2013 Chrysler 200 Lx on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Killing the Dart and 200 might lower FCA's fuel economy burden

Killing the Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200 could allow FCA US to take advantage of an intriguing quirk in the next decade's fuel economy regulations. By increasing its ratio of trucks versus cars, the automaker might not need to worry so much about hitting the more stringent efficiency rules. At first thought, it might seem harder for an automaker with a ton of trucks to meet the government's mandated 54.5 mile per gallon corporate average fuel economy for 2025. However, every company doesn't need to hit that lofty figure, according to The Detroit Free Press. The exact target varies by the product mix between trucks and cars. "While passenger car and light truck categories have separate CAFE targets, it's still true that more trucks versus cars in a company lineup means a lower combined CAFE target," Brandon Schoettle, Project Manager Sustainable Worldwide Transportation at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, told Autoblog. "While passenger car and light truck categories have separate CAFE targets, it's still true that more trucks versus cars in a company lineup means a lower combined CAFE target." FCA US' current product blend has 80 percent pickups and CUVs, which means the company stands to benefit from a lower fuel economy target. It might not seem entirely fair environmentally, but this is a great move from a business perspective. The new CAFE rules aren't set in stone, according to The Detroit Free Press, but potentially taking advantage of the regulation is just one more reason to cut the Dart and 200. Modern crossovers also aren't gas guzzlers like older SUVs, which could make it easier to hit the fuel economy target. "Utilities offer practicality and versatility that cars do not, and now, built on car architectures, they do not penalize consumers on fuel economy as they once did," AutoTrader Senior Analyst Michelle Krebs told Autoblog. Schoettle warns that FCA is still making a gamble by killing the small sedans. "Depending on the previous sales volumes and how much these vehicles might have exceeded their specific CAFE targets, it's possible that these cars helped earn CAFE credits for FCA that they could bank for future use," he said. "Future sales breakdowns [car vs.

China own a Detroit automaker? Would the U.S. let that happen?

The news that several Chinese automakers want to buy Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, and that one has even made an offer, elicits some mixed feelings. On one hand, as some have pointed out, it could be a win-win both for China and for FCA's American workers, ensuring the company's survival and opening new markets. On the other hand, this is China, whose trade relationship with the U.S. is the source of considerable scrutiny from the Trump administration — and whose not-a-friend, not-an-enemy status is particularly difficult to gauge right now during heightened tensions with its client state North Korea. So would such a deal pass regulatory muster? One reason that springs to mind for blocking any sale has to do with national security. Chrysler's role as a military supplier dates back to Dodge trucks used by Gen. Blackjack Pershing to chase Pancho Villa in Mexico, and shortly thereafter by American forces in World War I. The Detroit Three automakers were, of course, mainstays of the Arsenal of Democracy of World War II. Even before U.S. entry into the war in December 1941, America's industrial machinery went into overdrive, and Chrysler was one of the biggest cogs. It engineered and built the M3, Sherman and Pershing tanks and trucks for Gen. George Patton's Redball Express. It helped develop a radar-guided antiaircraft gun that knocked German bombers and V1 rockets out of the sky — on one day, shooting down 97 of 101 V1s headed for London. On D-Day, the radar system helped thwart Luftwaffe counterattacks on the beaches of Normandy, and it later helped Allied forces break out at the Battle of the Bulge. Chrysler redesigned the Wright Cyclone engines used by the Boeing B-29 Superfortress, the plane that firebombed Tokyo and dropped the atomic bombs that ended the war. Chrysler even played a secret role refining uranium in Oak Ridge, Tenn., that was used in the Hiroshima bomb and in the ensuing Cold War arms race. It worked on military missiles and was NASA's prime contractor for the Saturn V rocket that put men on the moon. More recently, Chrysler produced the M1 Abrams tank. And of course Chrysler is the keeper of the flame for Jeep, a 75-plus-years military legacy handed down from Bantam and Willys to Kaiser to AMC to Chrysler. The point of this history lesson is to note that in times of war or national emergency, America's industrial might has been called to serve, and may well be called on again.

Marchionne recruiting activist investors to prompt GM merger

Sergio Marchionne may have been rebuffed in his previous advances at General Motors, but he's not about to give up that easily. According to The Wall Street Journal, the Fiat Chrysler chief is now turning to activist investors to help coax GM into joining forces. Marchionne has been a staunch and ceaseless advocate of the need for consolidation, arguing that the industry needs to amalgamate into larger groups that will share resources and reduce overhead. Under his leadership, the Fiat group consolidated its own operations, and officially merged with Chrysler last year. But he's also been pursuing additional mergers with the likes of Volkswagen, Peugeot, Ford, and Opel (to name just a few). Now he's pursuing a merger with GM, which has not shown much enthusiasm towards the idea. For one thing, GM is a much larger company, and probably doesn't need FCA as much as FCA needs it. For another, it has a troubled past with Marchionne, who in 2005 dissolved an agreed merger (of sorts) with GM, yet still managed to get the General to pay Fiat some $2 billion in the process. However, Marchionne is evidently hoping that the intervention of activist investors could compel GM CEO Mary Barra and company to proceed with a merger anyway. For precedent, he's looking at the recent negotiation between GM and some of its stakeholders that prompted the company to buy back $5 billion of its own shares, demonstrating Barra's willingness to deal with investors. The more compelling precedent, however, may have been set in 2006, when activist investor Kirk Kerkorian locked arms with Carlos Ghosn to get GM to consider joining the alliance between Renault and Nissan. GM ultimately declined, and Ghosn turned instead of Daimler (which of course has its own history of having merged with Chrysler). Only time will tell if this initiative will prove more successful, but one thing's for sure, and that's that Marchionne isn't about to relent in his pursuit of a major merger partner.