Fiat to take over Chrysler??

Die Buschtrommeln von Joe Pfeiffer ließen verlauten ...

> Hans Muecke > writes:
>
>> Die Buschtrommeln von Pete E. Kruzer ließen verlauten ...
>>
>>> I don't know if this would be good.
>>>
>>>
>>
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1232..._us_bu siness
>>
>> FIAT will gain more out of that deal, because it opens the doors to the
>> US market, while Chrysler will gain access to technology of how to build
>> those small fuel efficent cars. The latter is not that difficult to do,
>> but probably Chrysler has too long ignored the fact, that such cars are
>> needed.
>
> One wouldn't think it would be terribly difficult, but there isn't
> much evidence Chrysler has been able to figure it out.

It probably comes down to what the consumer asks for. I regularly travel to
Tennessee for several year now (I have friends there). During last
years "era of 5-bucks-4-daaa-gallon" everybody was asking for more fuel
efficient cars and most of the people were seeing those dealers that sold
hybrid cars. Now that the price for the gallon has come down again,
everybody suffers from amnesia and is happy to fill up their gas-guzzlers.
One can't blame Chrysler to offer the product the market seems to ask for.

>> FIAT has a reputation of building crappy cars, which I think goes back to
>> the 1970s. They have improved, but I still wouldn't buy one. However ...
>> Alfa Romeo is also a part of the FIAT group and they build state of the
>> art sports cars with a charisma just like the Corvette or the Ferraris
>> (which btw also belongs to FIAT).
>
> I think that reputation goes a lot further back than the 1970s, and
> was well-deserved at least into the 90s. Don't really know what
> they're like now...

FIAT has learned the lesson and is building reliable cars now. However ...
when it comes to the car one is driving, I think one is making decissions
mostly based on guts, feelings ... whatever. Those feelings are above what
seems to be "common sense". And why not? I mean it feels better to drive a
car, that - the first time you saw it - fell in love with. Which happened
to my when I went to the Chrysler dealer to pick up my Neon in 2001 and for
the first time saw the PT. Two years later that lipstick-searching-b**ch
that crashed into my parked car ...

That's the one and only reason, why I wouldn't buy a FIAT ... :-)

--
Talk to you later ... Hans (234 to go)

2009/01/20 19:50
EDDS 201950Z 02001KT 9999 FEW033 OVC120 02/00 Q1001 NOSIG

Akira Norimaki ha scritto:
> On Jan 20, 6:45 pm, Hans Muecke > wrote:
>> FIAT has a reputation of building crappy cars
>
> It's funny. Here, in Italy, we think the same about Chrysler's cars.
>
> Bye,
> Akira

I'd say that both manufactures have quite a bad reputation here
in Italy.
But FIAT's quality has been improved greatly over the last 5 years.

Bye,
--
Logos
(21,90-140, MI-PI)

Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> Hans Muecke > writes:
>
>> Die Buschtrommeln von Pete E. Kruzer ließen verlauten ...
>>
>>> I don't know if this would be good.
>>>
>>>
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1232..._us_bu siness
>>
>> FIAT will gain more out of that deal, because it opens the doors to the US
>> market, while Chrysler will gain access to technology of how to build those
>> small fuel efficent cars. The latter is not that difficult to do, but
>> probably Chrysler has too long ignored the fact, that such cars are needed.
>
> One wouldn't think it would be terribly difficult, but there isn't
> much evidence Chrysler has been able to figure it out.


A mutual friend of ours pointed out that they made a GREAT small car by
all the quantitative measures (the Caliber). Better acceleration
numbers, MPG numbers, skidpad numbers, etc. than most of the
competition. And yet when he drove it, the total package just didn't
come off well. Kinda like the Spirit R/T blew the doors off the Taurus
SHO, but when people drove one the reaction was "ick, a high-powered
K-car." of course the Spririt R/T's lab-experiment cam drive that ate a
belt every 10k miles didn't help either....

Logos wrote:
> I'd say that both manufactures have quite a bad reputation here in Italy.
> But FIAT's quality has been improved greatly over the last 5 years.

I agree. As someone said 90s have been bad years for FIAT, but recently
it has improved greatly.

--
Yatta!,

Scream if you wanna go faster
Geri Halliwell

On Jan 20, 4:15*pm, Steve > wrote:
> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> > Hans Muecke > writes:
>
> >> Die Buschtrommeln von Pete E. Kruzer ließen verlauten ... *
>
> >>> I don't know if this would be good.
>
> >>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1232...?mod=rss_whats....
>
> >> FIAT will gain more out of that deal, because it opens the doors to the US
> >> market, while Chrysler will gain access to technology of how to build those
> >> small fuel efficent cars. The latter is not that difficult to do, but
> >> probably Chrysler has too long ignored the fact, that such cars are needed.
>
> > One wouldn't think it would be terribly difficult, but there isn't
> > much evidence Chrysler has been able to figure it out.
>
> A mutual friend of ours pointed out that they made a GREAT small car by
> all the quantitative measures (the Caliber). Better acceleration
> numbers, MPG numbers, skidpad numbers, etc. than most of the
> competition. And yet when he drove it, the total package just didn't
> come off well.

Cheap-looking and feeling interior turns a lot of people off. Droning
CVT, engines that are much less smooth and noisier than Toyota and
Honda... And who buys an economy car for skidpan numbers?

Put a nice Honda or Toyota engine and tranny in it and get someone
from Honda or Toyota to redesign the interior...

Wait, why not buy a Honda or Toyota and get reliability and resale
value too?


>Kinda like the Spirit R/T blew the doors off the Taurus
> SHO, but when people drove one the reaction was "ick, a high-powered
> K-car." of course the Spririt R/T's lab-experiment cam drive that ate a
> belt every 10k miles didn't help either....

Well, the Taurus was a size class larger. And yes, a V6 is smoother
and usually quieter than a 4. The Taurus competition was Intrepid,
Vision, Concorde.

Lloyd > writes:

> On Jan 20, 7:30*am, "Pete E. Kruzer" > wrote:
>> I don't know if this would be good.
>>
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1232...?mod=rss_whats...
>
> Chrysler had Italian ties (and I don't mean Iacocca). They owned part
> (15% I believe) of Maserati (and had the "Chrysler's TC by Maserati"
> with a Maserati-designed cylinder head for the 2.2 L turbo 4). They
> had an agreement to distribute Alfa-Romeos through their dealerships
> (which didn't last long). Chrysler owned Lamborghini. And back in
> the 1980s, Iacocca's idea of a "Global Motors" had VW as its first
> European choice, with Fiat next.

Of course, that was indeed all Iaccoca...

Lloyd wrote:
>
>
> Wait, why not buy a Honda or Toyota and get reliability and resale
> value too?

Because some of us won't ever buy those brands, and their "reliability"
is no better than anyone else's when you cut away the mythology and
stick to facts.

>
>
>> Kinda like the Spirit R/T blew the doors off the Taurus
>> SHO, but when people drove one the reaction was "ick, a high-powered
>> K-car." of course the Spririt R/T's lab-experiment cam drive that ate a
>> belt every 10k miles didn't help either....
>
> Well, the Taurus was a size class larger.

Maybe in the rarefied air of car magazines, but in the real world they
were as close head-to-head competitors as the two companies had.

> And yes, a V6 is smoother
> and usually quieter than a 4.


Especially THAT particular 4, which was on the hairy edge of being a
prototype race engine. Over 100 hp/liter in 1990 wasn't anything to
sneeze at... but it wasn't very refined, either. No balance shafts like
the 2.5 had, and enough power surge when the turbo boost built up that
it was like a kick in the back. Sounds like my kind of car... but then
I'm a few standard deviations off the mean and proud of it. ;-) I'm the
guy that goes to a car show and ignores the Ferraris, BMWs, AMGs, and
Lamborghinis to go drool over a bench-seat Hemi Coronet that probably
sold for $4000 new and was expected to last 5 years.


>The Taurus competition was Intrepid,
> Vision, Concorde.

Nope, those weren't in production at that time. The AA body
(Spirit/Acclaim/LeBaron sedan) was the Chrysler competition for the
Taurus *until* the LH bodies came out. The simple fact is that
Chrysler's and Ford's size lineups didn't really match exactly then, or
later. When the LH cars came out, the were significantly bigger than a
Taurus, yet were still lumped in the same class. That's the whole
problem with "size classes" anyway. They really don't mean much of anything.

>> I'd say that both manufactures have quite a bad reputation here in Italy.
>> But FIAT's quality has been improved greatly over the last 5 years.
>
> I agree. As someone said 90s have been bad years for FIAT, but recently
> it has improved greatly.

Ehi, why are you posting there too?

For the people on this NG, please check this 3d

http://groups.google.it/group/it.dis...25+del+partner

I don't know if Google makes translation also for NGs, but we are discussing
the same thing.

Getix ha scritto:

> Ehi, why are you posting there too?

Bec it's interesting to understand what Americans think about
this MoU! :-)

> For the people on this NG, please check this 3d
>
> http://groups.google.it/group/it.dis...25+del+partner

If they can understand italian or google translate ( sometimes
the latter is the most difficult, also if they don't speak
italian :-))

Bye,
--
Logos
(21,90-140, MI-PI)

Fiat has been into small cars for years. When I was stationed at a
mountain top communications site 60 miles outside of Naples in the
late 70's, it seemed like every other car was a Fiat.
Lots of "cinquecento's or 500's. Very small car, incredible gas
mileage and you won't believe how the Neapolitans packed an entire
family into one.

Then again,

F ix
I t
A gain
T omorrow

is a hard reputation to lose.