1987 Chrysler 5th Avenue Edition on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Moon landing anniversary: How Detroit automakers won the space race

America's industrial might — automakers included — determined the outcome of the 20th centuryÂ’s biggest events. The “Arsenal of Democracy” won World War II, and then the Cold War. And our factories flew us to the moon. Apollo was a Cold War program. You can draw a direct line from Nazi V-2 rockets to ICBMs to the Saturn V. The space race was a proxy war — which beats a real war. It was a healthy outlet for technology and testosterone that would otherwise be used for darker purposes. (People protested, and still do, that money for space should go to problems here on Earth, but more likely the military-industrial complex would've just bought more bombs with it.) As long as we and the Soviet Union were launching rockets into space, we were not lobbing them at each other. JFKÂ’s challenge to “go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,” put American industry back on a war footing. We were galvanized to beat the Russians, to demonstrate technological dominance. (A lack of similar unifying purpose is why we havenÂ’t been to the moon since, or Mars.) NASA says more than 400,000 Americans, from scientists to seamstresses, toiled on the moon program, working for government or for 20,000 contractors. Antagonism was diverted into something inspirational. The Big Three automakers were some of the biggest companies in the moon program, which might surprise a lot of people today. Note to a new generation who marveled when SpaceX launched a Tesla Roadster out into the solar system: Sure, that was neat, but just know that Detroit beat Elon Musk to space by more than half a century. This high point in human history was brought to you by Ford ItÂ’s hard to imagine in this era of Sony-LG-Samsung, but Ford used to make TVs. And other consumer appliances. Or rather Philco, the radio, TV and transistor pioneer that Ford bought in 1961 — the year Gagarin and Alan Shepard flew in space. Ted Ryan, FordÂ’s archives and heritage brand manager, just wrote a Medium article on the central role Philco-Ford played in manned spaceflight. And nothingÂ’s more central than Mission Control in Houston, the famous console-filled room we all know from TV and movies. What we didn't know was, that was Ford. Ford built that. In 1953, Ryan notes, Philco invented a transistor that was key to the development of (what were then regarded as) high-speed computers, so naturally Philco became a contractor for NASA and the military.

FCA explains, updates sales reporting in wake of investigation

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) is currently under investigation by the Department of Justice (DoJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for possible misappropriation of monthly sales. Not only that but a dealer group filed a lawsuit against the auto company for allegedly bribing dealers to falsify sales reports. In the wake of these mounting pressures, FCA released a report explaining their old sales reporting methods, as well as introducing the method they will use now. The report explains that sales will break down into three main categories. The first category is simply sales made by dealers in the United States that were purchased by your typical consumer. The second group is fleet sales that were purchased directly from FCA. The final group is a mix of various sales including sales by Puerto Rican dealers, cars used for marketing, and vehicles delivered to FCA employees and retirees. The original method of recording these sales relied mainly on the New Vehicle Delivery Report (NVDR). This system allowed dealers to report new car sales at the time of sale. These sales were used to create and report a total at the end of each month. Dealers also had the ability to "unwind" sales. What this means is that a dealer could cancel the sale of a car that was reported as sold in the event that a customer couldn't purchase the car or wanted a different vehicle. This would also return factory incentives to Chrysler and end the warranty period. Fleet and other sales were not recorded through this system, and were rather included in a separate "reserve" of vehicles. FCA explained that it did not know why this was the case, but the company speculated the reason may have been to avoid reporting vehicles that hadn't made it to road use yet. FCA also emphasized that their retail sales reports do not reflect quarterly earnings. The company explained that those earnings are based on vehicles purchased from FCA, which includes sales like the cars dealers buy for their local inventories. The new method also shows FCA's long run of sales increases wasn't as long as first thought. FCA has adopted a new system for calculating sales in light of concerns and confusion. This system retains the categories listed above, but changes how it counts them. The dealer reported numbers will now only include sold vehicles and will deduct sales of unwound vehicles that month.

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.