by "Wobbles the Mind" (wobblesthemind)
Published 12/03/2017 at 00:12
by "Wobbles the Mind" (wobblesthemind)
Published 12/03/2017 at 00:12
Tags: Businessing
STARS: 2
No merger talks at all, just a technical and totally platonic cooperation. FCA already purchases a few parts from Hyundai anyways. Of course those are remnants from when Chrysler, Hyundai, and Mitsubishi formed the Global Engine Alliance from 2002 until the Recession. They say that old flames never completely cool off so FCA could rekindle them using Hyundai’s transmissions and is interested in sharing development in Hyundai’s hydrogen tech.
Hyundai has had its own transmission divisions known as Hyundai Powertech and Hyundai DYMOS since 2001. Their current lineup of cars is pretty eclectic in transmissions if you really look things over. Hyundai is using 5MT, 6MT, 6DCT, 7DCT, 6AT, 8AT, as well as some CVTs, plus has an 8DCT, 10AT, and likely a 9AT coming as soon as this Spring 2018. That’s a very wide selection of in-house transmissions for every front-engined application.
*Does anyone else remember that the Dodge Dart was available with a manual, a Powertech 6AT, as well as a 7DCT depending on which variant you looked at? I still like that and the Chrysler 200, I just think they should have swapped brands.
FCA doesn’t need hybrid tech since the Pacifica platform and their diesel plan will cover the emissions and efficiency side of things. Also, Chrysler is about to inherit the Maserati platform that’s underneath the Ghibli, Levante, and Quattroporte (which is not the same platform as the Giulia/Stelvio nor the Charger/300). I say all this because there isn’t a need to share platforms or anything, at least not until midway next decade. Plenty of time for the Hyundai car brand to partner up since Genesis and Kia are doing their own things.
We will see how things go, but if Genesis didn’t split from Hyundai in order to become a standalone brand then I doubt FCA would have had an opportunity to create a significant partnership.
"CRider" (crider)
12/03/2017 at 00:46, STARS: 0
Great, Jeeps with DCTs and Genesis Hellcats for everyone!
"His Stigness" (HisStigness)
12/03/2017 at 03:33, STARS: 0
What is with Chrysler being unable to function, it seems, without some partner or other owner? Perhaps I’m totally wrong and until Daimler Chrysler was self sufficient? I don’t know. But GM and Ford are both doing fine on their own, so why does FCA need a friend so bad?
"HFV has no HFV. But somehow has 2 motorcycles" (hondasfordsvolvo)
12/03/2017 at 11:04, STARS: 0
Ford has had Mazda, and many other brands to help it. Although Ford did outright own many of those, like Volvo, Aston, and Jag. GM has had a partnership with Toyota since the early 80s. Plus partnerships with Subaru, and ownership of Saab, which it used up and threw away. Not to mention for has for the last decade or so relied heavily on Ford Germany which was essentially an entirely different company.
Chrysler was primarily share holder of Mitsubishi Motors since the late 70s. Aand went on to Daimler Chrysler, which failed at everything because Mercedes basically treated Chrysler like GM treated Saab.
Oh yeah and they all had massive government bailouts. Non of the Big three have survived on their own.
"His Stigness" (HisStigness)
12/03/2017 at 16:11, STARS: 1
Ford just turned Mazda into another badge by the end. I wouldn’t argue Mazda added anything to Ford because everything underneath was all Ford products.
Volvo, on the other hand, was different. Ford mined them for anything useful, and then just ruined them. And I think Aston and Jag took what they could from Ford to try and save money, probably at the request of the gas bags in Dearborn.
I just listened to This American Life 561 on NUMMI , and it was a great listen. I highly encourage you to listen. But, the jist of it was this: Toyota learned how to work with Americans to bring factories over here, while GM took nothing away from their time working with Toyota. The GM workers at Fremont did learn how to build a car that didn’t fall apart, but GM refused to implement what they learned at their other factories, so, for the most part, NUMMI was a failure for GM, while Toyota got what they needed from it.
And yeah, they all did get bailouts, even if Ford said they didn’t. But I was talking more about technical partnerships. But the bailouts highlighted at how bad the big three were run, and still are. The Germans and Japanese also saw the same thing the big three and managed to not have to get bailed out. I am convinced that’s because, at least in the German’s case they are run by engineers who know what they’re actually making, and they’re not just spoiled brats with an MBA. I don’t know how the Japanese got out other than they know how to actually make cars also.
Going back to my original question of how Ford and GM haven’t “needed” a tech partner I think it’s because they have engineering bases in Germany and the UK, whereas I don’t think Chrysler ever has. The Germans and the rest of Europe produce very distinctive cars, and in their “resurgence” I’ve started to see a ton of German engineering creep into their cars, whereas before they were stuck with American engineering that couldn’t match the best from Japan or Germany.
"gmporschenut also a fan of hondas" (gmporschenut)
12/03/2017 at 22:09, STARS: 1
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
The problem with Saab was they weren’t profitable before GM bought them.
chrysler on the other hand had billions in cash, before they were bought and then had their enginnering slashed and had to rely on MB for design. MB was a corporate raider.