Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    FCA Sees Jeep Becoming Quite Big In Sales

      How big? Try 7 million vehicles

    Trying to figure what is going with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and Jeep could be a full-time job. This week has seen Chinese Automaker Great Wall announce its intentions of possibly buying Jeep from FCA, before backtracking on that a day later. Then rumors surfaced that FCA is considering spinning off Maserati and Alfa Romeo, along with its components operations. Now there is another twist.

    According to a report from Bloomberg, FCA believes Jeep could sell as many vehicles as a standalone automaker thanks to the increased demand for SUVs. The company forecasts that Jeep's annual sales will rise 30 percent to two million next year. FCA CEO Sergio Marchionne told analysts that the brand could deliver up to seven million vehicles a year if demand for SUVs keeps rising. 

    But for Jeep to reach that ambitious sales goal, they would need to have their lineup (including the new Wrangler, Wagoneer, Grand Wagoneer) to sell 50 percent more vehicles than what FCA delivered last year.

    “It seems pretty pie-in-the-sky at this point,” said Richard Hilgert, an autos analyst at Morningstar.

    Hilgert does also note most observers thought it was crazy that Jeep could expand to 2 million in annual sales by 2018 - something that is likely to happen.

    Marchionne also talked about why it would be a bad idea to split Jeep away from FCA.

    “We do need to worry about the stump that’s left behind,” Marchionne said.

    “If we start picking away all the things that appear to be interesting to people, then I think we’re going to end up with a sub-optimal business that cannot run.”

    It should be noted that only a few months ago, Marchionne floated the idea of spinning off Jeep.

    Source: Bloomberg

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    :roflmao: Of course Sergio would say it was a bad idea to split Jeep away from the rest of FCA US or Europe. Jeep is paying to keep the rest of the product lines up and running.

    Sell off Jeep without the rest of the US products and FCA would just be in a nose dive of spending.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Jeep and Ram are probably the only brands in the entire FCA organization bringing in any real cash.  Fiat commercial in Europe maybe also as the Promaster equivalents there seem quite popular. 

    Maserati may be profitable, but it is so niche market at this point that it can't be making serious volumes of cash even if the ROI is decent.  Plus they're still using Chrysler parts bin for far too much of the Maserati interior.

    There's no way that Alfa is profitable yet. 

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I am seeing Maseratis every other day- I think recently posting about the brand has made me notice the big chrome 1950's script Maser likes to slap on the butts of all their cars. I saw 2 yesterday alone (that I noticed). Sales runs about 12K in the U.S. and 36K globally. I have no idea what their parts sharing or profit may be tho.

    Beyond that I agree with DD- Jeep & Ram are likely the only profit centers, possibly Maser and Dodge. At this point I believe Chrysler, unfortunately, is probably in the red. That's a GD shame in my book.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    FCA has pension and debt liabilities still too.  Something a Chinese car maker probably doesn't have to worry about.  Which is what makes the Jeep brand by itself so valuable.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Jeep brand is valuable because of worldwide appeal, iconic & aspirational product and 1.4 million units sold last year. They are gunning for 2 million and will likely get there.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Lyriq Chief Engineer, Jamie Brewer, recently explained to GM Authority that the team decided to prioritize rear cargo space over two separate cargo areas. Thus, the 2023 Cadillac Lyriq will have a larger traditional rear storage area. In fact, according to Brewer, that enables the Lyriq to boast the “largest cargo volume in its competitive set.” That made us wonder what, exactly, is the Lyriq’s competitive set. According to Cadillac spokesperson, Katie Minter, it consists of the Audi e-tron and Jaguar I-Pace. “Lyriq is aimed at customers that are looking for a luxury SUV with outstanding styling, ride and handling and seamlessly integrated technology. In this instance, we’re looking at vehicles such as the Audi e-tron and Jaguar I-Pace,” Minter told GM Authority in an emailed statement. So then, Lyriq has a maximum cargo volume of 60.8 cubic feet behind the first row seats and 28.0 cubic feet behind the second row. When compared to the Audi e-tron and the Jaguar I-Pace, the Lyriq does offer more space in the back. 2023 Cadillac Lyriq Cargo vs. e-tron I-Pace   Cadillac Lyriq Audi e-tron Jaguar I-Pace Rear cargo volume behind second row (cu. ft.) 28.0 28.5 25.3 Rear cargo volume behind first row (cu. ft.) 60.8 56.5 51.0 Frunk cargo volume (cu. ft.) N/A 2.12 0.95 Total front & rear cargo volume (cu. ft.)* 28.0 30.62 26.25 * With second row seats upright However, both the e-tron and the I-Pace feature frunks (2.12 cubic feet in the e-tron, 0.95 cubic feet in the I-Pace respectively), allowing the e-tron to have slightly more total cargo volume (combined frunk and rear cargo area). https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/05/heres-why-the-2023-cadillac-lyriq-doesnt-have-a-frunk/  
    • That's probably a better worded way to put it. It's a missed opportunity.  They're all liquid cooled at this point and I can't imagine Ford and Tesla are having battery cooling issues, at least I haven't heard of any yet and I've watched a fair amount on the Mach-E and know somebody with a pair of Teslas in Nevada.  I don't believe lack of cooling has ever been a factor in an EV catching fire. It's always something shorting and sparking with poor connection(s) somewhere.  I'd also like to learn why. They have to have a good justification, I know they're not a bunch of idiots who "didn't think of it".  I just don't want the press release answer of "we needed the space for packaging". 
    • Hummer EV (and Silverado EV) are much bigger and truckular...so they have a lot more space underneath for the dirty bits.   The Lyriq isn't a high riding 4x4, so it has to use space for the electric motor(s), power brake system, HVAC, radiator, etc under the hood...
    • Ive read that the Lyriq has a 5 link suspension system front and back.  Maybe that suspension set-up limits the space for the Lyriq?
    • Lack of a frunk in the Lyriq for me, not necessarily looks like a mistake.  I dont feel like it might be a mistake.  A lost opportunity to offer a tad more storage space is how I would classify it rather than it being aa mistake. Because I reserve my opinion to see how GM's Ultium platform is engineered and utilized.  Yes, there is free space up there in the front.  If GM engineered it for the use for powertrain bits, computing ECUs, electrical harnesses  or whatnot instead of cramming those where the batteries are and limiting cooling hardware and other stuff limiting the cooling space for batteries, then Id say a job well done for GM engineering.   Batteries, with what Ive read on them, need space and hardware to properly cool.  All others cram all kinds of stuff in that batteerry space just to have a frunk.  That is one solution that benefits the consumer for storage. But if cooling is not adequate, then it takes away from that advantage and becomes a disadvantage in another way in some form or other. If GM managed to have their batteries perform better than Ford or Tesla because they took away the consumer's advantage for a frunk, but gave the consumers a better performing battery, then the consumer has that as an advantage. Remember, batteries do catch on fire after and insufficient cooling might actual be a cause regardless how good Tesla cools their batteries....or anybody else's battery tech... Including GM's Bolt.   https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/22/tesla-fire-sacramento/ Maybe GM and LG have learned a lesson and maybe this is a solution?   I dont know as I dont know how GM uses the frunk space for the Lyriq.    I itching to learn more about it though.  Would be interesing to know why the Hummer EV has a frunk and the Lyrriq does not.  Is it because the Hummer has an abundance of space underneath where thee batteries go and the Lyriq is best engineered to use the frunk space instead?  
  • Social Stream

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. bobo
      (54 years old)
    2. loki
      (39 years old)
  • Who's Online (See full list)

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We  Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets


  • Create New...