- Joined
- Jun 17, 2015
- Messages
- 109
- Points
- 32
Strange is accurate, although I appreciate it maybe sounded unkind. I was referring to the way that the company makes a wide range of vehicles, but has been forced into doing so under different names. Ie they make a small car as the Fiat 500, SUV as a Jeep or 500X, sportscar as a Challenger, luxury cars as Maserati or an Alfa, super car as a Ferrari etc.
I know VW group do the same trick of sharing across platforms and brands, but if you take Audi..they do a relatively small afford car (the A1) all the way to to the R8. The rest of their brands do have limitations though. Likewise Ford start with the KA (which is a lot of 500/panda ?) and end up at the GT. Honda the Jazz to the NSX. Nissan the Micra to the GTR. They all get to do this under one name and therefore normally one showroom to display there products. I think the way that FCA is fragmented slows it down a bit. That's all.
FCA are in an interestingly different position. They still have a fair amount of debt, but they are playing to their brands local strengths and it's working well. They aren't getting massive global market penetration for every name, but they don't need to and it's not cost effective. GM found that when they tried to launch Chevy in the UK.
Speaking of GM, the current 'takeover standoff' is also interesting. Fiat are trying to force a merger with a larger rival, it looks like they're willing to go down the hostile route if needed. GM are also setup in a similar way, making a lot of different products under different names in different markets. But FCA need to be careful. Porsche tried something similar on VW. They went round buying as many shares as they could on the quiet before announcing their intentions. They racked up a lot of debt in doing so, got stalled by legal disputes and regulators, then the markets crashed and they had all the debts weighing on them. VW ended up having to take Porsche on to protect itself, but they got a pretty good deal in the process. At the time Porsche boasted the most profitable margins on any car. Plus it plugged a hole in their offering. More expensive then VW and Audi, cheaper then Lamborghini or Rolls Royce.
FCA's Alfa reboot is a good thing. I'm pleased that they saw sense by dropping the MX5 tie-up and letting it go as a Fiat. I can only say that I suspect they saw Tata's turnaround of Jaguar as a template. Stop sharing parts/platforms to cut corners, invest in new designs and platforms that are benchmarked against class leaders, market the brand on history and heritage. They got all this right for one car and then the rest is now following (XE, F Type, F Pace). Ford must be wondering what could've been if they had not been using Jaguar to knock out a posh Mondeo.
The real shame is Lancia. In all the years it seems to not have seen anything in investment and is now almost buried. When you look at some of the cars they used to make and their history. It's a crying shame to see the name in such neglect.
I know VW group do the same trick of sharing across platforms and brands, but if you take Audi..they do a relatively small afford car (the A1) all the way to to the R8. The rest of their brands do have limitations though. Likewise Ford start with the KA (which is a lot of 500/panda ?) and end up at the GT. Honda the Jazz to the NSX. Nissan the Micra to the GTR. They all get to do this under one name and therefore normally one showroom to display there products. I think the way that FCA is fragmented slows it down a bit. That's all.
FCA are in an interestingly different position. They still have a fair amount of debt, but they are playing to their brands local strengths and it's working well. They aren't getting massive global market penetration for every name, but they don't need to and it's not cost effective. GM found that when they tried to launch Chevy in the UK.
Speaking of GM, the current 'takeover standoff' is also interesting. Fiat are trying to force a merger with a larger rival, it looks like they're willing to go down the hostile route if needed. GM are also setup in a similar way, making a lot of different products under different names in different markets. But FCA need to be careful. Porsche tried something similar on VW. They went round buying as many shares as they could on the quiet before announcing their intentions. They racked up a lot of debt in doing so, got stalled by legal disputes and regulators, then the markets crashed and they had all the debts weighing on them. VW ended up having to take Porsche on to protect itself, but they got a pretty good deal in the process. At the time Porsche boasted the most profitable margins on any car. Plus it plugged a hole in their offering. More expensive then VW and Audi, cheaper then Lamborghini or Rolls Royce.
FCA's Alfa reboot is a good thing. I'm pleased that they saw sense by dropping the MX5 tie-up and letting it go as a Fiat. I can only say that I suspect they saw Tata's turnaround of Jaguar as a template. Stop sharing parts/platforms to cut corners, invest in new designs and platforms that are benchmarked against class leaders, market the brand on history and heritage. They got all this right for one car and then the rest is now following (XE, F Type, F Pace). Ford must be wondering what could've been if they had not been using Jaguar to knock out a posh Mondeo.
The real shame is Lancia. In all the years it seems to not have seen anything in investment and is now almost buried. When you look at some of the cars they used to make and their history. It's a crying shame to see the name in such neglect.