From Beta Forum - Chrysler/Fiat?

[OperaHawk]

David started a thread on the recent demand by the Obama Administration that Chrysler has 30 days to re-do their partnership with Fiat in order to receive up to $6 million in more bail-out money.

The crux of the agreement (find out on allpar.com) is that Fiat cannot have the 35% share of Chrysler, and Chrysler must make more cuts to prove that they are viable. The agreement between the two companies must be re-arranged, but it seems that both parties are willing to do whatever they can to make it work.

Why?

Fiat need to get back into the North American market, and using Chrysler's dealer network (as well as some plants being modified due to attrition of various models) is a no-brainer. Chrysler's lineup is too heavy on big cars and trucks, and even though Chrysler's technology on multiple cylinder deactivation in the best in the business, it won't save the company. Chrysler desperately needs Fiat's small engine technology, dual-clutch transmissions, and most important, Fiat's small cars RIGHT NOW to get people into the showrooms.

Most agree that Alfa will come over first, and probably as soon as this Fall, as the Alfa MiTo. It may be re-badged as a Chrysler, or just sold as an Alfa.

I would personally love to see this. I'm an old Mopar fan, having been heavily into 80's Shelby/Dodges before bitten by the Lancia bug. Chrysler has turned themselves around before, and was quite viable until the Daimler fiasco ruined a one-proud company. Nissan's partnership with Renault has proven a success. I think a Chrysler-Fiat alliance would be beneficial for both marques, and still save thousand of jobs here in the US.

My $.02...

[Scott H]

I really like the idea of having 500s back on these shores and also ALFA.
There is all of this speculation that there will be a car here in a few months. From what I know of the development cycle and certification process I just don't see it. The US and California emission requirements are very specific all of the way down to the CAN protocol that controls the communications between ECUs. Some standards are likely met but no where near all of them. If a car was not designed to be sold here originally FIAT would not add the millions of dollars to the development for the hell of it. Our emission requirements are very specific and we have some peculiar hoops the auto makers have to jump through.

Then there is safety. A bunch of interior trim pieces to some parts of the world are crumple zones in the US. A simple plastic part has to be crash tested with a simulated head to establish a Head Injury Criteria number. A huge number of parts have these tests done and then are redesigned to decrease the HIC. A wire harness running under a trim piece can make it fail HIC. Adding a few mm of clearance here and there can change its behavior and material selection now has to include specific performance specs in addition to appearance.

These things don't happen in a few months. I can't wait to see them but it won't be overnight. I really struggle to think that the shrewd Italian lawyers and bean counters would be spending big $$ in development costs when the deal is not even done. Car companies don't have a lot spare money right now.

These are the same folks that negotiated the $2bn deal with GM. Brilliant minds. I foresee FIAT playing this out where they will be in a pretty decent position in a few years.

>Scott

[Jim Keller]

I would like an Alfa Mito, but I won't buy it if they re-badge it as a Chrysler, reason being I am sure they will screw up the look with trim and grill changes too, and I want the Abarth version, not the wimpy base model........that might get my Italian fix with a car I wouldn't have to work on myself thanks to a warranty! LOL

I would do a Fiat 500 Abarth as well possibly. I would have to see and sit in/drive both to really know. What I do know is I want a new sporty car, we have the Fusion so I do not need practical, just want cool looks, fun, good fuel mileage, great handling and decent power to pass.....oh, and get on the freeways safely without having to pray I don't get killed in the process like I use to with my 79 Pontiac Bonneville and it's very smooth and great mileage but horribly dangerously powerless 301 engine

[OperaHawk]

Scott brings up a good point - how long it would take to certify Fiats and Alfas for U.S. sale. If anyone overseas knows if Fiat thought about that when they designed their latest cars, I'd love to know.

From what I can tell, most auto companies overseas build their cars to be certifiable (no pun intended) here; I know Fiat's been out of the U.S. market for decades, but I also know they have been trying to find a way in in the past few years, so maybe they have been building on a 'ready-for-the-States' plan.

From what I've read, the MiTo would be sold as an Alfa. The 500 might get re-badged as a Dodge to fill in the gap for a subcompact, while the Linea (sp) would replace the Caliber (which was a mistake by Daimler; they never should have stopped building the Neon). The Alfa 159 is being targeted as the Avenger/Sebring replacement, while the Panda Cross 4x4 would be re-badged as a Jeep.

I'm excited about the prospects if it all comes to fruition. Alfa and Fiat back on our shores, with an established dealer network to help. Also, if Chrysler is given breathing room, they can become profitable again, while still making some of the sexiest cars built in the USA.
SBJ

[ckeen74]

I was listening to the radio a couple of days ago where they were already discussing this, and an analyst said it would take a couple of years to prepare the cars for the US market... EPA, DOT, etc.... exactly the hoops that those of us who've entertained the thought of importing a euro car have encountered.

[DJ]

I would add, however, that FIAT has been planning to bring Alfa back to the USA for several years now so I'd assume they are already well down that road with their Alfa line. Last I read, the MiTo is supposed to be here fairly soon.

[davidb]

Me-thinks as demanding as Obama has become [re: Chrysler]
he may demand the EPA, DOT, NTHA, whoever cut some corners
regarding certification/importation of a given Fiat group car.
My guess is we'll see something much sooner than yrs. from now.

[len_newstrum]

The difficulty in converting (redesigning?)an existing foreign design to meet US requirements should not be underestimated. Hopefully, Fiat learned that from from the Beta fiasco. If you want to understand how sweeping the conversion can be, go the Haynes manual and compare the wiring diagram for the Italian Beta with the US version wiring diagram. Just look at them from a few feet away to get the full effect. To those of us that work on them it should be apparent what a half-assed conversion was done; all those cascaded relays, for instance. Add to that the poor factory shop manuals and you have a recipe for disaster.

Len

[OperaHawk]

as much as I agree with you, Len, Fiat has been building its latest cars (same w/Alfa) for an expected U.S. release date of 2011-2012. If the 500 and MiTo are going to be basically unchanged from their rollouts (I think the 500 was in '06, the MiTo just came out), they have been designed and built with the idea of requiring only a few changes for DOT certification. I think that's part of the reson Chrysler wants this alliance - they'd have cars that are ready for US sale NOW, if not in a few months. Rebadging/cosmetic changes should only take a year for us to see the Panda, for example, be badged as a Jeep.

Now building Alfas and Fiats in the States, that's another whole kettle of fish. A lot of plants would have to be retooled, but I understand that it's not as big of a deal, especially with Chrysler plants - they have moved entire lines to other plants with a minimum of fuss. The first plant I could see being retooled would be Belvidere, which is currently making Calibers and Compasses. That plant could probably be retooled for a Fiat or Alfa within a year (I know this because I used to live in Chicagoland, and I know a few of the plant managers from my Mopar days).

We'll see what happens in the next thirty days...

SBJ

[1,6 HF]

I think Steven's right about conformance woth DOT/EPA. For one thing, the world's more level that it used to be when it comes to safety and emissions standards; as far as emissions standards are concerned, Europe is probably tougher than we are. Also not to be underestimated is the changes that computers have brought to modeling for structural analysis and crash analysis. Any analyst who says it will take 'a couple of years to prepare cars for the US market' sounds like a fool or a financial analyst (that may be redundant).

I saw the 500 that drove across the US last year; sat in it, but didn't drive it. Nice car; great packaging and very high 'cute quotient', the latter of which certainly won't hurt US sales. I'd take it over a Mini or a Smart any day.

[OperaHawk]

Most current news (from what I can find):

Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne jetted to Chrysler LLC's offices in Auburn Hills on Monday after the Obama Administration's order that Fiat can only start with a 20% share of Chrysler, with 5% increases after meeting specific guidelines. Apparently the talks are going well, with Fiat agreeing to the administration's concessions.

Cerberus Capital will be giving up its 80.1% share in Chrysler LLC. This one caught me as a surprise - I don't know who will be taking over that share - the government?

But so far, it seems like the alliance is going to happen...

SBJ

[Scott H]

For one thing, the world's more level that it used to be when it comes to safety and emissions standards; as far as emissions standards are concerned, Europe is probably tougher than we are. Also not to be underestimated is the changes that computers have brought to modeling for structural analysis and crash analysis. Any analyst who says it will take 'a couple of years to prepare cars for the US market' sounds like a fool or a financial analyst (that may be redundant).

Ed,

You are wrong. The world is still very segmented and there are so many standards it is mind boggling.

There are over 70 different requirements for seat belt performance across the planet.

We don’t even have the same emission rules in this country. CARB has its rules and the EPA has their own. Did you not read about BHO's signing of the new CO2 laws just a few weeks ago? It allows any state to set their own standards. CA is the one who brought the suit and now have a standard that is unique to the rest of the world.

To put some of this into perspective if you look at the software of a typical powertrain ECU, ~20% is dedicated to running the engine. The other 80% is used for emission monitoring and testing. The 20% portion of these ECUs are a far more complex than the top of the line MoTec. A car co cannot spend millions on speculation.

Why does the US not have these clean burning high mpg diesels that Europe has? It is the emission standards. The EU uses a combined method of compiling NOx and CO where the US measures them independantly. HUGE difference. Europe is not more stringent that the US.

Crash simulations are great but they only go so far. There are far too many variables for a computer to get right when you take into account all of the potential production deviations. No car co. goes into production before they crash test a lot of cars. Again, each counry has their certification requiremnts and test methods. That means that a there is a whole lot full of cars that get crashed for ea. country. Again, the US has two measures, NHTSA and IIHS. Each have theri own test methods and therefore each platform gets tested multiple times for each standard.

Oh, I am not an analyst. :D

You know, Mullaly has wanted to bring over Ford of Europe cars here for over two years and has not yet got it done if that gives you an indication of how hard it is. ALFA has been talking about it but if they were months away from selling they would be doing a lot more to build excitement, auto shows, etc.

Scott

[1,6 HF]

Scott,

Not saying there aren't plenty of differences but they don't make it quite as tough as you're portraying it. Yes, there are 2 US emissions stardards--CA and the rest--but most manufacturer's solve that by designing to the tougher standard. And the EU has reduced the number of different standard in Europe. Again, I'm not saying it doesn't take work, but the playing field is a lot more even that it was in, say, the 1960s or 1970s.

And computers don't solve all problems by themselves, but they significantly accelerate the design & development process by eliminating a lot of the trial and error. And, last I heard, US DOT does indeed accept modeling in lieu of actual testing for some crash tests and other standards. Sorry, but I don't buy the idea that 'there are too many variables and production deviations for a computer to get right'. Finite element analysis doesn't eliminate all need for actual crash testing, but it reduces the length of the development cycle. Particularly when you're speaking, as we were, of modifying existing platforms.

I seriously doubt that the problems in bringing Ford of Europe cars here are primarily technical engineering issues. I suspect they have much more to do with production capacity, marketing, financing, union issues, and the like. It's been far more profitable to sell SUVs and pick-ups than small cars. If we adopted more aggressive CAFE standards, or if those trucks were factored into the average and required offsets, you'd have seen all the engineering problems solved in short order.

[mogul_x]

Ed,

You should really defer to Scott on this one. As someone else who works in the industry, I can confirm that things are exactly as tough as he's saying. If anything, things are worse now than they were in the '60's and '70's because there are so many more rules to comply with, and some of them are working against each other - particularly NHTSA and IIHS standards. A vehicle designed for top performance in one will often not do as well in the other. It's tough to get a design that performs equally well in both simultaneously.

The regulatory hurdles go both ways, too. Getting US cars certified to meet European standards requires complete recertification, even though they were designed to the generally more stringent US standards. Until the entire world adopts one set of standards, you're always going to have compatibility issues moving from one market to another.

As far as CAFE goes - that's a completely different topic unrelated to the regulatory hurdles preventing the US from importing European cars. Up until a few years ago there weren't any fuel economy regulations in Europe. European car fleets got better mileage than US fleets because they pay 5 bucks a gallon or more in gas taxes, and the customers can't afford anything else.

[DJ]

Up until a few years ago there weren't any fuel economy regulations in Europe. European car fleets got better mileage than US fleets because they pay 5 bucks a gallon or more in gas taxes, and the customers can't afford anything else.

Actually, they've had "de facto" fuel economy standards for a long time because they tax cars based on displacement. I believe the "break point" is typically at around 1.3 litres. Fuel is expensive only because of the taxes imposed. Interestingly, France has been trying to promote diesel for some time and diesel fuel is significantly cheaper there because they tax it at a much lower level.

[1,6 HF]

You should really defer to Scott on this one. As someone else who works in the industry, I can confirm that things are exactly as tough as he's saying. If anything, things are worse now than they were in the '60's and '70's because there are so many more rules to comply with, and some of them are working against each other - particularly NHTSA and IIHS standards. A vehicle designed for top performance in one will often not do as well in the other. It's tough to get a design that performs equally well in both simultaneously...

I don't doubt that it's tough to optimize for both test standards. And I'm sure that it's always a case of 'designing for the test'.


As far as CAFE goes - that's a completely different topic unrelated to the regulatory hurdles preventing the US from importing European cars. Up until a few years ago there weren't any fuel economy regulations in Europe. European car fleets got better mileage than US fleets because they pay 5 bucks a gallon or more in gas taxes, and the customers can't afford anything else.

As DJ implies, the net effect would tend to be the same. But I wasn't arguing that CAFE presented a regulatory hurdle--my point was quite different. I was suggesting that higher CAFE would likely have provided the economic incentive for Ford to have accelerated its plans to introduce some of its European products here. I will defer to the industry experience of others on this forum, but I'd be very surprised if the automotive industry didn't conform to the general rule that the relative speed of design/engineering projects tends to be related to their economic priority.

[ncundy]

There aren't many places in Europe now that tax on capacity. Car tax in the UK is based on emissions (CO2), France doesn't have a car tax as such, Germany has system based on engine capacity and emissions, Italian car tax is I think based on power with supplimental tax for your car radio.

You are correct about fuel price being the driver for car choice and general power train design trends(we pay about £1 / liter at the moment) but it is mostly made up of Duty (an additional amount of money) not Tax (which is a multiplier).

[DJ]

There aren't many places in Europe now that tax on capacity.

Yeah, what I should have said was that this was the case in the past and that's a big reason the UK and Europe have so many smaller cars with small engines. The net effect of this was a de facto fuel economy (and emissions) standard, although not directly stated as such.

It's possible that in the UK there is a more discrete differentiation of duty and tax. Here in the USA, each State and the Federal government each add on "X" cents per gallon and it's referred to as a tax. More specifically United States law defines tax in this way.


A tax "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government […] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name."

[ncundy]

Fair point, different places different definitions !

Fuel price make up in the UK is:

* Petrol Fuel Duty - 50.35p
* VAT (15%) - 13p
* Refinery Petrol Costs - 31.75p
* Forecourt Costs - 3p
* Forecourt Profit - 2p

I agree that we have had for along time a defacto fuel economy standard, although one would argue that you did too, just that it was lower :D

But perversly it is the US that led the way in defining and encoding many of the fuel and emission standards. The original Euro work was based heavily on the American standards (from California ?) and the off-road legislation (we are on Stage 3A) were developed from the US TIER standards that have been around for quite a while.

In the end there will be even closer harmonisation as the supply base becomes more consolidated, customers demand more for less, and the major manufacturers pressurise the national regulatory bodies. It will take some time (maybe more so in the US) as the very same differences that prevent the manufacturers expanding into foriegn markets, presents a high entry barrier for the competition on the home patch, something that I'm sure the US car industry encouraged for quite some time. In this case the need for foreign investment and/or foreign rescue may be compromised because of this. Sometimes that which you imagine to be a protection can bite you in the ass !

[Scott H]

Yes, there are 2 US emissions stardards--CA and the rest--but most manufacturer's solve that by designing to the tougher standard.

If only it were as simple as you describe...

It is not a matter of CARB saying you need to be under 10 g/mi and EPA saying you need to be under 12 g/mi. Then designing to the 10 g/mi spec. That does happen for some standards but the real issue is they have totally different testing protocols. CARB will say that ABC has to be tested every 10 milliseconds. EPA's version will say that you have to test DEF that is close to CARB's ABC test but not quite and you only have to do that test once per drive cycle. Two completely different tests, different results, and you have to have the car perform both simultaneously. These are all on the same system.

Scott

[mogul_x]

I was suggesting that higher CAFE would likely have provided the economic incentive for Ford to have accelerated its plans to introduce some of its European products here. ...I'd be very surprised if the automotive industry didn't conform to the general rule that the relative speed of design/engineering projects tends to be related to their economic priority.

I agree to a point, but I don't think that CAFE by itself is much of an incentive to increase efficiency. Economic priorities are why the US Big Three devoted most of their energies to developing high profit trucks and SUV's, and neglected their small car programs. If there's no demand for fuel sippers, all it does is force automakers to build cars than nobody wants, then sell them at a loss to make their fleet numbers. When gas prices spiked, there was suddenly a demand for fuel efficient cars, but that demand just wasn't there during periods of cheap fuel. Many of the european marques that export to the USA simply pay the gas guzzler penalties, because it's more feasible for them to pass it along to their more affluent customers.


Actually, they've had "de facto" fuel economy standards for a long time because they tax cars based on displacement. I believe the "break point" is typically at around 1.3 litres Yeah, I think it's a graduated tax - several break points at various displacements, with correspondingly higher taxes for each increment - but it's still not a fuel efficiency regulation in the same sense ours are. It encourages efficiency, but doesn't require it. The consumer ultimately decides, and automakers sell product based on that demand.

Even their more recent regulations are going after CO2 emissions, not gas mileage explicitly, although at least there is a direct correlation between fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions.

[1,6 HF]

... Economic priorities are why the US Big Three devoted most of their energies to developing high profit trucks and SUV's, and neglected their small car programs.

That was really my point. And part of the reason for the high profitability of pick-ups and SUVs was the politics of treating them differently than cars--to the point of offering special tax breaks if they were made heavy enough. In other words, it has nothing to do with the difficulty of meeting international engineering standards.


... If there's no demand for fuel sippers, all it does is force automakers to build cars than nobody wants, then sell them at a loss to make their fleet numbers. When gas prices spiked, there was suddenly a demand for fuel efficient cars, but that demand just wasn't there during periods of cheap fuel. Many of the european marques that export to the USA simply pay the gas guzzler penalties, because it's more feasible for them to pass it along to their more affluent customers...

And I agree with this to a point--as far as small car demand is concerned, the price of gas undeniably has a great deal to do with it.

But some of the 'consumer demand' for SUVs and pick-ups has to be seen as self-fulfilling prophesy. It's had not to wonder what demand there would be for small cars if they had the same level of advertising budgets as 'personal trucks', or if NASCAR had developed a race series around small cars rather than tube frames with pseudo-pick-up truck bodies.

[DJ]

And I agree with this to a point--as far as small car demand is concerned, the price of gas undeniably has a great deal to do with it.

But some of the 'consumer demand' for SUVs and pick-ups has to be seen as self-fulfilling prophesy. It's had not to wonder what demand there would be for small cars if they had the same level of advertising budgets as 'personal trucks', or if NASCAR had developed a race series around small cars rather than tube frames with pseudo-pick-up truck bodies.

Personally, I think this all has a lot more to do with the fact that no one wants to have to drive cross-country (or even across Kansas) in a Smart Car. IMO, the distances people drive in this country tend to factor more into their car buying decisions than even fuel costs.

Personally, I think if we had a true alternative to air-travel such as a realistic and comprehensive high-speed rail transit system, people would be more amenable to owning smaller cars for primarily local use. I know I would.

As much as I would love to still have the incredibly hot little Renaultspeed 197 I had in the UK, I just couldn't justify it as my only vehicle here in the US. A lot of us here in "the middle" aren't much interested in having a mini or even a super-mini as our primary vehicle when we often have to drive 1-2,000 miles to go somewhere. Especially when a substantial part of that drive is interstate highway across Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, etc.

But that's just my opinion.

[1,6 HF]

DJ,

Clearly, you do 1,000 - 2,000-mile drives far more often than I do. (Seriously, you "often have to drive 1-2,000 miles to go somewhere"?) In any case, I'd agree that I wouldn't want to do so in a Smart (a car that doesn't much interest me at all), but I equally wouldn't want to do so in a pick-up.

But YMMV.

[DJ]

DJ,

Clearly, you do 1,000 - 2,000-mile drives far more often than I do. (Seriously, you "often have to drive 1-2,000 miles to go somewhere"?) In any case, I'd agree that I wouldn't want to do so in a Smart (a car that doesn't much interest me at all), but I equally wouldn't want to do so in a pick-up.

But YMMV.

Seriously. I generally end up driving those kinds of distances about 3-6 times a year on average and a good bit of other mid-range driving depending on what's going on with friends and family. That's often enough for me and I have a lot of friends and family who do it more often than I do.

FWIW, while I normally don't take the pickup, I'd much rather cruise across the great plains in it than in an econobox. It's quicker, has much more room, is much more comfortable, has much better range, and is significantly safer in winter months for uncertain weather conditions.

[deltahead156]

I've done between 35 to 37 thousand miles per year the past 3 just to show up for work,and that is why i bought a ten yr old 740i. mileage sucks but like Ed said not gonna do it in a truck or tin can.

[1,6 HF]

...FWIW, while I normally don't take the pickup, I'd much rather cruise across the great plains in it than in an econobox. It's quicker, has much more room, is much more comfortable, has much better range, and is significantly safer in winter months for uncertain weather conditions.

Yes, but we started this discussion talking about efficient small cars; I don't accept that "efficient small car" necessarily translates into "econobox". I don't think there's a chance it would ever be brought over here, but simply to use it as an example, a small car like the Lancia Musa could never be called an econobox.

And, no offense to your Ford SuperDuty, but I'd rather do a long trip in a Musa (or its equivalent) than a pick-up. But maybe that's just me; I just don't enjoy driving trucks.

[DJ]

Yes, but we started this discussion talking about efficient small cars; I don't accept that "efficient small car" necessarily translates into "econobox".

I'd agree with that, as well. Probably shouldn't have said "econobox". However, the vast majority of efficient small cars on the road in Europe and the UK most definitely fit that term quite aptly.

I like the Musa quite a lot, as well as the Ypsilon. They are definitely quite upscale and more comfortable. My Renaultspeed was quite an upscale super-mini, too but it just doesn't fit that cross-country trip scenario for most folks I know. If nothing else, they are simply not capable of carrying the amount of "stuff" most families need to take on a cross-country trip here in the US.

With almost 9 inches more wheelbase than the Ypsilon, I'm sure that the Musa would certainly be a better candidate than some others. However, it's still about 3 inches shorter than my RS 197 was so I'd still be reluctant to select it over any of our other cars for such a trip.


And, no offense to your Ford SuperDuty, but I'd rather do a long trip in a Musa (or its equivalent) than a pick-up. But maybe that's just me; I just don't enjoy driving trucks.

FWIW, I hate driving the truck around town but on the interstate it's a completely different experience. Given the choice, I'd still choose it for cross-country trips over most minis most of the time.

[len_newstrum]

I've developed a rather different transportation concept over the years.

You don't buy one pair of shoes to use under all circumstances. You buy dress shoes, boots, sneakers, slippers, etc. The same can be applied to vehicle ownership. Many, if not most people, in the US are two or more vehicle families so car selection can be important.

One economical car each for man and wife to commute. One SUV for carrying "stuff" and more people over longer distances of up to around 500 miles and back and to serve as a backup in case one of the commuter cars has a problem (dead battery, etc). I even have a 'moss-mobile' van for taking crap to the dump instead of having garbage service, carrying concrete blocks, towing a rented Bobcat, etc.

The secret is owning older cars which are much cheaper to operate (cheap insurance and taxes), especially if if you don't put a lot of miles on them. If you need to go over 500 miles, fly and rent a car at the other end. It's easier, faster, and--by avoiding the cost of owning a newish car and enroute motels--cheaper.

My stable:
88 Toyota Corolla sport coupe: My commuter car
89 Isuzu I-Mark Rally Sport: My wife's commuter car
88 Plymouth Voyager: Shopping trips, medium length trips within the state
64 Chevy Van: Dump truck (which I bought used 30 years ago)
78 Lancia Beta: Just for fun or to present a good image:)
78 Lancia Beta: Parts for the above.

Do the math! Of course if you really need some sort of phallic symbol, buy a new Hummer and use it go to the grocery store.

[Scott H]

Yesterday's Automotive News has a story that gives some estimates on when FIAT may make it back in the US.

They say "one vehicle" may be ready by Summer 2011. It also says it will take 27 months to start up FIAT lines. Then, 3 -5 years to fully integrate the FIAT line up into Chrysler.

So, this says that they have been working on one car but all of the others are waiting until a deal is done.

Scott

[Will]

I can't speak for anyone else but when I'm driving 1K-1200mi, it's invariably to go pick up something big and heavy that requires my truck.

There are these things called airplanes for the trips to go see family or make appointments 1K miles away. I know they built a big fancy new airport in Denver a while back, too. :)

[DJ]

Sorry, but that's a rather silly response.

I happen to fly ALL the time. But that still doesn't negate the need for me to drive long distances at times. Besides, sometimes I just can't or don't want to spend that much money for personal travel. Fine if someone else does, though.

[davidb]

Heard the latest? Fiat wants union wage concessions or no deal.
Surprising to me is the Canadians are the ones digging in their
heels. Current plans [if deal is sealed] is for the importation of
500s early next yr., unspecified Alfa model to be built in either
US or Canada down the road. Story on CNN Money.