2008 Chrysler Limousine C300 White 12 Passenger on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Trump wants a trade deal, but South Korea doesn't want US cars

SEOUL - US auto imports from the likes of General Motors and Ford must become more chic, affordable or fuel-efficient to reap the rewards of President Donald Trump's attempts to renegotiate a trade deal with key ally South Korea, officials and industry experts in Seoul say. Meeting South Korean President Moon Jae-in last week in Washington, Trump said the United States would do more to address trade imbalances with South Korea and create "a fair shake" to sell more cars there, the world's 11th largest auto market. "What we really want to say to the United States is: Make good cars, make cars that Korean consumers like." While imports from automakers including Ford, Chrysler and GM more than doubled last year largely thanks to free trade deal which took effect in 2012, sales account for just 1 percent of a market dominated by more affordable models from local giants Hyundai and affiliate Kia. Imports make up just 15 percent of the overall Korean auto market, and are mainly more luxurious models from German automakers BMW and Daimler AG's Mercedes-Benz, which also benefit from a trade deal with the European Union. "Addressing non-tariff barriers would not fundamentally raise the competitiveness of US cars," a senior Korean government official told Reuters, declining to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject. "What we really want to say to the United States is: Make good cars, make cars that Korean consumers like." TASTE BARRIER In Korea, US imports are seen as lagging German brands in brand image, sophistication and fuel economy, industry experts say. US imports do have a competitive advantage in electric cars: Tesla Motors' electric vehicles are seen as both environmentally friendly and trendy, while GM has launched a long-range Bolt EV. US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had cited a quota in the current trade deal as an obstacle to boosting imports. The quota allows US automakers to bring in each year 25,000 vehicles that meet US, not necessarily Korean, safety standards. Should GM, for example, decide to bring in more than its quota of one model - the Impala sedans - it would cost up to $75 million to modify the cars to meet Korean safety standards, the company told its local labor union. Asked about non-tariff barriers, a spokesman at GM's Korean unit said removing them could expand the range of models the company can bring in from the United States. No US company, however, has yet to make full use of the quota, industry data shows.

Why the Detroit Three should merge their engine operations

GM and FCA should consider a smaller merger that could still save them billions of dollars, and maybe lure Ford into the deal. Fiat-Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne would love to see his company merge with General Motors. But GM's board of directors essentially told him to go pound sand. So now what? The boardroom battle started when Mr. Marchionne published a study called Confessions of a Capital Junkie. In it, Sergio detailed the amount of capital the auto industry wastes every year with duplicate investments. And he documented how other industries provide superior returns. He's right, of course. Other industries earn much better returns on their invested capital. And there's a danger that one day the investors will turn their backs on the auto industry and look to other business sectors where they can make more money. But even with powerful arguments Marchionne couldn't convince GM to take over FCA. And while that fight may now be over, GM and FCA should consider a smaller merger that could still save them billions of dollars, and maybe lure Ford into the deal. No doubt this suggestion will send purists into convulsions, but so be it. The Detroit Three should seriously consider merging their powertrain operations, even though that's a sacrilege in an industry that still considers the engine the "heart" of the car. These automakers have built up considerable brand equity in some of their engines. But the vast majority of American car buyers could not tell you what kind of engine they have under the hood. More importantly, most car buyers really don't care what kind of engine or transmission they have as long as it's reliable, durable, and efficient. Combining that production would give the Detroit Three the kind of scale that no one else could match. There are exceptions, of course. Hardcore enthusiasts care deeply about the powertrains in their cars. So do most diesel, plug-in, and hybrid owners. But all of them account for maybe 15 percent of the car-buying public. So that means about 85 percent of car buyers don't care where their engine and transmission came from, just as they don't know or care who supplied the steel, who made the headlamps, or who delivered the seats on a just-in-time basis. It's immaterial to them. And that presents the automakers with an opportunity to achieve a staggering level of manufacturing scale. In the NAFTA market alone, GM, Ford, and FCA will build nearly nine million engines and nine million transmissions this year.

Junkyard Gem: 2001 Chrysler Voyager

When a car brand gets the axe from its owners, it's not as easy as flipping a switch. Sometimes models of that brand still sell enough to be worth carrying on under the original name. That was the difficulty presented by the deletion of the Plymouth marque by Chrysler after the 2001 model year; sales of the Plymouth Neon could continue here (for a few more years) with Dodge badges, as had been the case all along, but what about the still-popular Plymouth Voyager minivan? As the most proletarian of the Town & Country/Caravan/Voyager minivan triumvirate, the Voyager name had been on Plymouth minivans since 1984 and on full-sized Plymouth siblings of the Dodge Tradesman/Sportsman since 1974. So, when an updated Chrysler minivan arrived for the 2001 model year, the Voyager name lived on — briefly — as the lowest trim level of Chrysler-badged minivans. Here's one of those rare machines, found in a Denver boneyard recently. For the 2001 through 2003 model years, the Dodge Caravan lived in the middle of the Chrysler Corporation minivan prestige pyramid, flanked by the Chrysler Voyager below and the Chrysler Town & Country above.  In the European market, of course, Chrysler Voyagers (and Chrysler Neons) were sold for decades. Trivia fans might also recall the Lancia Voyager and Chrysler Grand Caravan, both available for a while in the European market. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. In fact, the idea of a Lancia Voyager seems sufficiently amusing that we should watch a Dutch-language advertisement for it right now. This is the pushrod 3.3-liter V6 engine, originally developed as a more powerful alternative to the Mitsubishi V6s that went into so many Chrysler vehicles during the 1980s and 1990s. This one was rated at a respectable 180 horsepower. You could get a manual transmission in US-market Voyagers and Caravans through the 1995 model year, but the days of three-pedal Chrysler minivans were long gone for American car shoppers by the dawn of our current century. So, it's a gem from a historical standpoint but not exactly the sort of vehicle that inspires the howls of outrage from enthusiasts over, say, a discarded Lotus Esprit or Jensen Interceptor. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.