Back When Fiat Did Not Want Chrysler - Autoline After Hours 339

SPECIAL GUEST: Steve Miller, CEO, IAC Automotive
UP FOR DISCUSSION:
- A life in Automotive - Steve Miller
- Tesla Master plan
All that and more with host John McElroy from Autoline.tv, and guest panelists, David Welch with Bloomberg, and Doron Levin of Forbes.
Get more video everyday at autoline.tv

[@theevermind]

An oft-ignored deficiency of CAFE is that what really matters to the economy & environment is *total fuel consumption*, not mpg.If everyone could cut their commute in half, instantly there would be less fuel consumption, less emissions, & less traffic (plus people would have less stress and more time to their day)--all without changing or improving a single vehicle. The idea behind a fuel tax is just to make gas more expensive and thus reduce demand. However, taxes pull money out of the economy, and it doesn't intrinsically reduce imports (as we see now, domestic production can go down). An alternative that I haven't heard anyone mention is to simply cap and then steadily reduce allowable imports. Start by cutting mid-east oil, then the rest of OPEC, then restrict it to NAFTA, and eventually purely domestic. Limiting imported oil: - limits supply and thus increases price and lowers demand (the original goal) - reduces the trade deficit, which props up the value of the dollar - forces oil production & jobs to be maintained domestically (lower unemployment) - puts the extra money spent on gas back into US workers' pockets (counteracts the drag on the economy from higher fuel prices) - establishes energy independence (removes foreign policy demands on interventions in unfriendly parts of the world, permits military spending reduction) - reduces money going to countries that fund terrorism and wish us harm - insulates the domestic oil industry from global price fluctuations, i.e., OPEC loses power to attack our economy; however, there is increased risk of shortages such as after hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. IMO, we need to focus more on macroeconomic effects. For example, with EVs, since nearly all our electricity comes from domestically produced sources, every dollar spent fueling them stays here compared to importing 40% of our oil.

[@Frost517]

We know why we use so much energy, pollute so much, and emit so much ore carbon than most countries. Corporate control of the economy and goverment that enforces the paradigm of sprawl. Who built the suburbs? Who built the commercial malls? The strip malls? The parkway shopping centers? Who ripped out all the classical city infrastructure we had up through the 30s and replaced it with the car? Who let the rail road, the trolley, and later the bus decline for decades? Who bailed out the auto industry time and time again instead of investing in jobs that lead to amore efficient economy? Density is what is going to change the game. Building, or rebuilding our great urban places is going to change the game. Figuring out how to get people to live in cities, and ending suburban developments is going to change the game. The way I see it though, we arent really going to change the energy and pollution problem until we literally change everything about the way we are living our lives. Smaller, closer together, with a lot more reliable safe mass transit in place. In most regards, the way we used to live before the car became part of corporate Americans plan for unending sprawl. We used to have to build cities to be walkable, and we used to have to build reliable trolley and trams here in the states in the fabric of our villages and cities. We used to have to plan urban places and build classical urban environments here n the states. Rail connections used to mean something and meant serious economic power and great paying jobs. Im not against the car, Im against sprawl for the sake of sprawl. I believe the car has a place in the city and village as you can see it did in pictures from the 20s and 30s. However, we should not be forced to use the car and only the car. We should have freedom of choice of transportation and largely we dont in this country!

[@theevermind]

Randy Sullivan Seck Dude, paragraphs. And I disagree with you on the cause of pollution and the solution being urbanization.

[@keimo2007]

great show!

[@CombatVetteFRC]

Better battery tech is on the way with magnetic alignment of particles in the cells. More importantly is this fact: Elon Musk may not drive revenues for his own companies. However, his vision is creating its own momentum within the markets of each product talked about.

[@DocWolph]

FCA can fold ALFA Romeo into Maserati. They are essentially two halves of one whole luxury line, so give the Giulia and Giulletta to Maserati, who is already in most of the markets FCA wants to put ALFA Romeo. ALFA Romeo does not have to go away completely either, it can exist in a capacity similar to Mercedes AMG, building the hopped up versions of Maseratis and having a few sports cars of their own. ALFA Romeo becomes "Ferrari Jr.". This would also open up a the Viper to return as ALFA and Dodge would share a platform for two similar cars with different styles and loadouts. Chrysler is allowed to redevelop into a full-on, full-line, Luxury marque, with a first push on a full line of S/CUVs. Dodge focuses on performance, not just muscle cars. RAM and JEEP have their bearings well set. Other than a Mid-sized truck for RAM, "RAM 1000", no changes. Dodge finally brings a version of the 2005 Rampage concept to Market as the Dodge Dakota, because the name fits, on a platform shared with a new Dodge Durango, Chrysler Aspen, and Jeep Grand Wagoneer CUVs. The Ram 750/Fiat Strada Unibody truck would become a Dodge, as well. Lancia and Dodge share product, although Lancia to be European Dodge, will focus on smaller cars, hot hatches and mid-sized cars and S/CUVs, as is the tastes of the region. Fiat brand would back out of the US as its product line up is not a good fit for the US. Lancia never comes to the US. It is not needed, but Dodge, as a brand, may not play well in every market. But what would really help FCA and most car makers, is to stop making boring, Front engine FWD, just adequate drivetrains, an entire qualitative order behind and below S/CUVs, and double down on RWD and AWD, with a clear view toward performance. Plus, improve the quality of the products.

[@dontelindsey5846]

that makes sense so it'll never happen

[@DocWolph]

Donte Lindsey I know.

[@nigelweir3852]

Typical old school car guys , Chrysler was bust , if that money had have been invested in ev's not trucks and regulation dodging second hand car dealers. This is why most American made vehicles are years behind

[@DocWolph]

Its more the attitude America has toward business, particularly manufacturing. There was no desire to be the best or at least better than you had been before. It has and is largely about doing as little as possible, while getting as much money as you can, and then running with the spoils. That mentality has changed great deal, although the clean up continues, as evidenced with GM and Ford, and American cars have very much caught up. Although threadbare Chrysler is not always clear on that point. Especially now with the recent cancellation of cars they will need in the future, and the eminent second demise of the Viper, and the lingering aggravation of their low quality ratings.

[@dt7353]

yes, invest in cars that won't sell and will lose you tonnes of money instead of extremely profitable trucks is a great idea! /s

[@DocWolph]

Doug T Your POV is that only cars that would not make as much or lose money is all the money would be put toward. But settling only on making boring vehicles is a pretty sad way to go. GM's current lean on doing everything in the appropriate mix is a very good model overall. They could finish out Cadillac's S/CUV line up already, but, by and large, they have a little of almost everything. This was accomplished by doing what is needed so they can afford to do what they want and then doing it demonstratively "right". This Chrysler and Fiat have not been doing very well. It is so that FCA has backed themselves into a corner and have to "circle the wagons" and they will do what they need to do. but to have gone from being able t comfortably afford the Viper an making money on it, to having some promising Small cars, to being reliant on JEEP and RAM for the majority of their money alone is a failure I don't think FCA can come back from unless they start being more interesting. Easiest example would be to double down or RWD cars. Why make yet another version of the Camry or Accord, when you can carve a space with a less expensive version of the 3/4 series, and C-Class. People will look and many will buy. A RWD Chrysler 200 and Dodge Avenger (although that 400hp, AWD Avenger Stromtrooper Concept really should have been a thing), for example. The problem with cars is increasingly the car makers are not making the car people want, FWD, just adequately powerful, only exactly enough interior space, but they are building CUVs they want available AWD, more than adequate power, good interior space. But if you look over to BMW Mercedes ad AUDI, they are still makes cars that are selling just fine versus their own S/CUVs. The cars are not denied features or options given to S/CUV as appropriate and are exciting cars to boot. So again, FCA needs to do what it needs to do to get the money flowing again, but in the end they have to be a desirable company and that means investing in cars as one day S/CUVs will fall into decline and if FCA is unprepared FCA will die for certain. *Long is long. I had a lot to say.