NewsDemon has a freakin’ TransBrake • Pritchett’s Challenger Drag Pak isn’t a Demon • Ram Longhorn to match trailers

Hello, Allpar Forums member or visitor! If you were a member, you would not see this ad!

Register or log in at the top right of the page...

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sergio confirms media went out of context with VW,defends killing Dart,200

Discussion in 'Mopar News and Rumors' started by Alexbucks, Mar 16, 2017.

  1. Alexbucks

    Alexbucks Member

    Likes:
    114
    Sergio from the 45Th President event in Michigan:Marchionne Says New Fuel Rules Will Help Jeep Production (at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2017-03-15/marchionne-says-new-fuel-rules-to-help-jeep-production-video )

    A couple of notes about the video,at the end (of the video) Sergio confirms what I stated regarding VW which is that he was taken wayy out of context:FCA+GM+VW (at https://www.allpar.com/forums/threads/fca-gm-vw.167105/page-6#post-1084841529 )

    Also the matter and style of how Sergio was discussing Volkswagen strongly indicates that GM is the chosen deal option path.

    But at the 50 second mark of the video is where Sergio talks about Dart,200 being made on assumptions the Midsize D-Class,and Compact C-Class was going to remain relevant in the American consumer, and how both segments are losing relevance.
     
    Prabhjot and ScramFan like this.
  2. Nell_Z

    Nell_Z New Member

    Likes:
    16
    Hmmmm...

    Another reason why I like hearing the source of which words come from, it's funny how far the media can stretch a story.

    It makes me think, though, what's the real plan here after 2018?
     
  3. aldo90731

    aldo90731 Active Member Level III Supporter

    Likes:
    5,719
    Of course he is going to defend HIS decision; HE made it. You can bet he would be blasting it had it been someone else's.

    Instead of listening to him just do the math yourself: sedans CONTINUE to account for 40% of all US sales to this day. On a 17 million market, that represents 6,800,000 UNITS. That's equivalent to ALL of Germany, UK and Italy's sales combined! That's hardly chum change. Would he pull out of those markets because they are stagnant? Right, I don't think so either.

    The rub is he had already spent the BILLIONS developing, certifying and marketing two products that gave FCA access to a market as big as GERMANY, FRANCE and ITALY COMBINED. Heck, even if sedans accounted for just 10% of the market it would still be worth it. On the other hand, the total subcompact segment, where the ENTIRE FIAT FRANCHISE operates is only 5% of the US market, and PROFITS ARE MINISCULE...but somehow that's worth keeping...? How does that make ANY sense? --Ah, but of course, silly me, it's all about his "grand vision"...

    From an asset management and legacy standpoints, the name 200 was worthless, so who cares, right? [sarc]. But "Dodge Dart" was a LEGENDARY NAME. Yet he took it, he tossed it into the mud and ruined it forever. No "oops", no "I'm sorry". One of Dodge's most valuable assets tossed in the trash. How does that fit into his all-knowing "grand vision"....? Explain it to me Lucy...
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2017
  4. Adventurer55

    Adventurer55 Member

    Likes:
    596
    Merging with GM is taking the easy road for him. Merging with VW would still keep most Jeep, Ram, Dodge and Chrysler vehicles here. His blessed Italian brands except maybe one would most likely be gone in the rest of the world. VW has a very small footprint here, if they improve quality and offer a good warranty sales for Chrysler will only get better. If GM gets a hold of Chrysler nothing but Jeep will be left. Even Ram will be gone, GM does not need anything Chrysler has except Jeep.
     
  5. MJAB

    MJAB Active Member

    Likes:
    1,780
    Strange facts, GM withdrawal from european market (2013 Chevrolet (except few sporty models) and now Opel.
    If the number of car sold is the reason only why one should stay or not in a market than why go away?

    Maybe there is an asimmetry in informations and car per market segment are not the main cause of decisions?

    Data:

    In 2016 were registered in European Union (25 countries - Malta that is always late in giving its data) passenger cars: 14.641 million (a Jeep Wrangler is for 99,99% of times a passenger car in Europe) and light commercial vehicles (under 3.5 t): 1.919 million (a van , a pickup are for most registered as LCV).

    To add that in Europe pickups are a minuscule share of the market.
     
    Prabhjot and aldo90731 like this.
  6. valiant67

    valiant67 Rich Corinthian Leather Level III Supporter

    Likes:
    8,543
    Perhaps if Sergio had a little more self-discipline he would not have to spend so much time defending and clarifying his statements.
     
  7. aldo90731

    aldo90731 Active Member Level III Supporter

    Likes:
    5,719
    Still, in its infinite arrogance, I can see GM taking Wrangler and slapping the GMC badge onto it, and claiming with a straight face that GM had come up with the idea for a Jeep in 1933.
     
  8. Ian

    Ian Car Freak

    Likes:
    1,317
    GM can be as arrogant as Daimler been and VW can be. It's a death wish for CDJR...
     
  9. aldo90731

    aldo90731 Active Member Level III Supporter

    Likes:
    5,719
    Every automaker has some sort of a master plan. In GM's situation in Europe, based on the bits and pieces I've read, I believe it was a combination of factors:
    1. Opel's history of government meddling, low profits and weak market position
    2. Cost of certification, especially in light of ever stricter EU emissions rules at a time when US looks about to turn the other way
    3. Positioning Chevrolet as GM's global brand.
    I wouldn't be surprised if they think unloading Opel/Vauxhall will free up their hands to do whatever they want with Chevrolet, whenever and wherever the opportunity arises throughout Europe, in light of BREXIT and rumbles of further schisms.

    Even if Chevrolet has to start from a weaker place than Opel, it is their weaklink and they can do with it as they see fit. Opel had too many strings attached.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2017
    jimboy likes this.
  10. Ian

    Ian Car Freak

    Likes:
    1,317
    Why can't he be concentrating on building cars, selling them and straightened out his dealer network! Focus on quality and customer service...What's with his merger fetish?
     
  11. GasAxe

    GasAxe Active Member

    Likes:
    2,968
    You can blame the other guy when a merger fails. Building cars and having a quality dealer experience requires a vision, commitment, and consistency.
     
  12. aldo90731

    aldo90731 Active Member Level III Supporter

    Likes:
    5,719
    It is like the patient in hospital who refuses to exercise, eat well and take medication, but can't shut up about the girl he is going to score.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2017
  13. MJAB

    MJAB Active Member

    Likes:
    1,780
    It is all about return on investment and comparing that with other sectors or even better (or worse, it depends on your point of view) with your suppliers or potential suppliers ROI.
    Car manufacturing, better to say final product R&D, body in white, painting and assembly is a capital intensive activity with relatively low, compared to others, margin.

    Let make an example in the news this last days: Mobileye, an israeli company founded in 1999, specialized in ADAS (advanced driver assistance system) systems and autonomous driving.

    Fiscal Year 2016 highlights:
    Total revenue of USD 358.2 million, up 48.7% year-over-year
    Gross Profit USD 270.85 million
    Net Income of USD 108.4 million

    So their gross profit is 75% and net profit 30%.
    Than take a look to profits in auto industry.

    Intel just acquired Mobileye for USD 15 billion.

    To lower costs, better to say increase margins automaker look at reduction of costs by "economy of scale".
    Merger, merger could be different than one could image, for example could be joint venture (or demerger, sell) for powertrains production.

    Or a merger can be also vertical, a return to conglomerates, with suppliers with high margins (since most of their products are "immaterial") buying automakers, and final production being only an "axessory" of main business.

    Probably will happens when cars, better to say transport vehicles, business will be mainly service sell than product sell.
    Transport as service, more or less luxurious.
     
    Prabhjot likes this.
  14. FGA cheerleader

    FGA cheerleader Member

    Likes:
    1,224
    They will offer Cadillac and sporty Chevrolet in Europe. Does it make sense? I don't know.
    IMO, Buick makes more sense as a mass market brand in Europe than Korean Daewoo because from Daewoo even if they are put Chevy badge on it people expect cheap products. Kia and Hyundai are still cheap here and Chevy is even a step bellow in people's mind.
     
    aldo90731 likes this.
  15. aldo90731

    aldo90731 Active Member Level III Supporter

    Likes:
    5,719
    I see Chevrolet slapping bow ties onto Daewoos throughout Latin America as well.

    I agree, I don't think that's the way forward either.