I'll buy the Abarth version of the Fiat 500 if they can put in a dual-clutch transmission in that car.
We'll end up with a MINI competitor at several thousand less, too. 
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Fiat and Chrysler - the birth of an automotive behemouth
- Thread starter geese
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'll buy the Abarth version of the Fiat 500 if they can put in a dual-clutch transmission in that car.
We'll end up with a MINI competitor at several thousand less, too. 
Better than what?
Like someone else said, they were at the bottom, so they could only improve over time.
Your fellow Americans do not view truly small cars like some of us do. Some Americans appreciate them, but I'm guessing most do not. You and I want to see these small cars in the market, but I'm quite certain that executives at these companies have studied the market, and determined that cars like the Fiat 500, Ford Ka, Audi A3, etc, do not sell well enough to bring over to N.A., despite their popularity in Europe and Asia.This alliance is not so crazy an idea as it seems.
If you've seen Fiat's current product line, their three small car models that could be adapted for the USA market (500, Grand Punto, and Bravo) would make for fast selling models here, especially if Fiat can use Abarth's high performance technology to create faster versions of these cars specifically for American buyers (we'll call them pasta burners
In the US, many people love the VW hatchbacks and Mini. It doesn't matter how their reliability is, as brand image seems to have enough of a cachet to be popular and expensive. Outside of these two, and the Toyota Yaris (simply because it's a Toyota), there really aren't a lot of small cars that could survive the American market. I don't really understand it all, but I don't think all these car companies have avoided releasing small cars in the North American market to spite us.
Americans and their near 60 year old technology
You guys should join the rest of us in the 21st century...
You know DOHC is roughly the same age as OHV right? Where one of the first applications of DOHC's were in 1912. I believe OHV was created around 1905-1909( I read it in a book about the early days of GM). Plus, we have the kickass LS series that beats all your DOHC butts.
You know DOHC is roughly the same age as OHV right? Where one of the first applications of DOHC's were in 1912. I believe OHV was created around 1905-1909( I read it in a book about the early days of GM). Plus, we have the kickass LS series that beats all your DOHC butts.
I'm talking about using HUGE engines to shift stupidly heavy cars. Instead of making smaller engines and lighter cars.
I'm talking about using HUGE engines to shift stupidly heavy cars. Instead of making smaller engines and lighter cars.
Pfft. Give me my 7.0 liter LS7 V8( that is actually smaller in size then the 6.2 V8 in AMG's) any day over a whimpy 1.3 liter 4 banger.
Though I envy that you guys have diesels galore. Our only diesel choices are from Merc, VW, and BMW. Curse you 1980's GM management for ruining the image of diesels trying to take a gas engine block and have it withstand the extra combustion pressure of a diesel!
Pfft. Give me my 7.0 liter LS7 V8( that is actually smaller in size then the 6.2 V8 in AMG's) any day over a whimpy 1.3 liter 4 banger.
And I'd rather not spend £100 a week on fuel!
Also comparing one end of the scale against the other is pretty pointless.
And remember our Caterham smashed the Veyron!
While I agree with that statement I just wanted to point out that the Liberty is actually a pretty nice Jeep. It's a good cross between the Wrangler and a car. It gives you the power you need off road with suspension that doesn't rattle your teeth driving down the road. My wife and I love ours. The Patriot and Compass however are completely pointless as Jeeps.
Just for the record, I really don't like most American cars. The fit and finish is generally pretty poor comparatively (Corvette may be a decent car but it's fit and finish is pathetic).
Hemi's are only good in trucks where that much torque is needed. Otherwise it's a complete waste of power, especially when no one actually needs that much in a car for day to day driving.You know DOHC is roughly the same age as OHV right? Where one of the first applications of DOHC's were in 1912. I believe OHV was created around 1905-1909( I read it in a book about the early days of GM). Plus, we have the kickass LS series that beats all your DOHC butts.
The latest GM's are pretty decent. I have an early build 2007 Saturn Aura and besides a few hiccups of it being the first model year( parking brake assembly snapping and the TSB's that were issued) it is fairly well built. Loads better then the G6 which it is based off of( don't believe the media hype of the Aura being the the twin to the Opel Vectra. It couldn't be farther from the truth). The new Buick LaCrosse looks to be well built as well.
And I see you subscribe to the thought of cars are appliances only needed for getting you from A to B. I am a true car enthusiast and the more power and road manners the better.
Not so, I just think there are much, much better engines out there for shear performance.And I see you subscribe to the thought of cars are appliances only needed for getting you from A to B. I am a true car enthusiast and the more power and road manners the better.
So I am confused. You say who needs that much power in a car, but now say there a much better engine then a Hemi( not disagreeing with that as I much prefer the LS Series V8 over the Hemi)? I am confused at what exactly what you meant then.
I have to disagree with that! Ever since that frightening petrol price spike last year, Americans are more interested in good small cars. The Fiat 500 Abarth, especially if Fiat can put in a dual-clutch sequential manual transmission, would fly out of dealers in the USA in no time flat, especially since Americans found out small cars can be "hip" with the current MINI.
Ford is seriously looking at selling the new Ka here in the USA as an entry level car, provided they can produce it at a reasonable price from Ford's Brazilian assembly line.
With the Obama Administration likely imposing excise taxes on new cars based on vehicle size and engine displacement like they do in Europe and Japan, you will see a LOT more small cars sold in the USA. I wouldn't be surprised that VW's Spanish subsidiary SEAT is looking at entering the USA market, probably by building SEAT cars at VW's assembly lines in Mexico.
The US has traditionally been good at getting power to the people cheap. It started with the muscle cars when a kid working at an entry-level job could afford to buy 300-400 hp and vast amounts of torque. Even today, there are American cars with lots of power that are affordable to a large percentage of the population.
There was a common observation that imported car owners were always being out-dragged by little old ladies in Buicks that didn't even knew they were racing.
I owned a Fiat 124 Sport Coupe and an Alfa Duetto (boat tail design). Both were excellent cars that I drove for years. The problem was that both companies chose the worst dealerships to represent their products.
There was a common observation that imported car owners were always being out-dragged by little old ladies in Buicks that didn't even knew they were racing.
I owned a Fiat 124 Sport Coupe and an Alfa Duetto (boat tail design). Both were excellent cars that I drove for years. The problem was that both companies chose the worst dealerships to represent their products.
I laughed. But it sounds kind of right. Buying a Viper? Why not get a Panda for the commute...
I laughed. But it sounds kind of right. Buying a Viper? Why not get a Panda for the commute...
Well... you jest, but I guess it could work:
Give it a stupid bum shaped grill, add some plastic body kits, and it could work.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Perhaps you're right and I'm wrong.
I don't think Americans really changed their buying habits with the huge surge in petrol pricing around the world, but I do agree with what you said about an Obama government initiative having an effect on which vehicles they purchase, particularly families on a tight budget.
Saying that, I don't think raising taxes works as a deterrent on families who earn above median wage. Someone who wants or needs a $35,000 truck or SUV with 400 HP is going to buy a truck/SUV with 400 HP. They'll just pay the extra $1000 to get what they really want. Same with businesses who require trucks or SUVs. If you need it, you need it.
Anyway, I'm not sure if it would work, but I can imagine it happening as you described.
I laughed. But it sounds kind of right. Buying a Viper? Why not get a Panda for the commute...
Blaze down the open road in the Dodge Viper.
Haul a tonne with the Dodge Ram.
Lick a lollipop and prance around town in your Dodge Panda?
You said, "I see you subscribe to the thought of cars are appliances only needed for getting you from A to B." I don't only see them as that. For day to day driving, yes, that's exactly what the majority of people think. On the US's modern roads you simply can't put a car through it's full paces. It's as simple as that ... and who wants to after a day of work?
You'll only use a car's power, handling, etc. to it's full extent on a test track.
So I guess I think of them as appliances most of the time because that's what I need them for.
Hahaha, nice.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
You're right - and maybe wrong at the same time. I agree that auto executives here in the US have convinced themselves that small cars won't sell, but I'm equally convinced they're wrong. Here in the US, the notion seems to be that the only reason you'd buy a small car would be because you can't afford a big one. That might have been true in 1955 (the same year that most US auto execs went to high school prom most likely), but it isn't true now. I think Americans are ready and willing to begin shedding this way of looking at things and to spend more on a quality small car, rather than linking size and quality.
I'll add one caveat to that - I recently drove almost the entire length of the US, and it's a BIG country. A city car is not a good choice for this style of driving. Just ask one of my old roommates...he did it in a Geo Metro. Not fun, especially in the mountains! So a larger car more suitable for highway cruising will always be important in the US. BUT that doesn't mean we all have to drive V8 and V6 behemoths. I did it in a 4 cylinder Subaru and it was fine. I just wouldn't recommend doing it in a Smart or a Ka on a regular basis.
Oh dear. Just when Fiat were emerging again as a good car manufacturer.
Chrysler helped to ruin Mercedes-Benz cars for years, please don't do the same for Fiat
If I remember right, MB wasn't doing too good before Chrysler
Same person designed both of those. I forgot his name but he left Chrysler and joined GM.I'm with Lee, Chrysler has some of the best looking cars out there.
Even GM agrees.
Learn What? How to let your government save your arse??????
Bad Samaritans
The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism
Excerpted from Bad Samaritans by Ha-Joon Chang Copyright © 2008 by Ha-Joon Chang.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/boo...
Chapter One
The Lexus and the olive tree revisited
Myths and facts about globalization
Once upon a time, the leading car maker of a developing country exported its first passenger cars to the US. Up to that day, the little company had only made shoddy products - poor copies of quality items made by richer countries. The car was nothing too sophisticated - just a cheap subcompact (one could have called it 'four wheels and an ashtray'). But it was a big moment for the country and its exporters felt proud.
Unfortunately, the product failed. Most thought the little car looked lousy and savvy buyers were reluctant to spend serious money on a family car that came from a place where only second-rate products were made. The car had to be withdrawn from the US market. This disaster led to a major debate among the country's citizens.
Many argued that the company should have stuck to its original business of making simple textile machinery. After all, the country's biggest export item was silk. If the company could not make good cars after 25 years of trying, there was no future for it. The government had given the car maker every opportunity to succeed. It had ensured high profits for it at home through high tariffs and draconian controls on foreign investment in the car industry. Fewer than ten years ago, it even gave public money to save the company from imminent bankruptcy. So, the critics argued, foreign cars should now be let in freely and foreign car makers, who had been kicked out 20 years before, allowed to set up shop again.
Others disagreed. They argued that no country had got anywhere without developing 'serious' industries like automobile production. They just needed more time to make cars that appealed to everyone.
The year was 1958 and the country was, in fact, Japan. The company was Toyota, and the car was called the Toyopet. Toyota started out as a manufacturer of textile machinery (Toyoda Automatic Loom) and moved into car production in 1933. The Japanese government kicked out General Motors and Ford in 1939 and bailed out Toyota with money from the central bank (Bank of Japan) in 1949. Today, Japanese cars are considered as 'natural' as Scottish salmon or French wine, but fewer than 50 years ago, most people, including many Japanese, thought the Japanese car industry simply should not exist.
Oh! wait, Toyota needs a bailout too!
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/12/toyota_joins_detroit_three_mis.html
The automakers didn't "do" themselves in with crappy cars. Yes about 15-20 yrs ago that was the case. THEY ARE ON PAR WITH HONDA AND TOYOTA in quality now. (most models)
The automakers are dying because people don't have jobs and everyone else is afraid of the economy getting worse - hence no one is buying cars at this time.
When you get your facts straight, you will sound more intelligent.
i am not sure what obama's plans are, but part of the stimulus should be a big tax deduction tied to the mpg.
this is just an example with semi-random numbers
if mpg >50 100% of price is deductable
if mpg >40 50% of price is deductable
if mpg >30 25% of price is deductable
so it promotes buying small cars rather than punishing buying big cars.
carmakers sell more cars, taxpayers save money. everyone wins.
this is just an example with semi-random numbers
if mpg >50 100% of price is deductable
if mpg >40 50% of price is deductable
if mpg >30 25% of price is deductable
so it promotes buying small cars rather than punishing buying big cars.
carmakers sell more cars, taxpayers save money. everyone wins.
Except businesses, and even moderately-sized families.
The birth-rate in Westernised countries is already low enough.....too low to sustain the population. These taxes shouldn't be a punishment on parents who have 3 or 4 children, who will definitely need larger cars.
What about businesses who need large trucks? Should they pay more? Their purchase of a large SUV or large truck may not be personal --- it may be necessary.
Somehow, someone needs a perfect way to separate those who want massive cars, and those who need them.
There's a huge difference between that story, and the one regarding GM and Chrysler. These are both developed worldwide brands, from a developed world super-power, and they both know how to make a car. In your example, Toyota wasn't in that situation at all. They were coming from a 2nd tier, developing country that was still rebuilding after WWII.
The birth-rate in Westernised countries is already low enough.....too low to sustain the population. These taxes shouldn't be a punishment on parents who have 3 or 4 children, who will definitely need larger cars.
What about businesses who need large trucks? Should they pay more? Their purchase of a large SUV or large truck may not be personal --- it may be necessary.
Somehow, someone needs a perfect way to separate those who want massive cars, and those who need them.
There's a huge difference between that story, and the one regarding GM and Chrysler. These are both developed worldwide brands, from a developed world super-power, and they both know how to make a car. In your example, Toyota wasn't in that situation at all. They were coming from a 2nd tier, developing country that was still rebuilding after WWII.
If the Obama Administration imposes excise taxes based on vehicle size and engine displacement, I think it's very likely that the excise taxes may price the large SUV out of the market, but pickup trucks will still be around to be sold primarily to people who really need it for business purposes (people with business licenses will get a break on the excise tax). People who need to carry more people will end up going to buy what Europeans call a multi activity vehicle. Good examples of MAV would be something along the lines of a Volkswagen Touran, Renault Grand Scenic, or Citroën C4 Picasso sold in Europe or the Mazda5 and Kia Rondo sold in the USA.
One manufacturer in Japan needs a bailout. The 'big three' of Detroit need a bailout. Ever heard of something called 'perspective'?
A bailout is a ridiculous idea. You allow the weak to survive, keep paying for inefficient companies to underperform. The silver lining to a recession is that firms that cannot compete are purged from the system. It's like natural selection, only the firms closing down are the runts that only gave the better firms excuses to underperform previously. The competition becomes leaner.
Who wins from a bailout, really? The taxpayer certainly doesn't, they have to pay for it. The consumer certainly doesn't, because crap products continue to flood the market. The companies receiving the bailout aren't because they're not making any money from the loan.
Besides which, I stand on my original statement that Chrysler make **** cars. This is moving dangerously closer to PRSI...
EDIT: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7842716.stm - what were you saying about Toyota?