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' started by Ingvar, Dec 21, 2017.
I wonder why they don't turn it into the rally subbrand of Alfa like Abarth is the subbrand of Fiat.
Really? The FWD compact and midsize cars are on their way back? There are prototypes of the Dodge and Chrysler compact and midsize CUVs running around? They are only 5 years behind schedule.
IIHS has their new test for headlights, points are taken off for glare that blinds other drivers.
I was at a restaurant the other day, there was a lifted Wrangler with LEDs, really blinding at eye level for anyone driving a car. The new Cherokee and Ram are going backwards on this, the headlights were in the right place before, now they are too high.
Actually it is probably the new exotic materials that drove the price up a few thousand dollars. High strength aluminum alloys and magnesium dropped the weight by 200 lbs.
That's how every car got CHMSL, airbags, ABS, ESC, etc.
Totally agree there. My Darts auto highs would occasionally blind itself (and us) on signage, lol.
Goes back to what I was saying about hids vs reflectors with dual filament bulbs. Hids are always the same intensity, regardless of whether the highs are on or not.
Build the vehicles that were in their original plan, Chrysler and Dodge compact and midsize cars and CUVs.
FCA didn't rebuild Lancia, it ran it into the ground, and the picture you provided merely documents how.
Probably because neither suggestion is a good idea...
I would still like to see a modern Jeep in rally, or rallycross, and maybe ram for stadium supercross. Lol. Renegade seems made for rally/cross, imo.
Well, similar but different - the OP suggested that one couldn't offer safety equipment on high level vehicles unless also on low end. That's quite different than mandated to include...
Been there, done that.
Nope. I mean like this:
Not just having a "rallye" trim level or bumper/bodykit.
So you prefer it reduced to a single minicar econobox, or did you have another suggestion for what to do with it?
That's not an ideal option, but still leaps and bounds better than selling it or turning it into a sub-brand.
FCA should either rebuild it (and not by rebadging another brand's products), or close it down.
Sorry Lancia was in dire straights long before the acquisition of Chrysler try the 1960's ! Yes they have had some very innovative vehicles in their illustrious years but Lancia downfall is much deeper than placing the blame on FCA.
Why would selling Lancia be a bad idea? It couldn't possibly be run worse than it is right now. You might even see it totally rebuilt beyond your wildest dreams if the right people got a hold of it. If I was a Lancia fan I'd be pushing for a sale to Geely and get the same treatment they gave Volvo.
No argument there. My point was that the blatant rebadge job performed under FCA leadership did not constitute any proper attempt to rebuild Lancia - on the contrary it made things worse, and was by all indications the final nail in the coffin.
It would be a bad idea for FCA to sell Lancia, because it would involve arming one of FCA's competitors with a strong brand. Why would FCA want to do that, most likely only for a one-time settlement (perhaps even an insignificant one)? It's not in the long term interest of FCA to do so, and it should look at Ford's huge strategic error (arguably a necessary one at the time, but still) of selling Volvo to China and JLR to India and seek not to repeat it.
Apart from the fact that I don't see how people would want a Chinese Lancia or actively advocate for even more automotive production lost to China (which Geely has already contributed to, see the S90), I don't see why it would be in FCA's interest to contribute to such a scenario as the one you describe.
Management compensation and debt buy down.