FCA In Discussions With A Partner To Build 200 and Dart

Please let it be Mazda

Please let it be Mazda

Please let it be Mazda

I heard that Ford and Hyundai were also target "leads" to be wooed.

Hmmm...

Somehow I do not see this really helping the company. I mean I guess you'd be buying basically a Mazda with a Chrysler badge, which means you are getting a Mazda, but I would think the other guys would hold back some in reserves unless they get some real big bucks...

Mazda needs partners too.  Their salvation may rest on building cars for other brands. 

Also, if the plans are put into effect now, there could and should be enough differentiation to make and resulting product not a Mazda with a Dodge badge.

Yeah that's true.

A made in Japan sedan with an American badge!!! Awwww yeah, that's how much an American brand has declined under ...well Marchionne is Canadian... (so yeah, Canada is involved)....an Italian parent.

What's interesting is the guy that Marchionne replaced is Bob Nardelli, and he's a questionable character too given...

I have said Mazda would be a good fit for them since last Summer. When they killed the cars I thought that was a sign I may have been on to something.

The real key is they should turn FCA management over to Mazda and let someone who knows what they are doing run the place.

The sooner Sergio is gone the better.

Mazda since they left Ford has really had issues with development cost. They are doing ok sales wise but have no where near the volume they need to make it alone. Add the trucks, jeep and other brands to what Mazda has and you have a viable company if you pare it with competent management.

Edited March 8, 20169 yr by hyperv6

Imagine what Mazda could do here, and it would help keep them viable. 

Still, it's Sergio, Tony, and Fiat, its like asking for a death wish. 

The sooner Sergio is gone the better.

The FCA Board of Directors should have to write that on the chalkboard 100 times.

Mazda needs partners too.  Their salvation may rest on building cars for other brands. 

 

Also, if the plans are put into effect now, there could and should be enough differentiation to make and resulting product not a Mazda with a Dodge badge.

One of those few times I could agree with the Mazda part....could be win win....both could use the production boost...

Mitsubishi.  YAAAAYYYY!!!

Mitsubishi.  YAAAAYYYY!!!

I wouldn't mind so much if we got a real Eclipse out of it. 

Any car company is "better at it" than FCA. FCA is terrible with small and mid size cars. The 300/Charger work because the rear drive chassis is better than the fwd of the competition and they are the only rwd game in town.

I don't think Mazda has any extra capacity. And I don't see them making a new factory to build something to compete with themselves.

I would expect the Mazda lines would be better Incorporated into the Dodge dealer system. Sell the Mazda badged FWD cars and leave the RWD Dodge and Chrysler. Dump the FCA based FWD all together.

Take FCA and keep the best and dump the worst. That is the only way for them to pull it out. It may be painful for some names just as it was for killing Pontiac but it needs to be done.

Keep Ram, Jeep, Fiat for micro cars, Most of Mazda, make a new RWD Chrysler/Dodge model, kill all Chrysler FWD models accept the minivans. Lancia and Alfa let them play to the markets they are good in and keep them niche models based on Mazda platforms tuned in Italy just as the new Miata based Fiat. Masurati Expand production but not go crazy with it. Compete with Porsche and Maybe Bentley but do not try to go after BMW or Audi. Alfa should be more niche and not worry about the Sergio 400,000 volume that Sergio thinks they can do. Alfa needs to find its place and to earn its place. Lets face it most Americans see it yet as an Italian car that rust and is expensive to fix with an odd grill.

Let Mazda do most of the platform development and the engineering and leave Jeep and Ram to Dodge.

Lancia is already toast.  They're down to selling the Chrysler 300 as the Lancia Thema and only in Italy. 

Don't do it Mazda. It will be the death of you. Why would one build a competitors vehicle that could eat into your own vehicle sales?

Stay as far away from FCA as possible.

Please let it be Mazda

Please let it be Mazda

Please let it be Mazda

A company that specializes in big enthusiast cars partnering with a company that specializes in small enthusiast cars?

Works for me.

Don't do it Mazda. It will be the death of you. Why would one build a competitors vehicle that could eat into your own vehicle sales?

Stay as far away from FCA as possible.

If the original Fusion wasn't based on the Mazda 6 it wouldn't have been nearly as successful.   Food for thought.........

 

Don't do it Mazda. It will be the death of you. Why would one build a competitors vehicle that could eat into your own vehicle sales?

Stay as far away from FCA as possible.

 

If the original Fusion wasn't based on the Mazda 6 it wouldn't have been nearly as successful.   Food for thought.........

 

Ford then, like Fiat is now of Chrysler, pulled the strings. 

On November 18, 2008, Ford announced that it would sell a 20% stake in Mazda, reducing its stake to 13.4% thus surrendering control of the company, which it held since 1996.

 

 

Don't do it Mazda. It will be the death of you. Why would one build a competitors vehicle that could eat into your own vehicle sales?

Stay as far away from FCA as possible.

 

If the original Fusion wasn't based on the Mazda 6 it wouldn't have been nearly as successful.   Food for thought.........

 

 

Ford then, like Fiat is now of Chrysler, pulled the strings. 

 

On November 18, 2008, Ford announced that it would sell a 20% stake in Mazda, reducing its stake to 13.4% thus surrendering control of the company, which it held since 1996.

 

It was still a platform designed by and for Mazda and put into use by Mazda years before Ford started making the Fusion.  That is the point, like it or not.  Using other manufacturers platforms is nothing new. 

Ford had been using Mazda platforms since 1983.

I don't think Mazda wants any part of FCA.  Power Wheels builds better small cars than FCA does.  See, this is much more stylish and probably better handling than a Dart or Fiat 500.

Edited March 11, 20169 yr by smk4565

What would the catch phrase be/advertising slogan be?

Chrysler 200...Imported from Japan?

Dart....Bullseye by Mazda?

I wonder if they are considering Taiwan's Luxgen.  I saw a pic of a Luxgen S5 with Michigan plates on the Facebook.  Looks a bit like a 200.

Edited April 14, 20169 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

As I have said in a couple other threads, I think Mazda would be an excellent partner with FCA and I don't think it would require a merger.  It could be a partnership similar to Hyundai-Kia and Nissan-Renault.  Mazda does small and midsize cars well but doesn't sell in volume for whatever reason (too small of a dealer network?)

Any car company is "better at it" than FCA. FCA is terrible with small and mid size cars. The 300/Charger work because the rear drive chassis is better than the fwd of the competition and they are the only rwd game in town.

I don't think Mazda has any extra capacity. And I don't see them making a new factory to build something to compete with themselves.

Neither the Dart or 200 are horrible cars.  If it weren't for the available diesel powertrain I would have been in a Dart instead of Cruze.  I actually liked the Dart better overall but the diesel won me over.  Unfortunately the problems with the diesel lost me.

Here is why I think the Dart failed:

1) Horribly managed launch with only manual transmission cars available

2) Pairing the DDCT trans with the 1.4T.  Should have been a torque converter auto right from the start.

3) The horrid gas mileage that the 2.4L versions of the car get.

To me, 2 and 3 kind of go hand in hand and are what really did the Dart in.  They basically panicked when everybody hated the DDCT paired with the 1.4T and since they didn't have a standard auto ready to mate up to it, they simply switched almost every trim over to the 2.4L.  I truly believe that if the car had launched with the 1.4T and a torque converter 6 speed auto, the Dart would not be in such dire straights.

IOW, Chrysler still can't build GOOD Small Cars since the 1970s.  Good Midsizers have eluded them since around 1990.

 

Don't do it Mazda. It will be the death of you. Why would one build a competitors vehicle that could eat into your own vehicle sales?

Stay as far away from FCA as possible.

 

If the original Fusion wasn't based on the Mazda 6 it wouldn't have been nearly as successful.   Food for thought.........

 

Exactly. Why do some Ford fans forget that Ford made their living just like that for twenty years with Mazda? Sales from both did not suffer as a result of them "selling against each other" so why would this? Answer? It doesn't.

 

 

Don't do it Mazda. It will be the death of you. Why would one build a competitors vehicle that could eat into your own vehicle sales?

Stay as far away from FCA as possible.

 

If the original Fusion wasn't based on the Mazda 6 it wouldn't have been nearly as successful.   Food for thought.........

 

Exactly. Why do some Ford fans forget that Ford made their living just like that for twenty years with Mazda? Sales from both did not suffer as a result of them "selling against each other" so why would this? Answer? It doesn't.

 

I'm all for multiple brands/companies working together to give us consumers a better project as long as it benefits both parties, ala 9sp and 10sp transmissions GM and Ford are working on and there are probably hundreds of other examples that was just the first one to pop in my head.