As Sales Flatline, Fiat Chrysler Launches New Dealership Blitz: Report

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles rocketed out of the recession with year-over-year U.S. sales increases, eventually erasing the sudden deficit of buyers that led to its bankruptcy. Between 2009 and 2015, the resurgent automaker went from a measly 931,402 U.S. sales to a healthy, cash-generating 2,243,907.

Those gray skies sure did clear up. Happy days!

Now for last year’s sales tally: 2,244,315. Notice something unusual? That’s right, FCA tacked on just 408 sales in 2016 compared to a year prior. While sales growth can’t be counted on like the rising and falling of the sun, especially in a market that has reached a tentative plateau, it’s nonetheless concerning for FCA. The sales juggernaut sits idle in the water, yearning for headway.

Is the automaker’s problem simply that there aren’t enough places to buy Jeep, Dodge, Chrysler, Ram and Fiat vehicles?

With about 2,500 dealerships scattered throughout the union, most would answer that question with a solid “no.” However, that isn’t stopping FCA from adding an extra 400 dealers to its network, Automobile News reports.

Two dealer sources, as well as one within the company, claim that the expansion is already underway in several markets, including Houston. The new dealer push is all about protecting FCA’s market share, they claim. One remarked that the extra dealers were needed five years ago.

The automaker hasn’t confirmed the plan.

FCA’s fourth-quarter earnings report, released this week, painted a less-than-rosy picture for the automaker. Its share of the U.S. market fell to 11.3 percent by year’s end — a loss of 1.5 percent compared to third-quarter results. General Motors, Toyota and Ford loom far ahead.

For FCA, more presence from an expanded dealer network is as good an idea as any.

[Image: Fiat-Chrysler Automobiles]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 109 comments
  • Indi500fan Indi500fan on Jan 29, 2017

    This was an interesting article. There was a nearby Chry/Dodge/Jeep store that opened in 2008, lasted about 12 months, closed up, and became a Kia store under a totally different ownership group after a year sitting empty. Now another owner group is building a new Chry/Dodge/Jeep store nearby.

  • Zackman Zackman on Jan 30, 2017

    "Is the automaker’s problem simply that there aren’t enough places to buy Jeep, Dodge, Chrysler, Ram and Fiat vehicles?" Perhaps that's the case, or is the reason for flat sales is that their products are junk, and buyers are wise to Chrysler? I have no bone to pick with Chrysler, but I'll never buy another one, even though I was a customer for over 20 years. Why? Fear. Fear of failing transmissions, bad engines (although I haven't heard of any for years), and just poorer all-around quality compared to everyone else, etc, etc. Maybe I'm wrong...

  • Doughboy I’ve seen car bras before, but never car beards. ZZ Top would be proud.
  • Bkojote Allright, actual person who knows trucks here, the article gets it a bit wrong.First off, the Maverick is not at all comparable to a Tacoma just because they're both Hybrids. Or lemme be blunt, the butch-est non-hybrid Maverick Tremor is suitable for 2/10 difficulty trails, a Trailhunter is for about 5/10 or maybe 6/10, just about the upper end of any stock vehicle you're buying from the factory. Aside from a Sasquatch Bronco or Rubicon Jeep Wrangler you're looking at something you're towing back if you want more capability (or perhaps something you /wish/ you were towing back.)Now, where the real world difference should play out is on the trail, where a lot of low speed crawling usually saps efficiency, especially when loaded to the gills. Real world MPG from a 4Runner is about 12-13mpg, So if this loaded-with-overlander-catalog Trailhunter is still pulling in the 20's - or even 18-19, that's a massive improvement.
  • Lou_BC "That’s expensive for a midsize pickup" All of the "offroad" midsize trucks fall in that 65k USD range. The ZR2 is probably the cheapest ( without Bison option).
  • Lou_BC There are a few in my town. They come out on sunny days. I'd rather spend $29k on a square body Chevy
  • Lou_BC I had a 2010 Ford F150 and 2010 Toyota Sienna. The F150 went through 3 sets of brakes and Sienna 2 sets. Similar mileage and 10 year span.4 sets tires on F150. Truck needed a set of rear shocks and front axle seals. The solenoid in the T-case was replaced under warranty. I replaced a "blend door motor" on heater. Sienna needed a water pump and heater blower both on warranty. One TSB then recall on spare tire cable. Has a limp mode due to an engine sensor failure. At 11 years old I had to replace clutch pack in rear diff F150. My ZR2 diesel at 55,000 km. Needs new tires. Duratrac's worn and chewed up. Needed front end alignment (1st time ever on any truck I've owned).Rear brakes worn out. Left pads were to metal. Chevy rear brakes don't like offroad. Weird "inside out" dents in a few spots rear fenders. Typically GM can't really build an offroad truck issue. They won't warranty. Has fender-well liners. Tore off one rear shock protector. Was cheaper to order from GM warehouse through parts supplier than through Chevy dealer. Lots of squeaks and rattles. Infotainment has crashed a few times. Seat heater modual was on recall. One of those post sale retrofit.Local dealer is horrific. If my son can't service or repair it, I'll drive 120 km to the next town. 1st and last Chevy. Love the drivetrain and suspension. Fit and finish mediocre. Dealer sucks.
Next