be quite strong, especially when it comes to Dodge. We have found a way to play in the passenger car side with Dodge in a very clear way, and we're very uniquely positioned. I don't think we're going to abandon that market, especially given [Tim] Kuniskis' attachments to V-8s. I think he has one in his bedroom."
If you guessed, "any mention of a future for the Chrysler brand," then chances are your Marchionne decoder ring is set correctly.
It's more than a tad ironic that FCA is named after two of the automaker's weakest brands, especially in the U.S. (Note: I'm purposely leaving Lancia out of the discussion. It's not here, and it's not really much of anything Over There, either.) But while the Fiat brand has never really worked in the U.S., Chrysler did. Chrysler has a storied history stretching back to founder Walter P. Chrysler, and even within FCA, the brand had a brightly planned future as recently as 2014.
You see, at the last one of these investor dog and pony shows, in May 2014 in Auburn Hills, Mich., Marchionne and his crew laid out a plan to transform Chrysler into a ubiquitous brand to compete with Chevrolet and Ford across 65 percent of the segment spectrum. In a presentation titled "Our Time Has Come," Chrysler, investors were told, would have eight vehicles in its lineup by 2018, including two plug-in electrics.
Using the same accounting measures as FCA did then, Chrysler has just three vehicles: an ancient Chrysler 300 sedan that's old enough to vote, the Pacifica minivan and its plug-in electric hybrid variant.
Plans change, and the consumer shift away from sedans stuck an early fork in the future of the Chrysler 200, a planned compact sedan that was to be the Chrysler 100 and any plan to invest further in the 300 sedan. But those swings in consumer preferences don't explain what happened to the other portions of Chrysler's planned product portfolio: a midsize crossover that would share a platform with the 200 sedan and a full-size unibody crossover -- plus accompanying plug-in hybrid version -- that would have shared the Pacifica platform.
Those products should have been on dealership lots by now, according to the 2014 product plan. But they're not, and Chrysler is worse off for it.
If FCA's leadership team opts to whack Chrysler on Friday, it will no doubt have ample justification for doing so. Brands cost money to operate, and when you have a bunch of them, it seems reasonable to cull the herd of the weakest members.
But let's remember this: Chrysler isn't weak because consumers abandoned it.
It's weak because FCA did.
Read more: Chrysler may be on the chopping block, and Fiat's future is dicey
And here's what they tell me: I think Marchionne plans to announce on Friday at FCA's investor day in Balocco, Italy, that the long-starved Chrysler brand will soon follow Maxwell and DeSoto and Plymouth into oblivion.
A source told a European colleague that such an announcement could come Friday, but the rumor is officially unconfirmed. Yet, Marchionne may have tipped his hand in January at the Detroit auto show when he answered a question about FCA's 2016 move away from cars in favor of SUVs and pickups in North America.
Read his quote, and see if you can tell what's missing: "Our commitment [to passenger cars] continues to be quite strong, especially when it comes to Dodge. We have found a way to play in the passenger car side with Dodge in a very clear way, and we're very uniquely positioned. I don't think we're going to abandon that market, especially given [Tim] Kuniskis' attachments to V-8s. I think he has one in his bedroom."
If you guessed, "any mention of a future for the Chrysler brand," then chances are your Marchionne decoder ring is set correctly.
It's more than a tad ironic that FCA is named after two of the automaker's weakest brands, especially in the U.S. (Note: I'm purposely leaving Lancia out of the discussion. It's not here, and it's not really much of anything Over There, either.) But while the Fiat brand has never really worked in the U.S., Chrysler did. Chrysler has a storied history stretching back to founder Walter P. Chrysler, and even within FCA, the brand had a brightly planned future as recently as 2014.
You see, at the last one of these investor dog and pony shows, in May 2014 in Auburn Hills, Mich., Marchionne and his crew laid out a plan to transform Chrysler into a ubiquitous brand to compete with Chevrolet and Ford across 65 percent of the segment spectrum. In a presentation titled "Our Time Has Come," Chrysler, investors were told, would have eight vehicles in its lineup by 2018, including two plug-in electrics.
Using the same accounting measures as FCA did then, Chrysler has just three vehicles: an ancient Chrysler 300 sedan that's old enough to vote, the Pacifica minivan and its plug-in electric hybrid variant.
Plans change, and the consumer shift away from sedans stuck an early fork in the future of the Chrysler 200, a planned compact sedan that was to be the Chrysler 100 and any plan to invest further in the 300 sedan. But those swings in consumer preferences don't explain what happened to the other portions of Chrysler's planned product portfolio: a midsize crossover that would share a platform with the 200 sedan and a full-size unibody crossover -- plus accompanying plug-in hybrid version -- that would have shared the Pacifica platform.
Those products should have been on dealership lots by now, according to the 2014 product plan. But they're not, and Chrysler is worse off for it.
If FCA's leadership team opts to whack Chrysler on Friday, it will no doubt have ample justification for doing so. Brands cost money to operate, and when you have a bunch of them, it seems reasonable to cull the herd of the weakest members.
But let's remember this: Chrysler isn't weak because consumers abandoned it.
It's weak because FCA did.
Read more: Chrysler may be on the chopping block, and Fiat's future is dicey
06-04-2018 | 10:06 AM
#54
_
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 18,693
Likes: 3,100
http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/31/news...ler/index.html
. . . .
That's why Marchionne has been looking for a potential buyer for Fiat Chrysler for most of the last ten years. Those efforts haven't gone anywhere, but it's possible his final act could be to finally sell or, once again, merge the company.
That's why Marchionne has been looking for a potential buyer for Fiat Chrysler for most of the last ten years. Those efforts haven't gone anywhere, but it's possible his final act could be to finally sell or, once again, merge the company.
Last edited by AZuser; 06-04-2018 at 10:09 AM.
10-09-2018 | 10:42 AM
#55
Moderator
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,486
Likes: 5,616
From: Spring, TX
https://jalopnik.com/i-regret-to-inf...ead-1829497468
Unbeknownst to me, Chrysler has been selling cars in New Zealand, presumably to the MOPAR-or-no-car contingent of wealthy sheep that live there. Or, rather, Chrysler did sell cars down there.
Reddit spotted that Chrysler New Zealand’s Chrysler.co.nz page declares that no new Chryslers will be purchasable via Chrysler New Zealand. It appears to be a rather hasty retreat from the market, as it has a typo in the announcement. The landing page declares “please contact your local Chrysler Delaer.”
The same is also true of Dodge New Zealand, though it’s landing page is at least typo free.
I wondered if this was legit or if it was some quirk of the sites, but an email to Fiat Chrysler cleared things up and confirmed the new-car-nixing:
It should not be forgotten that Chrysler Co. products were once assembled in New Zealand, though that fizzled out from the ‘80s into the ‘90s.
I looked up a saved version of the Chrysler New Zealand page from earlier this year on the Internet Archive to see what was for sale.
As far as I can tell, only one car was offered... and it was the 300 SRT? Yeah. The 300C SRT has been the only Chrysler for sale down there since May, as local Motoring NZ pointed out at the time, noting that while Jeep is still gonna be going along fine, things also look quiet for Dodge.
We don’t even get that thing here in the U.S. anymore (though I loved it when we did), so now I am retroactively jealous of the straightforwardness of Chrysler New Zealand’s product line of one.
We both mourn and welcome the death of Chrysler, and look forward to the day when the only Mopar products are the Alfa Romeo 4C (resurrected), a Chrysler Pacifica Hellcat, and a Fiat Jolly based on the Wrangler platform.
Reddit spotted that Chrysler New Zealand’s Chrysler.co.nz page declares that no new Chryslers will be purchasable via Chrysler New Zealand. It appears to be a rather hasty retreat from the market, as it has a typo in the announcement. The landing page declares “please contact your local Chrysler Delaer.”
The same is also true of Dodge New Zealand, though it’s landing page is at least typo free.
I wondered if this was legit or if it was some quirk of the sites, but an email to Fiat Chrysler cleared things up and confirmed the new-car-nixing:
As we have previously stated, Chrysler remains primarily a North American brand. Our focus, through our New Zealand distributor is on the Jeep®, Alfa Romeo and Ram brands. Service and parts operations for Chrysler-branded vehicles in New Zealand will continue through our distributor.
I looked up a saved version of the Chrysler New Zealand page from earlier this year on the Internet Archive to see what was for sale.
As far as I can tell, only one car was offered... and it was the 300 SRT? Yeah. The 300C SRT has been the only Chrysler for sale down there since May, as local Motoring NZ pointed out at the time, noting that while Jeep is still gonna be going along fine, things also look quiet for Dodge.
We don’t even get that thing here in the U.S. anymore (though I loved it when we did), so now I am retroactively jealous of the straightforwardness of Chrysler New Zealand’s product line of one.
We both mourn and welcome the death of Chrysler, and look forward to the day when the only Mopar products are the Alfa Romeo 4C (resurrected), a Chrysler Pacifica Hellcat, and a Fiat Jolly based on the Wrangler platform.
The following users liked this post:
kurtatx (10-11-2018)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
acura, acurazine, alan, attack, attempt, bbb, brand, center, chrysler, chryslers, commercial, contact, credit, current, daimler, daimlerchrysler, depart, department, division, doadge, downgrade, downgraded, durango, executives, forecasting, global, helfman, interview, jeep, launch, lineup, marinelli, marketing, motors, news, peter, photo, powered, product, questions, rating, rivals, rosenfeld, sp, takeover, targeted, terrorist, toyota, vbulletin, vehicle
