By on November 18, 2009

The engine in question (courtesy: wikimedia)

The engine in question is Fiat’s 1.4 liter “Fire,” planned for use in the Fiat 500 as well as planned Dodge and Chrysler B-segment hatchbacks. Automotive News [sub] reports that the Michigan Economic Growth Authority has authorized ten years worth of employment tax credits if Chrysler builds the engines at an unused plant in Dundee, MI. But the credits are only worth an estimated $4.6m, and MEGA admits that that building the engines in Mexico would be cheaper for Chrysler. The most important factor: the engine will primarily power the Fiat 500, which will be built in Toluca, Mexico. Since most of the 500s built in Toluca will be headed to the Brazilian market, Michigan engine production makes even less sense. And since there won’t be any other North American products using the 100 hp, 92 lb-ft engine until 2013 (if the Fiatsler experiment even makes it that far), there’s almost no reason for Michigan to build these engines. Still, with 250k units planned annually, it’s no wonder MEGA dangled tax credits anyway. Besides, there’s one more wrinkle: one of the ways Fiat can gain another five percent of Chrysler’s imaginary equity is to “manufacture state-of-the-art, next-generation engines at a U.S. Chrysler facility.” Fiatsler is bringing Fiat back to the US as a one-model-brand (500) with a dedicated sales and support staff just to meet one of these government benchmarks… will they be crazy enough to build an engine in Michigan and ship them to Mexico to meet another?

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!


16 Comments on “Fiatsler’s Dilemma: Build Engines In Michigan Or Mexico?...”

  • avatar

    Fiat could build their 1.75 TBi motor in Michigan for domestic Chrysler models and world export, then rake in the profits as the dollar weakens over the next decade.
    A Brera sold in the U.S. with that motor could be an opportunity to capitalize on the homogeneity in the 3-G37-C-IS-A4 market and shuffle Alfa back into the states.
    Fiat brand in the U.S. is still a tough sell.  I wish them success, though.  Choices are good for the consumer.

  • avatar

    If Fiatsler needs that imaginary 5% equity,  they should at least limit themselves to right-to-work states and a non-UAW plant.

  • avatar

    Did Mexico bail out Chrysler? Just sayin.

  • avatar

    So am I the only one that see’s the similarities between this and Taggart Continental building a rail line to a non-producing gold mine while the rail line to a productive oil field crumbles?

  • avatar

    That’s just right Banana, you said it all.

  • avatar

    I don’t like “Fiatsler” as the name of this turd of a company.
    It should be called “Chryat,” instead.

  • avatar

    The Dundee operation is actually a very state-of-the art deal. Chrysler invested hundreds of millions into the plant and from what I understand, everyone udner the roof needs, at minimum, a 2-year degree to work there.

  • avatar

    I agree with criminalenterprise in terms of there are other Engines fiat could bring to Michigan especially sub 2 ltr

    The Brera is a good looking vehicle but it’s on a relatively old platform, which would required large sums to make comply to the US standards.

  • avatar

    right-to-work states and a non-UAW plant.

    I was told State of Montana is one of them, work free states. U can work all u want, neither Onion folks noe Jimmy Hoffa et al can disrupt your work day.
    Have I heard it wong the name was change to name after Joe Montana the great Foot ball player. LOL.
    I hear Montana had some kind of speed limit nowadays,
    Is still work free by not drive as freely as u want. The State trooper will tell u son u had pinned your speedo needle a few times. And its recorded in Law. The state want u to pon up some Mulla for the said priviledge.
    Back to the subject, Fiatsler is having a bit of rough ride.  Unlike GM is slowly getting out of the blue.

  • avatar

    Makes perfectly good sense to me, just as much as shipping Mexican built Hemi Engines to Warren, Michigan and assemble them onto the Ram trucks.

  • avatar

    If the MI plant were not already built and staffed this would be a no-brainer to site near Toluca to shrink the supply chain. However you as Fiat is on a strict budget the lower cost solution will be to go with the already build and up to speed plant in MI.
    Can engine plants “flex” the way a final assembly does and make disimmilar products; ie a small straight 4 and a V-8?

  • avatar
    Robert Schwartz

    The Dundee plant is state of the art. From an article about the plant:

    “Carmakers’ Big Idea: Think Small” by Micheline Maynard in the NYTimes on February 5, 2006

    “Although the partnership is intended to produce 840,000 engines a year that could be shared by the three companies, the plant, set to be expanded next year, will have only 250 hourly workers when it reaches peak production. By contrast, Chrysler employs 750 workers who build 350,000 engines a year at its Mack Avenue plant in Detroit. And in the 1990’s, Chrysler employed 2,500 workers at its big engine plant in Kenosha, Wis., …”
    It would seem that each motor produced by Dundee would cost less than one hour of labor.

    • 0 avatar

      The Mack Engine Plants are also state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities.

      The two Mack Avenue Engine plants, named Mack Avenue I and II, are at 4000 and 4500 St. Jean Avenue in Detroit. In 2007 and 2008, the Harbour Report named the Mack Avenue Engine Complex as the most productive engine manufacturing facility in its category; the plant spent just 3.77 labor hours per engine .

      The plants build the 3.7-V6 and 4.7-V8 and are 10 and 11 years old respectively. To this day the plants are so clean you can eat off the floor anywhere.

      The difference at Dundee is that all skilled-trades, Gage Lab, Chemical Management, Production Control (hi-lo drivers), at. al., are contracted out and are not part of the Harbour Hrs.

  • avatar

    “Fiatsler is bringing Fiat back to the US as a one-model-brand (500) with a dedicated sales and support staff just to meet one of these government benchmarks… will they be crazy enough to build an engine in Michigan and ship them to Mexico to meet another?”

    In a nutshell, this captures how major auto industry decisions are being driven by opportunities to tap into government largesse. Fiat’s entire decision to take a piece of Chrysler is based on the premise that things will work out well if Fiat partners with Washington.

    Similarly, every move we see regarding Opel revolves around tapping the American taxpayer. The money will probably flow through GM’s trust fund so Team Obama can minimize a negative reaction from the public.

    • 0 avatar

      While this sordid business typically proceeds in less sunlit corners, nearly every corporation from the small-town entrepreneurship to the electric utility is run with an eye seeking cost and risk externalizations.  Sic semper erat.

  • avatar

    New mouse over caption: “Fire” in the hole?

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • sayahh: Val Kilmer’s Avengers?
  • r129: Earlier this month I decided to check out a new 2017 Accord EX coupe with a manual. I didn’t really...
  • Caboose: This weekend, while my beloved LS430 was in for extended service (time for a timing belt), Lexus offered me...
  • DenverMike: Chevy dually, “Lethal Weapon 2”. The truck’s rear jumped 5′ when the slack ran...
  • rpn453: “A top heavy, overweight, stiffly sprung, massively front weight biased truck is a crap snow...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote


  • Contributors

  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States