2006 Chrysler 300c Base on 2040-cars

Auto blog

FCA-Renault merger faces tall odds delivering on cost-cutting promises

FRANKFURT/DETROIT — Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and Renault promise huge savings from a mega-merger, but such combinations face tall odds because of the industry's long product cycles and problems translating deal blueprints into real world success, industry veterans told Reuters. BMW's 1994 purchase of Rover, and Daimler's 1998 merger with Chrysler both made sense on paper. The companies promised to hike profits by combining vehicle platforms and engine families. Both combinations proved unworkable in reality, and were unwound. Renault and Nissan, which have been in an alliance since 1999 designed to share vehicle components, have only managed to use common vehicle platforms in 35% of Nissan's products despite an original target of 70%, according to Morgan Stanley. FCA and Renault have raised the stakes for themselves by ruling out plant closures. That increases the pressure to achieve more than $5 billion in promised annual savings from pooling procurement and research investments. The two companies have yet to fill in many of the blanks in the merger plan put forward by Fiat Chrysler. Renault's board is expected to act soon to accept the proposal, but that would lead only to a memorandum of understanding to pursue detailed operational and financial plans. A final deal and the legal combination of the two companies could take months to complete if all goes well. Pressure to cut automotive pollution is driving the latest round of consolidation. Automakers are looking at multibillion-dollar bills to develop electric and hybrid cars and cleaner internal combustion engines. Fiat Chrysler and Renault are betting they can design common electric vehicle systems, then sell more of them through their respective brands and dealer networks, cutting the cost per car. Developing all-new electric vehicles can bring more opportunities to share costs from the outset, industry experts said. "With the emergence of connected, autonomous, electric and shared vehicles, carmakers face immediate investments, so new opportunities for sharing costs have emerged," said Elmar Kades, managing director at Alix Partners. However, most electric vehicles lose money. This is a challenge for city car brands in Europe in particular. Both Renault and Fiat rely heavily on this segment for sales.

Chrysler banks $507 million in Q2, trims 2013 earnings forecast

Chrysler has some good news and some bad news. First, profits were up 16 percent over the second quarter of 2012, bringing the Auburn Hills, Michigan-based manufacturer $507 million on the back of strong demand for trucks and SUVs (a recurring theme this quarter, particularly in the US). Q2 revenue was up as well, from $16.8 billion in 2012 to $18 billion in 2013. The bad news is that the Pentastar's overall earnings forecast for net income in 2013 has been trimmed from $2.2 billion to between $1.7 and $2.2 billion, according to Automotive News.
In addition to the adjusted net income forecast, Chrysler tweaked its operating profit from $3.8 billion to between $3.3 and $3.8 billion. This has gone largely unexplained by Chrysler, perhaps hoping the news of a three-percent increase in its transaction prices for Q2 will allow it to sweep this adjustment under the rug.
The star of the show for Chrysler has been its US sales, which saw a 10-percent jump, both bettering the industry average of eight percent and improving over the same stretch of 2012. As with the increase in transaction prices, Chrysler has the new Ram pickup and Jeep Grand Cherokee to thank. Perhaps most worrying from this report, though, is that every brand in the automaker's stable saw an increase in sales... except for the Chrysler brand itself.

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.