Fiat discusses the future of Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep

I’d still like to see the Fiat version of the SX4. Specifically the diesel 4×4 version they sell in Europe and Asia. That would solve the fuel efficiency problems of the SX4. Plus having the larger Chrysler network for service (as opposed to Suzuki) would help with sales.

Aaron, Chrysler is done. The few products they are making with a loyal following are not enought to keep them out of trouble. I hope Fiat can help. If so it will be with a Fiat product, not a Chrysler product.

Agent Mike and I don’t agree on this one. Chrysler is the thousands of people that make it what it is. Where their platforms come from, or where their designs are penned is of little consequence to me. The majority of their vehicles most probably will be built here and those imported shall probably altered for perceived American tastes and needs. If it takes Fiat cash, a few design changes and a couple or so imports, that won’t make Chryco any different to those grateful Americans who won’t be added to those burgeoning unemployment statistics during this recession.

Brian — good point. (For those scratching their heads, Brian is talking, I believe, about the Sedici. Photo here.)

Agent Mike — I gotta side with Don on this one. I think Fiat is making a smart move by generating a lot of publicity about all the changes they will make. They’re trying to establish that this isn’t going to be the same old Chrysler, and that the changes are starting right away. If people know that there’s something different — and that that something has the novelty of a new (to us) Italian automaker as a factor — I think they’ll give Chrysler products a chance. — Aaron

I’m a huge fan of Chrysler. Have been for years. They’re the only cars I’ve owned for about the last 20 years. They’ve had some really good products, and some really bad ones. I guess I’ve been fortunate enough to have had the good ones, as I’ve never really had any issues with any of the Chrysler products I’ve owned.

I know there are people out there who would disagree with me, but, Chrysler really got screwed by Daimler. In spite a a few good products, like the 300, Challenger, and a couple of others, most of what came of the Daimler merger for Chrysler was a trainload of “not good.”

There are thousands of people out there who believe that changes in this business should come overnight. That simply doesn’t happen. They can, however, happen sooner than they typically do, and it sounds like Fiat is at least going to try. Change is all about perception. If they can accomplish that by logo changes and improving the quality of existing products initially, they are at least small steps in the right direction. From the sound of things, Fiat has a much bigger stake in being successful with Chrysler than Daimler ever had, so they should be really motivated to make things work.

I personally don’t care what platforms they use. Most Chrysler products were built on Mitsubishi platforms, and used Mitsu drivelines in the 80’s. Chrysler survived and kept their people largely employed. Modern Chrysler products are now to be built on Fiat platforms. If they can overcome most of the quality bugs they’ve had in the past, they should survive and most importantly, keep Americans employed.

In spite of the fact that I think Chrysler products in general are poor quality, this is a pretty exciting story. We could be viewing the birth of a new American/Italian automobile company that will bring economic prosperity to a lot of American families and a lot of smiles to peoples faces if, for example, driving the Fiat 500 is as much fun as I’ve read about.

We can all complain, and I have, about how much money we’ve poured into the auto industry, but as time has gone by both GM and Chrysler seem to be emerging with what looks like better plans for each of their futures. I hope that’s really the case too, because if not, neither will get another chance from the American people.

I sure hope Fiat does well with this. If not for anything other the well being of Chrysler employees. It kinda has me worried. Fiat, at least not in my lifetime, has never been known for their quality either. Just because they went out and bought a few other companies doesn’t make them a good brand. Hopefully that will change.

And the 500 is still an ugly little car. It reminds me of my old steel wheeled roller skates that, god forbid, you never wanted to come upon a pebble while at high speed.

I think Chrysler still has a ways to spiral down. The new Consumer Reports puts Dodge Chrysler and Jeep at 3 of the bottom 4 rankings in terms of reliability. The only products they have that have any brand cachet are the Ram pickups, and Jeep Cherokee and Wrangler. I don’t see the miracle comeback happening any time soon. I’m sure they’ll live on in some form or another for some time, but I’m just wondering if they’re not gonna drag Fiat down with them when all is said and done.

The only Dodge/Chrysler product I’d own would be one of the Ram pickups, primarily for the Cummins engine. Actually I DO own one, a 98 Ram 2400 4 x 4 with a proper manual box, damned good truck. Probably will keep it since the new diesel trucks are so unbelievably choked with emissions gear that the mileage on them has gone WAY down compared to the older models. Here is a recipe for idiocy….WAY more emissions controls-lower emissions+more fuel burned=higher operating costs+more emissions because more fuel is burned. It is a zero sum gain AND costs way WAY more. Dumb. Really really dumb. Besides which, I run bio in the old(er) truck so my emissions and particulate outputs are already way lower even than the new ones…for 1/6th the price.

Other than that, the only car in the new Fiadodslert lineup I can get all tingly about is the Fiat 500 Abarth SS and what do you want to bet that won’t be brought into the ‘States. The rest of them, nah. I was also interested in the Sprinter until I priced it and ended up purchasing the Chevy Express 1500 instead for literally 1/2 the price. Of course as soon as that van is up for replacement we’ll likely be looking at a Ford since they didn’t take the money (though if Fiat is smart and brings in a small, reasonably priced DIESEL van (ahem…cough….Ford) then that may go on the possibilities list.

Ive owned several chysler products in the past, a 90 dodge omni that was ultra reliable put 300,000 miles on that little hatchback. I was amazed at how long it lasted considering how cheaply it was screwed together. it handled and steered like a 1974 dodge ram truck though.
owned a chylser minvan that was a lemon I had so many problems with it by the time it got to 80 k miles i got rid of it. I now own a 05 dodge dakota 4×4 that has had zero problems but ive only put 30k miles on it since new. it has the most godawful cheap plastic interior.
sorry to say but i will never buy a car from a company that took government money to survive and is owned partly by the UAW. next time in the market for a vehicle it will be ford only. once these companys pay back their government loans and arent controlled by the uaw ill think about it but i question whether chysler will survive.

CHRYSLER WILL NEVER MAKE IT. THE OBAMA FIAT 500! 55% OF CHRYSLER OWNED BY UNION. The union sucked the car business dry in the U.S.

I had a great experience once with an Italian model. If Chryco can put out a few Italian models, well I say it’s all good! By the way her name was Rosa…

Don; (not Hawiian Don)

You’ve already purchased several vehicles from a company that took government money to survive. Yes, all of your previous Chrysler built vehicles. Chrysler borrowed money from the government back in the late 70’s or early 80’s to avoid bankruptcy. They rebounded and paid every red cent of it back with interest.

I’m getting sick of hearing people complain about GM and Chrysler “taking government money,” especially now that tens of thousands of Americans “took government money” in the form of Cash for Clunkers money to buy new cars, many thousands of which were nothing more than newer and very slightly more efficient versions of the vehicles they traded in.

A couple of companies the provide vital manufacturing assets to this country, and provide incomes to hundreds of thousands of tax paying Americans had to borrow some money in order to keep as many of those Americans as possible employed. Get over it.

I totally agree with Eric. All the time, people and companies are borrowing money when bad things happen to them and they need a little help to get through it. People get money from the government when they go on unemployment. Homeowners take out loans to buy houses, or fix them up, or a second mortgage when they need some extra cash. Students take out huge loans from the government to put themselves through college.

GM and Chrysler get loans from the government to get them through the worst recession in decades, and all of a sudden it’s the worst thing in the world. Obama is evil, GM=”Government Motors”, screw ‘em and let ‘em fail, etc.

Nonsense.

The auto industry keeps a huge number of people employed. Not just the factory workers and engineers, but the companies that supply them parts, the dealerships that sell and service the vehicles, many businesses in the towns where the factories are, etc. Letting the companies go under would devastate large sections of the economy.

The government is doling out money no matter what….either as unemployment checks for millions of unemployed auto-related workers, or as a loans to GM & Chrysler to get them back on their feet. The difference is that with the latter, there’s a future for those employees. The same can’t be said for the former.

Eric and ChrisF, there is a fundamental difference here in the way the auto company “bailouts” were handled compared to the way the situation played out in years past. You can NOT compare what happened here to the loans given to Chrysler in the 70’s. It started that way, then was distorted in ways no other transaction has in the history of this country. When the Bush administration agreed to give GM and Chryco bailout loans (which they never should have done), they were conventional loans with fairly conventional terms. Additional funds were subject to turn-around plans being presented and approved. When Obama came into office, that is when things changed. He did what NO other government entity has done in the history of this country. Instead of rejecting the reorganization plans and letting the companies fall into private bankruptcy, he stepped in and put in his own management by firing the CEO of one company (GM), then forced it into bankruptcy under government terms. He then essentially put Chrysler into bankruptcy and then seized and split it into chunks, giving a large chunk of the company to the unions. This move violated *fundamental* contract law which had been in place since the founding of our nation by subrogating the first in line creditors and bond holders who held legitimate loans and claims. First position lien holders and bond holders have ALWAY ALWAYS been first in line for payment in bankruptcy. That fundamental rule of business law was simply ignored. Section 8 of the Constitution states “to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization and Uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies thruout the United States”. This action was NOT uniform (which means “always the same” or consistent with bankruptcy law established and followed since the founding of this country. By definition, these actions violated the Constitution which is very clear in this matter. It also hurt innocent American citizens when their state and private pension plans who held Chrysler paper were told to go blow themselves. Those moves were patently unConstitutional, unAmerican and unprecedented. Hugo Chavez was beaming and proud on that day.

As for that sector of the economy being devastated if GM and Chryco went under so we should have bailed them out…Bull.

First of all, the MARKET should decide whether a company fails or survives. If a large swath of the auto industry fails, it is because it SHOULD have failed. Lets be honest about the REAL reason this was done. The Unions were in bad financial shape due to piss poor planning and money management. Had GM and Chryco gone into private bankruptcy, they would have been allowed to renegotiate the union contracts and obligations. The unions already were already in bad shape and were in violation of the pension reserve minimums. Only by getting ownership could they rewrite the books. It was a blatant payback to them from Obama, plain and simple. It was redistribution of wealth and a perfect example of his promise to fundamentally transform America. I’d also like to point out an inconvenient fact. If the administration was SOOO worried about keeping the money and jobs here in the U.S. and supporting the U.S. worker then why did they give a good chunk of Chryco to the Canadian auto union? Whey didn’t they subrogate them instead of state pension funds? It would have caused cries of protectionism, but it would have protected American capital. The only amusing part of having the unions own the car companies is to watch the union leadership squirm at the Chrysler Board meetings as they realize they HAVE to make pay and employment cuts, now that they actually have to RUN a business. Karma is a bitch.

Second, keeping factories, dealers, businesses, etc. who are supported by those two companies open, that is a straw man argument. That sector of the economy was and is already devastated. Many of the support firms had and have subsequently shut down anyways. If you have a monoblock business based on supplying one large firm in obvious financial trouble, you deserve to fail when the mother company fails. The bailouts had NO EFFECT on this since they didn’t add *sustainable* sales and production to the equation. The companies had already shuttered many of the factories and closed many more after being bankrupted. Uh, recession, slowdown, people buying less, it does have an effect. Most remain closed, even after the false shot in the arm the bogus “cash for clunkers” program put into the system to try to stimulate said sales and production (nobody with 1/2 a brain believes it was to “increase fuel efficiency”). So here is a logical question, why not just make that a GM/Chryco program? The other manufacturers inevitably would have responded with private programs of their own to COMPETE (you know, that nasty Capitalist notion?). As it was, much of the money went to Japanese companies with the profits leaving the country. Yeah, THAT makes sense.

Dealers? Many simply realigned with other products if they didn’t already have multiple lines. Some went under (they also should have planned ahead).

If the market had been allowed to work and GM and Chrysler had gone into bankruptcy, what would have happened? They would have finally been able to break the union stranglehold and reorganize on their own, or fail if they couldn’t figure out a way to survive. A percentage of funds would have gone back to the legitimate investors who would have then placed investment packages either in meaner leaner versions of the company, or into in new, smaller startup companies developing better ways of doing things. The workers would have gone to other companies eventually…many who were laid off have now started their own small businesses. Instead, we propped up a system which is failing. The latest report is that the government admitted we’ll never get the money paid back from the GM Bailout (well DUH!) Sales are still slow and factories are still shut. People are continuing to buy other company’s products because they are better. Chrysler is unlikely to survive without more injections. GM will likely become another Amtrak until an administration who actually understands business comes in, breaks it up and sells it off. Just as likely, we’ll end up giving GM to China since we owe them so much money. Until then, we have essentially a welfare program.

I’d like to point out that the third large domestic company DID plan ahead and are trying to do many things right. They DID introduce efficiency thru cost cutting. They diversified themselves, and are trying to bring some sanity to the pay structure. Surprise surprise, they continue in business and even turned a profit. Ford is making pay cuts and they got their own private money loans. They diversified internationally, introduced some compelling products to the market, and have emerged as the likely survivor, stronger and leaner. THAT is what the market is SUPPOSED TO DO. They made the right decisions and should have been rewarded with a much larger market share with the fall of their competitors. Instead, they have an artificially lower share even though they did thing the right way. That isn’t the way it is supposed to happen.

As for the laid off workers, nobody wants to see somebody lose their job but the truth is that most of the closed factories will likely remain closed…which they *should*. There was and is excess production capacity. This may sound harsh, but if more of those workers would come home and watch Fox Business Channel instead of Dancing with the Stars, they would have seen it coming and taken steps to protect themselves two years ago. To be fair, many did and are now out on their own with some having started their own companies (good for them!)…the rest are now on the dole, victims of gimme gimme, mine mine union think. You want to know how bad the union was, look up Work Fair.

And as for the Dole, lets be perfectly clear, the government isn’t doling out just any money, they are doling out MY money, and YOUR money and with the insane deficit spending, out Children’s and Grandchildren’s money. It belongs to US and NOT the government. I’d have much preferred to see the market work and support the workers as they realigned themselves and got themselves back on their feet. Better that than a giant socialist right to work program. People do not have the “right to work and a job”. That is Communism.

A more fundamental question is this….Have we become so soft and squishy as Americans we can’t take some pain and get thru some hard times, helping each other out on the local level? We’ve done it many times in the past and have always come out stronger for it. Violating contract law, political payback and keeping a creaky old system operating to keep the workers working is the Soviet way, NOT the American way.

You’ll find a pretty comprehensive outline of both Fiat and Alfa Romeo (owned by Fiat) models in the forum almng with earlier comments about Chrysler and Fiat. Photos of most Alfas, Fiat pending.
As to the announcement by Chrysler. A yawn that tells us that Chrysler, that has little product to sell – and even that aint exactly moving, feels no sense of urgency.
And so the slow dance has begun………

Well said Kevin.

This was the biggest political payback ever. Our tax dollars are being infused into the union coffers to pay on drained union retirement plans and into reelection accounts. Business is business, but having a politician in your pocket will make you stay in business. Chrysler is done. Fiat cannot hope to revive them with their line-up. Americans will never go for it. Jeep will live somewhere else. Dodge Ram could have made it, but Fiat doesn’t have the truck mindset that Americans want.