What could Chrysler/Fiat mean to GM & the US market?

[44 mpg by 2010]

It seems to me that the only way Chrysler wins with Fiat is to bring the Fiat vehicles in with ABSOLUTELY minimum modifications! And that includes their under 2 liter turbo diesels.

Just think, maybe Chrysler (or all of the Det3) could ask the President, by EXECUTIVE ORDER (or Congress less quickly by legislation), to TEMPORARILY (say 24 months) waive ALL import restrictions on vehicles achieving above 44 mpg combined average and comply with EU emissions and safety standards so that NEW POSITIVE CASH FLOW can be generated in a PREVIOUSLY untapped US market segment (above 44 mpg). It can be justified under the War Powers Act because the declining industrial base (and auto industry), OUR economy, and ENERGY INDEPENDENCE/OIL IMPORTS are all NATIONAL SECURITY issues.

And ...NO taxpayer money required!

And "time to market" is very short since the proposal uses existing excess EU inventories!

The 24 month waiver period could be used to generate NEW POSITIVE CASH FLOW, measure consumer acceptance, provide user experience, plan future manufacturing based on measure consumer response, establish domestic (US) manufacturing, and to resolve any emissions/safety issues at very low risk and cost to Chrysler/Fiat. Even Ford or GM could do the same thing with their EU models for that matter.

Here are some of the potential benefits ... IF ... Detroit (or/and others) commit to and quickly built these "new existing" FUEL FRUGAL vehicles within the US in relatively significant volumes, we could "kill 16 birds with one stone" ... not limited to quick response, positive cash flow, expanded domestic market demand, possible increase in market share, job creation, improved economy, increased tax revenue, reduced fuel consumption/emissions/oil imports, stronger/more creative domestic auto industry/industrial base, improved National Security, and it is a self funding stimulus strategy to just to name a few.

What is wrong with this proposal? How can those problems be resolved and the strategy be made better?

? 44 to 63 mpg combined average by March 2009 ?

What would that do for Chrysler sales? And GM/Ford if they followed suite?

Try searching Chrysler/Fiat, Ford/Mazda/Volvo, and GM/Chevy/Saab/Vauxhall vehicles between 51 and 76 mpg(Imperial) combined cycle.
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/sea...lConSearch.asp

[jkennedy293]

I don't think your proposal would work. It would take more than two years to engineer existing Fiat models to meet U.S. safety regulations, so your idea of using existing inventories doesn't work.

Also, I wouldn't expect a Democratic President and Congress, that seems to be very pro-environment, to bypass EPA regs allowing more pollutants in the air.

[Bravada]

It would take more than two years to engineer existing Fiat models to meet U.S. safety regulations

You need:

1. 5 mph bumpers
2. 5 mph front lights
3. Symmetric front lights
4. Stupid looking blinkers

Suppliers will do that for you in 8 weeks tops. You might perhaps risk a bit worse NHTSA crash test scores, but who cares. Everything else is manufacturers PR talk.

[44 mpg by 2010]

Originally Posted by jkennedy293

I don't think your proposal would work. It would take more than two years to engineer existing Fiat models to meet U.S. safety regulations, so your idea of using existing inventories doesn't work.

Also, I wouldn't expect a Democratic President and Congress, that seems to be very pro-environment, to bypass EPA regs allowing more pollutants in the air.

It would work ... IF ... a reasonably short 24 month temporary waiver was used. No changes would be required for the "temporary" imports.

It is reasonable to believe that less than 2 million of these "fuel frugal" vehicles could be imported within 24 months. These vehicles would consume less than 1/2 of the fuel required by vehicles being replaced ... and as a result, would subsequently generally have significantly lower emissions.

The concerns would be NOx and particulates. The EU has resolved most of the particulate concerns by using diesel particle filters (DPFs).

It is true that a significant portion of the current 44 plus mpg vehicles are diesel. Have you considered that Detroit has, on average, been selling between 0.3 and 1 million non Tier 2 Bin 5 compliant diesel "light vehicles" (averaging about 17 mpg) annually for more than 8 years? However, apparently Audi, BMW, Mercedes, and VW FUEL FRUGAL turbo diesels have already successfully achieved California emissions compliance and above 40 mpg, and greater, combined average with Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Nissan and other not far behind!

It is TRUE that engineering would be required to resolve any emissions and safety issues for DOMESTIC manufacture and sale of this class of fuel frugal vehicles.

Of course, maximum profit comes from minimum "development/start-up cost", ie, only re-engineer the things that are absolutely necessary ... if ... the "import version" is well received.

If a specific "temporary" import was not well received, it probably should be dropped unless there is a "simple" fix that would make it acceptable to the general consumer.

They (Chrysler/Fiat, Ford/Mazda/Volvo, GM/Chevy/Saab/Vauxhall/Opell) do have a significant portion of the best fuel frugal machines in Europe.

Just play with these ideas and see ... IF ... there is a way for this to help Detroit to get a leg up in the US market. Maybe even get back some US market share!

[jkennedy293]

Even if everything you suggest happens, I just don't see that many people buying small diesel cars for $20,000. Volkswagen came out with a diesel last year that gets 40mpg, but people decided to buy hybrids instead (sort of).

Americans don't want diesels, plain and simple.

[PistonsFan]

It costs a LOT more to sell a Diesel in the US than in Europe. They would have to re-engineer their engines and engine calibrations to meet US emission regulations. They would have to adopt the Urea-injection for NOx suppression and a DPF (diesel particulate filter). This will cost the manufacture about $2-3k of added cost per engine. And currently we have the worst market conditions for a diesel. Diesel fuel prices are extremely high right now due to the supply and demand swings between heavy and light distillates.

I agree that Diesels make sense. But the trouble is, our emissions regulations DON'T make sense and they WILL NOT go away. Our democrat-majority government is not about to budge on emissions regulations. They want electric cars.

GM has a huge portfolio of diesel engines. There IS a reason why GM isn't selling a diesel car in the states right now. This is the same reason why the import OEMs have cancelled/suspended their diesel car plans.

[44 mpg by 2010]

Originally Posted by PistonsFan

It costs a LOT more to sell a Diesel in the US than in Europe. They would have to re-engineer their engines and engine calibrations to meet US emission regulations. They would have to adopt the Urea-injection for NOx suppression and a DPF (diesel particulate filter). This will cost the manufacture about $2-3k of added cost per engine. And currently we have the worst market conditions for a diesel. Diesel fuel prices are extremely high right now due to the supply and demand swings between heavy and light distillates.

I agree that Diesels make sense. But the trouble is, our emissions regulations DON'T make sense and they WILL NOT go away. Our democrat-majority government is not about to budge on emissions regulations. They want electric cars.

GM has a huge portfolio of diesel engines. There IS a reason why GM isn't selling a diesel car in the states right now. This is the same reason why the import OEMs have cancelled/suspended their diesel car plans.

EU pricing already includes the cost of DPF. And Urea-injection NOx suppression is not the only acceptable strategy as demonstrate by VW.

You seem agrue that there is little or no interest in diesel within the US. Many think otherwise.

The idea of "FULL" temporary WAIVER is to allow a VERY quick "NO/LOW" cost (and low risk) test of US automotive market interest/acceptance with the possibility of stimulating the market, openning a new untapped market segment, and potentually expanding Det3 market share!

There would be no re-engineer or calibration under the temporary waiver.

IF there is reasonable (and profitable) acceptance then domestic (US) manufacture comes into play which would require bringing the vehicles into compliance with domestic standards (or the standards could be "homoginized"?).

BTW, are you saying that Audi, BMW Mercedes, and VW have terminated their NA diesel programs? How, about Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Nissan, and others?

I do agree that it is VERY SAD that GM (plus Ford and now Chrysler/Fiat) can not take advantage of their advances in FUEL FRUGAL small displacement turbo diesels here in the US.

Just maybe something like the TEMPORARY (24 month) WAIVER could break the stalemate in technology, the market, fuel economy/petroleum consumption, as well as OUR economy, even improved energy independence and National Security.

Your opinions ... please ....

[PistonsFan]

Originally Posted by 44 mpg by 2010

EU pricing already includes the cost of DPF. And Urea-injection NOx suppression is not the only acceptable strategy as demonstrate by VW.

You seem agrue that there is little or no interest in diesel within the US. Many think otherwise.

The idea of "FULL" temporary WAIVER is to allow a VERY quick "NO/LOW" cost (and low risk) test of US automotive market interest/acceptance with the possibility of stimulating the market, openning a new untapped market segment, and potentually expanding Det3 market share!

There would be no re-engineer or calibration under the temporary waiver.

IF there is reasonable (and profitable) acceptance then domestic (US) manufacture comes into play which would require bringing the vehicles into compliance with domestic standards (or the standards could be "homoginized"?).

BTW, are you saying that Audi, BMW Mercedes, and VW have terminated their NA diesel programs? How, about Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Nissan, and others?

I do agree that it is VERY SAD that GM (plus Ford and now Chrysler/Fiat) can not take advantage of their advances in FUEL FRUGAL small displacement turbo diesels here in the US.

Just maybe something like the TEMPORARY (24 month) WAIVER could break the stalemate in technology, the market, fuel economy/petroleum consumption, as well as OUR economy, even improved energy independence and National Security.

Your opinions ... please ....

You might have misunderstood me. What you're saying sounds great to me... I would much rather have Euro 5 regulations in the US. I'm just saying that it won't happen. Our government is already trying to make it worse by allowing state-mandated regulations. Congress and Obama wouldn't even consider backing off on current regulations.

I'm actually quite well-informed on the current diesel situation in NA. Yes, I know for a fact that there are people that want a diesel car, even with current fuel prices. There's just not ENOUGH demand. The profit margins on these diesel cars are tiny and you have to sell a lot of them for there to be a business case. The market conditions for a diesel will be much more favorable in 2-3 years as the Gas-Diesel price ratio begins to equalize. Most of the OEM's have suspended their diesel-car plans until market conditions become favorable (when oil prices go back up, and Gas-Diesel price ratio equalizes).

Audi/BMW/Mercedes can pull this off because they are premium vehicles. They have high transaction prices for those vehicles so they can afford to provide a very expensive engine. GM could have done a diesel CTS but they probably felt that it would be bad for the brand image.

And it's not like this is about better engineering by other OEM's. All of the OEM's knows how to do a 50-state diesel right now, it's a matter of whether they want to... because it's easier to make money off of a gasoline-powered car.

And it’s what is on the horizon, that raises the question of whether diesels will even be able to be sold in NA in the future. If they continue to ratchet down all the way to Tier2-Bin2/SULEV, diesel cars probably won't stand a chance.

So again, I think your idea is great. But our Government wouldn’t go for it. Their long-term strategy is geared towards pushing OEM’s to build electric cars. They don’t care about diesels.