One Owner 13500 Miles Very Rare Croosfire Limited Best Color No Reserve on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

FCA US under-reported death and injury claims to NHTSA

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says FCA US significantly under-reported death and injury claims due to flaws in its early warning system. The government first discovered a potential problem with the automaker's reporting in late July, and FCA US has been investigating the issue since. NHTSA claims that the problem appears linked to the way the company gathers and reports safety information. The agency is still investigating how serious the flaws are and their causes. "This represents a significant failure to meet a manufacturer's safety responsibilities," NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind.Rosekind said in a statement. FCA US admits that it "identified deficiencies" in the reporting, but in a statement the company said that it notified NHTSA of the issue immediately. The company promised that it is taking this problem "extremely seriously" and pledged to remedy the situation. In late July, FCA US was hit with a potential $105-million fine by NHTSA for the way the automaker conducted some recalls. As part of that agreement, the company also consented to more rigorous oversight by safety regulators in the future and a buy-back of some affected vehicles. Other automakers have been punished for failing to submit EWR data. Honda incurred a $70 million fine in January from NHTSA for missing 1,729 incidents over 11 years. Ferrari had to pay $3.5 million in 2014 for not sending them in for three years. Statement from NHTSA Administrator, Mark Rosekind, on Fiat Chrysler Automobiles' under-reported discrepancy in FCA's Early Warning Report data September 29, 2015 "In late July, NHTSA notified Fiat Chrysler Automobiles of an apparent discrepancy in FCA's Early Warning Report data. FCA has informed NHTSA that in investigating that discrepancy, it has found significant under-reported notices and claims of deaths, injuries and other information required as part of the Early Warning Reporting system. Preliminary information suggests that this under-reporting is the result of a number of problems with FCA's systems for gathering and reporting EWR data. This represents a significant failure to meet a manufacturer's safety responsibilities. NHTSA will take appropriate action after gathering additional information on the scope and causes of this failure." – Mark Rosekind, NHTSA Administrator. Statement: TREAD Reporting September 29, 2015 , Auburn Hills, Mich.

Appeals court delays 'sensible resolution' meeting between GM, Fiat Chrysler CEOs

DETROIT — Three federal appeals judges have delayed a court-ordered meeting between the CEOs of General Motors and Fiat Chrysler to try to settle a lawsuit over corruption by union leaders. U.S. District Court Judge Paul Borman last week ordered GM CEO Mary Barra and FCA CEO Mike Manley to meet before July 1. But GM on Friday asked the federal appeals court in Cincinnati to overturn the order and remove Borman from the case. In an order issued Monday, three appellate judges delayed Borman's order to provide time to consider legal points raised by GM. GM is suing crosstown rival FCA alleging that it got an advantage by paying off United Auto Workers union leaders to reduce labor costs during contract talks. FCAÂ’s former labor chief, Al Iacobelli, is in prison, although the company denies that it directed any prohibited payments. In his order last week, Borman described the lawsuit as a “nuclear option” that would be a “waste of time and resources” for years if he allows the case to move forward. The judge ordered Barra and Manley to sit down without lawyers by July 1 and reach a “sensible resolution of this huge legal distraction.” Borman wants an update from them on a public video conference that same day. Over the weekend he modified the order to allow lawyers to attend the meeting. In a court filing, GM called BormanÂ’s order a “profound abuse” of power. “The court possesses no authority to order the CEOs of GM and FCA to engage in settlement discussions, reach a resolution and then appear alone at a pretrial conference eight days later, without counsel,” GMÂ’s attorneys said. “Second, the court has no business labeling a properly filed federal lawsuit assigned to the court for impartial adjudication ‘a distractionÂ’ or a ‘nuclear option,’” GM said. Borman canÂ’t be viewed as impartial, company lawyers said. The judge declined to comment. In a court filing Monday, Fiat Chrysler lawyers wrote that GM didn't make a good case to remove Borman because judges routinely direct lawsuit parties to talk about settling. The lawyers wrote that GM originally wanted the case assigned to Borman but now apparently is worried that his tough questions mean he will dismiss GM's claims. “GM should not be permitted now to complain that that judge has turned out to be less hospitable to GMÂ’s claims than GM anticipated. Parties are not permitted to engage in such judge shopping," the filing said.