Allpar Forums banner

21 - 40 of 114 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,510 Posts
I'm quite confident that we can imagine a mix of DS/Lancia.
Lower version on CMP and EMP2 platform, mainly made in France and finalized in Italy for Lancia and for the high-end, using the Giorgio platform and finalized in France for DS.
Now, how easily this can work, from an industrial/cultural point of view ?

But, my opinion (as someone from Europe) is that I'm not sure that there is a market for non-german premium brands.
The Guilia is an excellent car and sales are horrible, I can't really see what Stellantis can bring here.
I can't see a Giulia based DS. A RWD Peugeot 608 yes, a RWD DS, no.

I agree on the non German premium brands, that goes double for the US and Chinese markets. Alfa never had really successful sales on anything that wasn't FWD and 156 sized or smaller. That is compact in the US.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,510 Posts
As you know, in the EU, the Germans own the fleet market.....companies leasing vehicles for employees.

Other brands have success because they do not directly go after BMW, Mercedes and Audi in this fleet market. Alfa tried and failed for various reasons. The only brand to make inroads against the Germans was Lexus....and Toyota is not interested in being the fleet vehicle in the EU.
I think you may be right from a European standpoint. Outside of Europe, many luxury brands such as Lexus, Genesis, Lincoln, Cadillac, etc have been having growing success. But in Europe, it is purely German brands only. No one even comes close.

I worry that for many of us, nostalgia makes us elevate Lancia and Alfa, when really, maybe they shouldn't live up to their past and instead aim for something new.
Other than a dressed up Civic (ILX), Accord (TLX), Avalon (ES) and the Tesla Model 3, no one comes close to the German brands in the US.


Alfa and Lancia have mostly sold FWD compacts and subcompacts:

That is their past. A lot of people have rose tinted glasses that filter out everything but sport sedans, sports cars and rally cars. That's like looking at Dodge and only seeing Conquest and Viper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Stellantis has sufficient breadth of platforms and components to choose from it in an almost unique position of being able to tailor its product offerings for specific regions. Every brand and every model need not be global. Only the platforms, components and basic architectures need to be shared for economy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Dodge and Chrysler is only "negative" margin because that's how FCA treated them. Give them products not well suited for the marketplace and you end up with low margin vehicles.
That’s a problem that existed for far longer than FCA itself.

High margins require volume at a good price. Volume at a good price requires owner loyalty. Owner loyalty requires products with high quality, a great dealer experience and a low overall cost of ownership.

The seeds of Chrysler’s collapse in the sedan market and loss of customer to Hyundai, Kia and others were planted in the early to mid 1990s when the LHs were launched. The LHs looked great on paper but weren’t competitive due to poor durability and reliability. The same was true of the Neon, the cloud cars, and the PT.

By the late 1990s, Chrysler/Dodge sedans were actively chasing away loyal owners. Someone who purchased one of the midsized offerings of the day would have the unfortunate combination of the Sludgemaster self-destroying 2.7L V6, the failure-prone Ultradrive 41TE transmission, the notorious short-life Chrysler AC evaporators, warp-prone composite rotors and an engine cooling system prone to leaks and failures. Keeping the car on the road after the warranty expired was an expensive proposition, which is why they’re mostly in the junkyard today. And when you had problems, the local stealership was only too happy to blame you for all of them.

A large majority of those Chrysler and Dodge buyers left the brands for the Japanese, Koreans, and to a lesser extent, Ford and GM. By the mid 2000s, Chrysler sedans (excluding the LX) were a laundry list of laughing stocks including the Sebring/Avenger, Caliber, and so on. At that point, the only thing driving sales was subprime financing to low-FICO buyers via Chrysler Capital (Santander).

By the time the new 200 and Dart arrived, Chrysler and Dodge’s reputation in compact and midsized cars was dreadful after decades of bad product. The new cars had to be revolutionary to compete, and they were merely competent. FCA couldn’t solve Chrysler’s destruction of its reputation with customers with just two new models, and didn’t have the cash to produce an all-new lineup with a better dealer experience and the marketing muscle to tell people the days of garbage Chrysler/Dodge sedans were in the past. Meanwhile, the Japanese and Koreans had better styling, performance, economy, ergonomics and driving dynamics, and consumers had heard the “it’s a whole new Chrysler” thing a few times in the past, so even then success would have been elusive.

Marketing Peugeot/Citroen cars as Chryslers and Dodges might get some attention from people who want something radically different. But it’s going to have to require a massive and sustained investment in dealership experience and customer experience to make up for decades of poor-durability Chrysler and Dodge junkers. It’s a huge challenge and one that FCA couldn’t do on its own after decades of bad short-term focused decision-making.
 

·
Registered
2014 Jeep Compass
Joined
·
421 Posts
That’s a problem that existed for far longer than FCA itself.

High margins require volume at a good price. Volume at a good price requires owner loyalty. Owner loyalty requires products with high quality, a great dealer experience and a low overall cost of ownership.

The seeds of Chrysler’s collapse in the sedan market and loss of customer to Hyundai, Kia and others were planted in the early to mid 1990s when the LHs were launched. The LHs looked great on paper but weren’t competitive due to poor durability and reliability. The same was true of the Neon, the cloud cars, and the PT.

By the late 1990s, Chrysler/Dodge sedans were actively chasing away loyal owners. Someone who purchased one of the midsized offerings of the day would have the unfortunate combination of the Sludgemaster self-destroying 2.7L V6, the failure-prone Ultradrive 41TE transmission, the notorious short-life Chrysler AC evaporators, warp-prone composite rotors and an engine cooling system prone to leaks and failures. Keeping the car on the road after the warranty expired was an expensive proposition, which is why they’re mostly in the junkyard today. And when you had problems, the local stealership was only too happy to blame you for all of them.

A large majority of those Chrysler and Dodge buyers left the brands for the Japanese, Koreans, and to a lesser extent, Ford and GM. By the mid 2000s, Chrysler sedans (excluding the LX) were a laundry list of laughing stocks including the Sebring/Avenger, Caliber, and so on. At that point, the only thing driving sales was subprime financing to low-FICO buyers via Chrysler Capital (Santander).

By the time the new 200 and Dart arrived, Chrysler and Dodge’s reputation in compact and midsized cars was dreadful after decades of bad product. The new cars had to be revolutionary to compete, and they were merely competent. FCA couldn’t solve Chrysler’s destruction of its reputation with customers with just two new models, and didn’t have the cash to produce an all-new lineup with a better dealer experience and the marketing muscle to tell people the days of garbage Chrysler/Dodge sedans were in the past. Meanwhile, the Japanese and Koreans had better styling, performance, economy, ergonomics and driving dynamics, and consumers had heard the “it’s a whole new Chrysler” thing a few times in the past, so even then success would have been elusive.

Marketing Peugeot/Citroen cars as Chryslers and Dodges might get some attention from people who want something radically different. But it’s going to have to require a massive and sustained investment in dealership experience and customer experience to make up for decades of poor-durability Chrysler and Dodge junkers. It’s a huge challenge and one that FCA couldn’t do on its own after decades of bad short-term focused decision-making.
This is the type of hot take I like right here!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,510 Posts
That’s a problem that existed for far longer than FCA itself.

High margins require volume at a good price. Volume at a good price requires owner loyalty. Owner loyalty requires products with high quality, a great dealer experience and a low overall cost of ownership.

The seeds of Chrysler’s collapse in the sedan market and loss of customer to Hyundai, Kia and others were planted in the early to mid 1990s when the LHs were launched. The LHs looked great on paper but weren’t competitive due to poor durability and reliability. The same was true of the Neon, the cloud cars, and the PT.

By the late 1990s, Chrysler/Dodge sedans were actively chasing away loyal owners. Someone who purchased one of the midsized offerings of the day would have the unfortunate combination of the Sludgemaster self-destroying 2.7L V6, the failure-prone Ultradrive 41TE transmission, the notorious short-life Chrysler AC evaporators, warp-prone composite rotors and an engine cooling system prone to leaks and failures. Keeping the car on the road after the warranty expired was an expensive proposition, which is why they’re mostly in the junkyard today. And when you had problems, the local stealership was only too happy to blame you for all of them.

A large majority of those Chrysler and Dodge buyers left the brands for the Japanese, Koreans, and to a lesser extent, Ford and GM. By the mid 2000s, Chrysler sedans (excluding the LX) were a laundry list of laughing stocks including the Sebring/Avenger, Caliber, and so on. At that point, the only thing driving sales was subprime financing to low-FICO buyers via Chrysler Capital (Santander).

By the time the new 200 and Dart arrived, Chrysler and Dodge’s reputation in compact and midsized cars was dreadful after decades of bad product. The new cars had to be revolutionary to compete, and they were merely competent. FCA couldn’t solve Chrysler’s destruction of its reputation with customers with just two new models, and didn’t have the cash to produce an all-new lineup with a better dealer experience and the marketing muscle to tell people the days of garbage Chrysler/Dodge sedans were in the past. Meanwhile, the Japanese and Koreans had better styling, performance, economy, ergonomics and driving dynamics, and consumers had heard the “it’s a whole new Chrysler” thing a few times in the past, so even then success would have been elusive.

Marketing Peugeot/Citroen cars as Chryslers and Dodges might get some attention from people who want something radically different. But it’s going to have to require a massive and sustained investment in dealership experience and customer experience to make up for decades of poor-durability Chrysler and Dodge junkers. It’s a huge challenge and one that FCA couldn’t do on its own after decades of bad short-term focused decision-making.
Thankfully PSA and Tavares arrived with Stellantis, and they are making money with kind of vehicles FCA failed with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,510 Posts
He didn't really say anything new. It's all stuff people have been saying here for years.
Agreed, it has been said many times before on here. Of course there are those who look on the '90s as the dream team instead of the era where Chrysler lost its edge over the Germans and Japanese that it enjoyed in the '80s. So that bears repeating.

I also read the fantasy again that 200 and Dart were good efforts. They were first and foremost failures in bench marking. They were so heavy and their dimensions did not match the best selling cars in their segments. They were just a return to form of the '90s instead of the failure of the Daimler era Mitsubishi platforms. They didn't have to be revolutionary to compete, just up to the class average, which they weren't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,692 Posts
Agreed, it has been said many times before on here. Of course there are those who look on the '90s as the dream team instead of the era where Chrysler lost its edge over the Germans and Japanese that it enjoyed in the '80s. So that bears repeating.

I also read the fantasy again that 200 and Dart were good efforts. They were first and foremost failures in bench marking. They were so heavy and their dimensions did not match the best selling cars in their segments. They were just a return to form of the '90s instead of the failure of the Daimler era Mitsubishi platforms. They didn't have to be revolutionary to compete, just up to the class average, which they weren't.
Yes, 200 and Dart were examples of management arrogance and absolute ignorance of what the North American market wants.

Then, when the 200 failed, the great Sergio blamed his employees for a design that he approved. Disgusting behavior.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
37,852 Posts
Yes, 200 and Dart were examples of management arrogance and absolute ignorance of what the North American market wants.

Then, when the 200 failed, the great Sergio blamed his employees for a design that he approved. Disgusting behavior.
Unfortunately that is a common theme. A "leader" takes credit for the good then blames others for failures. It happens all the time in industry and government.
A true leader shares credit and takes blame.
 

·
Registered
2014 Jeep Compass
Joined
·
421 Posts
He didn't really say anything new. It's all stuff people have been saying here for years.
Except none of that was followed by "so, despite all of this, we should have 10 new cars for Chrysler and Dodge, not including the re-merging Ram into Dodge, by 2024. This merger is exactly what they need, and Carlos will magically fix everything before the pandemic ends with the dealers, make CDJR a much better name in reliability, etc."
Just straight, long, simple, to the point: that Chrysler has been a failure, highlighting many points of failure (including what happened under Daimler & Cerberus, which many people on here seemingly take it lightly, as blame is placed solely on SM for a product he had control over, even if they got an update after Fiat started buying shares), but also just getting to the point: you can promise all you like, just like SM did, but just launching 20 new cars in 3 years is not going to make the dealerships like the company more, to trust the company more, and new cars aren't just going to make the companies "reliability" ratings better.
I never see an attainable goal for the merger on here, because everyone also mentions how long it's taken other brands, like Hyundai, to "beat" their image of unreliable, and/or cheap products.
The comment I said is my kind of "hot take" is because I didn't read once lofty goals of his vision for it: just talk about how bad everything is, realize the uphill battle, and nothing else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,692 Posts
Except none of that was followed by "so, despite all of this, we should have 10 new cars for Chrysler and Dodge, not including the re-merging Ram into Dodge, by 2024. This merger is exactly what they need, and Carlos will magically fix everything before the pandemic ends with the dealers, make CDJR a much better name in reliability, etc."
Just straight, long, simple, to the point: that Chrysler has been a failure, highlighting many points of failure (including what happened under Daimler & Cerberus, which many people on here seemingly take it lightly, as blame is placed solely on SM for a product he had control over, even if they got an update after Fiat started buying shares), but also just getting to the point: you can promise all you like, just like SM did, but just launching 20 new cars in 3 years is not going to make the dealerships like the company more, to trust the company more, and new cars aren't just going to make the companies "reliability" ratings better.
I never see an attainable goal for the merger on here, because everyone also mentions how long it's taken other brands, like Hyundai, to "beat" their image of unreliable, and/or cheap products.
The comment I said is my kind of "hot take" is because I didn't read once lofty goals of his vision for it: just talk about how bad everything is, realize the uphill battle, and nothing else.
After Tavares held his press conference, I was the first one here to say that all the new product will fail if Stellantis does not improve quality, safety, reliability and customer service.

So far, Tavares has said good things. But words must be followed by actions.

Sergio said many good things. He did not follow those up with products nor actions. Around 2015, we started to see that the Emperor had no clothes (if you are not familiar with the children's book "The Emperor's New Clothes", look it up)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,510 Posts
Except none of that was followed by "so, despite all of this, we should have 10 new cars for Chrysler and Dodge, not including the re-merging Ram into Dodge, by 2024. This merger is exactly what they need, and Carlos will magically fix everything before the pandemic ends with the dealers, make CDJR a much better name in reliability, etc."
Just straight, long, simple, to the point: that Chrysler has been a failure, highlighting many points of failure (including what happened under Daimler & Cerberus, which many people on here seemingly take it lightly, as blame is placed solely on SM for a product he had control over, even if they got an update after Fiat started buying shares), but also just getting to the point: you can promise all you like, just like SM did, but just launching 20 new cars in 3 years is not going to make the dealerships like the company more, to trust the company more, and new cars aren't just going to make the companies "reliability" ratings better.
I never see an attainable goal for the merger on here, because everyone also mentions how long it's taken other brands, like Hyundai, to "beat" their image of unreliable, and/or cheap products.
The comment I said is my kind of "hot take" is because I didn't read once lofty goals of his vision for it: just talk about how bad everything is, realize the uphill battle, and nothing else.
So you like posts that lack vision and hope. It is hard to discuss what they should do with the new investment that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
It's too early to comment or make any assumptions about the group's future products or direction at this stage. Wait and see. I daresay something will happen whether we like it or not.
 

·
Registered
2014 Jeep Compass
Joined
·
421 Posts
So you like posts that lack vision and hope. It is hard to discuss what they should do with the new investment that way.
David Zatz and his last ideas with the KL and possible Chrysler/Dodge variants is by far the best "vision and hope" I've seen here (even though I don't agree with it all, the idea is there and atleast thought-out) because unlike everyone else saying badge engineering is great and simple, refusing to see multi-national borders and ties and not focus on what a truly merged company knowingly has (or what others tend to refute "because it's not for America" that we don't really know if it's just for Europe or if there is a plan for other markets, despite some insiders doing the refuting or stating otherwise) or doesn't, and going on about how markets sell this much, so we need to be in this that sells a lot, I can go on and on.
Vision and hope is not a crap-shoot. Vision and hope is envisioning Carlos wanting to work at multiple things at once, taking a steady approach to everything. Full-on assaults like what I mentioned in 3 years would break any man, it's not possible. And that's with what can be done in 3 years.
Expecting anyone to fix FCA US LLC's reputation at the same time in such a short manner is definitely impossible.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
37,852 Posts
David Zatz and his last ideas with the KL and possible Chrysler/Dodge variants is by far the best "vision and hope" I've seen here (even though I don't agree with it all, the idea is there and atleast thought-out) because unlike everyone else saying badge engineering is great and simple, refusing to see multi-national borders and ties and not focus on what a truly merged company knowingly has (or what others tend to refute "because it's not for America" that we don't really know if it's just for Europe or if there is a plan for other markets, despite some insiders doing the refuting or stating otherwise) or doesn't, and going on about how markets sell this much, so we need to be in this that sells a lot, I can go on and on.
Vision and hope is not a crap-shoot. Vision and hope is envisioning Carlos wanting to work at multiple things at once, taking a steady approach to everything. Full-on assaults like what I mentioned in 3 years would break any man, it's not possible. And that's with what can be done in 3 years.
Expecting anyone to fix FCA US LLC's reputation at the same time in such a short manner is definitely impossible.
Let's look at some past "3 year" stretches in Chrysler history.
1981-1984: From loan guarantees to launching a new K car that sold quite well to many others including the original minivan (yes I stretched to 4 years to add the minivan).
1993-1996: From a has been lineup of K cars to Neon, new Ram truck, Cloud cars, Dodge Viper second gen, Neons), revised minivans.
2005-2008: Languishing again due to outdated LX cars, the Hemi reinvigorated the car lineup with the 300, the Magnum then the Charger and Challenger shortly behind.

Studying the past may not be as exciting as having actually watching Chrysler reinvent itself before. Now all we see are excuses. Dodge and Chrysler (and to a lesser extent Jeep) was having to make do with outdated product because no one sees a vision.
And to further complicate things, it's not just the legacy US brands that need help. If it's too big a job for one person - well it's time to find good people and delegate. Failure to properly delegate responsibility was a flaw both Iacocca and Sergio both shared.
 

·
Registered
2014 Jeep Compass
Joined
·
421 Posts
Let's look at some past "3 year" stretches in Chrysler history.
1981-1984: From loan guarantees to launching a new K car that sold quite well to many others including the original minivan (yes I stretched to 4 years to add the minivan).
1993-1996: From a has been lineup of K cars to Neon, new Ram truck, Cloud cars, Dodge Viper second gen, Neons), revised minivans.
2005-2008: Languishing again due to outdated LX cars, the Hemi reinvigorated the car lineup with the 300, the Magnum then the Charger and Challenger shortly behind.

Studying the past may not be as exciting as having actually watching Chrysler reinvent itself before. Now all we see are excuses. Dodge and Chrysler (and to a lesser extent Jeep) was having to make do with outdated product because no one sees a vision.
And to further complicate things, it's not just the legacy US brands that need help. If it's too big a job for one person - well it's time to find good people and delegate. Failure to properly delegate responsibility was a flaw both Iacocca and Sergio both shared.
Right after 1996: Daimler took over (whe......... never mind)
Right after 2008: Fiat started buying into the company.
The only good 3 year stretch that lasted was '81-'84, of which may, or may not, have been done without Lee, and was only because he decided to stay in it, including buying AMC and Lamborghini during the same time he was raking in K-Car money for Chrysler Corp.
Lee had Chrysler, Dodge, and Plymouth to originally deal with. Carlos has 13 brands with seemingly 6 or so to fix.
And Lee had just North America to really work on. Out of, say, 6 brands Carlos has to deal with: Alfa & Fiat have Europe & the US to deal with and fix (maybe not both at the same extent).
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
37,852 Posts
Right after 1996: Daimler took over (whe......... never mind)
Right after 2008: Fiat started buying into the company.
The only good 3 year stretch that lasted was '81-'84, of which may, or may not, have been done without Lee, and was only because he decided to stay in it, including buying AMC and Lamborghini during the same time he was raking in K-Car money for Chrysler Corp.
Lee had Chrysler, Dodge, and Plymouth to originally deal with. Carlos has 13 brands with seemingly 6 or so to fix.
And Lee had just North America to really work on. Out of, say, 6 brands Carlos has to deal with: Alfa & Fiat have Europe & the US to deal with and fix (maybe not both at the same extent).
Now ask yourself "Why did Daimler take over?"
Answer: Because independent Chrysler made money and had large cash reserves.
Now ask yourself "Why did Fiat come into the picture after 2008?"
Two reasons: 1) the economy failed and, despite strong new products, Chrysler was in financial trouble. However despite that Chrysler group had a new, hip image. 2) Chrysler Group, at the time, had paid too little attention to the products needed to carry through a high fuel price/poor economic conditions (gee that sounds familiar, a lineup too reliant on inefficient vehicles). Only the large cars and pickups were properly focused on. They omitted large segments that no one thought were crucial at the time. Cash for clunkers bypassed the vast majority of the Chrysler group vehicles..
Again, we are back to good business. If Tavares has too many brands to personally manage - delegate. Making excuses for doing nothing for years is a poor plan. That was FCA's MO the past several years, I hope it's not Stellantis'.
 
21 - 40 of 114 Posts
Top