NYC Auto Show: Chrysler Prez arrives on stage in butt-ugly Fiat

who wrote:
> In article >, MoPar Man >
> wrote:
>
>> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>>
>>> Fiat cars ugly?
>> My question still stands.
>>
>> Mercedes has several small car models that we never see here in North
>> America.
>>
>> Daimler still owns 19% of Chrysler.
>>
>> If Chrysler is in dire need of an instant small car model, then why the
>> hell isin't several Mercedes models being considered?
>>
>> The Mercedes brand has way more cache than Fiat does.
>
> Mercedes cost too much.
> Ref the Smart and B200 in Canada.
>
> Fiat has cars in the Yaris & Corolla size category, where Chrysler is
> weak. The Caliper and Sebring are very good value, but they are mid
> sized cars.
> My concern with the Fiat is leg room. I've had leg room troubles in many
> of todays smaller cars that are designed in countries with shorter
> people. The small VW Beetle was fine for me.
> My knee hits the steering wheel so I have to wrap my leg around the
> wheel, making it unsafe for me to drive them.
> I'm only 5'-11".

Recall the "Little Nash Rambler" or the Metropolitan from the back of
beyond?

--
Civis Romanus Sum

(lotsa snips to just respond to some of the points)

MoPar Man > writes:
>
> So now, given that the consumer (in Canada anyways) can get into a
> Chrysler or Dodge for the $15-$16k price point, then does it _really_
> matter what their size is? Does it really matter that the Sebring and
> Caliber aren't micro-car sized?

Absolutely. As long as there are people who want a subcompact, and
aren't interested in something bigger even if it costs the same, they
need a subcompact. Doesn't apply to me, and apparently not to you --
if I were in the market for a new car the Caliber is about the
smallest I'd even consider. For other people, it's bigger than they'd
consider.
>
> It will take the better part of a year for Chrysler to re-tool to make
> Fiat-based cars. So that ain't gonna save Chrysler.

A concrete plan to bring a Fiat-based car to market in a year might
be enough to get the cash to survive that year, so it might. But...

> And if all they do in the short term is sell re-badged Fiat's, then that
> just makes Chrysler the middle-man in the chain - and Fiat doesn't
> really need a middle man.

Fiat desperately needs a middle man. They've been out of the US
market for a long time; they have no dealer network. Chrysler and
Dodge dealers selling rebadged Fiats -- or even just selling Fiats --
would look great to them.

> This whole thing with Fiat is just garbage that doesn't make sense.
>
> Even if Chrysler's and Dodge's low end cars aren't "micro" in size,
> their price is, and in the end that's what really counts.

I'll bet you're either an accountant or an engineer -- you're exactly
right from the perspective of the car and the money. But not from the
perspective of selling the car for the money.

Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

> > Does it really matter that the Sebring and
> > Caliber aren't micro-car sized?
>
> Absolutely. As long as there are people who want a subcompact,
> and aren't interested in something bigger even if it costs the
> same, they need a subcompact.

Lots of arguments about Europe, ancient streets, narrow streets, small
spaces, a lot of people crammed into not-a-lot of real estate.

That's always been a major point in the argument as to why different car
types evolved in different parts of the world.

> > It will take the better part of a year for Chrysler to re-tool
> > to make Fiat-based cars. So that ain't gonna save Chrysler.
>
> A concrete plan to bring a Fiat-based car to market in a year
> might be enough to get the cash to survive that year, so it
> might. But...

With today's modern cad/cam, computer-based design, Chrysler could put
their own sub-compact chassis into production in the same time frame.
Chrysler has shown sub-compact concept cars over the past 5 - 10 years,
it's not like they don't know how to make them, or have any ideas on the
drawing board.

> > just makes Chrysler the middle-man in the chain - and Fiat
> > doesn't really need a middle man.
>
> Fiat desperately needs a middle man. They've been out of the
> US market for a long time; they have no dealer network.

So what's stopping Chrysler and Dodge dealers from becoming also Fiat
dealers tommorrow? They don't need Chrysler exec's for that. Chysler
(the corporation, not the dealer network) isin't going to make a lot of
money being the middle-man, and I don't see why a middle-man is even
needed.

Fiat sets up a shell company importing the cars into the US, and those
cars go straight to Chrysler and Dodge dealerships. Now, if there's
anti-compete clause in the contracts between Chrysler and the dealers,
well that's another matter.

> > Even if Chrysler's and Dodge's low end cars aren't "micro"
> > in size, their price is, and in the end that's what really
> > counts.
>
> I'll bet you're either an accountant or an engineer --

I'm not an engineer, but I play one at work.

> you're exactly right from the perspective of the car and the
> money. But not from the perspective of selling the car for
> the money.

Like I said above, we here in North America are not under the same size
constraints that car consumers are in Europe.

Americans who buy a sub-compact are doing it based first on price, then
second on fuel economy (engine size, vehicle weight). When you're first
constraint is money, you inevitably spiral down to the sub-compact
class.

I still say that if you have a $15k fiat vs a $15k caliber, and the
engines are within .2L of each other in size, that an American will buy
the caliber _because_ it's a bigger car.

And there's no way that any Fiat will be priced less than a Caliber.

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:47:05 UTC, Joe Pfeiffer >
wrote:
> if I were in the market for a new car the Caliber is about the
> smallest I'd even consider. For other people, it's bigger than they'd
> consider.
My wife and I bought a new 2007 Caliber and find that it is the
perfect size, and it is getting around 30-31mpg around town(using
Mobil1 Advanced Economy Formula). It reminds me of the size of my 86
Lancer hatchback, that was a great sized little car, with the
2.5/automatic, got good mileage and was very reliable. Of course, my
car is a bit larger, a 1941 Windsor 4 door/Fluid
Drive-Vacamatic(Chrysler fans will know what that is) and gets around
18 mpg, but man does it ride smooth, and quality, can't beat it!




"What do you mean there's no movie?"

On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 00:48:50 UTC, MoPar Man > wrote:

> Lots of arguments about Europe, ancient streets, narrow streets, small
> spaces, a lot of people crammed into not-a-lot of real estate.
> I still say that if you have a $15k fiat vs a $15k caliber, and the
> engines are within .2L of each other in size, that an American will buy
> the caliber _because_ it's a bigger car.
>
> And there's no way that any Fiat will be priced less than a Caliber.
It is a strange thing about Europe, it is more "rural" than the US,
the cities are of course tighter in space and a lot of them date back
to the medieval times, but in Germany, even the smaller towns can
accomodate Caliber sized cars. In Italy, the other story. Towns are
extremely crowded, but again, more people live in rural areas. I
remember the Fiat 500 my step-father had, looked like a toy with
wheels! Plus, if Fiat has not fixed their reputation for quality,
then American memories of pre-rusted, unreliable cars, will kill Fiat.
--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:15:21 UTC, Jim Higgins >
wrote:

> who wrote:
> > In article >, MoPar Man >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> >>
> >>> Fiat cars ugly?
> >> My question still stands.
> >>
> >> Mercedes has several small car models that we never see here in North
> >> America.
> >>
> >> Daimler still owns 19% of Chrysler.
> >>
> >> If Chrysler is in dire need of an instant small car model, then why the
> >> hell isin't several Mercedes models being considered?
> >>
> >> The Mercedes brand has way more cache than Fiat does.
> >
> > Mercedes cost too much.
> > Ref the Smart and B200 in Canada.
> >
> > Fiat has cars in the Yaris & Corolla size category, where Chrysler is
> > weak. The Caliper and Sebring are very good value, but they are mid
> > sized cars.
> > My concern with the Fiat is leg room. I've had leg room troubles in many
> > of todays smaller cars that are designed in countries with shorter
> > people. The small VW Beetle was fine for me.
> > My knee hits the steering wheel so I have to wrap my leg around the
> > wheel, making it unsafe for me to drive them.
> > I'm only 5'-11".
>
> Recall the "Little Nash Rambler" or the Metropolitan from the back of
> beyond?
George Mason, president of Nash, wanted a small car that an American
could fit into, he was a large man himself. The original Rambler,
remember them in the old Superman TV series, was a roomy car that got
great mileage and was on a 100" wheelbase. My mother had a Nash
Rambler two-door wagon, mid-fifites, and I remember the gearshift
sticking out from the behind the steering wheel, a knucklebuster when
shifting from first to second! It was cute and stylish. Look at the
plans that American car producers had for small cars, the Hudson Jet,
a great little car, the Willys Aerocar, the Frazer that even Sears
sold in its catalog, Americans just were, and are just too "iffy" in
their buying habits. When gas is cheap, they go back to wanting huge
cars, then bump gas to $4 a gallon, then they go screaming for small
cars, no wonder the American car companies do not know what to make
anymore!


"What do you mean there's no movie?"

wrote:

> ...no wonder the American car companies do not know what to make
> anymore!

That will get resolved to the same answer in two ways: Our present
government will make sure that oil gets over $4 (by starving the market
of supply and, if that doesn't work well enough, by adding additional
taxes to it), and they will also dictate to the car companies they now
own what they will make.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

There's an easy way to give an American apoplexy; discuss slapping a couple
of dollars tax on a (US) gallon of fuel...

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
>> anymore!
>
> That will get resolved to the same answer in two ways: Our present
> government will make sure that oil gets over $4 (by starving the market of
> supply and, if that doesn't work well enough, by adding additional taxes
> to it), and they will also dictate to the car companies they now own what
> they will make.
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
> with the letter 'x')

Discussing it's not a problem. It's actually doing it that's the
problem. If we could trust politicians to honestly handle the money
instead of working it into redistribution of wealth shell games like
they are tending to do, it might not be a problem. IOW the government's
hidden "handling fees" are a little steep and result in a huge net loss.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')


Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> There's an easy way to give an American apoplexy; discuss slapping a couple
> of dollars tax on a (US) gallon of fuel...
>
> DAS
>
> To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> anymore!
>> That will get resolved to the same answer in two ways: Our present
>> government will make sure that oil gets over $4 (by starving the market of
>> supply and, if that doesn't work well enough, by adding additional taxes
>> to it), and they will also dictate to the car companies they now own what
>> they will make.
>>
>> Bill Putney
>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
>> with the letter 'x')

Top posting is bad form for usenet Dori.

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message

> That will get resolved to the same answer in two ways: Our
> present government will make sure that gas gets over $4
> (by starving the market of supply and, if that doesn't work
> well enough, by adding additional taxes

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:

> There's an easy way to give an American apoplexy; discuss
> slapping a couple of dollars tax on a (US) gallon of fuel...

US Congress and Senate will never increase the federal gas tax or bring
it anywhere near it is in Canada or Europe. They don't have the balls
to do it.

The federal gov't might bring in a national federal sales tax, like
Canada's GST or Europe's VAT. They'll have to do something if they ever
hope to balance the budget or reduce the federal debt.

What I'm not hearing anything about is a winfall profits tax on the oil
industry. That's where the prize is, and there's no downside for Obama
or the Congress / Sentate to bring one in. And if Oil does go over $100
/ barrel this summer, there will be increasing pressure for it.

The sky-high oil prices seemed to have no spin-off benefits for oil-rich
states (unlike the situation for Alberta in Canada).

The US oil lobby (API) is running daily TV commercials on the 3 network
news at 6:30 pm. They're pushing hard for more access to off-shore
drilling and more drilling in environmentally sensitive places like
Alaska. The oil industry knows that a winfall profits tax is coming
unless they can bring more supply on-line to prevent oil from
consistently saying over $100 / barrel. The oil industry is running
those TV commercials because it knows it's lost influence in Washington
now that the Bush's and Cheney are gone so they are trying to directly
influence public opinion.