Chrysler throws in towel on 200 (and Dart)

[sendler]

Uh. Wrong! Chrysler suckered Daimler with 500 million already in hidden debt.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by ksa8907

Yes, thats why you're so grumpy.

Actually that kind is the major cause of my grief.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by The Other Andy

I'm not sure what's more concerning:

A. Chrysler making yet another dumb decision that will screw them in the long term or

B. The fact that car manufacturers seem to be just rebadging everyone elses compacts lately. At this rate we'll eventually have a whopping two compact cars on the market.

Sometimes when I'm pondering things I wonder what the benefit of having a thousand different versions of essentially the same thing is. If the "two compacts" are good and they're around a good long time then in theory we could enjoy easy and cheap parts availability and service. (Thinking original Bug).

The sooner I come to terms with the facts that people buy what they want instead of what they need, and oftentimes there is precious little overlap between the want and the need, the closer I may be to understanding them.

[oil pan 4]

Its a pretty sure bet that if some one buys a brand new pickup or low MPG SUV right now gas prices will skyrocket back up well over $3 a gallon and stay there before the vehicle is paid off.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Xist

So, Chrystler says that it does not make sense to produce small cars, but they are owned by Fiat, who makes small ugly cars...

Not every Fiat is ugly at all. Though the Porto Alegre taxi livery doesn't help its looks, I like the Fiat Grand Siena, which is available in Mexico as Dodge Vision.

Considering the current exchange rates for the BRL and USD, I wouldn't doubt it could also become available in the American market too when gas prices soar again.

[Xist]

I consider those black bumpers going up into the fenders to be ugly.

The ugliness is not the point, though. They may sell attractive ones elsewhere. They may one day sell nice-looking ones here, but they are claiming it only makes sense to sell small cars under the Fiat name, so will they just rebadge them?

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Xist

I consider those black bumpers going up into the fenders to be ugly.

The ugliness is not the point, though. They may sell attractive ones elsewhere. They may one day sell nice-looking ones here, but they are claiming it only makes sense to sell small cars under the Fiat name, so will they just rebadge them?

Jeep has it's distinct following. RAM has it's defined niche. Dodge has it's muscular image. Fiat has those cute little cars. Yes , they are cute. Don't tell my wife otherwise. She's small and fierce like her Fiat Abarth 500c.

The Fiat Chrysler pairing seems to be a better match in many ways than the partnership with Mercedes even though Mercedes did bring great improvements to the sedan line up of Chrysler, they did not bring a small car expertise with them other than the woefully inadequate for the North American market, Smart Car.

It is unfortunate FCA sees fit to end the 200 sedan and Dart2. I've looked at both. The 200 is really a nice sedan. The Dart needs some work but the drive-train shows some promise even though the car is much heavier than I feel it should be. Both vehicles have major platform components that reside in other vehicle lines thus the design and production capabilities are not lost in that regard if the need arises to produce a mid-size sedan and compact. However, it may mean they see a shift in the market that will see a long term move to the cross-over and it's ilk as the mainstay of the market. FCA's move to put hybrid drives in the mini-van line means you can get the economy of a small sedan and the roomy capability of a van/wagon/SUV.

The introduction of the Fiat 500L hints at Fiat taking care of the smaller segments.

[MPGomatic]

It's a tough decision for them to make. I've spent a bunch of time with both the Dart and the 200. They're solid cars. The v6 Pentastar 200 boasts the highest horsepower rating in its class and it's FlexFuel, which opens the door for a high-octane tune. With AWD, it might just be the sleepiest sleeper out there, and it's not a gas-sucking pig. I thought about buying one. I still think about it.

Sergio needed production capacity. They're selling every Wrangler they can make and the international market is hungry. Moving the Cherokee out of the Toledo plant allows room for the upcoming Wrangler pickup. The Wrangler's state-side fuel-efficiency will take a bump up when they start selling the diesel version here. That's a good thing.

My take is that Dodge will sell a compact and mid-size, but they won't build it. What if they rebadged a Mazda2, like the Scion, er Toyota, iA? That's one of the best affordable cars I've driven. What if they came up with a new top hat for the Mazda6? Another great car that doesn't sell in nearly the numbers it should.

FCA is getting ready to tie up. Mazda is a possibility …

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Xist

I consider those black bumpers going up into the fenders to be ugly.

That's the standard livery for the regular taxis in Porto Alegre. Would look better with the livery of the airport taxis (white with a blue stripe on the waist-line) that have color-coded bumpers.

They may one day sell nice-looking ones here, but they are claiming it only makes sense to sell small cars under the Fiat name, so will they just rebadge them?

Seems like they're trying to set Fiat as a "cult" brand for vintage-themed compacts there instead of going with the same approach they use here, so it would actually make sense to sell there a rebadged version of the Grand Siena as a Dodge like it's done in Mexico.

[Daox]

I was poking through ABG posts and found this:

Killing the Dart and 200 might lower FCA's fuel economy burden

Killing the Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200 could allow FCA US to take advantage of an intriguing quirk in the next decade's fuel economy regulations. By increasing its ratio of trucks versus cars, the automaker might not need to worry so much about hitting the more stringent efficiency rules.

At first thought, it might seem harder for an automaker with a ton of trucks to meet the government's mandated 54.5 mile per gallon corporate average fuel economy for 2025. However, every company doesn't need to hit that lofty figure, according to The Detroit Free Press. The exact target varies by the product mix between trucks and cars. "While passenger car and light truck categories have separate CAFE targets, it's still true that more trucks versus cars in a company lineup means a lower combined CAFE target," Brandon Schoettle, Project Manager Sustainable Worldwide Transportation at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, told Autoblog.