EcoModder.com

EcoModder.com (https://ecomodder.com/forum/)
-   EcoModding Central (https://ecomodder.com/forum/ecomodding-central.html)
-   -   Chrysler throws in towel on 200 (and Dart) (https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/chrysler-throws-towel-200-dart-33427.html)

sendler 01-29-2016 11:27 AM

Chrysler throws in towel on 200 (and Dart)
 
Cheap gas is helping buyers make a big mistake as pick up trucks and big SUVs are chosen to buy over fuel efficient cars.
.
Chrysler Throws In Towel On Sedans: 200, Dart To Die For SUVs, Trucks
.

MetroMPG 01-29-2016 11:38 AM

"We can't compete. So let's completely give up!"

Way to go, Chrysler!

sendler 01-29-2016 11:42 AM

They need the manufacturing space to build more 18 mpg trucks for the soccer moms to drive the kids around in.

MetroMPG 01-29-2016 11:54 AM

attitude adjustment
 
1 Attachment(s)
At least Chrysler Mexico has the right attitude:

http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1454086378

The Dodge Attitude :D

A re-branded 40 MPG 1.2L Mirage sedan.

Which is coming to the States (as a Mitsu) this year.

Fat Charlie 01-29-2016 11:55 AM

At least some of it isn't too wasteful- the Dart plant is going to be "converted" to build Cherokees. Jeep Darts. So, not too much converting to be done there, I guess.

By "full line" manufacturer, they mean fully vulnerable to every blip in the price of oil and fully ignoring both entry level and non-wasteful customers.

Vman455 01-29-2016 12:16 PM

"In setting the stage for the details that were released, Marchionne said FCA does not expect low fuel prices 'to fundamentally change, directionally,' and that it believes U.S. buyers' shift toward SUVs, crossover utility vehicles, and pickup trucks is permanent."

Hmmm...anyone else want to take that bet?

Andrei_ierdnA 01-29-2016 12:31 PM

I think there are three main factors that cause this, and it will take an entire generation to change things:

1) As the North American average waistline and body weight keep growing, so will the need for larger vehicles.

2) As the #1 consumerist society in the world, there's an ever increasing need for cargo space to carry all that stuff from the stores. I think more North Americans have garages full of stuff (crap) than garages with cars.

3) The public view of small cars and hatchbacks as being girly versus their love for my big manly 'Mmerican truck.

I think the fuel consumption and gas prices do not matter so much for the sheeple. :D


PS: as I walk my dog every evening through the neighbourhood I'm shocked to observe about 75% of houses have 2-3 cars parked in their driveways instead of their garage. In conclusion the word "garage" should be changed to "storage-space". ;)

jedi_sol 01-29-2016 01:06 PM

aww that sucks, I rented the Chrysler 200 one time. It got me 43mpg at 70mph (dashboard indicated) on my commute to work. It was quite nice inside too.

Fat Charlie 01-29-2016 01:20 PM

I drive a couple somewhat infrequently. The one with the 4 cylinder FTL, says the guy who drives a Fit.

Pity, because it's a good platform and if they could have sorted that out properly it would have been awesome.

Miller88 01-29-2016 02:13 PM

If there is any company that consistently goes out of it's way to make bad decisions , it is Chrysler.

From being garbage mechanically (transmission problems, engines that sludge), to electronic failures (TIPM) to now, getting rid of small cars.

I think Jeep, Dodge, Dodge truck er "RAM", Chrysler just need to be laid to rest.

The only value was in Jeep - which has been destroyed and in the CUMMINGS TRUCK, BRO ... which has lost its edge since they get further and further away from the old 12v engine.

mcrews 01-29-2016 03:20 PM

Im sorry to say, none of you seem to understand business.
Item A: is small and entry level. Parts have to be specially engineered and not out of the stock bin. Price point cant exceed $x.xx (let'd say 27k). Limited profit per item. Limited buyers
(btw, that's why the first gen small cars failed in the 70's. The couldn't afford to re-engineer so they were small cars built like big cars.)


Item B: big and entry level to top of line. Wide range of options. Parts are normal size and can be swapped across the tool bin. Price point can exceed $XX.XX (let's say $60k) wide range of buyers.

So, in review, I'm I company and accountable to myself, my Stockholders, my employees and finally my customers.
A. in the back of my mind I have to remember that there is a FIXED cost per vehicle of wages and union benefits (driving my price point).
B. it's easier to commonly share internal parts that are a common size.
C. Trucks make up 1/2 (yes HALF) of all vehicles sold.
D. trucks have the largest profit margin outside of luxury brands top models.

I (as a company) don't care about whiney people who NEVER bought my new eco-cars when I made them. I care about staying in business and building what sells.

You can all the emotional and illogical comments you want.
But at the end of the day, BUSINESS is BUSINESS.

Daox 01-29-2016 03:40 PM

I understand all that. I also understand that a lot of other companies have found ways to do it fairly successfully. This is why Chrysler pretty much sucks at business and thus why they've basically gone under and have been sold numerous times in the past decade and a half.

Having no small cars will yet again put them behind the pack as gas prices do go back up. The current prices are unsustainable as we all know (and even the Saudi's have admitted to).

MetroMPG 01-29-2016 03:41 PM

I do not doubt this is a sound business decision for the short term.

sendler 01-29-2016 03:43 PM

Not blaming Fiat/ Chrysler. Just a sad sign of the times. I'm blaming cheap gas for allowing the general public to continue their head in the sand and selfish choices for personal transportation.

darcane 01-29-2016 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daox (Post 506003)
Having no small cars will yet again put them behind the pack as gas prices do go back up. The current prices are unsustainable as we all know (and even the Saudi's have admitted to).

They don't have any small cars now.... the Dart/200 is a mid-size.


And mid-size sedans in general are dying off, not just for Dodge/Chrysler.
http://www.autonews.com/article/2015...-to-crossovers

In spite of car sales growing, the mid-size sedan segment is decreasing. Not just because gas is cheap and buyers can afford something with poor fuel economy but because crossover SUV economy is UP and buyers can get a vehicle with more utility and nearly the same fuel economy. The mid-size sedan is now competing with the small crossover SUV, and the crossover is winning.

I think this is a smart business move for FCA. They have a very limited selection of cars right now and need to focus on only the ones that are very profitable.

Vman455 01-29-2016 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcrews (Post 506001)
Im sorry to say, none of you seem to understand business.
Item A: is small and entry level. Parts have to be specially engineered and not out of the stock bin. Price point cant exceed $x.xx (let'd say 27k). Limited profit per item. Limited buyers
(btw, that's why the first gen small cars failed in the 70's. The couldn't afford to re-engineer so they were small cars built like big cars.)

The Dart and 200 are both on the Fiat Compact platform; minimal re-engineering was required to get them to market, and parts are shared with European models and the Jeep Cherokee. Just about everything on them is "out of the stock bin."


Quote:

Item B: big and entry level to top of line. Wide range of options. Parts are normal size and can be swapped across the tool bin. Price point can exceed $XX.XX (let's say $60k) wide range of buyers.

So, in review, I'm I company and accountable to myself, my Stockholders, my employees and finally my customers.
A. in the back of my mind I have to remember that there is a FIXED cost per vehicle of wages and union benefits (driving my price point).
B. it's easier to commonly share internal parts that are a common size.
C. Trucks make up 1/2 (yes HALF) of all vehicles sold.
D. trucks have the largest profit margin outside of luxury brands top models.

I (as a company) don't care about whiney people who NEVER bought my new eco-cars when I made them. I care about staying in business and building what sells.

You can all the emotional and illogical comments you want.
But at the end of the day, BUSINESS is BUSINESS.
We aren't being illogical. First, plenty of other auto companies (*cough*Ford*cough*) have well-reviewed and strong-selling small car lines in addition to being the largest volume manufacturer of light trucks in the country. Second, as fuel economy requirements rise in coming years, FCA will have a hard time meeting them without small and midsize cars in their portfolio; any businessperson worth their salt should be taking that into consideration when planning product cycles into the next decade, when those regulations take full effect. Third, while gas prices are low right now and driving more consumers into trucks and SUVs, this will not last indefinitely, as Marchionne believes--as soon as Saudi Arabia says uncle and turns off the taps, prices will go up, and given their budget deficits just a year into this strategy, that's likely to happen sooner rather than later, I think. The end result will be a replay of 2008: Chrysler, dependent on truck sales that fall in response to increased fuel prices, will teeter on the edge of bankruptcy, but this time there won't be anyone to save them. A plan that has a strong possibility of resulting in the failure of the company is not sound business. I'm certainly not investing anything in FCA.

For the record, I bought a new eco-car less than two years ago. Chrysler didn't make anything comparable then, and now they're only moving further away. Contrast their behavior with that of Toyota or Hyundai, who are introducing new or redesigned economy models--they will be well-positioned when gas prices go back up.

Vman455 01-29-2016 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darcane (Post 506014)
They don't have any small cars now.... the Dart/200 is a mid-size.

The distinction is semantic, since it's based on interior volume. According to the EPA, the Audi A8, Cadillac CTS, Chevrolet Sonic5, and Dodge Challenger are all also mid-size cars. But, the Dart's wheelbase (106.3") is identical to the Civic's and Corolla's, and the 200's (108") is 14" shorter than the Chrysler 300's (120") or said A8 (122").

darcane 01-29-2016 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vman455 (Post 506019)
The distinction is semantic, since it's based on interior volume. According to the EPA, the Audi A8, Cadillac CTS, Chevrolet Sonic5, and Dodge Challenger are all also mid-size cars. But, the Dart's wheelbase (106.3") is identical to the Civic's and Corolla's, and the 200's (108") is 14" shorter than the Chrysler 300's (120") or said A8 (122").

I'm not sure where you get your info from... but the Audi A8 is a full-size and Chevy calls the Sonic a "small car" (it usually gets grouped with subcompacts be Edmunds et al).

Interior volume is one of the more important determinations of the size of a car as that's what you interact with when operating the vehicle... And, of course, overall length, height, and width. Meanwhile wheelbase is rather arbitrary in determining a vehicle size.

Compare the 200 to the Malibu and Accord, and all three are within about 1" in height, width, and length despite the differing wheelbases. Camry too, but it's about 2" shorter. These are all mid-size cars. Meanwhile, the compact Corolla and Civic are both 10" shorter!

I stand by my statement. Chrysler/Dodge makes no small car.


EDIT: Actually, I just noticed something that may have tripped us both up. The 200 and Dart aren't the same car. 200 is a mid-size, Dart is a compact.

darcane 01-29-2016 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetroMPG (Post 505977)
At least Chrysler Mexico has the right attitude:

http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1454086378

The Dodge Attitude :D

A re-branded 40 MPG 1.2L Mirage sedan.

Which is coming to the States (as a Mitsu) this year.

This could be the partnership alluded to in the press release. From:
Updated Fiat Chrysler plan ups 2018 financial targets

Quote:

The company, according to Marchionne, is in continuing discussions with potential partners that could “provide a product from their facilities” to allow the company to cover gaps in the lineup left by the compact Dart and midsize 200. It’s unclear whether Fiat Chrysler would purchase re-badged cars or produce the cars using their current platform.
If they are already rebranding Mitsubishis (again) it wouldn't be much of a stretch to rebrand more of them to fill in some gaps.

Hersbird 01-29-2016 10:04 PM

Too bad as I think the 200 is the best looking smallish siize car out there. With the 3.6 its pretty sporty too.

mcrews 01-29-2016 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darcane (Post 506014)
They don't have any small cars now.... the Dart/200 is a mid-size.
.

I remember(12 years ago) spending 5 weeks in France(paris) and Italy (southern) and thinking as the weeks went by that the Jetta looked like a big car! :thumbup:

oil pan 4 01-29-2016 10:44 PM

DOE says that gas will be around $4/gal by 2020.
They are usually correct.
Then everyone with a 14mpg truck that they are still paying on has to drive a 30 mile commute will freak out when gas starts to go over $3/gal.

I drive a bug that is paid off. Even if gas gets so cheap they pay me to take it I am still keeping that stupid VW.

Xist 01-29-2016 10:57 PM

I would rather drive a Mitsubishi than a Chrystler. The other part of the escalation is the number of people that want at least as large a vehicle as everyone else, so they are safer!

vskid3 01-29-2016 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darcane (Post 506014)
In spite of car sales growing, the mid-size sedan segment is decreasing. Not just because gas is cheap and buyers can afford something with poor fuel economy but because crossover SUV economy is UP and buyers can get a vehicle with more utility and nearly the same fuel economy. The mid-size sedan is now competing with the small crossover SUV, and the crossover is winning.

If only there was a design that was about the same size as a sedan with about the same cargo capacity as a crossover that still got the same mileage as the sedan. *cough*wagon*cough* :D

I wonder if their 10 year plan includes them getting bailed out again?

Frank Lee 01-29-2016 11:36 PM

I always hear/read about these "Cummings" yet I've never seen one. :/

MetroMPG 01-30-2016 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vman455 (Post 506016)
Second, as fuel economy requirements rise in coming years, FCA will have a hard time meeting them without small and midsize cars in their portfolio; any businessperson worth their salt should be taking that into consideration

I think they definitely have been taking that into consideration. Sergio's "plan" appears to be: "somebody, anybody, PLEASE buy this company before this bubble bursts again."

ksa8907 01-30-2016 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Lee (Post 506056)
I always hear/read about these "Cummings" yet I've never seen one. :/

Yes, thats why you're so grumpy. :D:D

Xist 01-30-2016 02:10 PM

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

Of all of the car companies to purchase another with a poor reputation for reliability...

The Other Andy 01-30-2016 02:48 PM

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.

Hersbird 01-30-2016 06:13 PM

Chrysler was actually the first "domestic" company to make a small car that actually made a profit, the first generation Neon. Diamler ran them into the ground in the time they owned it. Stole the best, and let the government bail out the leftovers. Maybe it's just the curse of Jeep.

sendler 01-30-2016 07:22 PM

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

Frank Lee 01-31-2016 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksa8907 (Post 506078)
Yes, thats why you're so grumpy. :D:D

Actually that kind is the major cause of my grief.

Frank Lee 01-31-2016 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Andy (Post 506096)
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 02-02-2016 12:37 PM

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 02-02-2016 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xist (Post 506093)
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.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wBY78BUtAI.../Photo5024.jpg
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 02-03-2016 10:12 AM

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 02-03-2016 03:33 PM

It may make sense to delineate the makes.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Xist (Post 506308)
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 02-03-2016 05:26 PM

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 02-04-2016 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xist (Post 506308)
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.


Quote:

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 02-18-2016 02:56 PM

I was poking through ABG posts and found this:

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

Quote:

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.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com