News → What’s special about the Demon? • Demon has a freakin’ TransBrake • Pritchett’s Challenger Drag Pak isn’t a Demon
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...
Discussion in 'Mopar News and Rumors' started by Alexbucks, Mar 16, 2017.
That 100k number included retire healthcare, in otherwords pre-VEBA.
Well that's the key," widely different", and "variants" of components.
So to summarize: Alfas can be sold at a loss but Dart and 200 could not. Either that or it's a lie Dodge volume was needed to support Alfa.
Which is a minor factor in the cost of manufacturing a car.
Right. Just like unproductive plants can remain open in Italy but not here. Capisce?
Well one can do a discussion if one knows real number, not when one use an hypothetic number as base for his/her assertions.
Even reading the annual FCA economic-financial public documents that data are not shown.
An indirect aproximated evaluation can be done, for example, for Maserati since limited lineup, few plants and its data separated from other ones.
Valiant, you are just looking to continue an argument because you don't like the situation. I never said one brand versus another could be sold at a loss. What I said was that it's the total financial picture that drives the decisions. I am also a firm believer that Dodge and Jeep volume will add significant positive cash flow as they start to roll out on the Giorgio platform. I am stating that making the FURTHER investments that would have been needed to have rolled out those models on the original schedule would not have been financial beneficial. The success of LX and GC have allowed them to milk that cow a bit longer without need for exceptionally high rebates or fleet dumps. Never extending Giorgio to actual models from Dodge and Jeep will mean that they ran out of time and money before they got there. Doing it the way they are makes that less likely.
Blame the Italian government if you want - I'm sure FCA is as frustrated with that as anyone.
Maybe inform ourselves before writing is better.
1) in Italy one plant was closed (in Sicily) and some other smaller ones.
2) Fiat and now FCA are super expert in taking private their profits and share with public balance and other private companies the loses.
How? "cassa integrazione guadagni ordinaria" and "cassa integrazione guadagni staordinaria" and other ways.
3) the number of Fiat workers in Italy decreased heavily over decades, just to say.
Especially You, working in automotive sector, should put more attention to inform You better.
Not a critic, just an annotation.
Lighten up. I was poking fun at one of your cohorts enlightening us the other day why it is permissible to keep unproductive plants open in Italy as a jobs-saving measure.
Has anyone considered the cost of switching from CATIA? design to the current one FCA chose instead ? (sorry; can't remember the acronym) Is the relatively poorer/worse system costing more money due to it's lack of capability compared to the Chrysler system? Are some of the design flaws/engineering problems the result of this lesser system? I know that Bob Sheaves isn't around so much these days, can anyone else make an educated guess, here?
That's revisionist history to say the least
It follow more profitable to make an Alfa/Jeep in Italy than making a mass market European product in those plants. Hence, the financial results.
To make any other suggestion is just clueless.
Dagar, you do not buy a multi-million dollar machine and make parts worth $100K every year on it. That machine has to have a payback in a shorter timeframe.
If you went to an investor and said I need $2 billion to develop the Giorgio platform, but I will milk the existing platforms for cash until then, they will tell you to get lost. Why shoudl they give you $2 billion if that does not result in GREATER cash than what you have now?
In fact, the vehicles you are building on that $2 billion investment are losing money because they do not generate enough positive margins to cover the fixed costs of the assembly plant.
Dodge and Jeep will not be generating anything on the Giorgio investment for another 4 years at a minimum. Until then, it is all Alfa......which was supposed to have 8 vehicles in a 2-3 years and will now have 2 vehicles in 2 years. Those two vehicles will not create a payback sufficient to recoup the investment into Giorgio until maybe 5 years down the road.
This is the first time you made a modicum of sense!
Yes, if Alfa/Jeep actually shared Giorgio, then they could be building Grand Cherokees with an Alfa and Maserati equivalent to service Europe and the Middle East. Meanwhile, Jeep in the US would be building the Grand Cherokee for NAFTA consumption.
That is how you do platform sharing in the 21st Century!
Let Turkey or Poland build mass market Fiats for Europe.
Currently, we have very little platform sharing. CUSW is a dead-end and will die when the Cherokee and Pacifica are redesigned.
SUSW is a success and will spawn more variants for another generation. Then, I predict it will die as well to be replaced by a better platform that is FWD/AWD/RWD and can support a wider variety of vehicles.
Right now, Giorgio is two vehicles and very little more for another 4 years.