2014 Chrysler 300 S on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ram trucks lead 2021 J.D. Power Initial Quality Study

For the first time ever, Ram leads in J.D. Power's annual Initial Quality Study with a score of 128 PP100, or problems experienced per 100 vehicles in the first 90 days of ownership. Ram was in third place in last year's rankings. Coming in second place is Dodge (139 PP100), a sister division to Ram under the Stellantis umbrella, followed by Lexus (144 PP100), this year's highest-ranked premium automaker, in third. These findings reinforce an overall trend over the last few decades where mass-market brands have outperformed premium brands that tend to introduce bleeding-edge technologies that can confuse owners or fail to work entirely. Genesis (148 PP100) is the only other premium automaker to perform better than average. At the bottom of the official rankings is Chrysler (251 PP100), which seems to make little sense considering most of its technologies are shared with Dodge and many with Ram until you consider that Chrysler only offers two platforms and one of them is the Pacifica/Voyager minivan twins that are unique to the brand. The next worst are Audi (240 PP100) and Volkswagen (213 PP100). Tesla would fall in between VW and Audi with its score of 231PP100, but because the electric car manufacturer doesn't provide access to J.D. Power in every state, it's not officially included. Interestingly, J.D. Power said on a followup call that the problems that Tesla owners report most often are more traditional issues, such as panel fitment, interior noises or paint problems instead of problems with the car's electronics. According to J.D. Power, the industry averaged a score of 162 PP100. That is four points higher than the overall score in 2020, and 20 of 32 brands improved their quality scores over the last year. That's a two percent increase in quality in 2021, which is good but slightly lower than the average rate of improvement over the last decade. On a car-by-car basis, the Nissan Maxima leads the overall field with a score of 85 PP100. Issues with infotainment systems — and in particular problems pairing smartphones with in-car technologies — continue to be the top-reported problems. Headaches connecting Apple CarPlay and Android Auto dominate the complaints. "Owners want wireless connectivity, and the industry has responded," according to Dave Sargent, vice president of automotive quality at J.D. Power. "However, this has created a bigger technical challenge for both automakers and tech companies.

Detroit and Silicon Valley: When cultures collide

Culture is a subject that rarely, if never, gets discussed when traditional auto companies buy — or hugely invest — in Silicon Valley-based companies. The conversation surrounding the investments is usually about how the tech looks appealing and how it's an appropriate step to move the automakers toward autonomy. Culture — the way things are done, the expectations, and the approaches — is something that is overlooked only at one's peril. The potential cultural gap is almost always evident in the obligatory photos of the participants in these deals, with is essentially a photo op of auto execs with their Silicon Valley counterparts. The former — rocking jeans and no ties — look like parochial school kids playing hooky. Don't worry: The regimental outfits will be back in place once they get back in the Eastern time zone. Consider what happened back in 1998 when Daimler bought Chrysler. First of all, there was a denial in Detroit that it happened. It was positioned as a "merger of equals." Which it wasn't. In any corporate situation, when one has more than 50 percent of the business, it owns the whole thing. And the German company was in the proverbial driver's seat. People who were around Auburn Hills back then kept their heads down and their German Made Simple books at hand. Things did not go well. Daimler had had enough by 2007, when it offloaded Chrysler to Cerberus Capital Management — which brought ex-Home Depot CEO Bob Nardelli into the picture, which is a story onto itself. But when you think about the Daimler-Chrysler situation, realize that these were two car companies (at least the Mercedes part of the Daimler organization), so they had that in common, and the language of engineers is something of an Esperanto based on math, so there was that, too. Yet it simply didn't work. It doesn't take too many viewings of HBO's Silicon Valley to know that the business people in that part of the world are far more aggressive than people who ordinarily head and control car companies in Detroit. About 20 years ago, a book came out about the founder of Oracle titled The Difference Between God and Larry Ellison* - and the asterisk on the book jacket leads to: God Doesn't Think He's Larry Ellison. It would be hard to imagine a book about a Detroit executive, even a book that had the decided bias that the tome about Ellison evinces, that would be quite so searing. Sure, there are egos. But they are still perceived to be, overall, "nice" people.

Auto bailout cost the US goverment $9.26B

Depending on your outlook, the US Treasury's bailout of General Motors, Chrysler (now FCA) and their financing divisions under the Troubled Asset Relief Program was either a complete boondoggle or a savvy move to secure the future of some major employers. Regardless of where you fall, the auto industry bailout has officially ended, and the numbers have been tallied. Of the $79.69 billion that the Feds invested to keep the automakers afloat, it recouped $70.43 billion – a net loss of $9.26 billion. The final nail in the coffin for the auto bailout came in December 2014 when the Feds sold its shares in Ally Financial, formerly GMAC. The deal turned out pretty good for the government too because the investment turned a 2.4 billion profit. The actual automakers have long been out of the Treasury's hands, though. The current FCA paid back its loans six years early in 2011, the Treasury sold of the last shares of GM in late 2013. According to The Detroit News, the government's books actually show an official loss on the auto bailouts of $16.56 billion. The difference is because the larger figure does not include the interest or dividends paid by the borrowers on the amount lent. While it's easy to see fault in any red ink on the Feds' massive investment, the number is less than some earlier estimates. At one time, deficits around $44 billion were thought possible, and another put things at a $20.3 billion loss. Outside of just the government losing money, the bailouts might have helped the overall economy. A study from the Center for Automotive Research last year estimated that the program saved 2.6 million jobs and about $284.4 billion in personal wealth. It also indicated that the Feds' reduction in income tax revenue alone from Chrysler and GM going under could have been around $100 billion for just 2009 and 2010, significantly more than any loss in the bailout.