Chrysler News: Rumorpile: Fiat Chrysler Automobiles Put A Number of Products On Delay

[Cmicasa the Great]

So back to the original story, FCA is holding up new product to in essence increase on hand cash to appear more attractive to some buyer for a merge.

 

Why would this not be a good thing for KIA or Hyundia to consider? Would give them a large portfolio and grow them much faster than trying to build their own products.

 

 

None of these makers wants to touch FCA. There is a rumor that a great deal of its books are cooked.. and that even the sales numbers that we are seeing are not always a REAL-ality.

 

FCA's only real asset is Jeep. That's it. Ferrari is spun off so I doubt it would even be a real consideration if the merger occurred. Over at Allpar some idiot actually suggested that GM would benefit from getting the LX platform.. the LX Platform!!! Goes to show U that the absolute ignorance of fanboism. I say again that the only thing that GM would benefit from would be Jeep.. and the off chance of getting Ferrari and maaaaaaaaaaybe Maserati. The latter being a big maybe as I really feel as tho that ship sailed in the 80s.. and the remnants of its cache are attached to those still stuck in that time.

 

Review:

 

Jeep: Absolutely a benefit to GM. The name is iconic.. and its vehicles are well known in the off-road community.  Would I could see is the engines being replaced by GM engines and trannys. Why pay an OE like ZF for tech that U already build yourself? On the larger front they could stand to benefit from GMC ad GM engineering in terms of powertrain and reliability

 

Fiat: No benefit to anyone.. not even Fiat. They are a money loser in the way Saab was a money loser costing way to much to make, not being able to be sold at the premium necessary to recoup cost. The benefit of Saab was that it had great engineering that worked in synergy with Opel and onward to GM.. in particular Turbos. Fiat.. NONE of that. 

 

Ferrari: GM has Corvette.. but having Ferrari and Corvette would essentially give GM the prestige that eludes the Corvette brand simply because its American and under the "every man's brand" Chevy (Should have always been a Cadillac). I wonder tho.. as GM once owned Lotus, and Ford owned Aston and Jag.. none of which ever brought any real benefits to the American brands. I am convinced that Ferrari would still be an asset as long as GM allowed it to run as it is.

 

Dodge: The only reason I'd keep Dodge is because of the demise of Pontiac and a need for Rental cars. Dodge would be that. No one wants to hear it, but at the end of the day the only vehicle that is not heavy fleet at Dodge is the Challenger. The Hellcat motor??? Nope.. Chevy has an equal engine despite it having less HP.. which I believe is a marketing ploy and for simple reasons due to a down sized blower. 

 

Ram: I would keep it for the sake of current Ram buyers. That's it. It offers no benefit over the Silvy/Sierra other than price. The diesel??? Seriously if GM wanted to put a diesel in their 1500 it would be there. I could see it being left  in play for about a gen or two.. but at some point someone is gonna come along and say "WTF are we selling 3 Pick-Up brands trucks for?"

 

Chrysler: I'm sorry. This one is around strictly for the sake of Mopar fans. I could see the name continuing so there is no back-lash ala Pontiac, but the dealership count would drop by 60%. Seriously.. why have Chrysler when U have BUICK.. which is selling 1.2Million + globally?

 

Alfa: ??? Another money loser and like Lancia would be a regional brand pretty much exclusive to Italy. 

 

Abarth, SRT, and Mopar would continue in their own functions for the brands they are currently assigned

 

Benefit to FCA??? Survival. Currently Fiat is about $14 Billion in debt that we kno of. I could easily see GM merging the assets but Bankrupting Fiat in Europe. The majority of Fiat there is in a losing competition with Opel. 

 

Chrylser fans will balk at what I'm saying from their own Fanboi and enthusiastic reasoning.. but from a business stand point what I'm saying is true. Well actually the truth is that GM really doesn't need any of this as they really should be working on their own issues with expanding Cadillac . The Jeep thing could be summed up with a revisit to the Hummer line, with a slight bit less ostentatious approach via GMC. Having the GMC professional grade branding with true off-road capable vehicles.. which existed within Hummer would make the Jeep commentary null. In that situation a line-up with a returned H3, H3T, a smaller H4, and a simple Coloroa/Canyon ZR2 based SUV the size of the GC would make my point even more valid, because in reality the pick-of the litter at Jeep is pretty much the GC, the Cherokee, and the Wrangler

[Stew]

That whole post is a load of BS and you know it Casa.  Again, just making things up and downing an automaker you do not like.  Funny you have completely ignored the fact they are putting the energy into getting new powertrains up and running, sucks when your theory is full of holes idoesn't it?

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

 

 

You are certainly the one on the short bus.  Go back to loving GM and ignoring their faults........  like you always do (seriously, you are like the GM version of wings when it comes to GM). In respect to Drew I am done with you, you have lready made a big enough fool of yourself with your pro GM, anti-everything else attitude.....

 

 

Put me on your ignore list... I won't do the same. I like reading foolish commentary by people who swear to be holier than thou.. and non-biased, while at the same time.. holding a company as effed up as Fix it Again Tony high up on the latter of greatness. 

 

I constantly pull GM out about their faults.. the existing cars are very seldom their issue.. its the ones they choose to forego... markets they choose to ignore.  

 

The Malibu might be their biggest screw up in recent history.. and even that car is still at least 5th on the market. Its biggest flaw??? The rear seat room. An issue that I have " no dog in that fight."

 

The ELR??? Awesome car, but over priced for essentially a two seater. Issue with car? NONE.

 

ATS and CTS sales??? Well lets see. The CTS sees a drop in sales from last Gen after a major price hike and a drop of variations. How much of a drop? About 40%. How much of a percentage did the Coupe and VSeries account for? About 40%. Wagon was a bonus. ATS needs the same CArs that it competes with are brands in and of themselves in variation. 

 

casa,

hold on, the CTS sold with an avg incentive last year (2014) of $9,213 and this year kicked off with a $3K price drop and $2,200 worth of options now offered for free (per link below).  Combined with the V and V-Sport series being offered this year, it still saw a 38% drop last month, one of GM's best months in a long while.  

 

And the ATS has always, from it's first full year, needed large incentives to move in volumes that are not exactly note worthy either.  And it too has V series variations as well.   So you need new excuses for their sales numbers, especially with the entire brand down 6.5% last year, where the segment was up significantly for most others.

 

http://www.autonews.com/article/20150107/RETAIL/150109928/cadillac-drops-price-on-cts-sedan-by-up-to-$3000

 

 

 

 

No offense Wings.. The portion on Cadillac was directed at another poster in response to him saying that I was ignorant or ignoring GM faults. I followed with the issues currently prevalent.. If U wish to have a Cadillac sales argument.. then go into one of the Cadillac threads. 

 

Let's stay on topic.. and talk about FCA

 

OK, and agreed

[Cmicasa the Great]

That whole post is a load of BS and you know it Casa.  Again, just making things up and downing an automaker you do not like.  Funny you have completely ignored the fact they are putting the energy into getting new powertrains up and running, sucks when your theory is full of holes idoesn't it?

 

 

What are U referring to? My post above was more relative to the almost stalker-ish attitude of Sergio regarding GM marry him. U failed.. again.. to address what was written. Everything I wrote can be reconciled and seen from the view points of countless analysts, insiders, and business folk.

 

I ask U... What does GM stand to benefit from a MERGER with FCA other that the things I pointed out?? And Wouldn't it be cheaper simply to add those things to the existing portfolio via itself? 

 

Corvette could be expanded and given its own brand.. WITH a next tier level of luxury due  to its brand heritage both on and off the track. GM also has Cadillac which it could, like Mercedes, simply offer a "super-car" based off their own engineering. (That one I this is actually coming. )

 

GMC. This is one of the most profitable makes on the planet. It takes almost zero engineering to make.. and on top of that people don't mind seeming paying the premium over the donor brand. It is actually more premium than Jeep, and on the upper echelon (Denali) some what competitive with Land Rover (I did say "some what.") To top it off.. Hummer was competitive with Land Rover, and GM still holds the rights to the brand. They have the engineering. The H3 was a capable, if not more so in off-roading than the Wrangler. The H4 was on its way and ready to go before the slashing of brands. Brand perception due to the ostentatious of HUMMER aside.. the engineering to have a Jeep competitor, with little investment dollars exists within GMC/Hummer. They wouldn't even have to market it as Hummer by itself. They could simply call it GMC and tag it the GMC "H2" Hummer, like the do the GMC "Yukon" Denali.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

That whole post is a load of BS and you know it Casa.  Again, just making things up and downing an automaker you do not like.  Funny you have completely ignored the fact they are putting the energy into getting new powertrains up and running, sucks when your theory is full of holes idoesn't it?

A bit hypocritical of you stew.

You have done far worse regarding Ford.  Far, far worse.

[Stew]

 

That whole post is a load of BS and you know it Casa.  Again, just making things up and downing an automaker you do not like.  Funny you have completely ignored the fact they are putting the energy into getting new powertrains up and running, sucks when your theory is full of holes idoesn't it?

A bit hypocritical of you stew.

You have done far worse regarding Ford.  Far, far worse.

 

Nope, I actually stick o the facts, not speculation.  And my opinion, not speculation.  Casa is spewing a lot of speculation when there really is nothing to back it up and he isn't remotely respectful.  And I give Ford and GM props, when deserved, as i do FCA.  SAeriously, Casa is the only guy I know so obsessed with GM he gets banned from GM sites, wait, what????   And I think it is totally hilarious that you 2 are taking each other's side, at least i haven't badmouthed you in PMs.......

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

 

 

You are certainly the one on the short bus.  Go back to loving GM and ignoring their faults........  like you always do (seriously, you are like the GM version of wings when it comes to GM). In respect to Drew I am done with you, you have lready made a big enough fool of yourself with your pro GM, anti-everything else attitude.....

 

 

Put me on your ignore list... I won't do the same. I like reading foolish commentary by people who swear to be holier than thou.. and non-biased, while at the same time.. holding a company as effed up as Fix it Again Tony high up on the latter of greatness. 

 

I constantly pull GM out about their faults.. the existing cars are very seldom their issue.. its the ones they choose to forego... markets they choose to ignore.  

 

The Malibu might be their biggest screw up in recent history.. and even that car is still at least 5th on the market. Its biggest flaw??? The rear seat room. An issue that I have " no dog in that fight."

 

The ELR??? Awesome car, but over priced for essentially a two seater. Issue with car? NONE.

 

ATS and CTS sales??? Well lets see. The CTS sees a drop in sales from last Gen after a major price hike and a drop of variations. How much of a drop? About 40%. How much of a percentage did the Coupe and VSeries account for? About 40%. Wagon was a bonus. ATS needs the same CArs that it competes with are brands in and of themselves in variation. 

 

casa,

hold on, the CTS sold with an avg incentive last year (2014) of $9,213 and this year kicked off with a $3K price drop and $2,200 worth of options now offered for free (per link below).  Combined with the V and V-Sport series being offered this year, it still saw a 38% drop last month, one of GM's best months in a long while.  

 

And the ATS has always, from it's first full year, needed large incentives to move in volumes that are not exactly note worthy either.  And it too has V series variations as well.   So you need new excuses for their sales numbers, especially with the entire brand down 6.5% last year, where the segment was up significantly for most others.

 

http://www.autonews.com/article/20150107/RETAIL/150109928/cadillac-drops-price-on-cts-sedan-by-up-to-$3000

 

 

 

 

No offense Wings.. The portion on Cadillac was directed at another poster in response to him saying that I was ignorant or ignoring GM faults. I followed with the issues currently prevalent.. If U wish to have a Cadillac sales argument.. then go into one of the Cadillac threads. 

 

Let's stay on topic.. and talk about FCA

 

OK, and agreed

 

 

 

 

Thanks. If U notice even I have toned down my ways in an effort to kill the BS. Arguing with that *** Stew aside.. I am trying to keep this place devoid of the silly BS that we experienced at MT/AWCC and CF. The real deal is that we are all about a decade older, and despite our love of certain brands, for me.. logic is the direction from which I will make my arguments. Some will say that my support of GM-only in my driveway is an example of me being illogical, but to that I say why? For me.. GM has the qualities I enjoy in an automaker. 

 

1) Reliability: I have had little to no issues with my GM vehicles. I have had no issue such as I had with my Toyotas, Mazda, Nissans, BMW, or even the Benz I once owned but won't admit to.

 

2) Styling: Some may not notice but I have been a fan of GM styling more so since Ed Welburn took over. At this point I think that his team designs the best looking cars on the road with few exceptions per segment. 

 

3) Performance: For me the performance from the factory on the GM vehicles is absolutely top notch. Add to that the ability to easily tune them.. and reliably so.. and to me I have a winner.

 

4) Cost: I am well-off, but I still look for an overall bargain. For me.. a Cadillac is superior or on par with anything from BMW or Benz that it ACTUALLY competes, with better styling, and better reliability. Same thing for Corvette vs a comparable Porsche, GTR, or Viper. For a daily driver what is really that much better than the Impala in its price range? The Avalon is ugly IMO.. the Taurus, while nice, isn't as great a handler, the Azera??? Hell no . It would take another another level of segment to make me happier than what my Impala brings. I mean it is basically an XTS underneath. Same thing goes for my Yukon

 

5) American: There are only two manufacturers I would consider right now anyway.. for my principals. GM or Ford. To me Chrysler is not an American company. On top of that they only have a few vehicles I find attractive in the Challenger, Grand Cherokee, Ram and Viper. Each one of those has a competitor to choose from via GM or Ford in the Camaro/Mustang, Acadia/Explorer, Silvy/Sierra/F150, and Corvette. 

[Stew]

 

That whole post is a load of BS and you know it Casa.  Again, just making things up and downing an automaker you do not like.  Funny you have completely ignored the fact they are putting the energy into getting new powertrains up and running, sucks when your theory is full of holes idoesn't it?

 

 

What are U referring to? My post above was more relative to the almost stalker-ish attitude of Sergio regarding GM marry him. U failed.. again.. to address what was written. Everything I wrote can be reconciled and seen from the view points of countless analysts, insiders, and business folk.

 

I ask U... What does GM stand to benefit from a MERGER with FCA other that the things I pointed out?? And Wouldn't it be cheaper simply to add those things to the existing portfolio via itself? 

 

Corvette could be expanded and given its own brand.. WITH a next tier level of luxury due  to its brand heritage both on and off the track. GM also has Cadillac which it could, like Mercedes, simply offer a "super-car" based off their own engineering. (That one I this is actually coming. )

 

GMC. This is one of the most profitable makes on the planet. It takes almost zero engineering to make.. and on top of that people don't mind seeming paying the premium over the donor brand. It is actually more premium than Jeep, and on the upper echelon (Denali) some what competitive with Land Rover (I did say "some what.") To top it off.. Hummer was competitive with Land Rover, and GM still holds the rights to the brand. They have the engineering. The H3 was a capable, if not more so in off-roading than the Wrangler. The H4 was on its way and ready to go before the slashing of brands. Brand perception due to the ostentatious of HUMMER aside.. the engineering to have a Jeep competitor, with little investment dollars exists within GMC/Hummer. They wouldn't even have to market it as Hummer by itself. They could simply call it GMC and tag it the GMC "H2" Hummer, like the do the GMC "Yukon" Denali.

 

I think it would be a horrible merger and IF that is what he is thinking, it is a bad idea.  now, a tech exchange could make total sense.  Working together on future tech makes sense, but they overlap WAY too much to make good merger partners.  I also can't really understand what EITHER weould gain.  they both have popular models.  FCA needs no help with large cars or SUVs.  Maybe FCA could benefit from access to the Alpha platform for an interim pony (but please FCA keep the Challenger the large GT car it is!) while GM could benefit from Jeeps line, especially the platform under the Grand cherokee/Durango.  they both have decent eninges in V6 and V8 ranges, but BOTH need work on their 4 cylinders.  Reall, there isn't much to make such a merger make sense.

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

That whole post is a load of BS and you know it Casa.  Again, just making things up and downing an automaker you do not like.  Funny you have completely ignored the fact they are putting the energy into getting new powertrains up and running, sucks when your theory is full of holes idoesn't it?

A bit hypocritical of you stew.

You have done far worse regarding Ford.  Far, far worse.

 

Nope, I actually stick o the facts, not speculation.  And my opinion, not speculation.  Casa is spewing a lot of speculation when there really is nothing to back it up and he isn't remotely respectful.  And I give Ford and GM props, when deserved, as i do FCA.  SAeriously, Casa is the only guy I know so obsessed with GM he gets banned from GM sites, wait, what????   And I think it is totally hilarious that you 2 are taking each other's side, at least i haven't badmouthed you in PMs.......

 

 

 

I bad mouth Wings to his fat ass Greek face. He knows it. He comes back with a thick-skinned approach that I respect. We are not "besties" but we are both THICK-SKINNED. 

 

Me getting banned from GMI was because I supposedly went against their cardinal rule of badmouthing GM and arguing with some of their founding members. My reputation at the time preceded me and they figured I was a loose cannon. LOL.. as U are talking to Wings who was banned from FIN.. 

 

As for my speculation I am only speaking of the possibilities of a GM-FCA merger.. which the entire business/automotive world is as well. 

[Stew]

Casa, let's try this, I am willing to start again and forget the previous battle royale, the only thing I ask is that when you state your opinions, particularly about FCA, use some tact and not just utter insults, I mean you are saying you are wanting to turn over a new leaf here, right?

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

That whole post is a load of BS and you know it Casa.  Again, just making things up and downing an automaker you do not like.  Funny you have completely ignored the fact they are putting the energy into getting new powertrains up and running, sucks when your theory is full of holes idoesn't it?

 

 

What are U referring to? My post above was more relative to the almost stalker-ish attitude of Sergio regarding GM marry him. U failed.. again.. to address what was written. Everything I wrote can be reconciled and seen from the view points of countless analysts, insiders, and business folk.

 

I ask U... What does GM stand to benefit from a MERGER with FCA other that the things I pointed out?? And Wouldn't it be cheaper simply to add those things to the existing portfolio via itself? 

 

Corvette could be expanded and given its own brand.. WITH a next tier level of luxury due  to its brand heritage both on and off the track. GM also has Cadillac which it could, like Mercedes, simply offer a "super-car" based off their own engineering. (That one I this is actually coming. )

 

GMC. This is one of the most profitable makes on the planet. It takes almost zero engineering to make.. and on top of that people don't mind seeming paying the premium over the donor brand. It is actually more premium than Jeep, and on the upper echelon (Denali) some what competitive with Land Rover (I did say "some what.") To top it off.. Hummer was competitive with Land Rover, and GM still holds the rights to the brand. They have the engineering. The H3 was a capable, if not more so in off-roading than the Wrangler. The H4 was on its way and ready to go before the slashing of brands. Brand perception due to the ostentatious of HUMMER aside.. the engineering to have a Jeep competitor, with little investment dollars exists within GMC/Hummer. They wouldn't even have to market it as Hummer by itself. They could simply call it GMC and tag it the GMC "H2" Hummer, like the do the GMC "Yukon" Denali.

 

I think it would be a horrible merger and IF that is what he is thinking, it is a bad idea.  now, a tech exchange could make total sense.  Working together on future tech makes sense, but they overlap WAY too much to make good merger partners.  I also can't really understand what EITHER weould gain.  they both have popular models.  FCA needs no help with large cars or SUVs.  Maybe FCA could benefit from access to the Alpha platform for an interim pony (but please FCA keep the Challenger the large GT car it is!) while GM could benefit from Jeeps line, especially the platform under the Grand cherokee/Durango.  they both have decent eninges in V6 and V8 ranges, but BOTH need work on their 4 cylinders.  Reall, there isn't much to make such a merger make sense.

 

 

 

 

Working together on future tech doesn't require a merger. Ford and GM.. Toyota and BMW.. to name a few are working on future tech without any talk of mergers. Collaborative efforts are thru out the industry. merger is never brought up. Sergio wants consolidation of the industry. It would be his swan song and that's it. He has an ego.. and it would be his contribution. The problem is that he should have applied for the job of CEO of GM back in 2009.. instead of continuing at Fiat. He could have then had an easier time doing this. The issue from GM's point of view is that if it wanted FCA's market share.. it could do so without FCA. It really wouldn't be hard outside of Jeep, and they do have enough cash on hand to actually buy if if it was put up. 

[Stew]

that is what i am saying, no merger needed, just tech exchange.  I think marchione may have outlived his usefulness at this point and it is time to retire (as much as Goshn from Nissan).   You have to admit though, FCA, at least in the chrysler divisions, has some nice tech. 

Edited June 10, 2015 by Stew

[Cmicasa the Great]

Casa, let's try this, I am willing to start again and forget the previous battle royale, the only thing I ask is that when you state your opinions, particularly about FCA, use some tact and not just utter insults, I mean you are saying you are wanting to turn over a new leaf here, right?

 

 

Battle Royale?? Dude..  I hardly see U.

 

But for the sake of the new forum.. and MY desire to have peace here.. but if U want to Battle Royal.. .. with me.. let's go back to MT...

 

Edited June 10, 2015 by Cmicasa the Great

[Stew]

MT is still a mess lol.  Anyways, ultimate goal, what would prefer to happen?  Not talking mergers, but overall.

 

IMHO, someone needs to get the core chrysler brands, their sales keep rising and they have good product.  the remaining Fiat brands are just holding everything back.  Thoughts?

[El Kabong]

What FCA has is Ram, Jeep, the Hemi, the LX platform, possibly the 200... and that's about it.

Notice which side of the Atlantic this all comes from?

Really, nobody's issue here is with the product (especially me, clearly). But the finances behind the product are frankly kinda terrifying. I applaud Mopar in particular for making lots of sales with some unconventional engine and tech options, and mostly in an inexpensive fashion. But exactly how long can they keep that up? At some point you need cash, and lots of it. And when your European operations are a financial black hole, the money's gonna flow there to prop them up first.

I used to tell Vexner that my worst nightmare was Fiat doing a Cerberus-style cash drain on Mopar. I fear it may well begin to happen in earnest, and soon, if the European operations aren't cut away or restructured.

[Cmicasa the Great]

that is what i am saying, no merger needed, just tech exchange.  I think marchione may have outlived his usefulness at this point and it is time to retire (as much as Goshn from Nissan).   You have to admit though, FCA, at least in the chrysler divisions, has some nice tech. 

 

 

Where?? Seriously. Give examples. Even better. Give examples that GM doesn't have already. 

[El Kabong]

I'll tell you right now that the air suspension and EcoDiesel were two of the key decisions in buying my truck, man. GM is certainly CAPABLE of doing both. But the problem is, they haven't. They need a bit more imagination that way.

[Cmicasa the Great]

What FCA has is Ram, Jeep, the Hemi, the LX platform, possibly the 200... and that's about it.

Notice which side of the Atlantic this all comes from?

Really, nobody's issue here is with the product (especially me, clearly). But the finances behind the product are frankly kinda terrifying. I applaud Mopar in particular for making lots of sales with some unconventional engine and tech options, and mostly in an inexpensive fashion. But exactly how long can they keep that up? At some point you need cash, and lots of it. And when your European operations are a financial black hole, the money's gonna flow there to prop them up first.

I used to tell Vexner that my worst nightmare was Fiat doing a Cerberus-style cash drain on Mopar. I fear it may well begin to happen in earnest, and soon, if the European operations aren't cut away or restructured.

 

 

I'm still failing to see where the LX platform would be beneficiary for GM who has ZETA, it could dust off, Alpha.. and Omega.  Jeep is an asset. Ram??? Only because of existing owners. What again was your reasoning behind buying this over a Silvy/Sierra? The only two I can think of is U liked the "18 Wheeler" styling more, the avail Diesel, and/or the price being cheaper than the GM or Ford counterpart

 

Their tech??? As it stands the only real thing that FCA has going into the upcoming CAFE mandate is the Fiat 500E.. which isn't gonna offset $h!

 

 

Cerberus-Style?? I'm thinking Daimler style.. with this time instead of being left with better platforms with the LX and W166 from Benz.. this time it gets better interiors.

[Stew]

Casa, I never said anthing about GM...............  And whether GM has it or not isn't m point.  Tough, here we o:

 

Jeep's of-road tech, especially that found in the Cherokee and Renegade that takes them from you average CUV wallflower to actual off-road machines.  I read a Umor hat GMC is getting a version o the Trax/Encore, wouldn't it be nice if they had this tech to differentiate them?

 

SRT performance pages.  I think the 16 Camaro may be getting something like this, but they have had it for nearly a decade.

 

TFT guage clusters:  If i am not mistaken, these were in the Dart a bit before GM even had them in a Cadillac.

 

Uconnect:  Chevy's Mylink is FINALL close, but the basic Chrysle UConnect blows CUE away

 

Chrysler was successfully using DOD tech before GM (sorry, the old 4/6/8 350 doesn't count as it was a disaster)

 

The GC/Durango RWD based unibody platform.  Would rather see this in GMC than a version  of what Chevy/buick offers.

 

A successful minivan

 

just a few things that come to mind.

[Cmicasa the Great]

Edit: I see U answered my reason why U bought. Air suspension and Ecodiesel. U and I will agree that not only do GM and Ford have the ability to do both... but neither are a reason to want to merge with FCA and their plethora of MORE problems.

[Drew Dowdell]

Excuse me, they used tarp money that had been put in an escrow fund IN CASE they needed it.  Wouldn't the best thing had been to return that to the overnment as funds that were not needed and then use their profit to pay back the loan portion?

 

That's... exactly what happened. 

 

Numbers rounded for simplicity:

They got $50 billion of TARP money

$40 billion was converted to equity that the government owned.

The remaining $10 billion was considered a loan that GM would have to pay back.

About $7 billion of that $10 billion balance was held in escrow to be used only if GM really needed it.

GM paid back a couple billion from their earnings.

GM decided they didn't need the rest of the loan, so returned the remaining TARP money back to the government, thus paying off the loan part of the TARP.

[El Kabong]

Edit: I see U answered my reason why U bought. Air suspension and Ecodiesel. U and I will agree that not only do GM and Ford have the ability to do both... but neither are a reason to want to merge with FCA and their plethora of MORE problems.

Ya, and I want to clarify that as well: NO WAY SHOULD GM DO THIS MERGER. It would just create massive redundancies for them. Except possibly for Jeep-and that only because it has better brand goodwill than Hummer did.

[Drew Dowdell]

Love the RAM with air suspension!

[Stew]

 

Excuse me, they used tarp money that had been put in an escrow fund IN CASE they needed it.  Wouldn't the best thing had been to return that to the overnment as funds that were not needed and then use their profit to pay back the loan portion?

 

That's... exactly what happened. 

 

Numbers rounded for simplicity:

They got $50 billion of TARP money

$40 billion was converted to equity that the government owned.

The remaining $10 billion was considered a loan that GM would have to pay back.

About $7 billion of that $10 billion balance was held in escrow to be used only if GM really needed it.

GM paid back a couple billion from their earnings.

GM decided they didn't need the rest of the loan, so returned the remaining TARP money back to the government, thus paying off the loan part of the TARP.

 

Maybe it is just confusion, but from what I read in a few articles last night was that what wsas in Escrow was part of wha was given to GM and not part of the loan. 

[G. David Felt]

Some will say I am nuts, there is always room for more auto makers, but I see a glut still in the autoworld and especially with manufacturing. There are auto lines that had their day and it is time for them to go into the sunset of being in the history books.

 

FIAT is one of many auto lines that just needs to die, but for the Union hard Italy, they will be hard to close down as they are debt loaded and the unions will protest to the govs to save there jobs even though the best thing would be for them to shutdown.

 

Best thing FCA could do is not spend the billions they have stated on failed badges that have no market share and do not need to come back.Alfa Romeo is a perfect example. I know we have threads on their concepts but this horse is ready for the glue factory and the concepts put into viable product lines where the cost can be spread over various other products also.

 

I see the points Casa makes about merging with GM, but I think GM would pass on this and as I have stated here over the last few years, makes more sense for GMC to have a Jeep competitor by using the Hummer as a package that goes on existing products. You want a Wangler, then GMC H4, you want a ram competitor to their power wagon, then GMC pickup with a Hummer package. They could really market and make extra money off of having packages that give the hummer capabilities to the GMC products.

 

Who ever even the Koreans if they merged with FCA would do wise to kill off week products and merge the best products into a single line. I could actually see Hyundia taking over FCA, killing the stupid Fiat line, Alfa Romeo line and then merging the few best products from Dodge / Chrysler into one family name line. I love the 300 but have to say that I think the company is long in the tooth and lost their identity after so many failed marriages.

 

Hyundai, Dodge, Ram, Jeep, Maserati, and after an assessment maybe flip other dealers in other markets to select brands only.

 

It could be done but the closure of manufacturing and the loss of money bleeding fiat would cause riots in Italy and europe even though it makes business sense. I doubt any company has the guts to do the right thing in a merger and clean house the way it needs to be done.

[Cmicasa the Great]

Casa, I never said anthing about GM...............  And whether GM has it or not isn't m point.  Tough, here we o:

 

Jeep's of-road tech, especially that found in the Cherokee and Renegade that takes them from you average CUV wallflower to actual off-road machines.  I read a Umor hat GMC is getting a version o the Trax/Encore, wouldn't it be nice if they had this tech to differentiate them?

 

SRT performance pages.  I think the 16 Camaro may be getting something like this, but they have had it for nearly a decade.

 

TFT guage clusters:  If i am not mistaken, these were in the Dart a bit before GM even had them in a Cadillac.

 

Uconnect:  Chevy's Mylink is FINALL close, but the basic Chrysle UConnect blows CUE away

 

Chrysler was successfully using DOD tech before GM (sorry, the old 4/6/8 350 doesn't count as it was a disaster)

 

The GC/Durango RWD based unibody platform.  Would rather see this in GMC than a version  of what Chevy/buick offers.

 

A successful minivan

 

just a few things that come to mind.

 

 

1) Jeeps Off Road:  

 

I still present Hummer. I present the system in the Encore. I present the system in the Trailblazer abroad

 

2) SRT Performance pages??? The only thing that the SRT performance pages has that the GM interface doesn't is the Red and Black key.

 

3) I have TFT guages in my Stingray. They are in Cadillac and in the 2016 Camaro. They are said to be going thru-out after 2016 MY

 

4) The UI systems are debatable. I thing that UConnect is simple but not better by any means.

 

5) Chrysler's Multi-Displacement is not better than GM DOD/AFM. That being sais. . we are debating BENEFITS not present at GM already. I could debate that GM had the first auto-starter, but how is that relevant?

 

6) In regards to the Unibody. That is debatable.. and again.. not hard for GM to yank from its vastness

 

7) Minivan??? U don;t wanna kno my thoughts on minivans. Find Vexner and ask him. Frankly GM has minivans already here.. they just lack the sliding door and sissiness of it all. They are called Enclave, Acadia, and Traverse

 

 

Again.. where are the technologies that are beneficial in a MERGER for GM?

 

Excuse me, they used tarp money that had been put in an escrow fund IN CASE they needed it.  Wouldn't the best thing had been to return that to the overnment as funds that were not needed and then use their profit to pay back the loan portion?

 

That's... exactly what happened. 

 

Numbers rounded for simplicity:

They got $50 billion of TARP money

$40 billion was converted to equity that the government owned.

The remaining $10 billion was considered a loan that GM would have to pay back.

About $7 billion of that $10 billion balance was held in escrow to be used only if GM really needed it.

GM paid back a couple billion from their earnings.

GM decided they didn't need the rest of the loan, so returned the remaining TARP money back to the government, thus paying off the loan part of the TARP.

 

 

 

Exactly. I would have done the same thing. $10Billion made interest. Pay it back.. and keep the interest. Good business

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

Excuse me, they used tarp money that had been put in an escrow fund IN CASE they needed it.  Wouldn't the best thing had been to return that to the overnment as funds that were not needed and then use their profit to pay back the loan portion?

 

That's... exactly what happened. 

 

Numbers rounded for simplicity:

They got $50 billion of TARP money

$40 billion was converted to equity that the government owned.

The remaining $10 billion was considered a loan that GM would have to pay back.

About $7 billion of that $10 billion balance was held in escrow to be used only if GM really needed it.

GM paid back a couple billion from their earnings.

GM decided they didn't need the rest of the loan, so returned the remaining TARP money back to the government, thus paying off the loan part of the TARP.

 

Maybe it is just confusion, but from what I read in a few articles last night was that what was in Escrow was part of what was given to GM and not part of the loan. 

 

 

From FactCheck.org - 

 

"GM simply handed back TARP money it had been lent and hadn’t used. Those funds had been sitting in an escrow account, should the automaker need them. (The company didn’t borrow new money to pay back an older loan.)"

[Stew]

 

Casa, I never said anthing about GM...............  And whether GM has it or not isn't m point.  Tough, here we o:

 

Jeep's of-road tech, especially that found in the Cherokee and Renegade that takes them from you average CUV wallflower to actual off-road machines.  I read a Umor hat GMC is getting a version o the Trax/Encore, wouldn't it be nice if they had this tech to differentiate them?

 

SRT performance pages.  I think the 16 Camaro may be getting something like this, but they have had it for nearly a decade.

 

TFT guage clusters:  If i am not mistaken, these were in the Dart a bit before GM even had them in a Cadillac.

 

Uconnect:  Chevy's Mylink is FINALL close, but the basic Chrysle UConnect blows CUE away

 

Chrysler was successfully using DOD tech before GM (sorry, the old 4/6/8 350 doesn't count as it was a disaster)

 

The GC/Durango RWD based unibody platform.  Would rather see this in GMC than a version  of what Chevy/buick offers.

 

A successful minivan

 

just a few things that come to mind.

 

 

1) Jeeps Off Road:  

 

I still present Hummer. I present the system in the Encore. I present the system in the Trailblazer abroad

 

2) SRT Performance pages??? The only thing that the SRT performance pages has that the GM interface doesn't is the Red and Black key.

 

3) I have TFT guages in my Stingray. They are in Cadillac and in the 2016 Camaro. They are said to be going thru-out after 2016 MY

 

4) The UI systems are debatable. I thing that UConnect is simple but not better by any means.

 

5) Chrysler's Multi-Displacement is not better than GM DOD/AFM. That being sais. . we are debating BENEFITS not present at GM already. I could debate that GM had the first auto-starter, but how is that relevant?

 

6) In regards to the Unibody. That is debatable.. and again.. not hard for GM to yank from its vastness

 

7) Minivan??? U don;t wanna kno my thoughts on minivans. Find Vexner and ask him. Frankly GM has minivans already here.. they just lack the sliding door and sissiness of it all. They are called Enclave, Acadia, and Traverse

 

 

Again.. where are the technologies that are beneficial in a MERGER for GM?

 

Excuse me, they used tarp money that had been put in an escrow fund IN CASE they needed it.  Wouldn't the best thing had been to return that to the overnment as funds that were not needed and then use their profit to pay back the loan portion?

 

That's... exactly what happened. 

 

Numbers rounded for simplicity:

They got $50 billion of TARP money

$40 billion was converted to equity that the government owned.

The remaining $10 billion was considered a loan that GM would have to pay back.

About $7 billion of that $10 billion balance was held in escrow to be used only if GM really needed it.

GM paid back a couple billion from their earnings.

GM decided they didn't need the rest of the loan, so returned the remaining TARP money back to the government, thus paying off the loan part of the TARP.

 

 

 

Exactly. I would have done the same thing. $10Billion made interest. Pay it back.. and keep the interest. Good business

 

I was just stating products that FCA developed FIRST.  I am not saying either is better or worse, and i have not seen anything like performance pages in a GM product (talking the 0-60, 1/4 timers, G meters, etc, etc.  i guess they could have been in the last CTS-V or later Corvettes, but CHrysler has had them loner.  And I said the merger was a bad idea, never argued that, just your total bashing of an automaker you don't like.  Quit trying to push this into another argument........

[smk4565]

Ferrari has an IPO coming, they are selling that off and the Ferrari family still has stake also.  So that won't be part of any FCA merger.

 

Jeep is the prize, the one thing that really has value.  Ram trucks only has value to someone that doesn't make pick ups, but wants to. 

 

For GM to do this deal, the Chrysler 200 and Town and Country would move to Buick, the 200 becomes the Regal.  The Chrysler 300 could be turned into a Park Avenue for the short term until they kill the LX platform.  Chrysler brand dies.

 

Dodge would stay with the Dart, Charger, Chalenger and a new Avenger based off the Dart/200 platform.  They can sell to rental fleets, police car fleets, or young people that want a sporty car.  Ram trucks continue with the commercial vans and pickups.

 

GMC trucks would have to die, the Canyon would become the new Ram Dakota.  Yukon could be transformed into a Grand Wagoneer.

[Drew Dowdell]

Ferrari has an IPO coming, they are selling that off and the Ferrari family still has stake also.  So that won't be part of any FCA merger.

 

Jeep is the prize, the one thing that really has value.  Ram trucks only has value to someone that doesn't make pick ups, but wants to. 

 

For GM to do this deal, the Chrysler 200 and Town and Country would move to Buick, the 200 becomes the Regal.  The Chrysler 300 could be turned into a Park Avenue for the short term until they kill the LX platform.  Chrysler brand dies.

 

Dodge would stay with the Dart, Charger, Chalenger and a new Avenger based off the Dart/200 platform.  They can sell to rental fleets, police car fleets, or young people that want a sporty car.  Ram trucks continue with the commercial vans and pickups.

 

GMC trucks would have to die, the Canyon would become the new Ram Dakota.  Yukon could be transformed into a Grand Wagoneer.

 

Utter insanity from an armchair CEO.  You really have no clue where the profit is do you?

 

Chrysler brand with only 3 models sells almost as many vehicles in the US as Volkswagen with 12+ models. 

 

GMC is a huge profit center for GM.  People who buy GMCs usually specifically seek them out over their Chevrolet versions. 25% of all GMC sales are Denali trim when a Denali trim is available.  The Denali trim alone outsells the entirety of Jaguar/Land Rover.  If you are a CEO and people are offering $3,000 - $5,000 dollars for Chrome trim and extra woodgrain... you take their money and run.

[smk4565]

Th profit is at Jeep.  If GM owned Jeep, then Chevy underpinnings could be shared with Jeep to replace the Compass, Patriot and some of the dated stuff.  Jeep would still design the trucks, but they'd have a better parts bin of engines, transmissions and chassis to build off of.

 

If GMC was all Denali I could see the point of them, but 75% of GMCs sold are just competition for Chevy.  And Buick is supposed to be upscale and has crossovers, and Cadillac is the Luxury arm of GM, not GMC.

 

Chrysler has gone bankrupt twice in 25 years, the only reason they are still in business is Jeep.  Without Jeep Chrysler would go bankrupt again, regardless of their sales volume.

 

I don't think Sergio will be able to find a merger, I think what will happen is he will try to sell the company in pieces because he knows another financial crisis will push them to bankruptcy.  If gas prices spike and he loses the pick up and suv sales, they go bankrupt.

[Drew Dowdell]

Th profit is at Jeep.  If GM owned Jeep, then Chevy underpinnings could be shared with Jeep to replace the Compass, Patriot and some of the dated stuff.  Jeep would still design the trucks, but they'd have a better parts bin of engines, transmissions and chassis to build off of.

 

If GMC was all Denali I could see the point of them, but 75% of GMCs sold are just competition for Chevy.  And Buick is supposed to be upscale and has crossovers, and Cadillac is the Luxury arm of GM, not GMC.

 

Chrysler has gone bankrupt twice in 25 years, the only reason they are still in business is Jeep.  Without Jeep Chrysler would go bankrupt again, regardless of their sales volume.

 

I don't think Sergio will be able to find a merger, I think what will happen is he will try to sell the company in pieces because he knows another financial crisis will push them to bankruptcy.  If gas prices spike and he loses the pick up and suv sales, they go bankrupt.

 

GMC sells at a higher transaction price.  You may not see a distinction there, but the accountants do.   Put it another way, if GMC was such a money loser, it would have been closed during the bankruptcy. 

[Stew]

Th profit is at Jeep.  If GM owned Jeep, then Chevy underpinnings could be shared with Jeep to replace the Compass, Patriot and some of the dated stuff.  Jeep would still design the trucks, but they'd have a better parts bin of engines, transmissions and chassis to build off of.

 

If GMC was all Denali I could see the point of them, but 75% of GMCs sold are just competition for Chevy.  And Buick is supposed to be upscale and has crossovers, and Cadillac is the Luxury arm of GM, not GMC.

 

Chrysler has gone bankrupt twice in 25 years, the only reason they are still in business is Jeep.  Without Jeep Chrysler would go bankrupt again, regardless of their sales volume.

 

I don't think Sergio will be able to find a merger, I think what will happen is he will try to sell the company in pieces because he knows another financial crisis will push them to bankruptcy.  If gas prices spike and he loses the pick up and suv sales, they go bankrupt.

Um, no......   GM's small/mid SUV achiecture is nearly as old as that under the  Compass and PAtriot and the Renegade/Cherokee underpinnings are far superior.  They are selling 20k 200s a month now, outselling the Malibu, combined LX sales are roughly the same.  Patriot and Compass combine for 15-16k a month.  The can't build enough edodiesels or hellcats, The Ram division outside of the 1500 is growing every month.  The minivans are still some of he topsellers, current low sells because of no product notwithstanding because of the plant switchover.  You are also incorrect on engines and transmissions, The Hemis and Pentastar are reliable and powerful world class enines and the ZF8 speed is one of the best autos out there period.  Honestly, FCA would gain as little from GM as GM would from FCA.  Both of their 4 cylinders sucked (especially noticeable after driving a 15 Malibu and 14 200 back to back. 

[Cmicasa the Great]

Th profit is at Jeep.  If GM owned Jeep, then Chevy underpinnings could be shared with Jeep to replace the Compass, Patriot and some of the dated stuff.  Jeep would still design the trucks, but they'd have a better parts bin of engines, transmissions and chassis to build off of.

 

If GMC was all Denali I could see the point of them, but 75% of GMCs sold are just competition for Chevy.  And Buick is supposed to be upscale and has crossovers, and Cadillac is the Luxury arm of GM, not GMC.

 

Chrysler has gone bankrupt twice in 25 years, the only reason they are still in business is Jeep.  Without Jeep Chrysler would go bankrupt again, regardless of their sales volume.

 

I don't think Sergio will be able to find a merger, I think what will happen is he will try to sell the company in pieces because he knows another financial crisis will push them to bankruptcy.  If gas prices spike and he loses the pick up and suv sales, they go bankrupt.

 

 

 

I'm no way as nice as Drew in conversations like this. Put it bluntly.. don't kno what U are talking about... , and seem to have no clue how the whole thing works. 

 

Last year GMC sold 501K vehicles and was up 12% from 2013. It sold them at about a $1500 premium over its Chevy counterpart with about $50 worth of changes.. OK.. a wee bit more, but not much. But count it. $1500 more on top of what Chevy charges X 500K more equals about $750,000,000 more in ATPs than the Chevy counterpart which was already making big bucks due to massive volume of the Silvy, Tahoe, and Suburban. The Acadia and Terrain also benefited due to the massive sales of the Traverse and Nox. Putting DENALI in the mix only makes that $1500 go up another few thousand.. hence GMC putting Denali on almost everything they sell. Buick is doing a similar thing with donor Chevys and Opels

[smk4565]

GMC doesn't sell outside of North America, not a global brand.  I am not saying GMC loses money, I know it turns a profit so it will stick around.  But if GM merged with FCA, you wouldn't need GMC, Jeep and Ram, that is redundant, GMC being a Chevy badge clone would be the one to go.  But I don't think they will ever merge either.

[Drew Dowdell]

GMC doesn't sell outside of North America, not a global brand.  I am not saying GMC loses money, I know it turns a profit so it will stick around.  But if GM merged with FCA, you wouldn't need GMC, Jeep and Ram, that is redundant, GMC being a Chevy badge clone would be the one to go.  But I don't think they will ever merge either.

 

It's okay, I don't think you'll be CEO either.