Jeep Wrangler Yj 1988 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Auto Mergers and Acquisitions: Suicide or salvation?

We love the Moses figure. A savior riding in from stage right with the ideas, the smarts, and the scrappiness to put things right. Alan Mullaly. Carroll Shelby. Lee Iacocca. Andrew Carnegie. Steve Jobs. Elon Musk. Bart Simpson. Sergio Marchionne does not likely view himself with Moses-like optics, but the CEO of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles recently gave a remarkable, perhaps prophetic interview with Automotive News about his interest and the inevitability of merging with a potential automotive partner like General Motors. Marchionne has been overtly public about his notion that GM must merge with FCA. For a bit of context, GM sold 9.9 million vehicles in 2014, posting $2.8 billion in net income, while FCA sold 4.75 million units and earned $2.4 billion in net income, painting a very rosy FCA earnings-to-sales picture. But that's not the entire picture. Most people in the auto industry still remember the trainwreck that was the DaimlerChrysler "merger" written in what turned out to be sand in 1998. It proved to be a master class in how not to fuse two companies, two cultures, two continents, and two management teams. Oh, it worked for the two individuals at both helms pre-merger. They got silly rich. And the industry itself was in a misty romance at the time with mergers and acquisitions. BMW bought Rolls-Royce. Volkswagen Group bought Bentley, Bugatti, and Lamborghini, putting all three brands into their rightful place in both products and positioning. No marriages there, so no false pretense. Finally, Nissan and Renault got married in 1999. A successful marriage requires several rare elements in this atmosphere of gas fumes and power lust. But a successful marriage requires several rare elements in this atmosphere of gas fumes and power lust, the principle part being honesty. Daimler and Chrysler lied to each other. The heads of each unit, the product planners, and finance all presented their then-current and long-range forecasts to each other with less-than-forthright accuracy. Daimler was the far greater equal and no one from the Chrysler side enjoyed that. The cultures were entirely different, too, and little was done to bridge that gap. Which brings me back to the present overtures by Marchionne to GM. "There are varying degrees of hugs," Marchionne stated in the Automotive News piece. "I can hug you nicely, I can hug you tightly, I can hug you like a bear, I can really hug you." Seriously?

Federal investigations about safety of rear-mounted gas tanks is nothing new

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Chrysler are currently making waves in our daily news feeds due to a disagreement over the safety of a few million Jeep Liberty and Grand Cherokee models. Specifically, NHTSA has asked Chrysler to recall the SUVs because of the location of their fuel tanks, but you may be interested to know that requests such as this are nothing new.
Besides the two Jeep models, NHTSA has launched investigations over the years in such models as the Ford Crown Victoria (and its police-car counterpart), GM pickups built between 1972 and 1987, and rather famously the Ford Pinto.
Understanding how automakers and NHTSA have dealt with fuel-tank-safety concerns in the past may offer a better understanding of how Chrysler and the government agency will settle their current dispute. Check out the complete article from The Detroit News here.

Are future vehicular hacks inevitable?

Before the hack of the Uconnect system in a Jeep Cherokee resulted in a 1.4-million vehicle recall, the potential software vulnerabilities in vehicles were already a hot topic with Congressional inquiries and even proposed legislation in the US. As cars' interconnected systems gain the ability to go online, they become open to a host of new threats. Automakers are trying to stop this, but it might be too late to put the genie back into the bottle. Throughout 2015, the issue of software security in vehicles has become increasingly vital. For example, the recent Jeep case wasn't even the biggest hack this year. In February, a major flaw was discovered in the BMW Connected Drive service that allowed researchers to remotely lock and unlock the doors and potentially affected 2.2 million cars. The fix was an over-the-air patch for the problem. Automakers are actively working to fix the issues. Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Audi reportedly are using encrypted connections and firewalls in their vehicles to prevent hacking. "Absolute, 100-percent safety isn't possible," Daimler spokesperson Benjamin Oberkersch said to Automotive News Europe. "But we develop our systems, tested by internal and external experts, so they're up to date." These vulnerabilities seem to be popping up more often. A successful hack took $14 in parts from Radio Shack in one case. There was also a 60 Minutes report earlier in the year about DARPA's ability to hack into OnStar to take control of a Chevrolet Impala. Experts aren't so sure companies can contend with hackers' advancement. "The difficulty for the carmakers at the moment is the question whether they can keep pace with advances in technology, and especially hacking technology," Rainer Scholz, executive director for telematics consultant EY, said to Automotive News Europe. "We seriously doubt they can." At this point, vehicle hacks are coming more from researchers looking for holes than from those with malicious intent. Still, the vulnerabilities are definitely there. It's up to automakers to keep patching the problems before they become dangerous to drivers. Related Video: News Source: Automotive News Europe - sub. req.Image Credit: Bill O'Leary / The Washington Post via Getty Images Audi BMW Jeep Mercedes-Benz Safety Technology Emerging Technologies hacking cyber security