Fiat to create Ram brand, rush new Chrysler models

October 1, 2009 - 12: 01 am ET
MILAN/DETROIT (Reuters) -- Fiat S. p. A. will rush the first all-new
Chrysler model to the U. S. market by the end of 2011 and create a new
Ram brand for its truck line under a revival plan for Chrysler Group
that will be shown to the U. S. government this week, people involved in
the discussions said. Fiat, which assumed management control of
Chrysler under a reorganization funded by the Obama administration, is
scheduled to brief officials with the White House autos task force on
plans to revamp Chrysler's vehicle line-up.

Under the plan, Fiat will create a new Ram brand for what have been
Dodge-branded trucks, two people with knowledge of the matter said.

In addition, Fiat will bring its first all-new Chrysler product out
by the end of 2011, compressing the normal vehicle development plan, the
sources said.

That will be in addition to the Fiat 500, a subcompact that Fiat
plans to introduce to the U. S. market by late 2010. More new models will
roll out in 2012, one of the sources said.

Chrysler and Fiat had no comment.

Chrysler's nine-member board was briefed last week by Fiat and
Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne on the strategy for reviving the U. S.
automaker's vehicle line-up, according to a person with knowledge of the
plans.

Desperate need

Many analysts, suppliers and other automotive executives say
Chrysler desperately needs new vehicles after emerging from bankruptcy
with $10 billion in U. S. government financing.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch analyst John Murphy said in a closely
watched report issued in July that Chrysler could shrink to half of its
current 9 percent U. S. market share because of the slow pace of upcoming
vehicle launches.

Chrysler's prior owners, Cerberus Capital Management and Daimler
AG, had both cut investment in new vehicle programs to conserve cash
amid tumbling sales.

Partly in response, Fiat's plan for Chrysler will focus first on
investment in improving vehicle interiors, an area where Chrysler has
come under sharp criticism for trying to cut costs too aggressively.

Fiat will also revamp the mid-sized Chrysler Sebring and Dodge
Avenger sedans, reversing an earlier plan that would have scrapped those
models at the end of 2010 when a Detroit-area plant that makes the
vehicles is scheduled to close.

That decision would represent a reprieve for Chrysler's Sterling
Heights Assembly plant where hundreds of workers rallied last week in an
effort to save some 1, 200 jobs.

A trust affiliated with the United Auto Workers union owns 55
percent of Chrysler. Fiat has 20 percent but could see that share rise
to 35 percent if it meets certain targets set by the White House autos
task force.

Chrysler has said it will not discuss its product strategy until it
unveils a five-year plan in November.

By focusing on steps to bring quick improvements to Chrysler cars,
Fiat hopes to shore up sliding sales over the next two years, one of
those involved in the discussions said.

Dodge performance focus

The separation of the Ram truck brand will allow Fiat to make Dodge
more of a performance car brand, the person said. But the move could
also make it easier for Chrysler to spin off its truck business down the
road if a continuing slump forced Fiat or U. S. officials to consider
such a step.

Marchionne, who was due to appear at Chrysler headquarters on
Thursday, said earlier this week that part of his plan for Chrysler
would involve more "universal" platforms that Fiat and Chrysler could
use as the basis for a number of vehicles.

Marchionne also said there would be a future for the Dodge Avenger
and Sebring under the Fiat plan.

"They have a great future. You'll love the cars, " he said

 

October 1, 2009 - 12: 01 am ET

Two years?

It's going to take these waps two years to re-badge their Fiat
golf-carts as Chryslers?

So what will they call the existing Dodge Ram pickup truck?

The Ram Rod?

Because that's what they're doing to Chrysler. Fiat is ramming a rod
right up Chrysler's ass.

What a steaming pile of horse shit.

Chrylser was given to Fiat on a silver platter *because* Fiat could
supposedly deliver "small car technology" to Chrysler. Now we see that
Fiat has no such technology ready to transfer to Chrysler.

But that was all a smoke screen. Fiat never intended to run Chrylser as
a going concern. They are only in it to bleed Chrysler of any operating
cash it can spare for the next 2 years, and to use the existing Chrysler
dealer network to sell high-end Alfa Romeo, Lancia and Maserati models
in North America.

During the next year (2010) not much will happen. When the 2011 Detroit
auto show rolls around in January 2011, people will be scratching their
heads when they look at the Chrysler pavillion and they *don't see* any
new car models. For the rest of 2011, we'll hear how Chrysler is on the
ropes and struggling to survive, while Fiat is toiling away designing a
golf-cart - err - a small car for Chrysler. But by Q3 of 2011, Chrysler
is dead and Jeep is sold off to China and maybe India buys Ram, with
Fiat clawing into the proceeds creating a stink by the US taxpayers who
feel that they should get the money instead.

Yea, that's a smoke screen too. Fiat knows it's a waste of money to
rebadge their 500 as some kind of Dodge. Maybe if they mount a lawn
mower deck under it they can sell it at Lowes as an all-weather riding
lawnmower.

Of course they have no comment. They know it's all a joke.

If you want to revive Chrysler and keep jobs in the US/Canada, kick the
dago waps back to Sicily and bring back the LH platform.

If you want to hear more of that sucking sound, let Fiat export even
more Chrysler jobs to Mexico - and Italy!

I told you that months, years ago.

?!

What - does Fiat have too much Corinthian leather and needs to unload
some on Chrysler?

Yea, I guess Dodge just isin't well known as a performance brand. I
guess cars like Challenger, Charger, Viper are figments of my
imagination. A hemi in a pickup truck isin't an American's idea of
performance -eh?

These Eurpean idiots have no idea what utility vehicles like pickup
trucks are, or why American households want them.

Now where have we heard that before?

Remember the fiasco with Daimler? Remember how Daimler made sure that
they could stuff new Chrysler vehicles with old e-class Mercedes shit?
Now Fiat wants to do the same.

**** you Marchionne. **** you straight to hell, because that's where
you intend to send Chrysler once you're done raping it.

 

Fix
It
Again
Tomorrow



Fix
It
Again
Tony

 

Uh, hello, bankruptcy? Chrysler HAS no cash.

Maserati is already sold here. And I doubt anybody is going to buy a
Maserati at the same dealership that sells Calibers.

Did they get any from GM selling Hummer and Saab? Selling its stake
in Subaru? Dropping Pontiac and Saturn?

Check out sales of Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, Hyundai Accent, Kia Rio,
Nissan Versa, smart. Note that Mitsubishi is about to bring a small
car over here, and Ford make its European Fiesta here. GM is going to
make the Spark, a car smaller than the Aveo.

There are stricter fuel economy standards on the horizon, in case you
hadn't noticed.

Yeah, just sell big cars. That'll show the fuel mileage folks.

Heck, Tonka could improve on Chrysler interiors.

Not with Avengers, Calibers, and Nitros stinking up the brand.

Unless you're a contractor...

Perhaps tastes are changing. Pickup sales are off quite a bit.
People are realizing a 12 mpg pickup is a silly vehicle for commuting
or grocery shopping.

But with economy platforms, something Chrysler needs and Fiat has.

The alternative is Chrysler being liquidated. How can you forget what
Chrysler kept saying before and during bankruptcy? Face ir, "bringing
back LHs and making 12 mpg pickups" is a ticket to the land of
Oldsmobile and DeSoto.

 

<chop>

Get your insults correct MP - M,

Back during the great immigrant influx in the late 1800s - early
1900s, illegal immigrant Italians that were busted had the booking
form marked WOP (With Out Papers). It soon became an insult.

 

And there are new election cycles on the horizon. Not sure it will do
any good - but we can hope.

 

I stand corrected.

 

Chrysler was given a $15 billion bailout. Fiat will drain as much of
that as possible into their pockets and chalk it up to product design
and related expenses.

Daimler worked hard to drained most of Chrysler's $10 billion in cash
within a few years of acquiring it. Fiat will do the same.

Ok, but not the other brands.

As of this writing, GM hasn't yet sold Saab or Hummer, and it sold it's
stake in Subaru back in 2006 when it sold all it's shares of Fuji Heavy
Industries.

Small econo boxes are loss leaders. They don't make money. Their sole
purpose is to satisfy CAFE targets. All of the companies you mention
above make their profits by selling mid to high-end models. Chrysler
DESPERATELY needs a more economical mid and large car platform if
they're going to become profitable again. The LX platform is too heavy
and results in a truckish car, and it's too dependent on Mercedes
drivetrain and suspension components.

American car buyers are schizophrenic when it comes to their cars and
fuel economy. They fell overthemselves trying to buy the Prius when gas
was $4 a gallon, and then flocked back to their SUV's and pickup trucks
when gas went back down to $2. American families will always buy the
largest vehicle they can, because they equate size with safety and urban
security, and because they like to pack half their household stuff with
them when they take road trips.

The LH platform is a much more sane platform to base FWD and RWD mid and
large sedans on compared to the LX. The shortfall of the LX chassis is
it's size and weight, and it's primary design goal to result in an
elevated (higher-riding) car, partly because (so the theory goes) people
like to ride higher, and also because of the demands of AWD (which is a
completely assinine option for a sedan).

The LHS and 300M interior was just as good as, if not better than the
interior of the top 300C model today.

It's a red herring to say (and think) that high-performance cars must be
badged under their own division. It was true in the 1960's and it's
true today.

No car maker selling cars in the US can make money selling only compacts
or sub-compact econo boxes. The true market size for those cars is not
large, and the margins are razor thin.

Chrysler was allowed to go into bankruptcy and stiff all of it's
shareholders and creditors, especially Cerebus. It emerged with $15
billion courtesy of the US and Canadian gov'ts. It didn't need to be
merged with Fiat. It could have been run under a board and CEO and
management chosen from within US/Canada.

Chrysler *HAS* their own small concept car designs that they *DID* show
at auto shows over the past 5 - 10 years. Some are (or were) closer to
being production-ready than others.

 

Mopar,
Chyrsler has always had "chair high seating" going back to the days of
WPC himself. Keller demanded that people sit up and be able to wear a
hat,remember? My 41 Windsor sits nice and high, easy to get into and
out of. Our PTs and our present Caliber, sit high and are very
comfortable. I never liked having to bend down and feel like sitting on
the floor.

 

This NG has several people who can't handle the idea of an American iconic
brand going down the tube and having foreign shareholders who may rescue
bits of it. Fiat may not be an ideal partner but at least it is somebody.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---

 

So how come you aren't working at Chrysler?

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"

 

Don't get me started.

A lot of good people either left or were shown the door.

And were is Max Power?

 

I'm not sure WHERE this reporter got his "Dodge Brand" stuff, because
that's NOT the way the article I read in the Detroit News sounded. The
way I interpreted the situation is that rather than ONE person being in
charge of all of Dodge, now it'll be split between two persons . . . one
for cars, one for pickups and such. Forget "BRAND" management as that's
what helped kill GM!

Having a "Car Dodge" and a "Truck Dodge" manager allows each to
concentrate on the strengths of each and build upon past
accomplishments, rather than one person trying to do both. I see this
as a positive, provided they both work together to build "DODGE" rather
than their resumes.

A lot of what Fiat seems to be trying to do makes some sense. Yet, I
also see signals that some of their (what I might call) "misguided
grandeur" seems like they don't really know what they have. Same thing
happened with the sub-optimal Daimler influences of trying to make
"American Mercedes" vehicles at prices that Americans would not pay.
They added "their" parts and architectures which drove up the price of
the cars (production costs), plus their extended time proving grounds
testings was supposed to yield long-lasting and durable vehicles, but
Chrysler already had more of that than many would suspect or
acknowledge, with what they were already doing. More overhead meant
lower ultimate profits.

Their "gate" system was highly similar to what was, AND HAD BEEN IN
PLACE for many years at the Viper plant. When a quality issue arose,
the lines stopped until it was finished. Each vehicle had to pass a
"gate" for a number of areas before it could go to the next area. Yet,
when MB put it place, it was "theirs".

After driving a rental Sebring, I came to the conclusion that it DID
earn its Chrysler Wings. It, surprisingly, had what I term "Chrysler
Feel" (which is a good thing, from the torsion bar days of prior times,
before things got all "numbed-up"). It fit me as good as any other
Chrysler product did, too--another positive. Fuel economy for the 4 cyl
was outstanding, on the road, even if it was a few horsepower down from
the GM EcoTec and only had a 4-speed automatic.

Worst thing is the styling that went backward, like going from
Chrysler's 1955 to 1954 models. It seems, from the people I've seen
driving them, they remember Chrysler's new 1954 models. It's really
better than many give it credit for. Certainly does NOT look "generic
Honda"!

The worst thing Fiat is planning to do is try to upscale Chrysler models
to Cadillac level. They'd do much better by aiming at the now-forgoten
Pontiac and Oldsmobile customers and have a halo car to aim toward
Cadillac, rather than a full line. EVERY time Chrysler tried to knock
down Cadillac, it didn't work (for one reason or another--the customers
didn't notice or pay close enough attention to what was going on). Let
Chrysler stay "Chrysler" and out-Buick Buick with styling and "I WANT
ONE" orientations from the public.

When the current Chrysler 300 came out, I happened to cross paths with a
buyer of a new Chrysler 300C HEMI at the post office. He was old enough
to remember the resemblance of the cross-flags on the side of the car
being from the original Chrysler C300s. I asked him how he liked it.
He replied "Best car I've ever owned. Better than the Cadillac I
traded-in on it!" I smiled.

Forget the last Imperial concept car--period!!!!! Sometime more like we
was in the 1990s would be better, from the many outstanding Chrysler
concept cars back then. Perhaps a Firepower coupe on the Challenger
platform, with full electronic "stuff" in the interior and chassis? Aim
for $40K MSRP.

Pontiac tried to be "An American BMW" in many respects. In some
respects, it succeeded in matching BMW performance and such, but never
got past that too far. Chrysler needs to be a place for frustratred
Pontiac customers to go, plus some Oldsmobile people, too. Plus Buick
people that want more performance than a Northstar V-8 might have, plus
over-the-road handling superiority. Chrysler seems to have more of a
built-in customer base than GM does, due in part to the GREAT MOPAR
HERITAGE of performance and styling, plus economy of ownership. As
future Cadillacs more mimic BMW in size and such, Chrysler could aim for
some of the same market at a lower price point, but greater levels of
execution.

Enjoy!

C-BODY

 

It's never "one person trying to do both". There are always going to be
VP's and other managagers that control what happens with every sub-brand
or line within a given division. Makes no difference if you break apart
the cars and vans and trucks and give them their own divisions.

Dodge trucks are iconic.

Dodge car models are iconic.

You take a Dodge Ram and call it something else, you've just thrown away
years of brand identity building and marketing value.

It's window dressing.

No, it doesn't. What will save Chrysler is offering profitable sedan's
that don't look weigh 2 tons.

The following numbers are total US sales year-to-date 2009, and the
percentage change as compared to the same time period in 2008.

Clearly, sales of Ram trucks are good (as compared to other models) and
the Wrangler, Journey and Challenger are selling much better than the
industry average on a year-over-year basis.

Once you get to the -40% point (Durango to Charger) are selling worse
than the industry average. I'm surprised to see Caliber at -60%, and
Nitro at -55%. An indication that the US consumer has no desire for
small cars.

The 300 performs poorly - at -43%, but it shows that the US consumer
would rather buy a 2-ton beast of a car vs the Nitro or Caliber
econo-box.

Durango 3,416 -80%
Sebring 17,431 -72%
Aspen 5,852 -67%
Commander 8,843 -61%
PT Cruiser 16,760 -60%
Caliber 29,814 -60%
Dakota 8,894 -59%
Viper 367 -58%
Compass 10,025 -55%
Nitro 13,645 -55%
Sprinter 5,403 -52%
Avenger 27,331 -49%
Patriot 25,596 -46%
300 29,322 -43%
Charger 46,110 -43%
Liberty 32,653 -40%
Caravan 64,912 -37%
Town & Country 61,715 -35%
Grand Cherokee 39,890 -30%
Ram Pickup 143,205 -27%
Wrangler 65,045 0%
Journey 37,842 6%
Challenger 18,878 124%

Not included are models which were discontinued in 2008 - which were
Magnum, PT Cruiser convertible, Crossfire and Pacifica. The Magnum was
the first Dodge based on the LX platform (essentially a station-wagon
version of the 300). It was replaced by the Journey - which could be
why the Journey is posting a positive % change.

As far as total sales by BRAND, Jeep did best with a net change of -32%,
followed by Dodge at -37% and Chrysler at -52%.

Chrysler desperately needs better sedans, and Fiat can give it NOTHING
on that front.

Cadillac has wrecked their image with the way their cars have looked in
the last 10 years. Complete crap. Chrysler's 300N concept car that was
shown at the '2000 Detroit Auto Show could easily have competed against
Cadillac and Lincoln.

Back in the day, the 300M was very close to being a direct competitor to
the Lincoln LS.

 

Well, only on a % basis; not on a sales volume basis.

Yet they buy Civics and Corollas. Does that tell you something?

Replaced? Not really. The Journey is smaller, front-wheel drive, and
based on the same Mitsubishi platform as the Avenger, Caliber, et al.

Note the Durango and Aspen are now gone.

Anything would be better than the Sebring/Avenger. Heck, the K-cars
were better.

Because luxury car makes are so front-wheel drive these days, right?
All those fwd BMWs and Mercedes and Jaguars?

BTW, Ford is taking Lincoln downscale, more in competing with Buick.

Except one was fwd and offered a V6 and the other rwd with a V8?

 

Not at all. The Caliber interested me functionally, but as much as I
tried I just couldn't handle it's styling. So I had to pass !

 

I doubt a Magnum buyer would agree the Journey is their next vehicle.
The Journey actually replaced the shorter mini Van. The very high step
up to enter and the spare underneath confirms that.

 

And the FWD turns this potential Magnum buyer away. That was one of the
biggest attractions of the Magnum for me... that and the V8 availability.

 

I can appreciate that, they don't compare.
The Magnum and the Journey are in totally different vehicle categories,
even if they both had RWD or FWD.

 

I've had the "opportunity" to rent several Journey's. Whata cheap
looking POS. I know rental companies don't get the top of the line
vehicles but it's easy to guage the top of the line on how cheap and
poorly put together the lower lines are. The Chevy Equinox is lightyears
ahead in all aspects of the Journey.