Concerns with FCA's obsession with merging
#1
05-01-2015, 02:34 AM
Concerns with FCA's obsession with merging
Sergio seems to be obsessed with trying to get into some kind of merger because he wants economies of scale. Exactly how does it make sense to want this one moment while making such moves as discontinuing the Caravan and Avenger? What is the long term potential for a company that thinks it can continue by merging with other companies so it can have engines, platforms, and transmissions instead of developing its own. Let's look at Chrysler's engine line up and see how the in house designs compare with co-developed powertrains shall we? The Hemi (a Ward's Top Ten engine list winner) was in house and still compares very nicely to GM's even after the GDI was added to the LT block, all they need to do is offer GDI in the Hemi to take a lead on them. In the truck world, the Hemi is more powerful than the Coyote V8, Toyota's V8, and Nissan's V8, not to mention what they did the with HCat version which speaks for itself. The Pentastar V6 has been listed on the Ward's top 10 list a number of years, it combined with the 8 speed ZF got the best gas mileage in its class for the Ram to where Ford has had to resort to using aluminum and using a small less powerful V6 to match its fuel economy, and in its class is still better on gas in the LX cars than either the Taurus or the Impala. Now how about the GEMA engine which has done exactly what is asking for having a Hyundai based engine co-developed between Hyundai, Mitsubishi, and Chrysler and modified by Fiat? What are its accomplishments for Chrysler? Has it won any competitions using apples to apples displacement, let alone any awards like the Hemi and Pentastar have? In some situations the Pentastar got similar or better gas mileage. Most reviews that I have read have described it in a negative light and when the Pentastar was available they recommended it. Even when it has more gear ratios as in the Cherokee it still is towards the back on the pack in gas mileage while the Pentastar powered version blows the GM's Equinox/Terran's V6 out of the water in gas mileage. Considering that Mitsubishi models featuring this are way behind and Hyundai is towards the lower end gas mileage, I would say that this idea was foolish when Chrysler proven in the 90s that they could LEAD everyone in gas mileage in I4s. They have been able to do it with the Pentastar and a bit even with the Hemi, the GEMA I4 has failed to do this.
While we are on the topic, let's take a look at how wise it is that FCA wants to contract out transmissions through other companies. I can understand the wisdom of what Ford and GM are doing where they are pooling their talent and each taking the lead on a individual transmission because any lessons learned can be shared and ultimately they don't have to pay royalties. The ZF route has been a mixed bag. So far the ZF 8 speed has been good move for them, hopefully they will last for the long haul and have similar or better life than the RFE transmission which was great unit (quite an improvement in reliability over the RE 4 speeds). The ZF 9 so far has not been a good move in the reliability problems, the lack of use for the 9th ratio, and other quality concerns AND not just for Chrysler but Land Rover and more notably Acura. Consider that this has not been the first dud in Chrysler history from ZF (remember the Premier/Monaco had a reputation with problems with its ZF sourced 4 speed), I really wish FCA would have been patient and tried to join in on the GM & Ford arrangement or (if possible) developed FWD platforms using the Longitude layout (ala LH cars) in which possibly the ZF 8 speed could have been used bypassing the need for a new transmission.
On the topic of platforms, no matter whether you preferred the characteristics of Mitsubishi compared to the Chrysler based platforms of the 90s, the Chrysler based ones outsold the Mitsubishi based ones. The fact is the less unique the car is the more sales are going to be divided especially in the same class.
My point can be summed up simply. Chrysler models sell the best and have the most marketable attributes when they are done by Chrysler, "Chrysler" models utilizing other manufactures stuff rarely does as well. I don't see how Suzuki would add anything useful especially when they had to leave the U.S. market due to lack of demand on top of what would they really bring technology, segment, or talent wise. I can see where Mazda would with the 3 and 6 being award winners with great plaforms and having great gas mileage with their I4. The addition of a Pentastar V6 to the Mazda 6 would make the car more credible in the acceleration department. I don't see any other merger working aside from Mazda. Aside from this, my concern is Sergio is possibly making the same mistake as Bob Eaton. Be patient and let it grow naturally, in the meantime work on a new RWD platform, choose to make Chrysler lusury not "mainstream," make a new ground up I4, add GDI to their V6, V8, and V10, and work on reliability.
http://jalopnik.com/is-fiat-chrysler...-a-1701176691#
While we are on the topic, let's take a look at how wise it is that FCA wants to contract out transmissions through other companies. I can understand the wisdom of what Ford and GM are doing where they are pooling their talent and each taking the lead on a individual transmission because any lessons learned can be shared and ultimately they don't have to pay royalties. The ZF route has been a mixed bag. So far the ZF 8 speed has been good move for them, hopefully they will last for the long haul and have similar or better life than the RFE transmission which was great unit (quite an improvement in reliability over the RE 4 speeds). The ZF 9 so far has not been a good move in the reliability problems, the lack of use for the 9th ratio, and other quality concerns AND not just for Chrysler but Land Rover and more notably Acura. Consider that this has not been the first dud in Chrysler history from ZF (remember the Premier/Monaco had a reputation with problems with its ZF sourced 4 speed), I really wish FCA would have been patient and tried to join in on the GM & Ford arrangement or (if possible) developed FWD platforms using the Longitude layout (ala LH cars) in which possibly the ZF 8 speed could have been used bypassing the need for a new transmission.
On the topic of platforms, no matter whether you preferred the characteristics of Mitsubishi compared to the Chrysler based platforms of the 90s, the Chrysler based ones outsold the Mitsubishi based ones. The fact is the less unique the car is the more sales are going to be divided especially in the same class.
My point can be summed up simply. Chrysler models sell the best and have the most marketable attributes when they are done by Chrysler, "Chrysler" models utilizing other manufactures stuff rarely does as well. I don't see how Suzuki would add anything useful especially when they had to leave the U.S. market due to lack of demand on top of what would they really bring technology, segment, or talent wise. I can see where Mazda would with the 3 and 6 being award winners with great plaforms and having great gas mileage with their I4. The addition of a Pentastar V6 to the Mazda 6 would make the car more credible in the acceleration department. I don't see any other merger working aside from Mazda. Aside from this, my concern is Sergio is possibly making the same mistake as Bob Eaton. Be patient and let it grow naturally, in the meantime work on a new RWD platform, choose to make Chrysler lusury not "mainstream," make a new ground up I4, add GDI to their V6, V8, and V10, and work on reliability.
http://jalopnik.com/is-fiat-chrysler...-a-1701176691#