Discussion in 'Mopar / FCA News' started by Mr.Source, Jun 6, 2018.
Did they not have to deliver at 40 miles per gallon vehicle to access more money through purchase
They had some hoops to jump through - each one representing a certain percentage of ownership until finally having reached the Full Monty.
I actually forgot about the 40 MPG requirement!
It makes sense to me that Mr. Marchionne would not be thrilled to have outside authorities telling him how to run the company. But he did what responsible adults do in such situations: he pulled up his big boy pants and complied with the regulations.
However, I'm not entirely clear what the 40 MPG requirement has to do with the Dart being discontinued. Are you suggesting that the Dart was built for the sole purpose of meeting that requirement, and that Mr. Marchionne discontinued it as soon as he could, merely out of spite?
I believe that the Dart was developed primarily because FCA US badly needed a replacement for the Caliber, and at that point, the leadership still believed that they could profitably play in the compact sedan market. The one trim that reached 40 MPG was developed to meet the acquisition target, but not the whole program. If they were only trying to meet the 40 MPG target, they could have saved a lot of money by continuing to produce the Caliber and by restyling the 500 as a Chrysler or a Dodge as the 40 MPG vehicle.
I'm being genuinely curious (and not trying to be snarky) when I ask: Where do you expect to see the corporate contingency plan for dealing with regional economic crises? Is this something that most multinational corporations release to the public?
I agree with you entirely, and I bet that FCA would have liked to have kept placeholders in those segments. Unfortunately, they did not have the production capacity to continue those unprofitable products while introducing new, more profitable products (Wagoneer, JT) and renovating the plants for the new Wrangler and Ram. They were also in no position financially to continue producing those vehicles at a loss.
Again, not trying to be snarky, but what are the common professional auto maker expectations that you are referring to, and which ones are FCA not meeting?
(SIDEBAR: Thanks for the thoughtful, polite, and civil discussion!)
Sorry.....Just checked the warehouse and computer stocking system......
We're completely out of Magic Wands!
Could I interest you in some Fairy Dust?.....Right now, we have some marked down 50%
While it may have not been your intention to make it an excuse, I consider it as an excuse because saying they dropped sedans because they couldn't compete with the products from other manufacturers overlooks the real question. That question is WHY those other makes are established in that market and FCA isn't.
They've got to start somewhere. As far as I can see, they haven't addressed the issues that allowed Toyota and Honda to dominate the sedan market (quality, stability - model names stay the same, safety, etc.) Things people look for in sedans. Things many people look for in CUVs. I see Toyota advertising their Safety Sense as standard on Corolla and RAV4 (among others) while FCA considers safety only available to those who buy top trim levels. I would no be surprised to see the next Sienna push this against Pacifica. Far too many people take the "easy" CUV choice - Toyota, Huyndai and even Ford - without even considering an FCA product. Imagine Jeep's success if it wasn't saddled with the quality problem many see it as having.
It's beyond time to get very serious about quality. FCA need to brag about what it already does right and work on what's going wrong. If Sergio wants higher margins, the products are going to be scrutinized for quality issues even harder. In many ways, FCA's handling of this issue is no different than DCX or independent Chrysler.
^ Oh and I forgot to mention discounts. They had to discount sedans to move them. Now look at the discounts on some of the current CUVs. History repeats.
I'm inclined to agree with Mark (Valiant67) in regards to quality. FCA has approached the quality/warranty issue from the wrong angle. They should be working with the suppliers to improve the parts quality, not clamping down on warranty claims. Yes, warranty claims should be monitored, but it seems from what I've read, many warranty claims are questioned if not outright denied.
As much as I prefer MoPar products, I am at this point very leery of purchasing another MoPar due in part to the quality concerns.
Most of them pay automatically. I can’t blame them for questioning warranty claims when you have shady dealers who are double dipping or claiming repairs that have never been done.
What concerns me about quality is what appears to be "behind the scenes" cost cutting. When a vehicle has been in production for years (like the JK Wrangler or the Grand Caravan) and commonly used parts like a brake light switch or wiring harness becomes an issue on the more recent years only it would appear that FCA has either switched vendors for a lower cost or pushed the same vendor to lower the part cost. FCA has all but confirmed this citing "purchasing savings". This isn't the direction to move in for increased quality. Yes, save money where you can, but don't trade cost savings for warranty/recalls down the line.
If they are indeed using this method of cutting costs, it rarely leads to higher quality. They've been down this road before. History repeating itself?
So much wrong going on. My present 2015 300s is now just a mode of transportation like a Bus. I enjoyed my 2007 with its non sport ride and lack of fighting with "toys" much more. Yes I get better fuel economy and perforance but "pilot-overload" with stuff calling for more attention and takes focus on the most important task, safety. Its probably because most functions have been the same for me for 54 year. I love drving my base 2009 Challenger with just a radio much more. Too bad the stitching in the drivers seat is coming apart and key falls out of the plastic switch. Yes its old but it only has 40,000 miles on it and has been stored indoors for half its life. Forgot the rust around the rear wheelwell.
Going to Colorado for two weeks to get away, maybe get lightly used Cordoba to drive home in!
That's an issue between FCA and the "shady" dealers. Unfortunately, those types of dealers reflect badly on the manufacturer.
Agreed, but wouldn't you say that it's the dealer at fault rather than FCA? If they became more strict on enforcing warranty policies to enforce this type of behavior that would have negative consequences for the truthful dealers who are trying to get claims paid. I think they've got a pretty good balance right now, and short of hiring a representative to work at each individual dealer to make sure ethical behavior is going on, there isn't a lot FCA can do to maintain integrity at every single dealership.
Oh, I agree it's more the shady dealer than it is FCA. Unfortunately, it ends up affecting everyone - good dealer, shady dealers and the customer.
There is so much horse blood on the floors, walls, and ceiling from the beatings that I'm beginning to believe everyone is getting serum sickness.
I agree that it maybe time to log out one last time. I've been here long enough to know that this "death" spiral of a topic will never correct itself. Unfortunately, most of the threads of late all seem to take this same direction. I much prefer the days when one could look forward to getting some interesting tidbits of information when visiting the site. Now, its so difficult to even read a page without wondering wtf.
Unfortunately, I don't think most people realize how very tiring it is for everyone else to have to see these topics come up constantly. Or if they do realize how exhausting these discussions are, they obviously just don't care.
True, thats one reason I have not been around, other is mega dealers ripping customers and Chrysler not responding to the issues. There must be some problem. I also stopped watching the new and live on Roku and games.
Thanks for your reply, and for bringing up several points that are worthy of discussion.
What do you think is the real reason that FCA dropped the sedans? I see two major reasons:
1. They needed the production capacity to redesign the Wrangler and Ram without losing any sales of those vehicles, and to produce new higher-margin vehicles like the JT and GW.
2. They were losing money by producing the Dart and 200 for several reasons, including the contraction of demand for sedans, a lack of a loyal customer base due years of mediocre products in those segments and bad publicity for the brands, and new products that were good but not great or class-leading.
Which of these points do you disagree with?
I agree, and as I stated in an earlier post, I hope that they will use the upcoming change in leadership and the elimination of net debt as an opportunity to invest in some long-term brand-building, including the Dodge, Chrysler, and Fiat brands.
I agree that greater emphasis should be put on quality.
I understand the frustration with changing model names. I suspect that each new owner has looked at the older model names and judged them to have little or negative branding value due to being tainted by quality problems in the past, renamed the vehicles, and thought, "This is a much better name and we will keep this one from now on!"
The Dart had no direct predecessor but perhaps it should have been called "Neon," in spite of the negative connotations that some have with that name.
I never liked the "200" name and always thought that "Sebring" could have been rehabilitated.
I always thought that "Town and Country" sounded very outdated and I like "Pacifica" better, but I understand the concerns that people had about the lack of continuity. However, sales don't seemed to have suffered because of the name change.
I understand your point here but there are also buyers out there who don't want to pay for what they consider annoying nanny technology. Anecdotal: my Renegade does not have much in the way of safety tech beyond the back-up camera and I don't regret not having all the other stuff.
AFAIK, FCA vehicles are generally safe and perform well in crash tests, with the recent GC front overlap fiasco being an exception.
I totally agree that FCA has not done a great job with messaging in regards to quality. It's frustrating when they win awards or other recognition and don't advertise it.
Other than on the Journey, which is like a million years old and is printing money, are FCA's current incentives out of line with what the rest of the industry is offering? I honestly don't know.
The death of the Dart and 200 has been gone of a 1000 times... We would not have the transition of the RAM DT to the DS with out it.
Quality did not kill the Dart and the 200, it was the millions or so of dollars it was going to take to start the new generation. The money went to revamping the factory to sell a higher volume vehicles. FCA were way ahead of the other manufactures.
Quality is an issue as it is for most domestic vehicles. Not a get out of jail card but I sure wish they were more focus on it.
My new '17 Ram with only one intial issue that the dealer fixed properly the first time has had no issue over 10,000 kms (6,000 miles) has been flawless.
The 200 was the wrong sedan at the wrong time in the wrong plant. Fairly simple I guess. The Dart on the other could still be rolling off the line. Nothing was making it go away other then an update was coming and the money was allocated elsewhere. They could've kept on selling a slimmed down, say two package car and maybe could've made some money. Just not the kind of profit that seems to be demanded now. Now this is just my opinion. Not claiming it to be a fact.