"shpuker" (shpuker)
02/01/2016 at 14:26 • Filed to: None
2
27|
"shpuker" (shpuker)
02/01/2016 at 14:26 • Filed to: None | 2
| 27 |
By now everyone knows about !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . What most aren’t asking however is how this helps explain their more recent adjustments to their 5-year outlook. Maybe FCA isn’t banking on low gas prices at all, maybe they’re banking on lower diesel prices and cheaper batteries for plug in hybrids.
FCA (or more specifically Chrysler) has never been afraid to take a leap at a long shot when backed into a corner, and looking at sales numbers for the 200 and Dart I’d say they found their corner. FCA has !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! its death sentence which leaves a clear question on FCA’s small car future. Who is FCA going to try and bum platforms off? The obvious answer is Mazda when you look at their relatively small share on the US market and their !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , not to mention Mazda’s Skyactiv lineup.
What platform is FCA banking on?
While it might be tempting to say they’re aiming at 400,000+ Wranglers per year or on bigger SUV’s like the Grand Cherokee, I’d be quick to point out that Jeep’s biggest seller in 2015 was the Cherokee, Dodge’s was (I shit you not) the Journey, and Chrysler’s the 200... Well that’s awkward isn’t it. In fact if you look at FCA’s top sellers in the US in 2015 you have Ram pickups and then 3 Jeep SUVs/crossovers. With the Compass/Patriot replacement coming out soon and Renegade sales hitting a respectable 60,000 in 2015 I’d say it’s safe to expect Jeep’s compact SUV platforms to show up in Chrysler and Dodge concepts very soon.
Photo cred: Automobilemag.com
Yea but that’s really nothing that surprising, give me something better.
How about this. Alfa Romeo has been teasing US bound diesels for some time now, and with their recent unveils in Europe I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! (specifically the GME) in the new Compass/Patriot and down the road the Renegade and next-gen Cherokee.
More importantly however, if this is the path FCA is taking then they would have less and less motivation to push a deal with someone like Mazda. However it could point to a different deal, one with someone like Nissan.
Hear me out, Nissan has made a big push in the past year to develop new engine tech and to take advantage of holes that exist in the market currently *cough* new Titan diesel *cough* , so it really wouldn’t be that big of a stretch for them to reach out to other automakers in hopes of a little product exchange.
Now the question becomes what would either stand to gain in the long run. For starters look at the Nissan’s share of the compact/sub-compact market, it’s a lot stronger than Mazda’s. While yes this means they stand to lose more if all hell breaks loose, but it also means they stand on far better footing and the chances of them going under due to FCA taking a piece of that market is slim. What about Nissan though? What do they stand to gain? With the 5.7L HEMI slated to roll out !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , I think that answer is obvious. A HEMI powered Pathfinder could make some killer headlines as well in the future.
FCA’s desire to push into the hybrid market as well would benefit significantly from getting to pick Nissan’s brain on the Leaf, and with Tesla’s push to make battery technology cheaper across the board the practicality of Hybrids and full-electric cars could see another sharp climb in the coming years.
Let’s summarize this a bit.
FCA is very much so still looking for another merger/partner.
Mazda and Nissan seem to be a pair of plausible candidates.
Nissan has a fairly good relationship with FCA at this point.
FCA likely making a push towards more diesel/hybrid options, possibly even across the board.
FCA has been talking about hybrids a lot lately, with the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , a Ram plug in hybrid, etc.
With Tesla’s gigafactory on the way FCA could easily be banking on significantly lower battery prices in the next few years.
Anyways, enough of me stumbling ideas together. What does everyone else think is in the cards?
Party-vi
> shpuker
02/01/2016 at 14:28 |
|
back from the depths of the interweb, it’s SHPUKER!!!
For Sweden
> Party-vi
02/01/2016 at 14:31 |
|
We told you Tupac Shpuker was alive in Serbia
DrJohannVegas
> shpuker
02/01/2016 at 14:34 |
|
Let’s push this conspiracy a bit further:
davedave1111
> shpuker
02/01/2016 at 14:41 |
|
“FCA has given the 200/Dart project its death sentence which leaves a clear question on FCA’s small car future.”
The FP said something similar today. I find it bizarre, given that small cars are what the Fiat part of FCA builds - and very successfully, too.
|
shpuker
> For Sweden
02/01/2016 at 14:43 |
|
Lies! They’d never associate with me, I’ve been deep undercover in the depths of North Korea obviously!
BigBlock440
> shpuker
02/01/2016 at 14:45 |
|
With the 5.7L HEMI slated to roll out under the hood of the new (Ram based) Titan ,
What is this, 2008?
|
shpuker
> davedave1111
02/01/2016 at 14:46 |
|
Honestly I’m surprised to hear about the axing of the 200 project. I mean it isn’t giving Honda or Toyota any fits but it’s damn sure making them money right now. The one scenario I can think up that would make sense is that they’re trying to open the door to a merger with a company like Mazda or Nissan that aims primarily at the small car market.
|
shpuker
> BigBlock440
02/01/2016 at 14:49 |
|
Perhaps I could elaborate a bit more. The point I’m trying to make there is that in the mid-sized/full sized SUV and truck markets Nissan hasn’t really done much of their own development, thus joining arms with a company that wants to push development in this market, and has been successful in for a while, would make sense.
|
shpuker
> DrJohannVegas
02/01/2016 at 14:53 |
|
“Announcing FCRNTA... Fiat Chrysler Renault Nissan Tesla Automobiles....”
|
DrJohannVegas
> shpuker
02/01/2016 at 14:57 |
|
No Renault. There’s no way you’d find a company where: 1) The Italian and French governments both have a say. 2) Sergio puts up with either for long. 3) Musk puts up with either at all.
So, I’d bet FCNTA, since NTFCA is already taken .
|
shpuker
> DrJohannVegas
02/01/2016 at 15:00 |
|
Eh, I mean you’re not wrong. Nissan Finance does already own 15% of Renault though.
|
davedave1111
> shpuker
02/01/2016 at 15:01 |
|
Or, like I said, to Fiat’s products. Why discount the designs and platforms they already own? They’re one of the world’s most successful manufacturers of small cars, so it’s bonkers to suggest they need a merger with someone who builds small cars.
I’d say if anything axing the 200 points to a move into the US market for the Multipla, Doblo, Qubo, etc - although that’s only because I don’t want to remember the 500L exists.
It would be interesting to see what the US would make of a $15k base-spec Doblo.
Not a bad looking chap, is he?
El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First!
> shpuker
02/01/2016 at 15:03 |
|
Mazda got in bed with Toyota.
And Nissan has a very successful partnership with Renault.
Again. FCA’S best partner would be PSA Peugeot Citroen. But they have stakes sold to the French government, who bailed them out and to a Chinese company, so it could be complicated.
Honda could be another solution. FCA stinks on Asian markets. Honda is struggling to regain traction in the EU. Honda doesn’t really have rivals for Jeep and Ram, and premium brands like Maserati and Alfa Romeo could either help or eventually replace Acura. The new company would likely sell or kill both Lancia and Dodge.
|
DrJohannVegas
> shpuker
02/01/2016 at 15:03 |
|
15% isn’t a huge stake to liquidate (although if Finance holds it, there are ways around a full merge), but the bigger trick is getting Renault to give up their 40+% stake, especially when Nissan is doing better on the whole.
|
shpuker
> davedave1111
02/01/2016 at 15:04 |
|
The trouble is making small cars that anyone in the US will actually buy. Honestly if you brought that car to the US at even a $13k base price I highly doubt they’d push more than 50,000 a year, likely less than half that.
Wacko
> shpuker
02/01/2016 at 15:07 |
|
no for mazda, they hooked up with Toyota, and for Nissan, Not gonna happen, you see Nissan is in bed with Mercedes Do you remember what happened last time dodge and Mercedes where dating??
|
shpuker
> DrJohannVegas
02/01/2016 at 15:08 |
|
Ahh I did forget about that little gem. I’m sure if they got to pull any significant stake in Jeep from the deal they’d be willing to talk. honestly though a full merger on this scale is highly unlikely considering the fact that it’d be a joining of the 4th and 7th biggest automakers in the world. That’d be some great drama though.
|
davedave1111
> shpuker
02/01/2016 at 15:11 |
|
The Doblo’s not all that small, though, and it’s a fun and very practical little thing. I can’t imagine it would have any trouble matching, say, the Kia Soul’s sales figures - it’s more practical, better to drive, cheaper to live with, better looking (IMO) and so-on.
But it’s all speculation if they don’t try it.
|
DrJohannVegas
> shpuker
02/01/2016 at 15:14 |
|
I mean, with Renault in, a super-alliance gets access to some markets where FCA has nothing on the ground anymore. (Parts of Europe, Africa, and spots in Asia.) Renault gets back into the US, with a dense and established dealer network, although they haven’t used the Nissan connection, so maybe that’s not a factor.
I expect we’ll see more mergers in the coming 10 years as rising competition from new makers in the rising economies start exporting. Unfortunately, the economies of scale probably won’t be as good, since all of these companies have overlapping portfolios (ok, maybe not Tesla), engineering, manufacturing, and marketing arms.
TL;DR: Shrug.
|
shpuker
> Wacko
02/01/2016 at 15:27 |
|
But when has Chrysler ever learned from a mistake?
|
Wacko
> shpuker
02/01/2016 at 15:33 |
|
you got a point there.
Justin Young
> shpuker
02/01/2016 at 16:54 |
|
How long have you been panda snapping?
CM
> shpuker
02/01/2016 at 17:18 |
|
One of the horror stories jalopnik just posted discusses the horrors of Dart ownership.
Also, I can speak for the Cherokee but I personally know three people who have had issues with the CVT in the Grand Cherokee (among other QC problems).
IMO it just seems like the QA/QC isn’t what it should be.
|
shpuker
> Justin Young
02/01/2016 at 18:02 |
|
Since before Kinja.
|
shpuker
> CM
02/01/2016 at 18:05 |
|
Well the Grand Cherokee doesn’t come with a CVT so that’s probably part of the problem.
|
CM
> shpuker
02/02/2016 at 10:10 |
|
did i say “CVT?” I meant “8-speed” lol
|
CM
> shpuker
02/02/2016 at 10:12 |
|
either way, the transmission in those things is fucked.