Chryslers grandson wants to save the brand

[Milo]

Don’t be fooled.
This video isn’t about sales.

Not at all, it's about slowest selling models and fastest turning ones.

 

[Renze]

That's kinda crazy, wife's Charge gets good milage, probably 26 mpg, with the 5.7. I have a hard time calling that bad milage... My work Explorer might hit 26.5, with a 4 cylinder

Thats a compliment to your wifes controlled driving style

 

[Renze]

Might be a bit exaggerated because they make a living selling news instead of Chryslers, but nonetheless:

Chrysler Could Face the Axe as Soon as Two Years From Now

Stellantis' CEO says "decisions" will be made about its struggling brands in the next few years, as it nears the final third of its 10-year plan.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Renze]

The Charger, Challenger, 300 sold very well until the end. They stopped making them because they didn’t get good enough fuel mileage and they were buying credits from Tesla and paying penalties.

Even if the USA doesnt like the idea of the inline 6 turbocharged Hurricane, Fiat has a history of building their flagship models with low displacement, high cylinder number, engines
In 1959 they introduced a 1.8 liter inline 6

Fiat 1800 and 2100 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Their very only V8 was also just 2 liter

The elegant and aerodynamic Fiat 8V

The American-style coach-built car

www.fcaheritage.com

Whether this Fiat 8V is indeed American styled, i leave that to you guys to decide. But to me it looks like an AC Cobra (British chassis), just underpowered

 

[paulsharvey]

So, not quite what I would prefer in my Ram, but, straight six cylinder, higher displacement, naturally aspirated engines are a well proven set up. The older 4.9L straight six Ford, although not peppy, was a very good engine in F150s, and even into F350s, although underpowered.

Not That long ago, I thought GM made a mistake with the Colorado/Canyon, buy using the 3.5L I-5, instead of the 4.2L I-6 from the Trailblazer.

I dont necessarily have an issue with dropping from V8 to I6; but we're I have my doubts, is, what do we add in cost for 2 turbos, inner coolers, piping, vs what we gain in milage? Let say we had $5,000 in additional cost, and save 2 mpg. That would be a 91 gallon per year savings in fuel for a fairly well driven vehicle (based on 20,000 miles per year, and 20 mpg vs 22 mpg). That's $318.50/year in fuel savings; or a 15.7 year pay back on the initial investment (not accounting for the added cost of intrwst of that $5k), assuming zero additional repairs/maintenance. That's just piss poor money.

Now, if we can add those turbos, and additional stuff, get 4 mpg more, and drop the additional cost to maybe $2500; that starts being a better deal.

 

[dodge man]

That's kinda crazy, wife's Charge gets good milage, probably 26 mpg, with the 5.7. I have a hard time calling that bad milage... My work Explorer might hit 26.5, with a 4 cylinder

I agree but apparently that’s not good enough. The problem was they weren’t selling a car like tge Neon that got great fuel mileage.

 

[DarkBlack]

I dont necessarily have an issue with dropping from V8 to I6; but we're I have my doubts, is, what do we add in cost for 2 turbos, inner coolers, piping, vs what we gain in milage? Let say we had $5,000 in additional cost, and save 2 mpg. That would be a 91 gallon per year savings in fuel for a fairly well driven vehicle (based on 20,000 miles per year, and 20 mpg vs 22 mpg). That's $318.50/year in fuel savings; or a 15.7 year pay back on the initial investment (not accounting for the added cost of intrwst of that $5k), assuming zero additional repairs/maintenance. That's just piss poor money.

It’s not just about new vehicle engine cost vs mileage payback period, it’s about them building an engine that easily meets current and expected emissions regulations. The 2-valve per cylinder hemi has always teetered on the edge of emissions compliance.
Car manufacturers always redesign engines, otherwise we’d have carburetor 318’s in our Rams.
The new turbo I6 has more HP and torque than the 5.7.
2WD will still be available with the cheaper 3.6l V6.

 

[LouNY]

Well heck, I'll throw in my 2 cents here also. Fiat has always been a cluster FK in this country. They have made attempts to sell their products here always unsuccessfully. Some of them just weren't designed to work over here, some were interesting but they didn't have any stability and would pull out of the market as they were getting accepted.
Then their fiasco with Allis Chalmers, buying Allis and renaming it Fiat Allis then discovering that they were ineligible for government sales because of the Foreign owned interest at the time.

"Fiat-Allis, an Italian company partly owned by Libya, won a $12 million earth-moving contract for the United States Air Force and Marine Corps. The Caterpillar Corporation, which has its headquarters and factories in Mr. Michel's Peoria district, was an unsuccessful bidder. Mr. Weinberger assured Mr. Michel that Fiat had created a new company not connected with Libya to handle the contract, but Mr. Michel remained skeptical.

He was similarly incensed when Isolta Fraschini of Italy outbid Caterpillar for a $3.6 million contract to make engines for minesweepers. He said: ''I find it pretty hard to believe that we are so obligated to do business with foreign companies"

So it's been a complete cluster for a long time and has never benefited the American consumer or the American economy.

 

[paulsharvey]

It’s not just about new vehicle engine cost vs mileage payback period, it’s about them building an engine that easily meets current and expected emissions regulations. The 2-valve per cylinder hemi has always teetered on the edge of emissions compliance.
Car manufacturers always redesign engines, otherwise we’d have carburetor 318’s in our Rams.
The new turbo I6 has more HP and torque than the 5.7.
2WD will still be available with the cheaper 3.6l V6.

I know the "why" behind it, and the 3.0TT sounds interesting, but I would not be the Beta tester for them. I am also generally in favor of more efficiency, but this simply isn't efficiency. Efficiency is about more work for less money, not # of invisible gas per...

With tighter and tighter gov requirement, I can soon see the day each manufacturer has about 3 total options in engines; instead of the dozen most have across their platforms. Way to much time and R&D budget to have a 1.8, 2.2, 2.8, 3.6, 3.0TT, 5.7, 6.2, and 6.4 engines. That cuts across all of the engine makers.

 

[LouNY]

I know the "why" behind it, and the 3.0TT sounds interesting, but I would not be the Beta tester for them. I am also generally in favor of more efficiency, but this simply isn't efficiency. Efficiency is about more work for less money, not # of invisible gas per...

With tighter and tighter gov requirement, I can soon see the day each manufacturer has about 3 total options in engines; instead of the dozen most have across their platforms. Way to much time and R&D budget to have a 1.8, 2.2, 2.8, 3.6, 3.0TT, 5.7, 6.2, and 6.4 engines. That cuts across all of the engine makers.

That is why it is time to rein in these rampart "governmental" regulations set by non-elected bureaucratic idiots..