By on May 27, 2019

FCA Brampton Assembly Line Challenger & 300 - Image: FCA

Thirty-two years after Chrysler bought Renault’s controlling stake in AMC, absorbing the automaker and folding its French-developed passenger cars into the new Eagle brand, the automaker’s Fiat Chrysler successor is interested in a merger.

On Monday, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles submitted a proposal for a “transformative merger” with Groupe Renault. The 50:50 merger would create the world’s third-largest automobile company and generate $5.6 billion in annual savings, FCA claims — equal to efficiencies born of the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi Alliance.

A non-binding letter was sent to Groupe Renault’s board of directors today outlining the proposal.

From FCA:

The FCA proposal follows initial operational discussions between the two companies to identify products and geographies where they could collaborate, particularly as they develop and commercialize new technologies. These discussions made clear that broader collaboration through a combination would substantially improve capital efficiency and the speed of product development. The case for combination is also strengthened by the need to take bold decisions to capture at scale the opportunities created by the transformation of the auto industry in areas like connectivity, electrification and autonomous driving.

The proposed combination would create a global automaker, preeminent in terms of revenue, volumes, profitability and technology, benefitting the companies’ respective shareholders and stakeholders. The combined business would sell approximately 8.7 million vehicles annually, would be a world leader in EV technologies, premium brands, SUVs, pickup trucks and light commercial vehicles and would have a broader and more balanced global presence than either company on a standalone basis.

Shares in the combined company would be evenly split by Renault and FCA shareholders, FCA said, with shareholders given an equivalent equity stake in the new entity. FCA shareholders would receive a $2.8 billion dividend. The company itself would be structured through a Dutch holding company. An 11-member board would contain four directors from both FCA and Renault, one nominated by Renault’s alliance partner, Nissan.

According to sources who spoke with Reuters, FCA Chairman John Elkann, head of the Agnelli family that holds 29 percent of the automaker’s shares, would become chairman of the new entity. Newly installed Renault Chairman Jean-Dominique Senard, one source said, would likely become CEO.

alpine-vision-concept-with-a1102

Groupe Renault, whose subsidiaries include the reborn Alpine brand, the Romanian economy car brand Dacia, and Russia’s AvtoVAZ, maker of Lada vehicles, is studying the proposed merger “with interest.”

“After careful review of the terms of FCA’s friendly proposal, the Board of Directors decided to study with interest the opportunity of such a business combination, comforting Groupe Renault’s manufacturing footprint and creating additional value for the Alliance,” the automaker said in a statement.

Assuming Groupe Renault finds the proposal to its liking, finalizing the deal could take more than a year, FCA CEO Mike Manley told employees.

The proposal could spark strife in Renault’s periphery. The French government holds a 15-percent stake in the company; meanwhile, alliance partner Nissan, of which Renault holds a 43.4-percent voting stake, does not have voting rights over its French partner, of which it holds a 15-percent stake. Since former chairman Carlos Ghosn’s arrest, Nissan’s bonds with Renault have frayed. The Japanese automaker finds itself in turbulent financial waters, with falling profits and sales sparking a restructuring plan that the company’s CEO, Hiroto Saikawa, says will get the company back on track. But not for a while.

News of the proposed merger buoyed FCA’s stock, with share prices currently up 11 percent in Milan.

In its proposal, FCA said 90 percent of the savings realized through a merger would come from efficiencies in purchasing, R&D, and manufacturing and tooling. No plant closures would result from the tie-up, it said.

“The combination would create a brand portfolio that would provide full market coverage with a presence in all key segments from luxury/premium brands, such as Maserati and Alfa Romeo, to the strong access brands of Dacia and Lada, and would include the well-known Fiat, Renault, Jeep and Ram brands as well as commercial vehicles,” FCA stated.

“Groupe Renault has a strong presence across Europe, Russia, Africa and Middle East, while FCA is uniquely positioned in the high margin segments in North America and is a market leader in Latin America. FCA’s evolving capability in autonomous driving, which includes partnerships with Waymo, BMW and Aptiv, is complemented by Groupe Renault’s decade of experience in EV technology where it is the highest selling EV OEM in Europe. Groupe Renault also has a well-established and profitable financing business (RCI Banque).”

[Images: Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Renault]

Recommended

91 Comments on “Fiat Chrysler Proposes Merger With Renault...”


  • avatar
    akear

    Here we go again. This is going to be yet another ‘merger of equals’. We know how that worked out the last time. I find it unfathomable that Chrysler has not learned from recent history.

  • avatar
    Steve203

    On first blush, this deal is DOA and I don’t understand why the Renault BoD is entertaining it at all.

    Renault controls Nissan.

    Nissan has a 10% market share in the US, FCA a 13% share. Combined, the two companies would have a larger share in the US than GM. That is bound to attract anti-trust scrutiny, especially after GM and Ford lobbyists start making the rounds in DC.

    If Renault sold it’s interest in Nissan to overcome US government objections, Renault would lost Nissan’s Asian presence. Nissan’s China sales rank 5th. Renault ranks 60th in China ans is effectively withdrawn from the market.

    Why would Renault abandon a strong position in China, and Nissan’s share in the US, to gain FCA?

    • 0 avatar
      akear

      GM does not seem interested in market share anymore. When GM withdrew from Europe it only took about a year for Renault-Nissan to surpass them in international market share. Right now, GMs American market share is 16.8%, which is the lowest it has ever been. A quarter century ago, GM’s market share was 17 points higher!! GM never fully recovered from the great brand culling of 2009.

      • 0 avatar
        Steve203

        “GM does not seem interested in market share anymore. Right now, GMs American market share is 16.8%”

        Yes. The market share numbers I used were taken from a Wall St Journal page about a year old. GM and Ford have since dropped some high volume models, and their forever ramping up prices has chased more people from their showrooms, so their market shares are lower now.

        But allowing FCA and Nissan to combine is entirely another matter, and they will not allow it.

        Yes, GM used to have a share over 50%, but that was achieved with organic growth and other companies going out of business. The government would not have allowed GM to buy a 50% share by taking over other companies in the 50s or 60s.

        • 0 avatar
          ect

          I suspect that it is very clear to Nissan that they are not part of this deal, and are not in any position to influence it.

          I’d look for a push by Nissan to try to buy back the shares owned by Renault. Which would probably be financially crippling for Nissan, so they’d need to find outside money and/or government assistance.

      • 0 avatar
        RHD

        GM never recovered from the Vega, the Chevette, the X cars and the malaise era in general. 2009 was far along in their marked share slide.

    • 0 avatar
      EGSE

      GM used to have ~50% of the U.S. market and they weren’t broken up. The automobile landscape is more diverse today than it’s been since World War 2.

    • 0 avatar
      Lichtronamo

      The deal makes sense. The two companies market strengths complement each other. Put Nissan with RAM and Jeep in the US. The French Government will have the biggest say if this happens based on their 15 percent stake and even greater voting rights. FCA Is not a US corporation so I doubt the Trump admin gets to have much input.

      • 0 avatar
        ect

        Lichtronamo, it’s actually quite the opposite. A merger notification will need to be filed in a number of countries where even one of the companies does business, which will subject the deal to the scrutiny of competition law authorities in each of those countries – including DoJ in the US.

        The primary “reviewer” will be the EU, but authorities in countries such as Canada and the US can consider whether the deal will restrict competition by preventing Renault from entering their market and adding new competition. In practice, they’ll almost certainly decide not to contest the deal, but the process is still time-consuming and expensive for both companies.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      OTOH, Renault would have both a big presence in US, with a dealer/parts network for Ranault cars, it would add FCA’s 6.7% share of the European market, and FCA’s large share of the Brazilian market.

      The asian market is in flux with the tariff war between the US and China, and automakers are looking to Vietnam and other asian countries to locate plants.

      The Brazilian market is recovering, over 2 million cars and trucks, and FCA owns a big piece of it. Trump is holding off on auto parts tariffs from Europe, and Renault makes smaller cars that could sell well here in a downturn, especially with the FCA dealer and parts network.

    • 0 avatar
      ect

      On its face, this proposal has nothing to do with Nissan, whose ownership situation would not change. There would not be any combination of Nissan and FCA anywhere that Nissan operates under its own flag – including North America and China.

      Renault’s Asian presence is very indirect. It has an equity stake in Nissan, but no direct participation in markets that Nissan operates in but Renault does not.

    • 0 avatar
      Victor

      Renault does not control Nissan.

    • 0 avatar
      gomez

      There’s not much the US government and the army of lobbyists can do about it. FCA was incorporated in Amsterdam, so it is not a US company. It would fall under Dutch law.

      • 0 avatar
        dtremit

        It’s entirely possible for the Europeans to block US mergers and vice versa — the EU blocked GE from buying Honeywell in 2001, for instance, even though both were US companies.

  • avatar
    Luke42

    Canceling sedans was clearly about profitability, not market share.

    It’s the right strategy to survive this highly volitile period in America’s trade policy.

    • 0 avatar
      Lichtronamo

      Agree. Sedans are a dead end. The midsize crossover is the new ‘55 Chevy.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        They all stopped making proper sedans years ago, following the luxury brands and their 4-door “coupes”. The closest thing to the old full size, RWD sedans with a vertical rear window and big trunk opening is the 4-door pickup. Put a trunk lid on a short bed F150 4-door and you have a boxy Ford LTD.

  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    On a local level, the dealer body, I don’t see how this merger does much to help other than possibly to speed up the reduction of retail distribution points. It would seem, stateside at least, this more about FCA getting some help from Nissan and Nissan getting some help from FCA as I am not certain what Renault brings to the table for any manufacturer.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      I’m waiting to see what happens with our local Chrysler/Dodge/Ram/Jeep dealer. In bankruptcy proceedings and under investigation by the FBI – something to do with double floor planning some vehicles (taking out two loans on the same piece of dealer stock.)

      But they’re a huge conglomerate and have many many brands across many locations, all locations are shut down.

      • 0 avatar
        ravenuer

        Shades of the old McNamara Buick/Pontiac dealer/Ponzi scheme back in the day in my neighborhood.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        You might see something like what happened to an auto group in San Diego. Ford was the linchpin of the group, with several other brands, and the owner tried to cash out by selling to another unapproved (by Ford) auto group.

        The owner ended up breaking up his auto group, letting his sons take over a couple dealerships, selling off others, and shutting down the huge Ford dealership. About half of the Ford property became a Lincoln dealership, and the other half was sold off for commercial redevelopment.

        The owner wasn’t under investigation though. He ran a clean operation with a pretty good reputation. The group he wanted to sell to didn’t have as good a reputation, and Ford had canceled its agreement with it in another state.

      • 0 avatar
        87 Morgan

        Yup. An ad has been in Automotive News every month for a quick sale in the four corners. Does not seem like many are too excited at the opportunity.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      In the Age of Bailouts, it behooves weaker players to be a National Champion in as many potentates as possible.

  • avatar
    EGSE

    Besides the auto companies cited here there are a couple more partners……the French and Japanese governments. Both have an activist industrial policy WRT to key industries, cars being a key example. The drama roiling the present alliance could be a foretaste of what’s to come assuming this marriage is consummated.

    • 0 avatar
      iNeon

      We’re on the same wavelength with this.

      The Japanese government have already taken action to reclaim Nissan.

      I’m really into this. America’s style leader in a fruitful throuple with Italian and French icons?! A bunch of adorable little adopted orphans in the periphery?!?

      Its a polyamorous arty Anglophile’s wet dream.

  • avatar
    Jeff Weimer

    What would they call it?

    FCA Renault?

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      What could go wrong with 10+ brands under one umbrella? They should call it ACME Motors.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      Whatever they call it, Macron arguing for saving the maker of the Power Wagon, will be priceless…..

      • 0 avatar
        zipper69

        We now know that Macron has been supplanted by the Fascist Le Pen, so much waving of the Tricolor and cries of “Allez France!” can be expected

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          Is she a fascist because you’re an antifa? It was a rough week for global fascism, I mean global marxism. It looks like individual rights and human dignity will hold out a little longer than they planned.

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            @ToddAtlasF1,
            f you conflate Fascism and Marxism, you will have a very difficult time understanding modern European politics and 20th century history.

            Fascism is a nationalist right wing phenomenon where the government oppresses the people to enforce morals “for their own good”. There are also elements of corporatocracy and machismo which seem to go with it. I can provide several examples of this happening in the United States right now (some of which are even a little popular), but doing so would distract from my educational point.

            Marxism views history as a class struggle. He was a communist philosopher. He was so far left he makes Bernie Sanders look like a moderate. If we actually stole rich people’s assets and gave then to the poor in order to eiminate class distinctions, that would be Marxism. I cannot provide examples of this happening in the United States — because it hasn’t worked out well. Note that something like European-style socialized healthcare is not Communism any more than socialied firefighting services are Communism.

            When you blindly apply terms like “Marxism” and “Fascism” to things you don’t like, while pretending they’re the same thing, it leaves one to ask if you even know what the words mean.

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            From a proper American POV, “we”‘re all fascists now. Including America.

            The Founders laid out an exhaustive list of enumerated powers for a just government. It simply doesn’t include funding for a single jackboot, red nor brown nor anything else. Instead, it was supposed to innoculate against them all, by incentivizing every one of their potential targets to arm up with the latest and greatest. So he could serve a useful role in a proper militia, should it be required. As well as a bulwark against any enterprising “ist” of any sort.

            But, in a narrow Euro context, there was at one point presumed that there was some meaningful divide between government nominally “owning” everything, and just handing out proceeds to the privileged that way (communism). Or, that the privileged were instead granted nominal “ownership” of stuff; they just had to do what government told them to do, with what they nominally “owned.” Or their privileges would be revoked (fascism.)

            Fascism eventually did win out, in no small part due to the US having joined that side, despite not being supposed to enter into entangling alliances at all. But regardless, by any reasonable, historical, definition, both Macron and Le Pen are essentially fascists/social democrats. Neither of them champion overt, nominal nationalization of means of production. Both preferring to, instead, nominally hand such to privileged Party members by way of preferential access to regulators and money printers. Just like in the US.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          zipper,

          you have some skewed understanding of fascism. If anything, current democratic party in US is closer to be fascist than Le Pen. If you asked Mussolini, “are Germans fascists?” he would spit into your face. Putting Germans under “fascist” umbrella was propaganda, not substance. Germans were Nazis. But for people like Stalin, it was important to associate them with tyranny of fascism. After all, Soviet were free people, and their government was people’s government :-), building socialism. And how do expect to motivate soldier to fight against “National socialists”? So, word “socialists” had to be excluded. And they decided to call them all “fascists”. Russian guards couldn’t understand, why German prisoners would get upset when they called them “fascists”. They would say, “we’re not fascists, we’re honest national socialists”.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      If they could bring in Peugeot, the could call the company Fiat, Nissan, Chrysler, And Peugeot. FNCRAP.

    • 0 avatar
      Tele Vision

      They should call it F-Chrys Nault.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    So is this a sort of tacit acknowledgement that Nissan is going to untangle itself from their tie up with Renault? On paper, this works I suppose, but I don’t see either market benefitting from the other with respect to models being made available in one another’s market. French and Germans aren’t going to gobble up Ram Trucks and Challengers nor are Americans clamoring for a crack at the Twingo. Combined engineering could make future products better I suppose and there is now the outside chance I’ll be able to grab a French car at some point so I’ll call it a win.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      I wondered the same thing. Maybe Nissan and Mitsubishi go it alone. That would soothe antitrust concerns in the US, and gets Renault out of a bad relationship.

    • 0 avatar
      Lichtronamo

      I don’t think Nissan is going anywhere. A combined FCA//Nissan portfolio in NA solves a lot of issues for both. Drop Chrysler and Dodge, and within Nissan drop the Titan trucks and badge the next gen Frontier as a Ram.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      I bet these companies can pull off polyamory.

      Remember that they’ve been saying they’re doing this for economies of scale. If they can coordinate well enough to achieve economies of scale (instead of building expensive camels[*]), they could achieve even more scale with a larger group.

      But, this would require the companies to work together and not create conflicting requirement.

      [*] I’m referring here to the old joke about a camel being a horse designed by committee. Camels have capabilities that a few people need in a specific environment, but which are detrimental to the users of four-legged working animals which do similar work. Similarly, if FCRaP were to have enough conflicting requirements from different markets, they might not be able to achieve the scale they’re looking for. So a successful partnership will need to have a mechanism to prevent excessive complexity in whatever platform and factories they jointly develop.

  • avatar
    Lie2me

    Where Daimler-Chrysler was a “merger of equals” this sounds like a merger of mediocre

  • avatar
    ToddAtlasF1

    This sounds like a soap opera. Isn’t Volkswagen looking to divest itself of a number of acquisitions? Nissan disentangling itself from Daimler? Daimler turning Chinese like GM? Renault has already ditched Jeep once, which was and is the only reason to get involved with its parent companies. It’s almost like the CEOs and boards are only looking for a banner achievement so they can take a big payday and leave an opportunity for another CEO to take a victory lap for undoing their signature failures.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      I read about the car industry the way most guys read about sports.

      This industry really is a grand industrial soap opera.

      I get to go test drive cars, instead of standing in line to get autographs. That’s what I call winning!

    • 0 avatar
      namesakeone

      “It’s almost like the CEOs and boards are only looking for a banner achievement so they can take a big payday and leave an opportunity for another CEO to take a victory lap for undoing their signature failures.”

      Shades of Robert Eaton.

  • avatar
    thornmark

    This is about saving FIAT – a worthless company. Chrysler is very profitable thanks to JEEP and RAM trucks but those profits have been supporting FIAT rather than new Chrysler product.

    I’ll bet the AutoExtremist guy will go ballistic over this – Renault, Nissan and FIAT are the pits.

  • avatar
    zipper69

    “After careful review of the terms of FCA’s friendly proposal, the Board of Directors decided to study with interest the opportunity of such a business combination”

    TRANSLATION:
    We just need to see the increased fees and expenses for directors…

  • avatar
    CKNSLS Sierra SLT

    AS with previous similar topics-it’s painfully obvious many don’t travel abroad on this site. I saw many, many, Renault vehicles in Denmark, Sweden, and throughout the Baltic states-during recent travels.

  • avatar
    thornmark

    From AutoExtremist awhile back:

    “It was never about saving Chrysler or rescuing its poor, downtrodden minions. And it was never about doing good for the perennially mocked City of Detroit or the domestic automobile industry for that matter, either. For Marchionne it was about taking over Chrysler, sucking every last dime out of it and using those profits to bolster Fiat, the Italian automaker whose reign as a perennial joke in this business goes back multiple decades.

    (One of the first things I said after Marchionne was gifted Chrysler was that it was a grandiose scheme to turn the down-on-its-luck automaker into Fiat North America. I only wish that weren’t true now.)

    In Brent Snavely’s piece in the Detroit Free Press today (4/29), the true measure of Sergio Marchionne’s purpose in life is exposed for all to see. Gifted Chrysler by the U.S. Government and funded on the backs of you and me, the U.S. taxpayer, Marchionne is now using Chrysler to sustain that miserable excuse of a car company called Fiat.

    The Italian automaker – and that term should be applied very loosely in this case – is on the ropes. Paralyzed by a byzantine network of unions, plagued by serial incompetence (except for its show pony Ferrari division, of course), and buttressed by a relentlessly inept Italian government that manages to make our current bumblers in Washington look like direct descendants of our Founding Fathers, Fiat is now officially on the U.S. taxpayers dole, thanks to Sergio and his grand little plan. Every last dime of Chrysler’s profitability is now being used to prop up Fiat, an industry embarrassment that should have been left for dead long ago.

    Think about that for a moment.”

    – AutoExtremist

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      To be fair, Sergio’s job was to do what was best for Fiat. It was the Obama regime that squandered our tax money propping up Fiat.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        “WASHINGTON — President George W. Bush announced Friday that he would extend up to $17.4 billion in emergency loans to prevent the collapse of General Motors and Chrysler, but he left it up to the next administration to determine how much sacrifice to demand from the hobbled automakers and their workers as part of the government’s effort to nurse Detroit back to health.”

        -New York Times DEC. 19, 2008

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          Saying Bush gave Chrysler to Fiat is like saying that JFK bombed Cambodia. The rebuttal to your position is right in your source. Bush gave them bridge loans to keep them afloat. Obama had no use for the law or concern for US interests in what he then did with the bankrupt automakers.

          • 0 avatar
            bd2

            Sure he did; Marchionne’s deal was the best that was on the table for Chrysler at the time.

            Esp. w/ all the pressure from Republicans about “Govt. Motors.”

            Speaking of which, the taxpayer would have made out better if there hadn’t been the pressure for the Fed to divest itself from GM as soon as possible.

            But all of this wouldn’t have been necessary if Republican de-regulation led by Phil Gramm didn’t lead to the RE bubble and then the inevitable pop – leading to the Great Recession.

            Also didn’t help that large activist shareholders of GM got their way and had GM do 2 share buy-backs which depleted GM’s cash reserves when they needed it most.

            Also didn’t help that all 3 domestic automakers didn’t have the greatest management over the previous decades.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Learn about the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Discussing the origins of the recession without knowing about it is to be avoided. Touch up on the Community Reinvestment Act while you’re at it.

          • 0 avatar
            bd2

            @Todd

            Are you talking to me?

            I’m deeply familiar w/ the CFMA – which, btw, included the “Enron Loophole”) and kept swaps unregulated at the insistence of none other than Phil Gramm – as well as the underlying causes of the Great Recession.

            Basically lived it.

            And after that was over, stated that Wall St./hedge fund tactics would move into healthcare (esp. pharmaceuticals)- which they have done.

    • 0 avatar
      ect

      The truth is that by the end of 2008 Chrysler was hemorrhaging money and was considered to be down for the count by just about everyone (myself included). That Marchionne was able to restore it to profitability and then growth was a major achievement by any measure, which deserves to be acknowledged.

      The obvious biases in the quote from AutoExtemist clearly cloud his judgment.

    • 0 avatar
      Inside Looking Out

      It tells me that Gergio was a very smart guy and true Italian patriot. He screwed those arrogant Americans, again. Since it’s done with Chrysler FIAT needs the new host like Nissan and Renault. But French and Japanese are not as easy to play games with.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        Fiat shook down GM in 2005 to the tune of two billion dollars and the return of a 10% equity position that had been 20% when GM bought it prior to Fiat diluting their own stock. Obama giving Chrysler and another pile of money to Fiat was his way of twisting the knife in the backs of Americans who have a clue what’s going on.

        • 0 avatar
          bd2

          Obama got so much flack from Republicans for “Govt. Motors” – do you really think there was appetite for the Fed to have an ownership stake in a 2nd automaker?

          Marchionne’s deal was the only deal on the table; if not that, it would have meant the Fed being the “lender of last resort” (as the credit markets had frozen) and taking an ownership interest in Chrysler.

  • avatar
    BunkerMan

    I can’t wait to see the new Renault Le-RAM.

  • avatar
    TotalNonStopCars

    UGH. You go ahead and do that Fiat. Yikes. Instead of FCA, maybe the name could be FART.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    I don’t see how 23% of the US market share would trigger antitrust regulators.

    On paper, this makes a lot of sense. Fiat can exit the US gracefully, Chrysler can get shot in the head (there is nothing on the product roadmap for at least another 24 months and the 300 death warranty is signed already). Jeep and RAM are two things keeping FCA afloat in North America today. Nissan becomes the primary auto brand and can rebrand RAM trucks. Dodge gets access to Renault platforms, Renault and Nissan get access to the Pentastar V6, and Nissan gets access to transmissions that aren’t a nightmare of ticking timebomb solenoids.

    The only other matchup for FCA that might make sense is Kia/Hyundai, but they would only be interested in Jeep and RAM. If the merger goes through, I don’t see how Chrysler survives. The Pacifica moves to Dodge and is badge engineered for Nissan and/or Infiniti.

  • avatar
    Inside Looking Out

    Lets count all brands:
    FIAT
    Lancia
    Alfa Romeo
    Maserati
    Chrysler
    Dodge
    Jeep
    Ram
    Renault
    Dacia
    Lada
    Nissan
    Datsun
    Infiniti
    Mitsubishi

    Isn’t it too many? GM never had as many brands.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      A few current and former GM brands:

      Chevrolet
      GMC
      Buick
      Oidsmobile
      Pontiac
      Saturn
      Cadillac
      LaSalle
      Hummer
      Holden
      Vauxhall
      Opel
      Isuzu
      Saab
      Saic
      Wulling
      MG
      Lotus
      Baojun
      Jiefang

      • 0 avatar
        RHD

        You can add Oakland to that list, GM Daewoo and Geo as well.

        When you add in their historic and current-day parts brands, heavy truck divisions, finance arm and military vehicle production the General dwarfs the proposed merger.

        If nothing else, it should be entertaining to watch. And maybe the Cactus will come stateside.

    • 0 avatar
      BklynPete

      It is plenty manageable. At least 5-6 of those Italian, Japanese and American brands die within 2 years, including Fiat,Chrysler and Infiniti. Several will never be seen in North America, including Renault.

  • avatar
    dtremit

    This alliance would seem to be an encore of sorts for Jeep and Renault. Perhaps they’ll release a commemorative medallion. But who will be its premier?

  • avatar
    namesakeone

    Why does this look like another step in eliminating the Chrysler and Dodge brands?

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Eventually one or more of these name plates will disappear years after a merger like Compaq disappeared into HP and like Gateway is disappearing into Acer over a number of years. I could see Fiat, Chrysler, and Dodge eventually disappearing and Ram and Jeep staying if this merger takes place. Ram and Jeep are the most valuable parts of FCA. Renault would get the plants, dealers, and distribution of FCA North America.

    • 0 avatar
      dtremit

      People have a lot more loyalty to car brands than to computer brands, though. And the Renault brand doesn’t have a very good reputation in the US after their last foray in the ’80s. And FCA hasn’t done very well with Fiat in the US despite a lot of trying.

      What’s more likely, I think, is to see fewer but different brands in each country, on the same cars. Chrysler and Dodge in North America, Fiat and Renault in Europe and South America. Jeep everywhere, of course.

      What no one here has mentioned is Renault’s ownership of Renault Samsung in Korea. Pretty easy to look at their model lineup and see some future Dodge and Chrysler sedans…

      • 0 avatar
        TMA1

        Most of those Samsungs are thinly veiled Nissans already. Not much to see there. Skip the SM5 and just stick a Dodge logo on the Altima.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        The Renault brand has a negative reputation as Fiat does. I don’t see Chrysler or Fiat surviving much longer. I don’t think it would do much good to rebadge Renaults as Chrysler and Dodges. I agree with one of the above comments that FCA would be better to merge with Hyundai/Kia which if you are going to rebadge at least Chrysler and Dodge would be getting a better quality. Better would be a joint venture with Hyundai/Kia or Mazda. The only reason I mentioned computer mergers is that Chrysler and Dodge as individual brands don’t bring that much to the table and could easily be killed off. As for Fiat few would miss the brand.

        • 0 avatar
          Inside Looking Out

          Italian government will not allow to kill FIAT. It is a matter of national pride. Lancia, one model brand, is still alive.

        • 0 avatar
          RHD

          They could bring back Plymouth, and sell rebadged Mitsubishis like they used to, and rename some funky French hatchbacks like AMC did with the R5/LeCar. (Plymouth Saguaro, anyone?)


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Inside Looking Out: There lot of them (Cactuses) in Arizona already.
  • ajla: “although she is a fairly conservative driver” That’s probably the best use case for modern...
  • ajla: “but there’s little doubt that if Toyota really put their mind to it they could improve the Tundra enough...
  • akear: Is the interior rubbish?
  • WalterRohrl: That’s still 100k sales per year that Ford would dearly love to have. At $10k per pop profit...

New Car Research

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
Terms of Use
Copyright
Privacy Policy