By on May 13, 2009

The moment the Chrysler – Fiat hookup was announced, savvy pistonheads nasally ejected their coffee. Chrysler and FIAT? That’s like throwing a drowning man an anvil. Ignoring the brands’ histories of complete crapitude, the mainstream media took the idea seriously. Their complicity/complacency has done wonders for the executives and elected officials in charge of this epic non-starter, but it does nothing to serve the public interest. After all, we’ve got to pay for this turkey. Now that Chrysler is about to axe dealers, permanently shutter plants, fire union workers and ditch a big ass chunk of their pensions and benefits, the MSM is beginning to consider the possibility that the deal sucks. Or, as the ever-faithful Detroit News puts it, “After bankruptcy, Chrysler still faces uncertain future.” Ya think?

After bankruptcy court, the Auburn Hills-based automaker must survive on American and Canadian loans now pegged at $6 billion until vehicles inspired by its new partner, Fiat SpA, begin rolling off North American assembly lines in 2011.

Let’s see . . . It’s 2009. Chrysler lost $4.7 billion this year AND sucked-up $6 billion in kiss-’em-goodbye “bridge loans” and $4 billion in federal zombie maintenance payments. So now they’re going to stretch $6 billion over two years. Riiiiight.

Key actions Chrysler must take to bridge the gap include slimming its dealer network, further reducing its hourly work force, piggybacking on Fiat’s foreign dealer network and global buying power, and hustling some Fiat technology to Chrysler’s U.S. assembly lines.

So Chrysler is going to save money by using Fiat suppliers and Fiat’s going to sell Chrysler’s abroad. Riiiight.

At the same time, car sales can’t take a dramatic plunge from the 10 million vehicles predicted for this year. And gas prices can’t spike, since Chrysler’s product line is tilted heavily toward pickups, sport utility vehicles and minivans.

Notice the word “dramatic.” And says who? David Cole! The head of the Center for Automotive Research, whose chicken little study laid the foundation for this $65 billion—and counting—boondoggle.

“Chrysler has lowered its structural costs, reduced its break-even point and put itself in a position to be very profitable in the midterm with a Fiat alliance,” Cole said.

I guess we’re putting our money where Cole’s mouth is. Again. Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal has discovered that Chrysler’s propensity for building horrible cars could be a problem on the sales side of things.

Michelle Payan loves the styling and roominess of her 2006 Chrysler 300 sedan, but a defective air conditioner and transmission have turned her against the brand. “I’m not buying another Chrysler,” says Ms. Payan, a 26-year-old insurance-claims adjuster in Phoenix.

In announcing Chrysler LLC’s government-negotiated bankruptcy filing, President Obama expressed the hope that new-car seekers would consider buying American. But new car buyers are less accustomed to seeking advice from the president than from Consumer Reports. In its annual automotive issue last month, Consumer Reports recommended 166 models—not one of them a Chrysler, Dodge or Jeep, the three Chrysler nameplates.

Uh-oh! It looks like we have a perception gap perception gap.  

But while Ford and GM are largely battling outdated perceptions of questionable reliability, “at Chrysler it’s a reality,” says George Peterson, president of AutoPacific Inc., which each year surveys about 40,000 car owners. “To survive, Chrysler needs to get its quality at least to the level of Ford and GM.”

This reliance on cross-town qualitative measurement has isolated GM and Chrysler execs from reality, and destroyed their ability to compete. Despite C11, Motown’s media lap dogs continue to enable this suicidal self-delusion. The WSJ article, which starts with a bit of Hai Karate, ends-up on its back, feet wiggling the air. Shame on them all.

The government-directed reorganization plan of Chrysler calls for it to merge with Fiat and start making Fiats in the U.S. In Europe, Fiat has received low rankings in reliability studies, but its performance has been improving.

Meanwhile, Chrysler will continue making trucks and SUVs. Its Jeep Wrangler and Jeep Grand Cherokee, by nearly all accounts, lead the pack in off-road performance, and both sport an iconic design that sets them apart. Similarly distinctive is the mammoth Dodge Ram pickup. But all of those models have suffered reliability problems. Of seven full-size pickups reviewed by Consumer Reports, only one — the Dodge Ram — failed to make the recommended list.

Yet there is hope. The redesigned 2009 Dodge Ram is winning rave reviews for performance and style, and is expected to win endorsements if it proves largely free of defects.

And Chrysler has a history of staging comebacks from product-driven financial quandaries. The quality problems of the Dodge Aspen (and its sister, the Plymouth Volare) contributed to the crisis that led Chrysler to seek a government loan in 1979. After recovering from that brush with bankruptcy, Chrysler entered a nearly two-decade period of winning kudos for its cars, trucks and minivans.

And so the cycle continues . . .

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

35 Comments on “Editorial: Chrysler Zombie Watch 7: Friends of the Undead...”


  • avatar
    JPMotorsport

    “…Now that Chrysler is about to axe dealers, permanently shutter plants, fire union workers and ditch a big ass chunk of their pensions and benefits..”

    Wait a minute, isn’t the whole reason why there is gov’t assistance in the first place is to prevent this very type of negative economic impact?

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    The quality problems of the Dodge Aspen (and its sister, the Plymouth Volare) contributed to the crisis that led Chrysler to seek a government loan in 1979. After recovering from that brush with bankruptcy, Chrysler entered a nearly two-decade period of winning kudos for its cars, trucks and minivans.

    Stretching things much?

    The Aspen/Volare didn’t so much start the rot as much as they were the largest, ugliest pustule. The not-quite-as-shitty-as-the-Aspen Diplomat and the Omni and Aries that followed the Aspen were just smaller boils on the corpse of the domestic auto industry. It was the difference between the solid Valiant/Dart and it’s successors was so horrifying that people make the leap that it was the cause.

    Just about any domestic from that era was going to give you trouble. My parents owned an Aspen, and it was a bad, bar car, but it wasn’t remarkably so for the time.

    The other point is that Chrysler quality didn’t improve after the bailout. It continued to suck right up until the PT Cruiser (the, ahem, statistically most reliable Chrysler). The reason Chrysler paid back the loans from ’79 has everything to do with innovative products that people wanted to buy (K-Cars, the minivans) but—and this is important—still broke down a lot.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    And Chrysler has a history of staging comebacks from product-driven financial quandaries.

    In the short run, this is key. Chrysler is small enough that a hit or two can do the trick. But they have a long track record of failing to capitalize on that momentum, so we’ll see whether that repeats itself here.

    If this is going to work, Chrysler is going to have to shrink. A lot. If they’re smart, the new management will size the company to be profitable on a lower volume, which means fewer models and, if they are successful in making cars that people want, a lot fewer cars going to fleet.

    Things might look like the status quo for an interim period, but I doubt that will last. More layoffs will be inevitable, it’s just a matter of when and where. At this stage, they’re just keeping their options open as they sort out what exactly to do. Those job cuts will come later as the plan comes together and they figure out where to deploy their resources.

  • avatar
    boris moris

    How about one right behind the ear for Chrysler? Let’s put this rancid pile of parasite ridden excrement out of it’s misery once and for all time. Auto journalists have better things to do with their time than writing about failing companies whose death throes are like a really obese person whose bouts of recurring explosive diarrhea turn them into a shadow of their former corpulence.
    You have to go back to the early days of America’s misadventures in Vietnam to find well made Chrysler products. From 1963 to 1965 they were cited as being of better quality than Ford or GM products. To say “Now…not so much” is a huge understatement.

  • avatar
    Bunter1

    “But while Ford and GM are largely battling outdated perceptions of questionable reliability, “at Chrysler it’s a reality,”

    Sorry George, you are way too soft on GM. Their reliability in CRs studies have been neck and neck with Cryslur for the last decade, both well off Ford’s pace (and Ford is pulling away now). CryCo actually has average a bit better than Duh General in recent years until they death spiraled in the last survey.

    I am amazed that even in the TTAC crowd GM gets far more credit than CryCo in reliability even though statistically there is no real difference.

    Ford is getting a bad rap for having been seen in public with those two losers but the public does seem to be getting the idea that there is a difference.

    Bunter

  • avatar
    tpandw

    Nice job on the WSJ article. I had just read it before reading this Zombie Watch and was struck by the same thing. It starts out appearing to be critical but ends in total mush. I’m always leery of anything that purports to be ‘iconic’ as the article says of some Jeeps. That’s become a favorite word of Detroit apologists of late and usually signifies a lack of critical analysis to come.

  • avatar
    rpol35

    The idiocy of this government orchestrated “solution” is what happens when the bankruptcy is declared “all clear” in 60 days or so? Chrysler has no magic bullet or new product to bring to market this Fall for 2010 and Fiat won’t make the scene until 2011 so what happens in the interim? It’s just the same mediocre product with the light at the end of the tunnel being Fiat which is a dubious savior at best and not a very credible one at that.

    The Chapter 11 “experience” does nothing ultimately, regardless of what the PTFOA thinks or says.

  • avatar
    JEM

    No, the whole reason there’s government assistance is to shovel money into the UAW’s pockets to buy votes for 2010 and 2012.

    Dodge trucks and some Jeeps will hang around.

    I still think a substantial chunk of Chrysler’s dealer base is culturally unsuited to sell Fiat product.

  • avatar
    mtr2car1

    I still can’t figure this situation out.

    Previously Chrysler made marginally desirable automobiles with subpar quality and lost tons of money doing it.

    Then Fiat shows up (and only Fiat) and says “we can fix it, we have the technology – but we don’t want to spend a lot of money”

    So they crack the unions/pensions and dealers over the next 2 months with the help of the government and come out the other side making marginally desirable automobiles with subpar quality – just like before, but at a profit??

    Was there really that much low hanging “cost” fruit to be picked…and are we to believe Fiat was the only one to see it?

    What does Fiat stand to gain at this point?

  • avatar
    educatordan

    Bring back the slant six! Just kidding. But honestly, doesn’t Chrysler seem like one of those companies that can only do one thing at a time? The slant six was awesome but the cars they put it in where crap. Currently they have some good V8s but the transmissions have had issues. In the 80s n early 90s the products were innovative but the quality was “meh.”

    Why can’t they get it all right at once?

  • avatar
    Hippo

    Where do you guys get that Ford has better quality?

    A good friend owns the Ford and GM dealers in a small town, less then 1/4 mile apart. Granted that GM has lots of quality problems, but they are mostly trim, squeaks, rattles and cosmetic issues that go directly to assembly quality. Ford on the other hand, has far more power train issues, the sort of problems that stop the vehicles dead in their tracks for weeks at the time.

    This is directly from the warranty work done in the shops day in and day out.

    As bad as they are, GM is by far the best of the domestics, and the GM products assembled in Mexico seem to have the best quality of those.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    I am amazed that even in the TTAC crowd GM gets far more credit than CryCo in reliability even though statistically there is no real difference.

    Call it the Lutz Echo Chamber. People in automobilia listened to GM’s Vice Chairman banging on this point over and over again until it made it into the “truth” category of our collective consciousness.

    It proves a basic tenet of marketing: repeat something enough and eventually people will believe it.**

    ** it’s the same strategy that’s been used for all sorts of things, many of which I won’t mention here for fear of starting a partisan shitstorm.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    I am amazed that even in the TTAC crowd GM gets far more credit than CryCo in reliability even though statistically there is no real difference.

    That’s debatable. GM does far better than Chrysler in Consumer Reports. In JD Power, a couple of GM brands do well, although if you look at the individual models, they’re more hit and miss and not as good as those brand rankings might suggest.

    In practice, it seems that a small percentage of what comprises the GM and Chrysler lineups is OK, while a majority of what they sell is regrettable. You can slice or dice it in different ways when comparing them, but you still end up with a few cars that might be worth owning if you value reliability, and a whole lot more that aren’t.

  • avatar
    kid cassady

    Unsound as the ChryCo-Fiat relationship idea may be, lambasting Fiat for it’s “craptacular past” is kind of silly, akin to writing off Hyundai in 2009 because of the Excel and Scoupe.

  • avatar
    educatordan

    This post reminds me of the GM Boners post from a few days ago. It occurred to me to ask the question: Why do the Detroit 3 seem to still regard the first few years of production as a chance to iron out the kinks? Most American cars are better in their 3rd or 4th year of production than in the years that follow. Classic GM unwritten rule is “Get it right and then kill it.” Remember the Fiero? The Corvair?

    The other rule is to take a nameplate and run it into the ground or decide the name is the problem. Why couldn’t the G6 be called “Grand Am” or the G8 be called Bonneville? Why kill the names “Park Avenue” and “LeSabre?”

  • avatar
    johnthacker

    Previously Chrysler made marginally desirable automobiles with subpar quality and lost tons of money doing it…So they crack the unions/pensions and dealers over the next 2 months with the help of the government and come out the other side making marginally desirable automobiles with subpar quality – just like before, but at a profit??

    It is actually possible to make a profit with marginally desirable product with subpar quality– you just have to have costs low enough to justify it so that you can sell them cheaply enough. It’s of course no guarantee that that strategy works, but it does at least sometimes work, unlike the strategy of crappy cars combined with high union labor costs.

    Hypothetically if they totally broke the union ChryCo might be able to do it, but I don’t think that with their current engineering that they could make a profit at any sort of US wages, union or no.

  • avatar
    jpcavanaugh

    I don’t get this deal either. Chrysler is presently shut down. Is the plan for Fiat to use Fed money to pay fixed costs for a year then restart with 2011 models? Hard to imagine the government funding this. (Wait – did I just say that?) Are there enough 2009 (and 2008 and 2007) models in the pipeline to last the year until ’11s come out in the spring of ’10? If not, I guess anything they get short on they can slowly bring back on line.

    On the quality issue, My mechanic passed on a rule from one of his contacts: Avoid any Chrysler engines where the engine size contains the number 7. Hopefully, this excludes the 5.7 hemi. They have not built a decent transmission with more than 3 gears. Anyway, when you screw up engines and transmissions, why go there. You all know my fondness for old Mopars, but the products of the last 15 years, while pretty and appealing, have been brittle and short-lived (with a few notable exceptions such as the 3.5 V6)

  • avatar
    jimble

    There just may be something to the idea of Fiat selling Chrysler products overseas. I just got home from a trip to Italy and Switzerland, where I was surprised to see a fair number of late-model ChryCo products on the streets — mostly Jeeps but also a few minivans, 300s, and PT Cruisers. I saw no other American cars while I was there except for one classic Mustang and one beat up old Buick. I’m not suggesting that there’s a huge market over there for Chrysler products, but for whatever reason a few Europeans have been willing to buy them.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    It is actually possible to make a profit with marginally desirable product with subpar quality– you just have to have costs low enough to justify it so that you can sell them cheaply enough.

    It’s the opposite. The rotten-vehicle-at-a-low-price strategy pushed Yugo out of the market entirely, and damaged Hyundai’s brand for 20 years. It does not work.

    Low reliability only works for higher end products that are otherwise more pleasurable to own and/or otherwise offer better service. If the car breaks, the manufacturer needs to make the experience as painless as possible, so that the customer isn’t irritated by it. Going cheap doesn’t help; it just causes more stuff to break faster, and upsets people when it does break.

    Lower labor costs do not ensure profits, because labor is about 10% of the cost of production. Slash labor costs, and you’ve done little to impact the total cost structure, either way. Worker cuts are no saving grace to the profit problem, and we have 30 years of Detroit history to prove it. They could never slash their costs enough to turn a profit.

    It goes back to price and brand equity. The whole point of a brand is to support price and/or volume. If we learn anything from Detroit, it’s that economies of scale can’t produce much value when the price point is too low. They could sell trucks at high prices, but the cars have always been sold on the cheap, so when trucks aren’t moving, the whole company falls apart.

  • avatar
    dcdriver

    I find it strange that Chrysler decided to kill the Pacifica. I see a lot more Pacificas on the road than some of their other models that have not been killed.

  • avatar
    geeber

    Hippo: A good friend owns the Ford and GM dealers in a small town, less then 1/4 mile apart. Granted that GM has lots of quality problems, but they are mostly trim, squeaks, rattles and cosmetic issues that go directly to assembly quality. Ford on the other hand, has far more power train issues, the sort of problems that stop the vehicles dead in their tracks for weeks at the time.

    Consumer Reports has ranked Ford higher than either GM or Chrysler in quality for several years now.

    Interestingly, mechanics I’ve talked to have said that, 10 years ago, it was GM that had the better quality. But now that has reversed – Ford is now best among the domestics. Cadillac’s Northstar V-8, in particular, becomes troublesome as the odometer climbs.

  • avatar
    Robert Schwartz

    How can Fiat claim they will have vehicles for sale in 18 months. It will have taken Ford almost 3 years to have Federalized the Euro-Focus and Euro-Fiesta. Honda and Toyota seldom turn out a new line in less than 3 years.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    How can Fiat claim they will have vehicles for sale in 18 months.

    They already have several models under development for a 2011 release that are planned as world cars.

    It shouldn’t take much to create US-spec cars at this stage of the R&D process. Whether we’ll actually want them is another matter entirely.

    They’ll also inherent stuff from Cerberus. Some portion of it may be worth tweaking and keeping.

  • avatar

    Fiat selling Chrysler products in Europe?

    Forget it. Buy your 300C from a European FIAT dealer? Speak about “culturally unsuited” dealerships. BTW: Why should you? And what prevented Chrysler in the past from selling their cars worldwide and in masses?

    Even Jeeps are a problem. Most people I know here in southern Bavaria that owned a Jeep would never consider it again. They were open for an American adventure after the DaimlerChrysler merger, but it proved disappointing. There are other “non-iconic” but more reliable offerings.

    Not to forget those lousy brakes with the Chrysler PT. When stress-tested by “Auto Motor Sport” amongst other cars in the Alps it completely lost its brakes. No other car was that bad.

    For such products there is niche market at best.

    The same will be true for FIAT products in the US, although for different reasons. Crappiness and unreliability might not be the problem with current FIAT offerings. There have been real improvements. But I simply cannot imagine large numbers of Americans switching to FIAT Pandas, 500s, Bravos, Alfa Romeos, even if they are sold via Chrysler dealerships. These cars are simply meant for different roads and usage scenarios.

    But let’s wait and see how the blind is leading the lame out of this disaster. Perhaps Marchionne has some inspiring new ideas.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    The other rule is to take a nameplate and run it into the ground or decide the name is the problem. Why couldn’t the G6 be called “Grand Am” or the G8 be called Bonneville? Why kill the names “Park Avenue” and “LeSabre?”

    There’s a reason: those nameplates have functionally zero (or negative) equity. No one is going into a Pontiac dealershuip to buy a Bonneville or Grand Am based on it’s stellar nameplate. The only people who argue otherwise are going to buy GM products no matter what. **

    Toyota, by comparison, has a stable full of nameplates with a lot of positive equity (Corolla, Camry, etc). Toyota has also scrapped nameplates that have no positive equity (Echo, Tercel) for the same reason, and GM has kept nameplates that are worth it (Corvette). The problem that GM has is that they have so few models with equity that they’re more or less forced to scrap nameplates on change in hopes of getting buyers in the showroom (“Forget about the mediocre Cavalier/Cobalt, it’s gone. Have a look at the new Cobalt/Cruze!”).

    This makes Ford’s decisions to dust off Taurus and use Flex in lieu of Fairlane extra puzzling. Taurus does not have equity***, while Fairlane certainly did. Mullaly’s singular failing is an inability to market what are otherwise very good cars.

    ** Buick is the exception to this, but Buick’s problem is that their buyers are on their last car or two, and that the people who have positive views of Park Avenue and Le Sabre are not commercially significant. New nameplates might help Buick for different reasons, but it helps GM less so than winding Buick down in North America and selling the Insignia-Lacrosse as the Malibu instead.

    *** No, really, it doesn’t. Don’t kid yourself. The general population’s opinion of Tauruses is not high.

  • avatar
    Runfromcheney

    psarhjinian :

    Ford’s marketing sucked ass long before Mulally came in.

  • avatar
    paris-dakar

    The not-quite-as-shitty-as-the-Aspen Diplomat and the Omni and Aries that followed the Aspen were just smaller boils on the corpse of the domestic auto industry.

    I would take issue with the inclusion of the Omni/Horizon is this list. I’ve known a bunch of people who owned L-Bodies, they were rugged and reliable, if not refined, little cars.

  • avatar
    agenthex

    Wait a minute, isn’t the whole reason why there is gov’t assistance in the first place is to prevent this very type of negative economic impact?

    Well, it’s to move the negative impact into the future where it will dissipate better.


    but I don’t think that with their current engineering that they could make a profit at any sort of US wages

    Believe it or not, there is enough engineering prowess in the US to make it work in the long run. In the short run, the plan is that hopefully the FIAT stuff will tide things over in the meantime.

    The actual problems are more related to a dysfunctional culture in detroit, with poor management decision making, inopportune cost saving, and antagonist labor relations.

    Sergio Marchionne is sort of known for fixing, or at least messing with the cultural element. Now that we have money on the line, let’s at at least hope he can pull something off.

  • avatar
    amadorgmowner

    Ford Powerstroke diesels are crap. My business owns a 2001 F450 that has had six engines, four transmissions and had to have its front axle replaced after just 2000 miles. However, I agree that people won’t buy Fiatslers – Fiat was and is crap. Never mind the cultural difference. The micro cars that Fiat makes are undesirable and I’m sure are still garbage. Why the government has pushed a merger with a company run by a Mussolini-type leader and no money to contribute is beyond me. And still no one has answered the question, how are GM and Chrysler going to save money with fewer dealers? (I agree there are too many D3 dealers – IN METROPOLITAN AREAS – NOT RURAL AREAS) The PTFOA needs to answer that question? I haven’t heard an answer yet. Another thing, what was wrong with a Chrysler-GM merger? Chrysler is going to rescued by a cash strapped maker of crappy cars? Really? What is PTFOA smoking? I’m tired of the bailouts and this horrible soap opera. Someone make all of this stop!

  • avatar
    NickR

    This whole Chrysler, Fiat, Government thing is like a bad cook making a casserole. Throw all the unappetizing leftovers into form with some cut rate ground beef, cook at 350 F for an hour and pray that what comes out is somehow more palatable than the ingredients would lead you to believe.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    Ford’s marketing sucked ass long before Mulally came in.

    Yes, but it didn’t get better. Heck, I’d hazard it got worse.

  • avatar
    Lokkii

    Low reliability only works for higher end products that are otherwise more pleasurable to own and/or otherwise offer better service. If the car breaks, the manufacturer needs to make the experience as painless as possible, so that the customer isn’t irritated by it…It goes back to price and brand equity. The whole point of a brand is to support price and/or volume. If we learn anything from Detroit, it’s that economies of scale can’t produce much value when the price point is too low.

    +1 PCH101

    Dammit. I hate agreeing with you, but when you’re right, you’re right. And you’re right. (But only about this – I’m just sayin’).

    I think we also agree that the value of Chrysler to Fiat is the opportunity to obtain a fully developed dealer network and support system. That’s worth billions in itself and would take a decade or more to develop from scratch.

    Additionally, obtaining the Chrysler name allows Fiat to re-enter the American market without having to put the name Fiat on the products. I personally believe that the Fiat name has reached mythical status as regards bad quality. People who are too young to have ever seen a Fiat in the states all know they’re bad cars.

    The truth may be different, but the legend is always stronger than truth. Ask Gomer Pyle, er, Jim Nabors. When he sings opera people are always amazed that Gomer can sing so well….

  • avatar
    guyincognito

    @ PCH101:

    “They already have several models under development for a 2011 release that are planned as world cars.

    It shouldn’t take much to create US-spec cars at this stage of the R&D process”

    I think you are underestimating how difficult it will be for them to federalize vehicles currently in the pipeline for 2011. A vehicle that will be in production by 2011 should be through final design verification and heavily into durability testing at this point. Changing bumpers, suspension tuning, engine choices, etc can have significant impact on a whole host of other parts. Not that it can’t be done, but it would be very expensive and require significant engineering resources at this phase of product development.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    A vehicle that will be in production by 2011 should be through final design verification and heavily into durability testing at this point. Changing bumpers, suspension tuning, engine choices, etc can have significant impact on a whole host of other parts.

    The subtext here is that they’ve been planning something like this for awhile. Fiat started negotiating with Cerberus a year ago to put together some kind of deal.

    We here may not know exactly what has been going within Fiat, but it’s easy to guess from the facts that we do have that they have been intending to reenter the US for some time now. This is not something that just came up a few weeks ago; this has probably been in the planning stages for years.

    Fiat desperately wants this deal. It just so happens that the timing has worked out perfectly for them to get what they want at a steep discount.

  • avatar
    Lokkii

    Damn!

    I have to agree with PCH101 again.

    Fiat has been working towards a return to the states (at least for Alfa Romeo) under various guises for some years now – there have been other dance partners mentioned before Chrysler – among them GM who paid $2B to break off the engagement.

    I’d tend to believe that Fiat has long ago started the federalization process for upcoming models.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India