2021 Chrysler Pacifica Pinnacle on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Fiat Chrysler completes sale of Magneti Marelli

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles completed its sale of components maker Magneti Marelli to CK Holdings Co., Ltd., the holding company of Calsonic Kansei Corporation. The Japanese parts supplier paid $6.5 billion (5.8 billion euros), which is a bit less than the $7.1 billion deal that was initially announced in October of 2018. According to Reuters, the price was adjusted based on Magneti Marelli's estimated financial position as of the closing date. The influx of cash allowed FCA to offer a special cash distribution to its shareholders for the first time in a decade. At ˆ1.30 per share, the payout corresponds to a total distribution of approximately ˆ2 billion. The dividend will pay out on May 30. "FCA remains committed to Magneti Marelli, with the new company continuing as a key supplier," FCA CEO Mike Manley said in a statement. "This sale also recognizes the full strategic value of Magneti Marelli, improving our financial position, delivering value to our shareholders and allowing us to enhance our focus on our core product portfolio." Earnings/Financials Chrysler Fiat magneti marelli

Here are all the vehicles sold by the 12 brands of the Fiat Chrysler PSA merger

Sven Gustafson and Ronan Glon contributed to this report. Whether or not the formal merger between Italian-American automaker Fiat Chrysler and European conglomerate PSA Group means the return of Peugeot to the U.S., one thing’s for certain: The combined company will have a truckload of different brands. Sorting out what the deal means for all of them, including where they are sold and built, and whether and where there is product overlap, will be a key question for the two companies as they formalize the merger over the next 12 to 15 months. So far, both sides have steadfastly insisted that no job cuts or plant closures will result from the tie-up. WeÂ’ll see about that. In the meantime, weÂ’ve compiled an alphabetical list of all the vehicles currently sold in Europe and in North America by the various FCA and PSA brands, along with the years they debuted. We've gone into more detail about the European vehicles you might be less familiar with. The joint empire also has an antique store's worth of heritage-laced models and dormant brands, like Plymouth, Imperial, Simca, and Panhard, and it would have been even bigger had FCA not spun off Ferrari in early 2016. Alfa Romeo A legacy Italian sports car brand with roots in racing, Alfa Romeo has been struggling with declining U.S. sales. Giulia (2015): AlfaÂ’s rear-wheel drive sports sedan competes against German luxury sedans in North America and Europe. 4C (2013): The lightweight mid-engine rear-wheel-drive sports car is being phased out. Stelvio (2016): The Stelvio is a small luxury performance crossover that competes against the likes of the Porsche Macan and BMW X3 and is sold in both Europe and North America. Giulietta (2010): Sold in Europe, this compact hatchback is AlfaÂ’s entry-level model. After initially planning a rear-wheel drive 2020 update, the Giulietta is reportedly being nixed as part of FCAÂ’s latest product plans.   Chrysler Despite lending its name to its parent company, questions abound about the future of this legendary but faded brand, which is not offered in Europe. 300 (2011): Despite rumors of its pending demise, the four-door sedan lives on mostly unchanged for the 2020 model year, at least. Pacifica (2016): The successor to the Town & Country is ChryslerÂ’s bestselling model by a long shot and comes in gas-only and plug-in hybrid versions. Voyager (2019): ChryslerÂ’s newest minivan launches as its entry-level minivan for the 2020 model year.

Fiat Chrysler will pay $70M to settle safety disclosure suit

FCA US will pay a $70 million civil penalty to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for failing to submit Early Warning Report data going back to 2003. The automaker will also provide any missing data since that time, and an auditor will monitor future compliance. NHTSA says the failures to report this information "stem from problems in FCA's electronic system for monitoring and reporting safety data, including improper coding and failure to account for changes in brand names." There are no allegations of any intentional deception by the automaker. NHTSA will wrap up the latest fine with the previous consent order against FCA US earlier this year for the automaker's handling of 23 recalls. The company will know owe the safety regulator a total of $140 million in cash, and there will be possibility of $35 million more in deferred penalties if FCA doesn't comply with the agency's requests. In a statement about the fine to Autoblog, FCA US said the automaker "accepts these penalties and is revising its processes to ensure regulatory compliance." The company strongly believes that it didn't miss any safety problems over the time with this problem. Early Warning Reports include information on deaths, injuries, crashes, and other potential safety concerns, and NHTSA often uses the data in investigations for possible recalls. In September, the safety agency first announced the automaker failed to submit these documents. At the time, the regulator's administrator Mark Rosekind promised to "take appropriate action after gathering additional information on the scope and causes of this failure." FCA US also released a statement then about the lapse and said the company notified NHTSA immediately after discovering the problem. FCA US is not the first company to run afoul of NHTSA's reporting requirement. The agency fined Triumph Motorcycles and Honda this year for similar lapses. It also punished Ferrari in 2014. U.S. DOT Fines Fiat Chrysler $70 million for Failure to Provide Early Warning Report Data to NHTSA WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has imposed a $70 million civil penalty on Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) for the auto manufacturer's failure to report legally required safety data. The penalty follows FCA's admission in September that it had failed, over several years, to provide Early Warning Report data to NHTSA as required by the TREAD Act of 2000.