Read about a new car? Thats the 2024 Giant Piece of Shit

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Read about a new car? Thats the 2024 Giant Piece of Shit

«‹›48 »

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Mustangs are the new Miata. :3:

# ¿ Oct 14, 2010 00:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 16:19

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

I don't know if anyone else caught this on Autoline's interview with Scion's head honcho, but Scion sales has completely fallen off a cliff since 2008 and while most other car brands including Toyota have stabilized/recovered somewhat, Scion was still down something like 20%-30% from 2009. Reason? Scion was overwhelmingly marketed to the 18-under 30 demographic. Unemployment among 18-30 year olds in the US is >20%, and the near term prospects for young people in America look awful (see every third D&D thread). It's the same for stuff like the Yaris, while sales of the Camry and Prius are doing OK. If Toyota was GM they should be thinking of shuttering the brand, not adding more products to it.

The retro styled cars like Mustang/Camaro will be just fine, since they appeal to both young performance fans and older nostalgics. There are enough :corsair:

frozenphils around to keep up Mustang demand for another decade, while the potential Scion buyer has moved back in with his parents and can barely feed himself. Demographics alone will spell the doom of the Hyundai Genesis and this new Toyota.

Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Oct 15, 2010

# ¿ Oct 14, 2010 23:49

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Remember back before the new Mustang came out when we couldn't stop posting about the Nissan GTR? The 2012 is out, with the addition of 45 hp and what looks to be the interior of a 1970s Cadillac. I am OK with both of these things. :clint:

# ¿ Oct 18, 2010 12:44

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

echoplex posted:

In this country a Ferarri or Lamborghini is considered a "large" car due to width/length or overall footprint (4x4s and that not withstanding). The Mustang is also seen as a bit of a bloater too by comparison.

The Gallardo is dimensionally very similar to a VW Golf, other than being quite a bit lower at the roofline, and the Murcielago is only slightly larger. Is the VW Golf a "large" car?

# ¿ Oct 19, 2010 11:00

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

The Third Man posted:

You can't be serious. That's roughly the difference between a 3 and 5 series BMW, and those cars handle very differently. I mean, it's not night and day, but it's certainly not insignificant enough to just lump them into the same category.

This is apropos of nothing, but is there really a huge difference in handling between a E90 and a E60? I ask because on paper, the difference in weight between them is only ~60 lbs if they have the NA I6 or at best ~140lbs with the turbo engine. The V8 would be different obviously but it seems to me that the I6 would be very similar. Is the difference in steering/suspension that much?

# ¿ Oct 20, 2010 00:46

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

^^^ They DID make a BLS-V, with exactly everything people wanted - 2.8l Turbo and AWD.

The 2.8l turbo is a version of the 2.8l used in the first gen CTS developed by SAAB to be used on the top end 9-3 and 9-5. It's old, doesn't comply easily with US emissions (the version used in the SRX has to be detuned to 300hp, most reviewers hate it), and by all accounts unreliable. The 2.0l turbo is a much better engine.

I'm fine with the GS. It's the top level trim of a luxury FWD 4 cylinder compact. Most of what Audi, Lexus and Acura sells worldwide are FWD 4 cylinder luxury cars. It's a growth market.

Most people don't want S4s, and the people who do would be better targets for the CTS anyway. An AWD turbo Buick might sound ironically hip on paper but it won't sell.

vvv Relentless Audi and Subaru marketing. Most people don't know anything about handling (hell I don't really know much about it) anyway. I'm waiting for a full-on early 90s revival. When is 4 wheel steering and active aero coming back?

Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Nov 19, 2010

# ¿ Nov 19, 2010 04:37

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

dissss posted:

Sure 4wd isn't a magic bullet but compare a high power FWD like a Mazdaspeed3 or Focus XR5 to a high powered 4wd like a WRX and see which is more usable.

More usable for what? Taking off from a standing stop maybe. I see little evidence that the WRX is any faster than the MS3 around a track. Here's an example:

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/the_lightning_lap_2009-feature/ll1_3a_2009_subaru_impreza_wrx_3e_3_3a16.6_page_4

AWD is just a gimmick so Audi and Subaru can differentiate their higher end offerings while still making cheap FWD mass market cars off the same floor plan.

# ¿ Dec 9, 2010 04:52

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

dissss posted:

Round a track maybe. On a typical winding road with a less than perfect surface things are quite different.

Have you driven both and made your own judgement?

*shrug* I make judgments based on evidence.

quote:

Can you name a single fwd subaru that is currently produced?

Really? How about the Impreza, or Exiga, or all of their Kei cars and trucks? Only the biggest and most expensive Subarus (Legacy, Tribeca, Forester, any kind of SUV is a luxury vehicle outside of North America) are AWD only for marketing purposes.

Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Dec 9, 2010

# ¿ Dec 9, 2010 06:59

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

The Sicilian posted:

hahaha way to completely miss the point you loving spaz, its assumed were talking about cars for the american market in this instance. And if you try to argue we aren't cause you are trying to be difficult, the conversation is framed around the context of awd being useless to americans in day to day use. Subaru's only being awd is a huge selling point for them here in the US. I really dont know why you would bring up japanese models

Make your posts longer in the future so I know not to waste my time.

# ¿ Dec 9, 2010 07:18

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Baby Hitler posted:

The difference in price between a FWD audi and non-performance AWD Audi isn't that great, and even come in the same models.

Audi is fairly clever to sell the FWD A4 only with the CVT in NA. The FWD 6sp 2.0t A4 they sell elsewhere posts the same performance figures as the AWD and would probably be faster around a track due to less weight. It's probably not a bad ride since you still get the 5 link front suspension and all that jazz, can't get that on a Jetta.

# ¿ Dec 9, 2010 07:31

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

TrueChaos posted:

Only for marketing purposes? I'll say it makes one hell of a difference on snow covered/unplowed roads. While it does make people more confident drivers and people need to remember that AWD doesn't help you stop, it'll sure help you get going on icy/snowy surfaces. This comes from having driven an '06 A4 with and without quattro back to back in about a foot and a half of snow.

I should have put a comma in that sentence. I meant "AWD only, for marketing purposes" i.e. they don't make a FWD Legacy(since the BH body style of the late 90s) because it would be bad marketing.

quote:

Short of deciding to hash up an "argument" that has been around for years, with no real point to it, is there a reason you've decided to soap-box on this now?

I know the thread is a bit hard to follow because it's been on and off for the last few weeks. The original complaint was that the Regal GS should have AWD, I'm saying it shouldn't because AWD would only make the car slower.

When I said they were a gimmick I meant that they don't make car like the Regal faster around a track. The same could be said for the A4, the Regal's major competitor.

# ¿ Dec 10, 2010 01:08

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Blocko posted:

If the cameras come with fisheye lenses on them I will be supremely happy.

I love fisheye lenses.

I think you can fit your own for not much effort.

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Mobile-Phone-Digital-Camera-Jelly-Lens-/190368210192?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2c52d45d10

You know what I want? OEM onboard video recorders that continuously record a video loop from the onboard cameras, one in the front and back, maybe on the sides too. This would be great for evidence in the event of an accident, or for performance driving. The incremental cost to implement this should be trivial as 90% of the hardware needed is already on the car. I could cobble together a system myself for probably a couple hundred bucks worth of parts, why can't I get it as an option on a new car that can already send text message via voice recognition and do all this other dumb poo poo that no one should ever need?

# ¿ Jan 5, 2011 21:07

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Only the passenger side has a rear door. There are 3 doors (not including the hatch).

# ¿ Jan 11, 2011 06:57

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

It looks OK but how does a V12 front engine car have a 47:53 weight distribution? Does it have a live axle rear? I'm not really warmed up to the idea of an AWD Ferrari anyway.

# ¿ Jan 21, 2011 16:01

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

The 612 has a manual transmission but there's nothing in the video or pictures showing a manual transmission for this one. :geno:

# ¿ Jan 21, 2011 17:19

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

dissss posted:

It'd be interesting to see what ratings a diesel Hilux/Ranger/Colorado/Navara would get under the US regime. I'll bet they wouldn't do as well as they do elsewhere.

For reference a 4l auto 4wd Navara is rated 17mpg combined here, a 2.5 auto diesel 4wd is 26 combined (with a Hilux being slightly better in each case).

Speed is a huge enemy of economy in diesels, especially those without a lot of power thus requiring short gearing, and I'll bet US specific emissions gear can't be helping any.

The EPA doesn't record fuel economy for medium duty trucks, but pickuptrucks.com aslo did a recent exhaustive comparison of American medium duty trucks and got about the same fuel economy.

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2010/08/2010-hd-fuel-economy-test.html

Those are very large trucks with 6.7l V8s putting out >700 ft.lbs of torque.

Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Feb 5, 2011

# ¿ Feb 5, 2011 04:58

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

14 INCH DICK TURBO posted:

Why haven't I been seeing updates about the latest priapism from Lamborghini?

Click here for the full 1280x782 image.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/lamborghini-releases-best-pic-yet-of-aventador-lp700-4/

Well, mid engine supercars aren't really all that interesting as a class.

I guess it's kind of interesting that they have chosen to go with a single clutch gearbox and traditional port fuel injection, like the Lexus LFA.

# ¿ Feb 5, 2011 06:27

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Good news W-body fans, the Impala will be kept in production until 2014!

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/02/07/2012-chevy-impala-to-soldier-on-with-new-v6-replacement-delayed/

Boy I'm sure glad they killed the G8 to make room for it.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2011 06:53

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

IF they are going to bring in a DOHC engine to replace the 3.9l OHV and a 6 speed trans too, I can see the weight going up and fuel economy suffering, although the power and torque might be up too.

EDIT: Is this the end of the GM 60* OHV V6? :ohdear:

Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Feb 8, 2011

# ¿ Feb 8, 2011 07:43

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

dissss posted:

The modern V6 + six speed should be more than efficient enough to offset the weight penalty.

The 3.6l DOHC/6 speed Malibu, a smaller, lighter car, gets worse fuel economy than the 3.9l OHV/4 speed Impala.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2011 09:23

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

dissss posted:

Hmmm would not have picked that. Although it does appear the Malibu and Impala only ~60 lbs different in weight

The direct injected 3.6l in the Camaro does about the same, although it is 312hp. It's unlikely they will use the DI engine on the Impala anyway.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2011 10:19

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

A whole bunch of poo poo just came out at the Chicago Auto show.

:geno:

- Camaro ZL1, with the LSA engine and magnetic dampers.

:dance:

- Charger SRT8, with the 6.4l Hemi. This one looks really good.

:stare:

- 429hp 5.0l V8 Genesis Sedan.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2011 19:00

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

The angle and the lighting on the photo sort of emphasize the grill a bit too much, and the new swoopier styling makes the rest of the car look small by comparison. It's not as bad here.

I'm not married to the styling, it serves its purpose.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2011 20:17

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

I guess I should come out of the gay-for-Chrysler closet. I like our Intrepid a lot and the new stuff they've come out under FIAT management, new Grand Cherokee, Durango, 300, has looked really good.

http://autos.aol.com/article/chrysler-eminem-super-bowl-ad/?icid=maing%7Caim%7Cdl5%7Csec1_lnk3%7C42433

quote:

Over the past decade, rap legend Eminem has been approached over 100 times to license his classic "Lose Yourself." Up until now, he has refused all bidders, turning down millions of dollars along the way, according to Joel Martin, who controls the Eminem music catalog and has one-third of the writing credit on the song.

But that was until Chrysler chief marketing officer Olivier Francois started selling Martin on how much he wanted the music, and how he had an idea to show off Detroit to the Super Bowl audience, the largest TV audience of the year. To seal the deal, Francois drove a new Chrysler 200 to Martin's office in the Detroit suburb of Ferndale a few days into the New Year. The car was fresh off of the assembly line in neaby Sterling Heights, and hadn't even gone on sale. Francois had Martin and Eminem (whose real name is Marshall Bruce Mathers III) drive the car, as well as a new Chrysler 300, to try and get the music legend to play ball.

"The 200 was like $18,000 and felt like a BMW... We were really impressed," says Martin, who told AOL Autos they agreed to take millions of dollars less than what they had been previously offered in order to be part of the Chrysler ad. "[It was] about 20 percent of what we could have gotten from someone else," he said.

Martin said the idea for the ad that would show Detroit for what it really is, from hard working people to the abandoned buildings, as well as the art and music scene, appealed to them. "The script they showed us was like nothing I had ever seen before," he said, "and Marshall felt the same way."

based in Portland, Oregon. They didn't think "Imported From Detroit" would make it through the bureaucracy at Chrysler. To them, it sounded like one of those ideas that a company gets ginned up about, but then kills for being to crazy and bold. "We just didn't think it was going to fly," said Martin.

The first phase was allowing Chrysler to use the song (though not the lyrics) for a press conference at the North America International Auto Show in Detroit on January 11. Composer Luis Resto, who has the third credit on the song, actually came to Detroit's Cobo Hall and played the music live to go with Francois' presentation. Though the Super Bowl ad deal was not in place yet, Martin and Resto did not charge for the auto show usage. "We were into something pretty interesting, so we wanted to see where it was going," says Resto, who agreed to make some changes to the music based on what Francois was asking for -- an unusual role for the CEO of an auto maker brand to play.

In the week following the auto show, more negotiations about a Super Bowl ad continued. When Eminem eventually agreed to not only have the music be used in the commercial, but to appear in it as well, Francois was on the west coast at a press junket. He had to rush back to Detroit and start overseeing the shooting the ad the week of January 23 -- just two weeks before the game. It would show Detroit at its grayest and grimmest.

Which car would be used in the ad? The whole idea of the ad is to position Chrysler as a legitimate luxury brand. But the Chrysler 200 has a starting price under $20,000, and it has not enjoyed terrific reviews in the press. It was adapted from the Chrysler Sebring, a much-derided model that had questionable styling and a sub-par interior. While the new 200 is vastly improved, perhaps the more obvious choice to star in the Super Bowl ad alongside Eminem would have been the Chrysler 300 sedan. This is a first-class redesign of a well-loved product that reaches a fully optioned sticker price of around $46,000. The problem is that the 300 is built in Brampton, Ontario. Though not far from Detroit, Chrysler felt it could not launch the new brand idea to a Super Bowl audience with a car built in Canada.

Even after settling on the car and getting Eminem's full involvement, there were a few more wrinkles to iron out. The NFL had not allowed two-minute ads, establishing a limit of 90-seconds. The script, which called for taking viewers through numerous images of the city of Detroit and winding up at the Fox Theatre with Eminem and a local African-American choir, required two minutes to be told properly, Francois believed.

Then there was the iced tea issue. Eminem was appearing in another Super Bowl ad -- sort of. Months before, Eminem had agreed to have a claymation image of himself star in a Lipton Brisk iced tea ad. The script calls for the clay Eminem to act like a diva, complaining about the demands of doing a commercial, and how he insists in shooting in his own house so he doesn't have to go anywhere, and records his own songs. When a claymation corporate executive in the ad tells him he can't rename the product, the rap star shoves him off the roof of the building. Ouch.

The ad was anything but serious, and would be juxtaposed against the much more earnest message from Chrysler. It would also mean that Chrysler would no longer be unique in using Eminem. "We felt so strongly about the idea and script that we looked right past it," said Francois.

It paid off. "Chrysler 200" was the number two search term on Super Bowl Sunday on Google, beating out the Black Eyed Peas, the band that performed during halftime. Search traffic for the Chrysler 200 on AOL Autos was 685 percent higher than normal on Monday and it topped all vehicle searches on AOL's Autoblog.com. NBC Nightly News did a feature on the ad. And a poll conducted by auto industry trade weekly Automotive News, which asked readers to rank all the auto ads in the big game, chose the Chrysler ad by a long-shot, with more than 40 percent choosing it by Tuesday after the game. At publication, the ad had received over five million viewings on YouTube, a number that will likely grow, as Chrysler was one of the only advertisers not to make their commercial available before the game.

"In a way, the Brisk ad kind of set up the Chrysler ad because the character talks about why he never does ads," said Martin.

Indeed, Eminem had appeared in an Apple iTunes ad several years ago, though it was just to promote the iTunes release of a greatest hits album. Apple, says Martin, asked to use "Lose Yourself" to promote the whole Apple product line. Eminem and Martin turned down Apple and its celebrity CEO Steve Jobs.

"The city of Detroit is really important to Marshall," says Martin. "Two years ago, Marshall was down for the count, and he understands what Chrysler is trying to do," says the rapper's partner, referring to the extremely poor reception of his 2009 album "Relapse," which was released after a five year hiatus.

That was the same year that Chrysler was forced into bankruptcy and accepted a bailout from the Federal government to stay in business. "I felt very strongly about this piece of music and Eminem," says Francois. "I don't believe in using celebrities and famous people just for the sake of it... Their story has to make sense in the story of the ad."

Francois was born in France, and has been running the marketing for Fiat in Europe, as well as the overall business of the Lancia brand in Europe. His job in the U.S. is similar, running all marketing for Chrysler, as well as all the business of the Chrysler brand. As a foreigner, and only a part-time resident in the Detroit area, his interest in the city's plight and story ironically runs deeper in some ways than auto industry executives who have spent their whole career around the city.

Eminem has been doing more publicity and promotion work in support of his latest album, "Recovery," with the National Hockey League, video game company Activision, and Pepsi, which markets Brisk. He is also performing on this weekend's Grammy awards show, where he has eleven nominations, the most of any artist. But his anthem, "Lose Yourself," is only going to be used for Chrysler. The ad will run in shorter versions on other TV broadcasts.

Advertising Age magazine referred to Eminem as "the comeback story of the year," which is another association Francois would like to see for Chrysler, as well as the City of Detroit.

Olivier Francois actually has a music degree and composes his own music, and he's taking personal charge of a lot of their marketing.

Not that the Camaro isn't a great car, but it's just that GM has been hyping up the current bodystyle for so long, and took such a long time to bring it to market, it feels boring already.

EDIT: I see A5H is still wrong about everything, as usual. :allears:

Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Feb 9, 2011

# ¿ Feb 9, 2011 20:44

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Cream_Filling posted:

However, I still don't have a lot of confidence in Marchionne. He's too slick, and we've seen this story before. I worry he's just going to finish the job MB started and eventually gut Chrysler forever. Oh well, at least he's not a total mouth-breather like "Lt. Dan" Ackerson.

I like Autoextremist's take on it:
http://www.autoextremist.com/current/2011/2/6/the-autoextremist.html

And a link to his excoriation of GM head Ackerson:
http://www.autoextremist.com/current/2011/1/23/the-autoextremist.html

I usually don't mind Delorenzo but man, there's a lot of sensationalist axe grinding in his recent pieces. For example on Autoline a couple of episodes ago he was blasting Ackerson because Ackerson said that GM had too many V6 engines and should cut it down to just a few. Where he got that I have no idea, because GM has something like 4 or 5 different V6 engine families ("High Feature", Vortec, "High Value", the SAAB/Opel 2.8l, the old 60*) when every other car company seems to be able to get by with 1 or 2. Anyone can see that Ackerson is right and GM should at least seriously consider eliminating most of them. Maybe there is some good reason not to but the way Delorenzo is all :smug:

about it, like how GM will never sell another V6 truck if it replaced the pushrod V6 with a OHC or something? I don't know what his problem is.

As far as whether Marchionne is going to "gut" chrysler, the latest news is that he's in trouble with the Italian government because he might move FIAT's headquarters to Detroit.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2515333e-321d-11e0-a820-00144feabdc0.html

Yes, he says things sometimes that are not very nice. Sometimes they are about his own cars too.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/marchionne-jeep-commander-was-unfit-for-human-consumption.html

Sergio Marchionne posted:

�That car was unfit for human consumption,� Marchionne said of the Commander. �We sold some. But I don�t know why people bought them.�

Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Feb 9, 2011

# ¿ Feb 9, 2011 21:36

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

He's a marketing guy, so he would think that the small value in being able to differentiate between brands based on engines would outweigh the cost of tooling and production and development of entire engine lines.

Forgive me if I tend to think that a marketing guy knows jack poo poo about... you know, roughly anything.

What? Ackerson is the one who wants to use fewer engines (i.e. rely more on marketing to differentiate the brands), Delorenzo is the one who wants to keep all the different engines.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2011 21:46

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Cream_Filling posted:

Well he admits that selling to Marchionne was basically the only real alternative, but he's saying not to buy into the current media hype that he will save the brand. The article itself is a response to Marchionne's comment that the government bailout that basically handed Chrysler to FIAT for free were "shyster loans". What the hell?

IIRC Rattner wanted to sell Chrysler to Renault-Nissan (Ghosn had no interest).

# ¿ Feb 9, 2011 21:57

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

Yes, I'm saying that DeLorenzo, as a marketing weenie, would think that having more engines would be better.

Oh. DeLorenzo's complaint about Ackerson is that Ackerson is a marketing guy. I forgot that DeLorenzo is too. Anyway all his complaints about Ackerson or Marchionne are either wild extrapolations that are impossible to substantiate or straight up nonsense.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2011 22:17

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Yes please let's post 3 pages of [new car] looks like [old car].

Actually let's not do that because I can read 100 pages of that poo poo every day on any other car blog.

# ¿ Feb 10, 2011 20:22

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Well, some of those things are a bit troubling. I think someone (Autoblog?) pointed out that GM is basically running on the fumes left over from Bob Lutz's time right now - every good car they have right now came from him, there's nothing in the pipeline for at least a few years and the Impala is going to be in production in 2014.

Let's just say that if you asked Marchionne where the engine was in any of his cars he'd beat the poo poo out of you.

http://blogs.forbes.com/joannmuller/2011/02/10/qa-sergio-marchionne/

quote:

Q&A: Sergio Marchionne
Feb. 10 2011 - 2:44 pm | 3,094 views | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

Sergio Marchionne, CEO of Chrysler and Fiat

Two years ago, Chrysler�s chances for survival looked grim. But after making it through bankruptcy with the help of government loans, Chrysler is now majority-owned by the UAW�s VEBA health care trust and is trying to mount a comeback. Calling the shots is Sergio Marchionne, chief executive of both Chrysler and Italy�s Fiat Autos SpA, which owns 25% of Chrysler and hopes to boost that to 51% through an initial stock offering later this year. Chrysler reported a net loss of $652 million for 2010, but is making money on an operating basis and generating positive cash flow, putting Marchionne�s turnaround plan ahead of schedule. For 2011, Chrysler expects to turn the corner, with revenues of at least $55 billion (up from $41.9 billion last year), $2 billion in operating profit and net income of $200 million to $500 million.

I sat down with Marchionne recently to talk about Chrysler�s brush with death, its partnership with Fiat and its likely IPO later this year.

Forbes: Are you surprised you�re ahead of plan?

It was the unexpressed part of the plan. I�m getting to the point now in my life when I have a track record. It�s like having a past. (Laughs) We have a habit here of under-promising and over-delivering. And I don�t want to break that track record now. We need to find out whether we�ve got traction. I couldn�t have done more from a product standpoint than I�ve done. I mean you know, I tried every trick in the book that I knew and I invented some, but you know, 16 products in 12 months � at least that part of it was a record. The rest of it is to be proven. Look, we didn�t do too badly. We sold 1.6 million cars worldwide last year. That�s not bad.

Forbes: You�ve obviously been pushing people hard. Do you worry about pushing too hard?

Yeah, always. After a while you develop this keen sense of burnt engines or engines that are just about ready to crash. So I yank them right off. I tell them to get out, go do something; go play with the kids, go play at Disney World for two weeks. Just get your head set back. We�ve got to do this. And I can tell when people need time out of here�I do worry about it, because they work that hard. �I just took them through what the (target) looks like for 2011 and it�s a very, very tough uphill battle. Selling 1.6 million cars in North America, you know. That was the target that we set for ourselves (up from 1.1 million in 2010). We didn�t downgrade the guidance but we told people effectively we can get to $2 billion in operating profit even by selling 1.4 million here. As long as I end up selling over 2 million cars worldwide. The real target here is to sell 2 million cars worldwide. And we sold 1.6 million this year, so it�s a hell of a jump. It�s more than a 20 percent increase. And that�s a tough hurdle.

Forbes: So if you do a little less in the U.S. than planned, you�ve got to do a little more internationally. What�s the driver for growth there?

One is the European distribution that Fiat is providing both in Europe and in Latin America. And then we�ve put a huge amount of emphasis on developing Asia-Pacific now, especially for Jeep.

Forbes: You�re really behind in Asia; it�s not too late?

You know, it�s very easy to catch up in a growing market. It�s relatively difficult to even stay alive in a declining one, never mind joining into the rat race, but China�s going to explode.

Forbes: So do you feel that your plan is at risk?

No. By the way, we live in risk all the time. Right? I mean gas prices, Egypt, you name it, there�s � you know, there�s always uncertainty associated with execution but I just want to make sure that people understand that this is the year where we�ve got to prove to ourselves and we�ve got to prove to others that we are different.

Forbes: Everyone thinks you�re a workaholic�

Yeah I am a workaholic but I do shut the industrial machine down, otherwise this thing is going to fall apart. I mean I worked all day Saturday, I landed at midnight, I was in the office here the morning after at nine. We worked late last night and were here this morning at seven. And I have to be in Europe � I�ve got to be on the phone at four o�clock in the morning with Europe, which is the issue.

And I use the Blackberries (He carries 6 of them). The Blackberries are wonderful, lethal instruments to destroy your life. (Laughs) �When I answer, it�s yes, no, forget it, you know? But you do get an answer and you get it right away, unless I don�t want to answer you. If I don�t answer you it�s because I�m bored stiff and I felt the question was irrelevant. Now that�s a pretty presumptuous thing on my part but I figure if you thought it was smart enough to bother me, if I don�t answer you there�s got to be a reason. That stopped, by the way, a lot of noise.

The important thing for us is to maintain speed. It�s the thing that distinguishes us from the rest of the crowd. I mean we�ve been incredibly fast at what we�ve done. We made mistakes on the way, but I think fundamentally the capability of this house is just to respond at the speed of light. �Could it have been done better? Yeah, no doubt. Could it have been done any faster without really damaging brand equity? The answer is no.

I think I took it right to the wire. Anything faster than this would have been an outright disaster and I had to let off on a couple of issues because I had to allow the machine to readjust because we just pushed it too hard. So we were two weeks late on a couple of products. In one case I think we were probably about three weeks late. But that�s nothing, I mean in the scheme of things when you�re talking about a new product launch, and if you look at the complexity of what we do and supplier readiness and the manufacturing piece, quality, and all those issues coming to bear on one event; to make sure that you don�t screw up any of those�that�s why the building out of the team here was crucial. We had to find people that could work together that could really sort of share this commitment. Of all the things that I�m proud of in this place that�s probably the one that I�m most proud of. I think we found a great group of kids here. We all carry out responsibilities and we do our stuff and we don�t have to go check with the other guy. We just execute. You have huge amounts of freedom. Your rope is really long. If you want to hang yourself with that rope it�s your choice but fundamentally if you�re given the responsibility you go out there and you execute.

�A lot of people last year at the Detroit Auto Show asked us, you know, are you still going to be here in 12 months? The only thing that held back the execution squad from shooting Chrysler was me.

Forbes: So was it you who convinced the government not to pull the plug on Chrysler?

Oh no, no. I certainly offered the government an alternative�People on the outside, I don�t think they can really appreciate what went on at that time�This could have been Armageddon here. It could have been an absolute devastation. And so the fact that I showed up �I think that they looked at this guy and they said look, he�s got some credibility. Somehow he managed to fix Fiat and maybe he can fix this thing, too, but we�ll lend them the money, keep them on a very short leash, charge them a huge amount of interest on the way out, don�t give them any equity and make them sweat for everything he gets. I tell you, I mean it was a well-crafted deal for Treasury. They ended up getting a technical partner at the table who could only make this work if they delivered on their commitments and really went way beyond that. So their argument I would assume was look, it�s not just Sergio. It�s Sergio and a bunch of people who want to try and do this. Sergio has got a reputation of being able to fix this stuff. What�s our downside risk? So we blow it by two years; supposing he gets it wrong and this thing goes? You know, by that time GM will be out of the woods, somebody will pick up (Chrysler) and fix it at that time. And I think there was a reasonable expectation that there was � I�m not sure it was reasonable � there was a possibility that we could have made it. I never asked the people at Treasury what odds they gave Chrysler of making it on its own.

Forbes: I�d say it was about five percent?

Well, for them to give me the money they must have been slightly higher than that. I don�t think anybody was that calculating in saying look, we�re going to buy them a lease on life for 24 months and then if it doesn�t work we�ll park them somewhere else. The only thing I know is that at least the experiment to date has worked. To date. That�s why I think it�s also important that Chrysler pay back the government and effectively de-risk the position off their balance sheets and effectively give Chrysler the freedom to go back and (be independent). I think it needs to do this. That�s my Christmas wish for 2011.

Forbes: Now, is it your plan to pay everything back to the government before that or refinance it with a different lender?

The repayment can only happen if I refinance with third parties, so I need to refinance the debt back. I�d like to do it with arm�s length people. Like Ford has borrowed money from other people to get this done�.You know the difference between us and GM is that GM ended up getting 60 billion dollars of equity. I didn�t get equity. I got nothing. So I�d like to pay them back and substitute it with something else.

Forbes: So how is that going with the banks?

I think that before we even get there we need to renegotiate some parts of the agreements between ourselves and the VEBA, which is the UAW health care fund, and the Treasury because the way in which this deal was structured none of this was possible before 2013. That was a request that I made and that Treasury agreed with. I wanted to make sure that everybody was at the table for a sufficiently long period of time, to allow Chrysler to make it. I mean nobody had any expectations back in 2009 that you and I would be having a conversation this year, two years before 2013, about refinancing and going public. Nobody. It wasn�t in the cards. We�ve got to go back and rejig the deal because all the dates need to be moved up.

The way in which the thing got structured is that the VEBA amount that was owed, half of it was converted to equity,and half stayed on our balance sheet, so we still owe them over $4 billion, which you know needs to be paid out over time, but the other half is sitting as a shareholding in Chrysler so they need to get that asset monetized. The best way to monetize the VEBA is to take Chrysler public and allow them to sell that stock in the marketplace.

Forbes: A lot of critics say you�re an opportunist who is using Chrysler merely as a way to get Fiat into the U.S. market for free. Was that part of the plan?

We always knew that Fiat was going to come as an iconic brand in the U.S. What drove this was fundamentally an ability to offer Chrysler what they were missing. That�s where it started. And in exchange for which I said look, if you want all this stuff that I�ve paid money for and I�ve worked on a whole long period of time, then I need to get some recognition for this. And that�s where the equity interest in Chrysler came out of. And the deal, by the way, was structured in such a way as they gave me 35 percent potentially of something that at the time was worth absolutely nothing. So I mean everybody�s all screaming bloody murder. There was no equity put in here by anybody. All the money that has been put in by the government has been through loans and paying over a billion dollars in interest, you know. Now, it�s not a walk in the park in terms of money, you know. But I wanted to be able to leverage the value of the technology that Fiat had and see financial recognition for what we were bringing to the party, knowing full well that the value of whatever it is that I got back was absolutely contingent on the execution of a plan to bring Chrysler back and to make it a viable entity.

I mean to be perfectly honest it was an incredibly fair trade on everybody�s part. I risked everything � I got 35 percent of something that was worth nothing. With the promise to deliver value to everybody involved here, to pay back the government, and eventually turn that nothing into something, in exchange for which I got a chance to give you technology and then to run it. And that�s it, right? I mean it was a real simple barter in the straight sense of the word, and it was an incredibly risky barter for everybody at the table�.The Treasury put money into this. And it needed to get paid back. I mean to us, to Fiat, what could have happened is that reputationally I could have been wiped out if this thing did not work out. Fiat would have ended up with egg all over its face but we were not here anyway. So fundamentally from a brand equity standpoint, the damage would have been not insurmountable. I could have dealt with it.

Forbes: You mentioned you wanted to be able to leverage the technology that Fiat had�.

That I could bring here and start using it. And you�ll see the first product was the Fiat 500. By the way, that car, if it does 50 to 80,000 cars a year in the U.S. in my view it will have been a more than resounding success. And that, by the way, by American standards, given the size of the market; you know, 12, 13, 14 million vehicles, you know, 50,000 cars is not a huge number. The Fiat 500 was designed to deal with a car like the Mini Cooper, because I say this with all humility, but it�s a cool small car. And that�s what Mini sells, and I think we can beat the hell out of Mini in that segment because one, from a price standpoint we�re much better than they are, but secondly I think the car has got a lot more to offer. The feedback (from the automotive press) has been phenomenally good. Nobody expected the car to be that good. Performance, the finish of the car; I mean this is a real car.

Forbes: Is it much different from the European version?

It�s adapted to U.S. needs. It�s not visible to the guy who sees the car, but we had to deal with differences in requirements between the U.S. homologation process and European, so in that sense it�s structurally different. Visibly it�s not that different. But what�s interesting is that the style changes that we�ve made to the Fiat 500 here will be brought back to the European version. So the European version will actually follow the U.S. version.

Forbes: We were talking earlier about pushing too fast�There are a lot of rumblings that you�re getting out there with the Fiat product before the dealer network�s even set. Do you have any concerns about moving too fast with the Fiat brand in particular?

To be honest everything is matched to production. I�ve got people clamoring to have cars now as I ramp up production. That car, that plant in Toluca (Mexico) is designed to serve three masters, the U.S. � actually four masters, five masters. It�s supposed to deal with the U.S., with Canada, with Mexico, with Brazil, and with China�.We�ve had to make sure that we can manage � it�s not because we haven�t cared. We have, but we had to make sure that the dealers had enough time to build the facilities. So you know, hopefully we�ll have � not hopefully, but I think we expect to have an adequate number of dealerships out there within probably the second quarter. And then we�ll continue to fill this out. Canada is a huge draw for the car because of the European origin of the population�.There�s a lot of Italians that live in Canada that know the car, historically, and they want to get it. So we�ve got to be careful; you know, we�re not going to make two million cars a year here. The capacity of the system is about 120, 130,000 vehicles a year and I need to be able to satisfy everybody, so I�m glad that Laura (Soave, Fiat�s North American head) has timed this the way she has. Demand for 2011 is not going to be an issue in the U.S. I think we have enough steam behind us. The important thing is to keep on rejuvenating and keeping that product line fresh.

Forbes: Tell me about your plans for Alfa Romeo in the U.S.

Look, I�ve been in this business now � in Fiat � for seven years. Every time I talk to somebody they tell me, you know, Alfa is just a wonderful brand. Well, Alfa�s been a money loser inside Fiat now since I�ve been around. They�re exactly the opposite of what we are institutionally; they over-promise and under-deliver every year. And the problem is it�s a great brand with a long history. I�m not sure if it ever really made any money. Even before Fiat ownership I�m not sure it was a great deal. But it always had this sexy � it raced Formula One � I mean it�s got this incredible appeal which goes back, you know, to the time they used to be on the racetrack, and it�s the embodiment of a lot of things which are typically Italian; sportiness, lightweight, and everything else. And what happened is that when Fiat bought them back in the end of �86 we Fiatized Alfa. Fiat was front-wheel drive; Alfa was rear wheel drive. So now all the Alfas are front-wheel drive. And we put Fiat engines inside the Alfas, and Alfa started losing more and more of its DNA as a car company.

And of all the things that we had to play with since 2004, you know, I kept saying if I can get to 300,000 vehicles I�ll be happy because it�s a re-launch of the brand. We were selling over 100,000 cars in Europe. We have done two significant things since then; we�ve launched the Mito, which is a B segment car. And then we launched the Julietta, the C segment car last year. These are true Alfas, both of them. I mean they have the right engines, the handling, everything else. The real opportunity for us is to try and take this architectural development that we�ve done in the U.S. with the C-segment Dodge sedan coming out next year and using that basic architecture to develop the next evolution of Alfa Romeo and really turn it into a global brand.

We need Chrysler to get that done because we need to share the cost of development of an architecture with them. So without Chrysler, to be honest, Alfa Romeo would have been a nearly impossible task because the cost�would have been prohibitive. So we had to find a partner to do it with. We could have found it over time but the fact that we had access to Chrysler; it benefited Chrysler tremendously because they could also reduce the cost of the investment, but we needed a guy to do it with and Chrysler is the guy. And so the future is pretty good. Strangely enough, I actually think that Alfa will have, at least initially, will have a better success story in the U.S. than it will in Europe. Simply because � I�ll tell you why, because a lot of people know Alfa here in the U.S. because of �The Graduate.� But there�s a history there which I think we need to go revive, and I think we can come back into Europe and play a much stronger hand in Europe once we have an established U.S. base.

Forbes: Will the Fiat brand also share Chrysler�s small- and mid-sized (C and D) engineering platforms?

Potentially yes although the way in which Fiat plays in that segment is to be defined. Because Fiat�s presence in the C segment historically in Europe has not been a great success to be honest. Much more by Chrysler and Lancia than by Fiat itself. That�s a much better combination because all the Chryslers are coming to Europe as Lancias. Every Chrysler car that we have, if you go to the Geneva Auto Show at the beginning of March, you will see what you buy here as a Chrysler 300, as a Town & Country, as a 200, you will see them all in Europe under the Lancia badge; with different names but it will be all American made.

Forbes: How many are you talking about exporting then?

I actually don�t have the exact number for next year but I�m going back by memory but it�s got to be over 30,000 in Europe that are coming out of it. In total we�re selling more than 50,000 cars the first year out.

Forbes: So what about the other 20,000 then?

These are cars that are being rebadged out of Dodge for Fiat. For example, the Dodge Journey is going to be sold as a Fiat Fremont. Those are the kind of blood transfusions that we�re carrying out. Genetic rebadging, that�s what it�s called.

Forbes: How much work is there to rebadge an American Chrysler as a Lancia for Europe?

Europe has very much of a CO2 bias, a carbon dioxide bias. It impacts on taxation; it impacts on the cost of the vehicle. This has not been a big focus in the United States. I mean mileage has been much more important than CO2. So even the adaptation of architectures to ensure that we actually leverage our know-how in the U.S. and make it competitive in Europe is a big issue, so that � I�ll give you an example. The Dodge Journey that�s going over is a very heavy car. That heaviness will imply that its CO2 emissions are not where we would want them to be. If we have had any influence at all in product development it�s the issue that we continue to lightweight the architectures. And when you lightweight them hopefully we�ll start getting some benefits in CO2 emissions, which are crucial for Europe.

Forbes: So you�re doing this now?

Yeah we�re doing this in all the products that are coming out of here, both out of Europe into the U.S. and out of the U.S. into Europe�This has become a more difficult question because to the extent that we are now over four million cars together we need to start having a view that says I look at the world as being an open playground. So if I want to be in Asia, what does this car need to do in order to be in Asia? I can no longer do something which is just U.S. specific. I need to see the other card; I need to see what else I can do. It has to do with this capital consciousness that I can�t keep on reinventing the wheel. Every time you do a C segment I�ve got to be able to leverage the hell out of it.

One of the things that we had to change in the 500 was the location of the fuel tank. Now, when you look at the size of the car you say well this is pretty stupid, why didn�t you put it in the right place to begin with? Because Europeans think that the right place is in a different place than Americans.

Forbes: So is this expensive to change?

Oh hell yes. I�ll give you an example: the Chrysler 200 convertible. The car, it exists, so the architecture existed. We just put a new set of headlights in the car when we redesigned the car, among all the other changes that we spent. European headlights required a modification just to meet European standards. When they test the lights in Europe they look at a different area of (light) coverage than the Americans do. Don�t ask me why. But they do, and there�s no solution, there�s no lamp that can be designed to be at the same time European and American standards. The difference is worth between 15 and 20 million bucks.

Forbes: Really?

Yep. The headlights and the location of the fog lamp in the back of the car. The fog lamp cannot be put in the same location in Europe as they put it here. By the way, this creates complexity that you wouldn�t believe. It would be wonderful for all of us if you can find convergence; If we can agree that a headlight needs to look there. Just there. Doesn�t it look simple to you?

Forbes: So how much joint engineering is actually happening between Chrysler and Fiat?

Tons. There�s nothing that happens at one place that the other place doesn�t � I mean in any one week there�s anywhere between 30 to 100 people that are flying back and forth. The head of product development for Fiat, Harald Wester, sits on the product committee here in the U.S., and we�re going to start interfacing with the product committee on the European side.

Forbes: When Daimler owned Chrysler, they had a private plane that went back and forth several times a week.

I can�t afford a plane. There�s a point in time sometime in the future where that may be required when the level of interface gets so high that we need actually to have that kind of mobility. I don�t see it as being a farfetched idea. I think it may work, but so far it works well with emails, videoconferencing, and sharing of all the data we can get.

Forbes: The U.S. government doesn�t like private planes.

As long as they�re the financer, forget about ownership.

Forbes: Now, when you have Fiat here, you have Alpha here, you have your own four brands, that�s a lot of mouths to feed. How do you avoid spreading yourselves too thin like GM did?

Well the other side of this is Volkswagen. Volkswagen has got Volkswagen, it�s got Audi, it�s got SEAT, it�s got Skoda, it�s got Bentley; last time I checked Volkswagen was really doing really well.

Look, somebody asked me whether we thought that we had too many brands. The answer is Jeep is Jeep. I mean Jeep will never be a car brand ever. It can�t be, not when the origin of the Jeep is the Willys. I mean let�s be honest. We spend a lot of time purifying that brand and turning it into sort of the SUV on a global scale. It�s the one that deserves to be treated as the SUV. I can�t sell a Jeep Charger. There are things that don�t cross. And Ram is a truck brand. It sells pickups. This is a NAFTA issue. Once I go somewhere else, pickups are not that popular. Right? Europeans can�t drive pickups. There�s no use inventing sort of this merger of brands. They existed when I arrived. We thought about merging Dodge and Chrysler and we would have lost a lot of market share. Just think about what happened here. This company decided to have two minivans. A Town & Country for Chrysler and a Caravan for Dodge. If I merged them I would have been forced to go to one van. I would have lost a huge amount of market share because in order to come up with one minivan. You need to have a substitute for the other brand. You need to have another people carrier.

Forbes: I�ve heard you talking about different kind of people mover, right?

But it has to be a people mover. I�ve got to be able to hit that minivan market with something other than that minivan, but that satisfies the requirements of a minivan user.

Forbes: This vehicle would still be built on a minivan architecture?

There�s no such thing as a minivan architecture. You know, we�re beyond this, right? Understand this. The compact Dodge that�s coming out in January; that architecture will be the same architecture that will drive the replacement of the Jeep Compass. We need to develop these architectures in a way that effectively translate themselves into relatively large levels of flexibility, but we can do this now.

Forbes: So what�s this about building a Maserati based on the Jeep Grand Cherokee? Why do that?

Why? For the same reason that Porsche sold the Cayenne. I don�t know why Porsche can do it and we can�t do it. Look, that Grand Cherokee platform that we have deserves a Ferrari engine. It�s that good of an architecture.

Forbes: Dieter Zetsche (ceo of Daimler) says that�s because it�s really a Mercedes platform (dating back to the DaimlerChrysler merger)

You know what, if I called the head of product development here and you told him that it was a Mercedes he would just kill you. I�ll tell you why, because it started off as a Mercedes platform. Dieter left here in 2006. That architecture wasn�t industrialized until 2009. In three years in this business, the world changes. The engine that�s in that car (Chrysler�s new Pentastar V6) didn�t even exist. The transmission that�s going into that car next year didn�t exist. All the suspensions were redone, all the work on the inside was redone, everything. This is nonsense.

In the end, do you think it will have been worth saving Chrysler? Is that already clear to you or is that still an open question?

Yeah, I think it was clear to me in 2009 when I showed up as the CEO. I wouldn�t have done this for 19 months unless it was worth it. Not just for me, I think all the people � a lot of the people in here have given this place everything they�ve got so we owe it to them.

Went out for dinner tonight and saw new Grand Cherokees everywhere. :italy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as6ix0OhZak

Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Feb 13, 2011

# ¿ Feb 13, 2011 07:29

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Oh hey some meta car commercials.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWy6A6bLSW0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkUdQtINflw

# ¿ Feb 13, 2011 07:55

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Here's my theory on stuff like the Hummer and the G-wagon. They are originally designed as specialized fleet(military or otherwise) vehicles. There is virtually no civillian market for them, and the total fleet volume isn't enough to warrant a capital intensive production line. According to wikipedia the G-wagon line rolls out about 5,000 units per year. So basically they are all "hand made" trucks, because it would be too expensive to set up a modern automated production line. Whatever their actual unit production cost, which must be high but probably not $100k per, MB rekons it can at least sell a few a year to rappers and movie stars who for whatever reason want to sit in an uncomfortable body-on-frame box held up by 2 live axles, so they throw in some minimal creature comforts and price it accordingly. They know very few people are going to buy it and they don't care, because it's all just a sunk cost at this point.

Do any serious off-roaders actually buy them? I can't imagine why, since I'm pretty sure $100k can buy you a jeep with as many differentials as you want.

EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is that the cartoon has a pretty good point. With something like a Range Rover or Escalade, you are at least getting a hefty amount of equipment for your dollar, even if most of it is useless for the people who actually drive them, buta G-wagon is basically a $100k barely furnished tractor, you don't actually *get* anything other than the marketing, Mercedes isn't even trying to pretend its anything else.

Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Feb 14, 2011

# ¿ Feb 14, 2011 23:45

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

He also says Miatas are poo poo, so I really don't know which car I should aspire to any more. :ohdear:

# ¿ Feb 16, 2011 02:16

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

There's a suspension walkaround here. It's surprising how simple the idea is - just a braided oil line going from the compression side of the left shock to the rebound side of the right, and vice versa (there's a controller in the middle but still) so I guess it should be no surprise that the QX56 also uses it. I think BMW also does something similar with the "active roll bar" on their 7 series?

The McLaren actually has a anti-anti-rollbar(pro-rollbar?) in the rear - to resist downforce without affecting roll. Some :science:

poo poo.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2011 08:20

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

shut the hell up about this poo poo and post about new cars

Do you like (relatively)small trucks with big pushrod engines and vinyl bench seats? You're in luck!

http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2011/02/dodge-ram-code-name-adventurer-a-tradesman-with-20s.html

All for $24k.

# ¿ Feb 17, 2011 01:57

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

14 INCH DICK TURBO posted:

What in gods name kind of trucks do you deal with that those are considered small?

Most of the trucks around here are medium duty 4 doors, so a Ram 1500 regular cab is quite small by comparison.

# ¿ Feb 17, 2011 06:27

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

quote:

The Ram Tradesman looks pretty bitchin.

Reminder that the Ram 1500 comes with 3 link Panhard rod coil spring rear suspension. It's a Mustang with a bed.

OK back to the US/Canada chat. While thinking of a reply to 14 INCH I looked up the figures for truck sales and realized that on a per capital basis, Canadians buy about twice as many full size trucks as Americans. Ford F series sales in Canada were almost 100k in 2010 compared to ~550k for the US, even though the US has 10x as many people. Numbers for GM and Chrysler are about the same.

It's strange because I'm always under the impression that everything is bigger, cheaper and better in America, and that we in Canada have to deal with smaller, more expensive and crappier stuff as a necessary price of our social-democratic way of life. Since about 1 in 3 vehicles on the road here is a diesel 2500HD/F350 I assumed that in wealthy America, it would be....1 in 2? Or people just drove chassis cab/heavy duties? or surplus Warsaw Pact BTR-60s? I don't even know.

But it turns out that relatively more Americans just drive... cars. :psyduck:

I don't even know what to think anymore.

Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Feb 17, 2011

# ¿ Feb 17, 2011 16:28

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

I'm not convinced that at 1500/F-150 etc level that it makes a huge difference (if that's supposed to be a complaint about the coil suspension). I hear a lot of DURHUR LEAF SPRINGS UR NOTHIN from some guys I know but they don't really do a whole lot with their trucks - if you are doing poo poo that coil suspension can't handle, you should probably step up to a 2500/F-250 anyway.

I meant that it always gets lauded in reviews and tests for having the best ride and handling out of all the full size trucks because of the coil suspension, and I guess I misremembered because it's actually a 5 link?

# ¿ Feb 17, 2011 22:39

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

kimbo305 posted:

Hmm, he harps about the rollbar orientation and extra weight that costs, but not the positioning of the calipers?

What's wrong with them?

# ¿ Feb 17, 2011 23:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 16:19

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

Why the gently caress would BMW make a RWD mini? Someone give me one not-stupid rationale for it.

New Car?
|
|
V
Is it a Miata? -->YES-->Cool.
|
|
V
NO--->Why can't it be RWD/Lighter/More like a Miata? I would totally buy it then.

Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Feb 24, 2011

# ¿ Feb 24, 2011 03:27

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Read about a new car? Thats the 2024 Giant Piece of Shit

«‹›48 »