YES! YES! YES!

[Onslaught]

Bring me some Alfas and I might care.  Not too bad though.

I know Alfas are supposed to have "soul." But would you really put your hard earned money down on one?
As your only car anyway?

[the Teuton]

At this point, I'm sticking with Japanese when I don't have money and German when I do.  Fiat is going to have to convince me to split the difference with the 500 in a few years.

[GoCougs]

Uh, no.

[2o6]

Uh, no.

Why not?

[Raza]

Uh, no.

What, small cars shouldn't be allowed to be sold at all?  Choice of small cars is a bad thing?

[2o6]

What, small cars shouldn't be allowed to be sold at all?  Choice of small cars is a bad thing?

He told me that small cars are due to too much capitalism.

[Raza]

He told me that small cars are due to too much capitalism.

There are anomalies, of course.  I could have bought a larger car than I did, but I didn't.  And I'd want a smaller car, like the 500.  And it has nothing to do with government intervention.

[SVT666]

He told me that small cars are due to too much capitalism.

Too much Government regulation.  He's right on that account.

[Onslaught]

I myself like small cars. I'm not a fan of big land boats.

[Madman]

Fiat 500 coming to a Chrysler dealer near you

Confirming earlier speculations, Fiat has officially announced its retro-styled 500 hatchback will be coming to America in about 18 months.

YES, YES, YES, indeed!!!!!  Fantastic news!!!!!! 

Gadeselli also revealed the 500 will be the only Fiat-badged model sold in the United States.

Wait, WHAT?  No Panda?  No Grande Punto?  No Bravo?  Noooooooo!!!! 

Listen to me, Fiat.  You're never going to make it in America with a one model range.  Alfa Romeo tried it the last time round.  Peugeot tried it, too.  Both failed.  MINI is an anomaly.  You need a full product portfolio if you want to retain your customers in a few years time when they outgrow their 500s.  Even MINI recognises this and is developing a larger model as we speak.  You yourselves left America in 1983 partly because you didn't have a range of mainstream cars to supplement your sports models.  DON'T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE AGAIN!!!!!!!!  The novelty value of the 500 won't last forever.  What will you do when it wears off?


Cheers,
Madman of the People, former (and maybe future?) Fiat owner.

[SVT666]

YES, YES, YES, indeed!!!!!  Fantastic news!!!!!! 


Wait, WHAT?  No Panda?  No Grande Punto?  No Bravo?  Noooooooo!!!! 

Listen to me, Fiat.  You're never going to make it in America with a one model range.  Alfa Romeo tried it the last time round.  Peugeot tried it, too.  Both failed.  MINI is an anomaly.  You need a full product portfolio if you want to retain your customers in a few years time when they outgrow their 500s.  Even MINI recognises this and is developing a larger model as we speak.  You yourselves left America in 1983 partly because you didn't have a range of mainstream cars to supplement your sports models.  DON'T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE AGAIN!!!!!!!!  The novelty value of the 500 won't last forever.  What will you do when it wears off?


Cheers,
Madman of the People, former (and maybe future?) Fiat owner.

They may very well be sold here, but they will be Chryslers.

[Rich]

They already have a 300, and the smaller car wil be the 500.  I wonder if they will rename the Chrysler LX car the 1000 and have the Sebring renamed to the 700

[omicron]

I know Alfas are supposed to have "soul." But would you really put your hard earned money down on one?
As your only car anyway?

You certainly would.







The latest 159 Ti is at least as good as the Passat, so I read.

[RomanChariot]

So now the question is, what will they call it?  Ford is not going to let them use the name 500 on this side of the pond.  Maybe they will call it the Fiat Caliber:(

[omicron]

Cinquecento!

[Madman]

So now the question is, what will they call it?  Ford is not going to let them use the name 500 on this side of the pond.  Maybe they will call it the Fiat Caliber:(

Ford's not using the "Five Hundred" (number spelled out) name anymore so why would they object to Fiat using "500"?  Besides, Fiat has been building 500s since 1936.  Ford didn't build their first Fairlane 500 until 1957.  I think that gives Fiat a better claim to the name/number than Ford.

Cheers,
Madman of the People

[Tave]

Too much Government regulation.  He's right on that account.

Europe produces small cars for a lot of reasons. High gas tariffs/displacement taxes are a big factor, sure, but that isn't the whole story.

As such, I'd say Cougs is wrong. He has some details right, but his vision of the big picture is inadequate.

[Madman]

Europe produces small cars for a lot of reasons. High gas tariffs/displacement taxes are a big factor, sure, but that isn't the whole story.

As such, I'd say Cougs is wrong. He has some details right, but his vision of the big picture is inadequate.

Even it gasoline/petrol were free, most Europeans still wouldn't want the sort of ridiculous barges popular in America.

Cheers,
Madman of the People

[omicron]

Europe produces small cars for a lot of reasons. High gas tariffs/displacement taxes are a big factor, sure, but that isn't the whole story.

As such, I'd say Cougs is wrong. He has some details right, but his vision of the big picture is inadequate.

Small car sales are quite buoyant here, and as well as being all metropolitan and sprawly like your good selves, we also don't have any consumption/displacement/carbon taxes.

[93JC]

Ford's not using the "Five Hundred" (number spelled out) name anymore so why would they object to Fiat using "500"?  Besides, Fiat has been building 500s since 1936.  Ford didn't build their first Fairlane 500 until 1957.  I think that gives Fiat a better claim to the name/number than Ford.

Doesn't matter who used it first: who used it last is what's important.

Ford made the Falcon Futura well before Cooper made a tire with named Futura, but that didn't stop Cooper from making Ford change the new Futura's name to Fusion.

[Nethead]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From www.autoblog.com comes this article, quite accurately summing up the core problem of an alliance of Fiat and Chrysler:

Chrysler and Fiat: A merger of equally unreliable product?
by Damon Lavrinc on May 5th, 2009 at 7:25PM

Chrysler's reliability ratings from Consumer Reports have been less-than-stellar in recent years. In its 2008 survey, where CR tallied up its subscribers' experience with some 1.4 million vehicles among 34 brands, Jeep came in 28th, Dodge took the 30th spot and Chrysler listed in at number 32 ? with a bullet. This caused CR to ask the obvious question: how will Chrysler's tentative alliance with Fiat affect its overall score? More to the point, does Fiat bring anything positive to the table? According to CR's research, gleaned from the Which? Car ? the equivalent of CR abroad ? not much.

WC's annual survey of ownership experiences in the UK rates vehicle models up to eight-years-old, and keeps track of all the standard quality metrics (breakdowns, unscheduled repairs, etc.). WC's ratings largely mimicked CR's 2008 reliability list, with Honda and Toyota taking the top spots, followed by Lexus, Mazda and Subaru. Of the 38 brands listed last year, Fiat ranked 35th on the list, with Renault, Land Rover and Chrysler/Dodge filling the bottom and garnering a "Very Poor" rating. Jeep came in 29th, just missing the lowest designation, but still walking away with an overall rating of "Poor."Consumer Reports sums up its findings, "When Daimler-Benz bought Chrysler in 1997, it was billed as 'merger of equals.' The Chrysler and Fiat deal seems to fit that description better." And judging by the course set last week, we might find out if the adage from the '80s, "Fix it again, Tony" holds up in the 21st century.

[TBR]

Even it gasoline/petrol were free, most Europeans still wouldn't want the sort of ridiculous barges popular in America.

Cheers,
Madman of the People

The roads and lifestyle there simply aren't suited to them.

[2o6]

Even it gasoline/petrol were free, most Europeans still wouldn't want the sort of ridiculous barges popular in America.

Cheers,
Madman of the People

Our cars aren't THAT big, but there is a large cultural difference between the US and the rest of the world.

[RomanChariot]

Doesn't matter who used it first: who used it last is what's important.

Ford made the Falcon Futura well before Cooper made a tire with named Futura, but that didn't stop Cooper from making Ford change the new Futura's name to Fusion.

Ford probably did not see a competition in letting a tire company use the name Futura.  That came back and bit them.  They surely aren't going to allow an automobile company to use one of their trademarked names.

[Nethead]

Even it gasoline/petrol were free, most Europeans still wouldn't want the sort of ridiculous barges popular in America.

Cheers,
Madman of the People

MadDude:  Most Americans don't want them, either, and thus we have GM and Chrysler in Bankruptcy Court.  Mercury & Lincoln are facing hard times as well.  Ford's Crown Victoria is a fleet vehicle, limited to the good ol' boys in law enforcement who ain't quite ready to patrol in a Prius yet.  When the current crop of geriatrics who are fixated on vehicle size & sticker price equating with status cease buying cars (and the Grim Reaper assures me that they will ...), Camcordimas will become the new "barges" of The American Road.  Civics, Focuses, et al will become the new "mid-sized" cars, and Smarts will become "compacts".

Ironically, at their introductions four decades ago, many people didn't shop Challengers and Camaros because of their perceived smallness (and that perception was correct back in the day).  Now, many people don't shop Challengers and Camaros because of their perceived largeness (Correct again!).  Quite soon, Mustang will have that market to itself yet again, but if Ford doesn't downsize the Mustang there won't be a market to have to itself.  Shades of 1974, but this time the fuel issues ain't goin' away...Luckily for the Mustang, EcoBoost engines are now in production at the Cleveland engine facility!

[GoCougs]

MadDude:  Most Americans don't want them, either, and thus we have GM and Chrysler in Bankruptcy Court.  Mercury & Lincoln are facing hard times as well.  Ford's Crown Victoria is a fleet vehicle, limited to the good ol' boys in law enforcement who ain't quite ready to patrol in a Prius yet.  When the current crop of geriatrics who are fixated on vehicle size & sticker price equating with status cease buying cars (and the Grim Reaper assures me that they will ...), Camcordimas will become the new "barges" of The American Road.  Civics, Focuses, et al will become the new "mid-sized" cars, and Smarts will become "compacts".

Ironically, at their introductions four decades ago, many people didn't shop Challengers and Camaros because of their perceived smallness (and that perception was correct back in the day).  Now, many people don't shop Challengers and Camaros because of their perceived largeness (Correct again!).  Quite soon, Mustang will have that market to itself yet again, but if Ford doesn't downsize the Mustang there won't be a market to have to itself.  Shades of 1974, but this time the fuel issues ain't goin' away...Luckily for the Mustang, EcoBoost engines are now in production at the Cleveland engine facility!

No. GM and Chrysler are in BR court because their legacy costs and labor is way out of whack.

It is the very worse of myths that Detroit fell on hard times because it "built cars people didn't want to buy" and otherwise didn't build putt-putts.

[GoCougs]

Europe produces small cars for a lot of reasons. High gas tariffs/displacement taxes are a big factor, sure, but that isn't the whole story.

As such, I'd say Cougs is wrong. He has some details right, but his vision of the big picture is inadequate.

Add to that lower disposable incomes and lower economic activity in the general populace

They're not popular because they are liked; they're popular because they're made to be.

[TBR]

No. GM and Chrysler are in BR court because their legacy costs and labor is way out of whack.

It is the very worse of myths that Detroit fell on hard times because it "built cars people didn't want to buy" and otherwise didn't build putt-putts.

To think that products weren't an aspect of GM/Chrysler's downfall is nothing short of ignorant. I am not saying that they should be making more lines of small cars (they shouldn't, I have to wonder how much money is actually made off of cars like the Versa and Yaris), but they should have been making better small cars. And better midsize cars, and better large cars, and better trucks, and better suvs, etc etc.

If the products, particularly during the '80s, had been better, then labor wouldn't be as much of an issue today (it still would be an issue) because the slip in market share wouldn't have been nearly as significant. Furthermore, you must also blame management that gave into UAW time and time again.

[GoCougs]

To think that products weren't an aspect of GM/Chrysler's downfall is nothing short of ignorant. I am not saying that they should be making more lines of small cars (they shouldn't, I have to wonder how much money is actually made off of cars like the Versa and Yaris), but they should have been making better small cars. And better midsize cars, and better large cars, and better trucks, and better suvs, etc etc.

Nope - not an aspect; Detroit (GM and Ford) had monster revenue in the good ole days ('90s) yet profitability was fleeting and couldn't hope to match that of a Toyota or Honda.

If the products, particularly during the '80s, had been better, then labor wouldn't be as much of an issue today (it still would be an issue) because the slip in market share wouldn't have been nearly as significant. Furthermore, you must also blame management that gave into UAW time and time again.

Nope - product not a factor in the UAW's self-serving steamroller-the-company mentality.

[TBR]

Nope - not an aspect; Detroit (GM and Ford) had monster revenue in the good ole days ('90s) yet profitability was fleeting and couldn't hope to match that of a Toyota or Honda.

Nope - product not a factor in the UAW's self-serving steamroller-the-company mentality.

So you're telling me that it is irrelevant that GM went from ~32% market share (mid-90s) to less than 20%? Right...

Keep drinking that Kool-aid.