Would it matter whether the White Star Line fired Captain Smith after the Titanic hit the iceberg? Not in terms of the sinking that was already under way. And at least Captain Smith went down with his ship.
Carlos Tavares – the now ex-captain of the Stellantis, which owns the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram truck brands – walks away with the tens of millions he was paid while the Stellantis lists, preparatory to that great and final plunge down to the bottom.
There is no meaningful accountability at the highest levels of the car industry. CEOs are paid literally tens of millions annually – as in each year – amounting over the course of just one year (never mind four or five years) to generational wealth that ensures their children and grandchildren will never have to work.
Thus, a firing is something largely ceremonial. It is without meaningful repercussions – as there would and will be for the thousands of people who work for Chrysler, Dodge Jeep and Ram when they are let go for reasons having nothing to do with their performance on the job. Carlos will retire – very comfortably. They will face looming mortgage past-due notices and the great fun that attends having to look for a new job, which is especially fun when you’re in your 50s or 60s.
Arguably, the disconnect between rewards – and meaningful consequences – that exists at the top of the car company food chain nowadays is why so many car companies are in so much trouble.
Consider what is happening to the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram truck brands and ask whether it would have happened if the people at the very top knew the decisions they made would have meaningful consequences – for them. The kind of consequences that a waitress who spills the food on customers faces.
The Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram brands are in dire straights for two main reasons. More finely, two decisions implemented by Tavares. The first one was the decision to go-along to get-along with the “electrification” agenda rather than fight it as if the survival of the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram brands depended on it.
Because it did.
Especially as regards Dodge, which was – until a year ago – the brand that most embodied the antithesis of the “electrification” agenda. It was the only brand that insolently and heroically sold a whole lineup of ballsy American vehicles – in the sense that models such as the Charger sedan and the Challenger coupe were the very last new cars that looked like and were made like American cars once were. Big, rear-drive things that came standard with six rather than four cylinder engines that didn’t need turbos to make up for their lack of size – and that were available with big V8s that aren’t available in anything else. Not even six figure luxury-brand cars, which lately come standard with small sixes and which can be equipped with small V8s, provided you’re able to fork over another $20,000 on top of the $100k base price for the car equipped with the six.
People bought Dodge vehicles, in other words, precisely because they were not “electrified.” And because they were not like other cars.
So what happens? The overlords who control what Dodge is allowed to offer for sale decided to “electrify” the brand, retiring the Charger and Challenger in favor of a device called “Charger.” Any imbecile could have seen the result that ensued. The same result that would ensue if a dating app for straight men summarily removed all the women from the app and replaced them with trans “women.”
Worse – or rather, compounding the problem – the overlords pulled the Charger and Challenger from the lineup after the end of the 2023 model year. That was a year ago. Almost a year later, the device they call the “Charger” isn’t even available yet. For almost an entire year now, Dodge dealers have been left to twist in the wind with nothing new to sell other than a small crossover that fits the Dodge brand like a V8 Hemi-powered Charger Hellcat fits the Subaru brand – and the Durango, which is the only Dodge left that is like the Dodges that are now all gone.
Chrysler has a minivan – and that’s all. The 300 having been sent away along with the Charger it’s based on.
The decisions that led to this state of affairs have been nothing less than catastrophic. Especially to the thousands of people who work for those brands, who probably won’t be working for them soon.
The other decision that’s equally catastrophic – for the Jeep and Ram trucks brands – was to try to make as much money as possible on every sale of every Jeep and Ram truck by selling hugely marked-up, hugely expensive versions of these vehicles. Jeeps – Wranglers – priced at $50k or more. Ram trucks priced even higher. Done at just the moment when only a few people can afford to pay that much for a vehicle. Result? Lots of brand-new 2024 Jeeps and Rams still sitting on dealership lots just three weeks shy of 2025 – after which this inventory will have to be fire-sale’d away to make way for the 2025 models, which are afflicted by the same overpricing problem.
Jeep could be a dead man walking, too.
Ram has lost a lot the ground it gained. It is very, very bad. And worse is that the man most responsible will not be held meaningfully accountable.
This is a systemic problem that may only be fixable after everything gets burned to the ground.
And if that’s the only way to fix it, the sooner the better.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you like items like the Baaaaaa! baseball cap pictured below, you can find that and more at the EPautos store!
Fire the CEO!
Hire the muleskinner!
In 1969 I drove a 1954 red Ford step-side pick-up truck, then one day it was gone, I cry now and then when I miss that truck.
It had six cylinders and was the bestest truck I ever drove.
My prom date was along for the ride on prom night, so it was a special deal back then.
Reminiscing never hurts, the good old days are always there in your memories.
[…] Guest Post by Eric Peters […]
Sadly, not long after we bought our Dodge Grand Caravan 20+ years ago Chrysler started on the path of being bought & sold like a 3rd world prostitute.
I wouldn’t expect any savior to ride to their rescue.
As for turbos, sure, they’re great in theory.
But their implementation in modern, mass-market (i.e., not BMW) vehicles has has been a disaster…e.g. Ford’s Ecoboost.
And that is due to design/engineering, not because of end-user maintenance.
But unless a hybrid powertrain is offered, the buyer is stuck with crappy turbos.
Hi Bill,
A turbo is generally (historically) used to increase the power of a performance engine. As recently as 20 years ago, it was uncommon to find turbocharged engines in other than performance cars. Why are turbocharged engines all of a sudden so common, even in “grocery getters”? Because they increase the power of downsized engines. The manufacturers – the car companies – have had to winnow down the size (displacement) of the mass market six and even eight cylinder engines they used to commonly offer in family sedans, crossovers and pickups because these engines have become much harder to offer due to compliance pressures, specifically CAFE and “emissions.” So they replace a V6 with a much smaller four. The problem is the four is inadequately powerful to propel the vehicle – which is why the vehicle used to come standard with a six! The fix is to turbocharge the four so that it makes power (under boost) comparable to the power of a six but while achieving higher (on paper) gas mileage and lower “emissions” when not under boost.
I would have run Stellantis into the ground for $50.000 a year.
You might have accidentally done better, because by commenting on this article, you’re more likely to be influenced by evidence than wishful thinking, and someone whose eyes are open, who knows nothing about running a car company, might accidentally do a better job than a seasoned executive with their head up their ass.
There was a local machine shop in Western WA, the owner/operator passed away and vendors & customers were certain it was over and done. Nope, the guys wife took over. No machine shop, no business background, many doubted she could make a go of it. She not only kept it running and met existing contracts – in a few months she was out rounding up new customers and made the whole operation way more successful than ever. Common sense can go far!
Stellantis has been run so bad, it almost seems like it was done with an (((agenda))), perhaps???
I don’t think it’s a (((Cohencidence)))…
Make affordable vehicles non-existent for the Goyims, on purpose, by our (((overlord)))
YMMV…
‘The same result that would ensue if a dating app for straight men summarily removed all the women from the app and replaced them with trans “women.”’ -EP
That’s a good one! The thing is that the overlords at Dodge don’t realize this because they’re not American car guys. They’re entirely out of touch with the US market. Tavares is Portuguese and was receiving $40 million in annual compensation. By virtue of his European status and income he wouldn’t be caught dead in a Dodge.
“mor·al haz·ard /ˈmôrəl ˈhazərd/ noun Economics
Lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences.”
Yup, this can be a very destructive indeed.
>Lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences.”
Which is why we need the EPA.
Bes thing Tricky Dick ever did, IMO.
You’re referring to the “tragedy of the commons.” I think class-action lawsuits would create the necessary incentive not to pollute.
What’s Nixon’s #2, Kaiser Permanente’s HMOs?
Engineering is all about finding a way to design the possible with specifications and regulations often making that impossible.
As an aerospace and electrical engineer working in the defense industry, we deal with a customer (the government) that often asks the nigh impossible and changes its mind sometimes on a whim.
I empathize with the talented engineers at the automakers who’ve been handed a shit sandwich of ABSURD CAFE standards that, I don’t care what those lying SOBs in the “media” tell you, represent an EV mandate designed to get gas-powered cars off the road.
Not to mention all of the SAFETY mandates that add lots of weight and SHOULD be optional. Wonder why Volvo is a dead automaker walking and now the property of the ChiComs? Every car is “SAFE” now thanks to our regulatory apparatus.
Turbos are a cheat code because they allow compliance engines that are far too small in displacement to power the bloated crossovers that are now ubiquitous. If you drive off the boost, there will be a gain, sure. But if you have a heavy foot, the gas mileage goes poof.
Not to mention that these engines are under serious pressure internally that many of them aren’t capable of withstanding. As our host said, you’ve increased the number of failure points by a factor of 10 or more. I read the Nissan Rogue has a THREE-CYLINDER turbo with variable compression. Yeah, that’ll last 100k maybe. Considering the customer base for Nissan (bad credit) that likely skips oil changes, that would be a resounding NO.
I think one factor at play besides the automakers’ supine view toward regulators is they are tired of people keeping their old cars running and not heading down to the dealership every five years or so to buy a replacement. Turbocharged and electric cars won’t last for hundreds of thousands of miles like their naturally-aspirated predecessors. That’s by design.
What the automakers fail to understand is most motorists, not even an enthusiast like me, hate the ASS and safety nannies and giant screens jammed into the dashboards. Cars are boring appliances now.
Every time I go to drive my Mk. IV Supra, my Infiniti sedan with a N/A V-6 or heck, even my overlanding-equipped Tundra with God’s own V-8, I feel a surge of excitement and pride just getting into the driver’s seat and cranking up the engine. It’s fun going for a drive.
The carmakers have forgotten that. There’s no reason for Top Gear or the Grand Tour because outside of hypercars and ridiculous luxury cars like Rolls Royce, our roads are mostly peppered with anodyne, safe, DULL crossovers that are as fun as plain white rice. Even BMW has largely forgotten how to make a driver’s car.
I think the growth in the hardcore 4WD market with the Bronco and now the Land Cruiser is because these vehicles are the last vestige of real cars on the road.
If Trump wants to make the auto industry great again, he needs to COMPLETELY scrap CAFE and safety standards. We don’t need it. If you want that junk, you the customer should pay for it. Let me choose to avoid 20 airbags and an electronic nanny that wags a finger at me when I exceed the lowest-common-denominator speed limit on an empty road.
The problem is this: does the auto industry change directions based of four years of Trump executive fiat? I don’t think they will. Look at what Stellantis has cooked up. A platform that can be used for either ICE or Electric powertrains.
No man can serve two masters, in the end he will hate one and love the other. The winner will be decided by how the culture wars in this country play out i think.
I think it’s way worse than not changing directions during a more liberalized 4-year term: I think they would actively lobby against loosening laws. Less laws equals more competition. Can’t have Studebaker or AMC coming back. They’ll take a boot on there throats if there’s promises of government contracts, subsidies, bailouts, and most importantly, competition-crippling regulations.
>the customer base for Nissan (bad credit) that likely skips oil changes,
It is not Nissan’s fault that customers do not do recommended preventive maintenance.
FIAT once had the same problem in the U.S. Even some of their smallest and cheapest models (500 cc or so) had overhead camshafts driven by Gilmer belts. The manual specified to *replace* the belt, not merely inspect it, at specified intervals. Customers disregarded the manual, failed to replace the belt, the belt failed. The engine is junk because of lack of maintenance, and the customer blames FIAT.
People who cannot, or will not, read and follow instructions have no business owning an automobile.
I’d like to take a contrarian view on ole Carlos here. You could have put Henry Ford in that position and it still would have been a disaster. Look at the Stellantis Board of Directors. Think of all the legal challenges and gubmint regulations that need to be juggled during a time where most first world governments are prioritizing diversity and inclusion alongside unattainable green energy.
Tavares was an engineer, a test driver and race car driver. I believe he clearly loved the automobile, and while he was a bad CEO, I’m not sure our society has the capacity to allow for a good one anymore. These industry leaders are used to getting their way, forcing their visions to fruition, and when gubmint steps in confounds the progress that can be made, these guys just wilt under the impossibility of it all. Journalist and Author Garet Garrett described the phenomenon perfectly in his book, The Wild Wheel. The very nature of the automobile is one of unrestrained freedom of movement and the very nature of our government is to create rules and regulations to tame those wild wheels so that growth can be managed, steered and shaped to the liking of popular opinion coupled with edicts from our rulers.
We tend to blame the CEO’s like Tavares and Ghosn without looking at the regulatory apparatus that forces the doer to dance to the tune of the non doer, aka the Gman.
And behind it all, the string pullers, the puppeteers.
For millennia mankind dealt with “god kings”, with a priestly class claiming authority by divine will and a special chosen relationship with god(s).
That system broke down from its obvious falsehoods and inherent contradictions leading to the so called “dark ages” where relative freedom flourished with the advent of guilds, tradesmen, free cities, and competing small kingdoms, with the church having its own power base in the background.
Then technology changed, the printing press among other things, ushering back in kings and emperors, and a different flavor of divine rule.
Technology kept evolving, and the American revolution happened. It was a lucky accident based on logistics (a large well armed colony far enough from the kings men), and alliances with competing kings (France and Prussia, etc.)
The American revolution was a seminal event, and it chilled the nobility to the bone. Because the American revolution recognized that we are all nobility, children of god, with inherent rights. It was a poisoned blade to the heart of hereditary nobility, and then came the corrupt French Revolution, and Napoleons empire, and the nobility needed a new plan.
America had to be stopped from creating another dark age of radically decentralized power. So they conspired to create the Constitution, to make a legal machine with power rather than god. And they began spouting communist ideology, democracy, where the newly freed men became voters who all were rulers of their fellow man, rather than only of themselves under god. There was, however a poison pill inserted in the constitution, a bill of prohibitions on government privilege, reserving the right to military force, and speech and assembly, and legal process antagonistic to government.
So here we are, with huge corporations and government power blocs, which always have a disposable figurehead, almost always compromised in many ways. And the puppeteers pull the strings in the background, safe from angry mobs and guillotines.
Neat trick. All the power, NO accountability.
Very well said, true, but also depressing.
Yes, Ernie. What a succinct and poignant history of the serpents grappling with free men.
‘Tavares was an engineer, a test driver and race car driver.’ — Mike_FF
In the heyday of then-new Boeing 707 jet airliners in the 1960s, most airline CEOs were former pilots, often having military fighter chops. But most of them proved not very apt at running an airline business, which demanded quite different skills.
Those flyboys thought it a great idea for each airline to build its own flagship terminal at Idlewild (now JFK) airport. But how were passengers to make connections to a different airline for the next leg of their trip? Oops, didn’t think of that!
In principle, one would think that an engineer is well-situated to understand the operations of an industrial company. What went wrong in Tavares’s case? Provisionally, I’m going to blame it on the French:
‘Carlos Tavares’ mother was a French teacher (“enseignait la langue de Molière“) at his French Lyceum in Lisbon. His father was a chartered accountant working for a French insurer.
‘After studying at the Lycée Français Charles-Lepierre in Lisbon, he left his native country for France at the age of 17 for the Lycée Pierre-de-Fermat in Toulouse. He then graduated as an engineer from the École Centrale Paris in 1981.’ — Wikipedia
French engineers tend to possess rather grandiose, Napoleonic notions about their capabilities, which are not necessarily backed up by actual achievements. Quel dommage!
“ French engineers tend to possess rather grandiose, Napoleonic notions about their capabilities “
Oh yes. We had one on the 777 finally got walked out the door when he threatened one of my coworkers over a producibility disagreement. Took it very personal when we politely explained what he was designing was not physically possible to install on the aircraft.
The huge disconnect between CEO pay and the rest of the employees is one of the reasons so many support Orange Man. Whether their company makes money or heads into bankruptcy the top executives still walk away with $millions while the rest of the employees have to go on food stamps. The ‘Wall Street on Parade’ website gives a great example of this regarding Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase. He handed out boatloads of cash to Jeffrey Epstein without ever filing one of those “suspicious activities reports” and his company was charged with several felonies but never prosecuted. Meanwhile his board rewarded him for the bad behavior and today he’s a billionaire thanks to the serial crimes. He is the poster boy for George Carlin’s big club that none of us are a part of.
>turbos to make up for their lack of size
Once again, we see a demonstration of profound engineering ignorance from Eric Peters, who appears to believe that turbocharger is to internal combustion engine as cock extender is to penis.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Take a basic class in thermodynamics, Eric. Come back when you know something. Not holding my breath, because first you must become proficient in multivariable calculus. You could do that if you really wanted to, but most fifty year olds with a settled career are unlikely to put in the effort, even if the knowledge gained increases their qualifications for their present occupation.
My Mom did it, though. She went back to school in her fifties, and earned a degree, after raising four children. Are you going to let a girl show you up?
So, I challenge you, Eric, to learn the basic scientific and engineering principles which make it possible to construct the devices about which you write. Otherwise, in my opinion, you are only marginally better than your “buddy” at Jalopnik.
I know for a fact that, back in the day, at least one of the featured writers for Car and Driver held a degree in mechanical engineering. You can too, if you really want to….
I double dog dare ya, Eric. 🙂
Meanwhile, I enjoy the political discussion here…
Adi
a,k,a,, [email protected]
http://www.corvus-rising.net
Hi Adi,
Here’s what I know: Turbochargers used to be performance enhancers for performance engines (viz, the 911 Turbo). They were not used as displacement replacers, which is exactly what they’re being used for now. The smaller four with a turbo, while not under boost, flows less air and fuel and this helps with CAFE and “emissions” compliance. That is why turbo fours have replaced naturally aspirated engines in “grocery getter” crossovers and so on. Do you believe that if CAFE and “emissions” compliance were not factors, we’d be witnessing the replacing of naturally aspirated V6 engines in “grocery getters” with turbo fours? Why would that happen, other than for compliance reasons?
Observe that – for the most part – the horsepower produced by the typical turbo four is about the same or less as that made by the six it replaced. A good example being the 2.0 liter turbo fours that are standard in the BMW 5 and Benz E – both of which used to come standard with sixes. The naturally aspirated Benz V6 made more power than the 2.0 liter turbo four, too. But the four gets better gas mileage and produces lower “emissions.”
It speaks for itself, does it not?
Here’s another pertinent example I’m personally very familiar with: Circa 1978, Pontiac engineers knew that the 400 V8 could no longer “make the cut” insofar as achieving compliance with the regulatory standards then in effect and pending. So the 400 was retired (a few left over from the ’78 model run were installed in a few ’79 Trans Ams and Firebird Formulas, but only in 49 states – not California – and only with the manual transmission). With the 400 gone, Pontiac was in between a rock and a hard place. Solution? Bolt a turbo to the small (301 cubic inch) 4.9 liter V8. Under boost, it made 210 (rated) horsepower, which was just shy of the 220 rated hp made by the old 400. The only reason for the turbo’d small V8 was because Pontiac was not able to use the big 400 V8, which did not need a turbo.
A 1.6 liter four (in a 3,000-plus pound crossover) does.
What’s the upside – for the buyer, I mean? You have a smaller engine that has to work harder to make adequate power; an engine with more parts and so potential failure points. An engine that does offer a fuel economy advantage – but only if you drive it off-boost, which means drive slow.
I do not think it is necessary to be a master of calculus to understand such things.
By the way, the boosted engine may well be more fuel efficient because of the off boost displacement, and also because it is a more compact/lighter mill thus making the whole system a little more efficient.
However a well engineered boosted engine takes more and better lubricants and coolants, and higher quality materials, machining, and processing, than a less stressed engine. So that fuel efficiency comes with an offsetting economic price.
Hi, Eric,
Please see my reply to Ernie, below.
The main point I wish to make is that turbochargers are not the “consolation prize” for downsizing an engine, but represent a real engineering advance.
Do I agree with you that government (at all levels) is attempting to feed us shit we do not need, and did not ask for? Yes, absolutely.
I am seeing the same thing at the local level, in a different context. Some of these folks have really drunk the Kool Aide. A few of them are about to hitch a ride on the comet. 🙂
>Do you believe that if CAFE and “emissions” compliance were not factors, we’d be witnessing the replacing of naturally aspirated V6 engines in “grocery getters” with turbo fours?
Possibly. It is a matter of systems engineering. What is an optimum design for the overall system, => taking engineering economy into account.2.0 liter turbo fours that are standard in the BMW 5 and Benz E – both of which used to come standard with sixes.
Tell you what. I have owned four BMW 3 series.
The second, a 2006, first model year of the E90, had a normally aspirated straight six. Nice car, and an improvement over the E46 it replaced. The straight six made 215 HP @ 6500 RPM.
The third, a 2013 328i, had a four cylinder engine with *two* staged turbochargers. It made 240 HP.
I do not have fuel economy figures to hand, but you can probably find them if you look for them. Both cars were automatics.
I can tell you that the 2013 was a much nicer car, from a driving perspective, and in fact the nicest car I have ever owned. For the 2006, it was necessary to select a “performance” shift program in order to merge successfully onto a California freeway. The twin turbocharged 2013 had a much wider power band, so power was always there. No changing of shift program was required.
Don’t believe me? Go find yourself an example of each of these two cars, and test drive them side by side. You will immediately notice the difference.
And now Eric says, “But BMW is a luxury brand. You’re attempting to compare apples to oranges.”
To which I reply, “I have it on good authority from a German friend that in Deutschland, BMW is just another automobile company. And they do have reputation to uphold.”
Adi:
You’re not factoring in longevity or ease of (and less complex) serviceability of the N/A engine. A twin turbo engine may be responsive when relatively new, but if and when one or both turbos fails, the car will likely be junk.
By the way, to EP’s point, attaching a turbo to an engine is sometimes referred to “displacement on demand,” because when you step on the accelerator the turbo force feeds more air into the cylinders than would otherwise be sucked in (consequently allowing you to add more fuel for greater combustion -i.e. with more force being applied to the crankshaft). Turbo charging at this level also tends to require direct injection (requiring even more complexity and maintenance) in order to prevent pre-ignition.
Mister Liberty,
You didn’t read my post.
BMW, as well as the other major manufacturers, have their reputations to uphold. If “word on the street” is that car brand X manufactures junk that does not last, guess what? People will buy something else.
I did read your post, but entirely ignored whether you think BMW has a reputation to uphold, as it is irrelevant to your assertion that: “Once again, we see a demonstration of profound engineering ignorance from Eric Peters, who appears to believe that turbocharger is to internal combustion engine as cock extender is to penis.”
“For the 2006, it was necessary to select a “performance” shift program in order to merge successfully onto a California freeway. ”
What a crock of BS
>I do not think it is necessary to be a master of calculus to understand such things.
Yes, it is. A grasp of the principles of the calculus is the necessary *mathematical* prerequisite to a proper understanding of most scientific and engineering principles.
Fortunately, it is not that difficult to understand. Ike Newton did it without even having a textbook, back when. There are only two basic principles, and there is a theorem which relates one to the other. I once explained them successfully to a female college freshman who was majoring in English literature in less than thirty minutes (didn’t get me laid, though). Once you understand the math, you can then understand the physics.
I can see that you hold the opinion that your intellectual skills are most impressive. Congratulations.
https://tenor.com/view/anchorman-will-ferrell-kind-of-a-big-deal-ron-burgundy-gif-8814703203526464241
>I can see that you hold the opinion that your intellectual skills are most impressive.
No, I don’t.
I am just an average Tech tool.
Left unsaid (until now) is how said critic is an educated, yet insufferable ass. Life’s ambition to die in his own arms. 😉
Aid, what the heck?
An IC engine is an air pump. Power out of the engine is a function of how much air and fuel (maintaining the stoichiometric ratio) the engine processes into useful work over time.
A turbocharger or supercharger takes some engine power (waste heat from exhaust or parasitic loss from the belt drive or elsewhere) and compresses that air so you can shove more mass into and through that fixed displacement.
Thus producing more torque and power than you would otherwise get out of a given displacement engine.
Yes I am an ME, of course I’ve specialized in robotics and high speed packaging, but I did have to do the full gamut including systems of nonlinear differential equations and applied numerical analysis including writing finite difference software.
So what? Are you claiming turbo/supercharging don’t work to get more power out of a small package?
>the full gamut including systems of nonlinear differential equations and applied numerical analysis including writing finite difference software.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. All that stuff. 🙂
>An IC engine is an air pump. Power out of the engine is a function of how much air and fuel (maintaining the stoichiometric ratio) the engine processes into useful work over time.
Yes, exactly.
>Are you claiming turbo/supercharging don’t work to get more power out of a small package?
No, of course not. Just the opposite.
The point, as I understand it, is to capture some of the waste heat and use it to charge the engine, thereby increasing the thermal efficiency of the engine. All hot rodders know there are only three ways to increase the output of a gasoline IC engine:
1. Increase the thermal efficiency.
2. Increase the volumetric efficiency.
3. Increase the size of the engine, OTBE.
Back in the old days, this generally meant:
1. Increase the compression ratio.
2. Make the heads flow better.
3. Bore it and stroke it.
Turbochargers offer another way to increase the thermal efficiency, at the cost of mechanical complexity. Tip of the hat to our host, Eric, who pointed out in comment to an earlier article that turbochargers were first used in aircraft long ago, due to the fact that air gets thinner at higher altitudes.
A supercharger has parasitic loss from the belt drive. A turbocharger does not, because it is waste heat which spins the turbo.
Etc. 🙂
I am sure we can have a reasoned and fruitful discussion on this topic, so I invite your further comments, as well as those of anyone else who wishes to jump in.
Best regards,
Adi
Adi, you claim to be well versed thermodynamics, so let me ask you, where does the energy to power a turbo come from? There’s no free lunch in thermodynamics, that’s the first law of thermodynamics, in fact. When you chew someone out about something, you should be familiar with it yourself.
Turbos don’t capture waste heat.
The energy to spin a turbo comes from increased back pressure in the exhaust, just as the energy to spin a supercharger comes from a belt attached to the engine. It’s the same thing. If you need 50HP to compress air at the rate the engine needs to ingest it, then you’re paying that 50HP some way.
The reason that turbos are more efficient is that, not being connected to the engine output shaft in any way, they don’t incur a constant drag when they’re not needed. Also, they create a positive feedback loop, where more boost = more exhaust = even more boost, and so forth, so you can have boost levels independent of engine RPM. This is also why there is such a thing like turbo lag, it takes this positive feedback loop a little while to ramp up to the cutoff (blowoff valve triggers).
So, yeah, they can add power and efficiency under the right conditions, but they can also harm efficiency by doing more net work. A little engine compressing loads of air, far above atmospheric pressure under a heavy load like towing will often be less efficient than a big engine which doesn’t need to do the extra work of pressurizing the air. The curves cross somewhere, but there is not good rule of thumb.
This idea of “waste heat” bothers me. An internal combusion engine is an air pump, but it’s also an air pump which derives power from a temperature gradient. It’s a heat engine. All heat engines, whether it’s steam, internal combustion, stirling, whatever are more efficient when this heat gradient is larger. Think of a waterfall with a waterwheel on it. The taller the fall, the more energy can be captured from that water, and this is the underlying principle of all engines, except with heat instead of water. An engine with no heat being dissipated to the environment couldn’t do any work.
Hi, OL,
And thanks for responding.
>you claim to be well versed thermodynamics
I am not a specialist in thermodynamics, or engine design, but I did take the standard ABET engineering thermodynamics class, and got an “A” in it, many years ago. Years before that, I took a class called Chemical Thermodynamics, which enumerates the same basic principles from a slightly different point of view, as well as the standard ABET introductory class in fluid flow.
If you are a specialist in this field, I will be glad to sit and listen, and hope I can learn something.
>increased back pressure in the exhaust,
Where does pressure come from?
PV = nRT, right?
>turbo lag
Turbo lag is a problem which has taken many years to solve.
I drove the turbocharged version of one of he first Ford Probes. It was a real rocket…..when the turbo finally kicked in.
> also harm efficiency by doing more net work.
Not following you, here. Not understanding what you are trying to say. But, please go do on. Maybe I’ll get it from the context, in due course.
>The curves cross somewhere,
Too bad we cannot show graphs on this website. Maybe we should all kick Eric some more coin to add that capability. 🙂 Graphical communication can be very compelling…
> All heat engines, whether it’s steam, internal combustion, stirling, whatever are more efficient when this heat gradient is larger.
Well, yes, that is one of the basic principles of classical thermodynamics. In order to have a heat engine, you must have a high temperature reservoir and a low temperature reservoir. Without a temperature difference, there is no possibility of creating a heat engine.
As far as I understand the matter, a turbocharger uses hot exhaust gas from an IC engine to spin a turbine, the output from which can be used to do work. Necessarily, if work is extracted from the hot gas input to the turbocharger, the exhaust gas from the turbocharger *must* be at a lower temperature than its input side. But, absent the turbocharger, there would be no temperature drop. Thus all the hot exhaust from the IC engine would be “wasted,” (not used to do work) and merely dissipated to the atmosphere.
Thus, a turbocharged IC engine actually consists of *two* heat engines, where the input side of the turbine is staged to the output side of the IC engine. The IC engine could be a gas turbine, a Wankel rotary engine, or a piston engine. All will reject heat, which can be scavenged to drive another heat engine.
I know nothing of steam turbines, but I seem to remember reading that sometimes steam turbines are staged in similar fashion, with the low pressure side of the first turbine used as the (relatively) high pressure side of the second turbine, thus allowing the turbine designs to be optimized for different operating temperature and pressure. (I may be talking nonsense, here. Anybody here know if this is true? Mike in Boston, maybe?)
Hey Adi,
I’m quite late to this conversation, and like others, I was a bit perplexed regarding the seemingly hostile nature of your comment to Eric.
No, he’s not your libertarian mathematician, engineer or scientist. He’s just your libertarian “car-guy”, but I still fail to see where the impetus for your apparently derisive commentary originated.
My best guess after skimming all of this is that you feel Eric doesn’t properly appreciate the brilliance of the turbocharger system?
I think he does; he just doesn’t like it rammed down his throat, right? He wants the option to have old-fashioned displacement. Why? As he and others have said, it’s about the increased system complexity, cost and wear of a smaller, turbo-rammed engine.
The only thing I have to add is regarding your description of the turbocharger as a “heat-engine”. In a roundabout way, I suppose you could say so, but not as you envision it, operating off of waste heat. That would be more like putting a water-reservoir on the exhaust manifold, and as the water would heat to boiling, it would turn a steam engine and drive a supercharger.
Actually, that’s kind of a cool idea. Very “steam-punk”.
But the turbo is really just a pneumatically-driven air-pump, is it not? For example, if you were to turn over the engine at high enough RPMs using a starter-motor, the air being ejected from the cylinders though the exhaust system would turn the turbo and generate boost (though it wouldn’t be boosting anything except the intake pressure).
Also you could theoretically have enough heat-vanes and fans on the exhaust system to remove all the heat generated from combustion, and the exhaust would still drive the turbo, even if the exhaust temperature were now the same as the outside temperature.
The turbo is more like a torque-converter in operation, as I understand it. Just a way to decouple two chambers while transferring force from one to another.
Now you could look at the turbo as a “second-order?” heat-engine as, when the engine is in operation, ultimately the force to drive the exhaust gases through the turbo is generated by the firing cylinders, which turn the crankshaft and drive the non-firing cylinders which eject said gases…
Just my two cents, though I know your hat is probably full, now.
Hi, BaDnOn,
And welcome to this discussion. 🙂
>But the turbo is really just a pneumatically-driven air-pump, is it not?
No, it is not.
A turbocharger consists of a turbine connected to a compressor via a common shaft.
>the exhaust would still drive the turbo, even if the exhaust temperature were now the same as the outside temperature.
Indeed it would, but in that case the kinetic energy would be derived from the pressure head across the turbine, which could only be created by compressing the inlet side of the turbine using the IC engine as a pump, which would, as you said, be more like a torque converter.
The key point is that the turbine is driven by HOT exhaust gases, and extracts kinetic energy from those gases. Since kinetic energy is extracted from the hot gas and used to spin the compressor shaft, the output side of the turbine has lower kinetic energy than the input side.
Since some of the heat of the hot inlet gas is extracted as mechanical work, that makes this device, by definition, a heat engine.
Not being a turbocharge guru, I do not know how much heat transfer to the turbine itself typically takes place.
The Wackypedia article on thermal efficiency:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency
is pretty easy to understand, without getting too deep in the weeds with respect to Carnot cycles and other such idealized constructs.
I see, Adi.
What you describe is more like the operation of a jet turbine, then.
That is to say, the heat of the exhaust gases creates an elevation of pressure on one side of the turbine, then the volume of the enclosure increases, the gases expand, the pressure drops and the velocity of the gases increases as their temperature decreases, which turns the turbine and likewise the compressor.
Okay, I had the operation of the turbocharger a bit askew in my mind.
I, myself, am neither a mechanical engineer or even truly a car-guy. I’ve never driven a car with a turbo, and have given it pretty limited thought. I do have a decent grasp of physics, however, and have had my share of calculus classes.
I always seem to learn something from the EP Autos site, though.
Time for bed.
>more like the operation of a jet turbine,
Actually, I would compare it more to the operation of a gasoline turbine, except the gasoline turbine burns the fuel internal to the engine. Chrysler built a small number of gasoline turbine cars back in the 1960s. Most of them have ben destroyed, but a few still exist, in museums and car collections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car
The turbines had a distinctive whine.
>neither a mechanical engineer
Maybe not, but you do have degree in chemistry, do you not?
Which means you undoubtedly took, and passed, a class similar to this one:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/5-60-thermodynamics-kinetics-spring-2008/
Thermo is thermo, no matter where you learn it.
Adi,
Chemical reactions are based on thermodynamic principles, so yes, I had much education in the area. The closest to that class was probably Physical Chemistry I & II. I don’t recall talk of turbochargers, however.
And I love the concept of the turbine car. I sure wish they would’ve continued research in that area.
Addendum, Adi:
I checked out your blog.
Looks like some interesting material. And you posted the Panzerlied, which is great for those mechanistically determined moments!
“Mit donnerden Motoren, Geshwind wie der Blitz!”
…Which is quite appropriate for this site as well.
No shit, Sherlock. 🙂
Hmmm. First you make this silly and insulting statement: “Once again, we see a demonstration of profound engineering ignorance from Eric Peters, who appears to believe that turbocharger is to internal combustion engine as cock extender is to penis.”
Then, when challenged, you backtrack and morph into a slightly more defensible argument (this time with no overt insults though): “The main point I wish to make is that turbochargers are not the “consolation prize” for downsizing an engine, but represent a real engineering advance.”
Then comes full Adi capitulation: “All hot rodders know there are only three ways to increase the output of a gasoline IC engine:
1. Increase the thermal efficiency.
2. Increase the volumetric efficiency.
3. Increase the size of the engine, OTBE.”
Let’s see, so the 3.8 liter V6 (bigger cock) becomes a 2.0 four (smaller cock) with a turbo (cock extender). Smaller cock with the extender now has to do the job of the no-longer-available bigger cock.
Of course, there’s one last condescending, parting shot of: “Tip of the hat to our host, Eric, who pointed out in comment to an earlier article that turbochargers were first used in aircraft long ago, due to the fact that air gets thinner at higher altitudes.”
Yes, I believe a reasoned and fruitful discussion on this topic has indeed been had.
I did not “backtrack” on anything.
Nor did I “capitulate.”
I gave our host credit where credit is due.
There is no “condescension ” involved.
Evidently you did not understand this sentence:
“The main point I wish to make is that turbochargers are not the “consolation prize” for downsizing an engine, but represent a real engineering advance.”
>turbos to make up for their lack of size
Wow, a bit harsh, Ari. And your point seems obscured.
To put Eric’s assertion in engineering terms, construct an x-y chart with years 1999-2024 on the horizontal axis, and the ratio of engine displacement to vehicle weight on the vertical axis. Now plot the points for each individual model and year.
A least-squares fit will be roughly linear, sloping from upper left to lower right. Meanwhile, plot the percentage of each year’s vehicles with turbos on a secondary axis. It will slope upward from lower left to upper right. Invert it, rescale, and the two lines will rise together.
Eric’s statement economically sums up this hypothetical chart in nine words. I would say the same … unless you are making some other point entirely??
I think you’ve made my point, Jim.
Which is that turbocharging is a way of extracting higher output from a smaller displacement engine, not a “substitute” (read “second best”) for *anything*.
A Holzbrenner:
http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/HOLZBRENNER%20VOLKSWAGENS.htm
is a substute. 🙂
The old hot rodder’s adage, “There is no substitute for engine displacement” is certainly true, OTBE.
But, other things do not have to be equal. If we all bowed down to the great god of engine displacement, we’d all be driving 18 liter monsters from Jay Leno’s Hall of the Giants, with compression ratios of 6.5 or thereabouts.
Was it possible in the first decades of the 20th century to build engines with a compression ratio of 10? Likely not, due to limitations of available materials and bearing designs. But today, we do that, and many other things, routinely, because of advances in technology in the intervening years.
Oh, here’s the full capitulation for sure: “I think you’ve made my point, Jim. Which is that turbocharging is a way of extracting higher output from a smaller displacement engine. . .”
You can’t just let it go though. In your zeal to save face despite the laws of physics, you now create an absurd strawman to argue against: “If we all bowed down to the great god of engine displacement, we’d all be driving 18 liter monsters from Jay Leno’s Hall of the Giants, with compression ratios of 6.5 or thereabouts.”
Let’s see, I can’t find any mention of 18 liter engines with 6.5/1 compression ratios in EP’s article.
I don’t understand your descent Adi. Turbo’s do indeed make up for lack of engine size, relative. And I am a ME.
I’m guessing you just aren’t getting Eric’s explanation.
Here’s the facts though: I haven’t owned a turbo vehicle. All N-A engines so far, and I’m ditching my love for Rams, Jeeps, Chargers (300), and buying of such. I buy lots of them, no more.
I will hold my nose and go back to gm for their 6.2L N-A engine. Hope Stellantis can get their great and much simpler 3.6 and 5.7 back in these cars-trucks asap, or they are a goner.
The 1984 turbo sunbird 4 spd manual I leased ate itself in under 30k miles. The 1990 probe GT only lasted 2k after I gave it to our 16yo daughter.
Turbochargers are planned obsolescence on acid.
Period. No discussion.
With due respect, Chris,
>Turbo’s do indeed make up for lack of engine size
I believe that is the wrong way to put it.
In my opinion, it is more accurate to say that turbocharging eliminates the need for larger, higher displacement engines, albeit at the cost of mechanical complexity. As OL stated, TANSTAAFL. (I am a big Heinlein fan from way back, like the 8th grade.)
Whether that makes sense from an overall, systems engineering point of view, including engineering economy, is a separate, but very important, question.
I do not take issue with Eric’s assertion that a *LOT* of this BS is being driven by government “mandates” (i.e. “planned” economy, a.k.a. Communism, which is demonstrably a *FAILED* system).
It really makes me want to puke to hear people genuflecting to the great god of “climate change.” Henry Ford had it right. Most people don’t think.
“In my opinion, it is more accurate to say that turbocharging eliminates the need for larger, higher displacement engines, albeit at the cost of mechanical complexity.” Adi Heidler (now in total capitulation). Isn’t this EP’s point entirely?
What happened to you taking issue with “turbos to make up for their lack of size” and followed up with:
“Take a basic class in thermodynamics, Eric. Come back when you know something. Not holding my breath, because first you must become proficient in multivariable calculus. You could do that if you really wanted to, but most fifty year olds with a settled career are unlikely to put in the effort, even if the knowledge gained increases their qualifications for their present occupation.”
and
“I challenge you, Eric, to learn the basic scientific and engineering principles which make it possible to construct the devices about which you write. Otherwise, in my opinion, you are only marginally better than your “buddy” at Jalopnik.”
Good grief, Herr Heidler.
Well, that calculated engineering solution looks good on paper and in a CAD program – but real life has a way of derailing Captain CAD. Your first step after the design is me, manufacturing engineering. Also the testing folks, which sadly failed at Harley Davidson with the “million mile tested M8 Vtwin”. That is now on its third or fourth oil pump design finally controlling engine vent oil spewing and worse, scavenging failure resulting in total engine destruction. I’m lucky my 2018 (early M8) didn’t sump, but it really shined at spewing oil out the air cleaner assy at freeway speeds until I swapped for the upgraded oil pump. This is from a company building dry sump vtwins for decades.
See recent Toyota engine issues, the auto industry CVT transmission failures. Sure, add a turbo to an engine with half the cylinders needed to move that 4800 lb monster. Looks good on paper, the hand built prototypes survived a couple months of testing- Ok all good, ship it! Well, then out into the wild it goes and hopefully the manufacturing engineers, tool design and the production folks can build that perfect engine at rate for the assembly line and still maintain the parameters to ensure long life.
Then customer satisfaction. The odd sound of a 4 banger compared to the smooth soothing sound of a V8 under load. Engineering says change the oil every xxxxx miles. The public ignores this, the perfect turbo engine suffers, fails, people pissed. “My V8 never did this!” See Sparkey’s 1979 301 Pontiac which was still going at 255k miles with minimal maintenance needed.
PS: no turbo on my 301, plenty happy rolling with a Quadrajet.
>Engineering says change the oil every xxxxx miles. The public ignores this, the perfect turbo engine suffers, fails, people pissed.
Horses for courses.
Stupid people should ride the bus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79QxturUolo
Because it’s a pain in the ass. The public does not specifically clamor for turbo-charged engines in commuter cars. They’re overly complex and require more care than n/a engines.
Transportation isn’t binary you know. We shouldn’t have a choice of only a turbo engine car or a bus. We could just have less complex n/a engines.
>Because it’s a pain in the ass.
If changing the engine oil, or paying someone to do it for you, is too much of a burden, you have no business owning an automobile.
Well, if it’s a pain in the ass to change the oil every xxxxx miles (as opposed to <xxxxx miles) you have no business owning a turbo-charged automobile.
‘The odd sound of a 4 banger compared to the smooth soothing sound of a V8 under load.’ — Sparkey
Sparkey makes an elemental point. A 4-banger can be turbocharged to produce the same power as a naturally aspirated V8, with half the V8’s displacement. But the turbo four will produce half the number of power impulses for the same distance traveled — or during the same elapsed time while idling. Simple geometry and math.
As a 16-year-old, I was startled by an inline six in a Chevy pickup idling so silently and vibration-free that I was unable to discern whether it was running or not. Such luxury — a property of the inherent primary and secondary balance of an inline six — is denied to most vehicle owners today. Much less the indulgence of a V8. Production V12s are found only in certain Ferrari and Aston-Martin models, with six-figure price tags.
It is a profound marker of cultural decline when well-understood, superior technologies are denied to the people and phased out for political reasons.
I dunno, Jim.
My 2013 328i had an awfully smooth running engine.
No odd sounds, there.
I did not own it long enough to test its durability, so I have nothing to offer on the that subject.
I have observed that most autos these days seem to be much quieter running than they used to be. Either that, or I am just going deaf. 🙂
>It is a profound marker of cultural decline when well-understood, superior technologies are denied to the people and phased out for political reasons.
Now *there*, my man, you have hit the nail on the head, IMO. I think it is also known as Communism, or the “centrally planned economy,” and it has been proven by actual experiment to be an abject failure.
“Here I sit so patiently,
Waiting to find out what price,
You have to pay to get out of
Going through all these things twice.”
— Bob Dylan
Piled High n Deep indeed.
What we are witnessing is an Asch Conformity experiment on steroids, with no one playing the role of Objectionist to the lie. Government decreed thou shall go electric, and no one stood their ground and said no. If just (1) did, it might have been a different outcome. These car executives saw what happened if you defy government with the VW executive who was *held accountable* for the so-called cheating on diesel emission testing….prison and ruin.
Since we live in a cowardly and disgraceful age, the only solution is for Trump to unravel the power structure of government and its hideous agencies the EPA and department of transportation. Easier said than done, and not sure Trump has the human ability to do this, but we shall see. Otherwise, (car wise) get ready to become Cuba.
But be DAMN SURE he proudly wears his tiny hat.
Stellantis is in bad shape. I’ve been a program manager with Stellantis (as my main customer) and have a long history with Chrysler, DaimlerChrysler, Chrysler group LLC, FCA, and now Stellantis.
Stellantis has fired many engineers and is now hired “replacements” in Mexico, Turkey, and other “low cost” countries.
The overwhelming majority have no idea how to get anything done. They may be bright people, but have had no training, and don’t know their own processes. Engineering changes that used to take months are now taking years. They can’t tell us the actual start of production for many new launches, and push out launch dates without telling their suppliers. They’ve even reneged on contractual cost increases and are letting the lawyers duke it out in court. They are pretending input costs havene;t changed since 2018
It is an unmitigated disaster. The still have brand new 2022 and 2023 Chargers and Challengers rotting on dealer lots. The new “Devices” were supposed to be on the road in August last year and something horribly wrong has happened with that – since there are still none delivered to customers.
The whole industry has decided that they will concentrate on “luxury” vehicles, and Stellantis is finding out that rich people (and people who live beyond their means – like 80% of Americans) are not spending their 115k plus on Grand Wagoneers when they can get an actual luxury nameplate (Mercedes, BMW, Range Rover, etc.) for the same cost. Who’d a thought selling Jeeps for $115k might present a problem?
Idiots – I just hope no more bailouts
It’s a mess.
Aligns to what I hear from the few people I still know that were at Stellantis.
So sad what has become of an industry that was thriving when I was a young engineer.
I can’t figure out for the life of me who these companies think they are selling to. The average Merican simply doesn’t have income to support a $60k car note.
Unfortunately, all mega corps are doing this. Our engineered equipment community too. It’s a disaster. All new people that have no idea how to build what we need.
I think it’s mostly a European mega-corp thing, at least as far as I can tell at the moment.
My experiences are pretty simple, they do not value people at all.
I retired early because I couldnt stand wasting time around what passes for trainees and new hires today. Going there made me sick.
The gay kids chihuahua pissed on the floor mechanics tool boxes and the owners daughter played part time janitor in a full bear costume while whining about rayciss rednecks on the hangar floor.
The revolving door made me dizzy. I knew it was over when corrosion caked totally junk cessnas were being sold for way over 50k and real nice new planes cost north of $1M.
The good ones are now over $5M new.
George Jetsun rip.
Hi Chris,
Does this mean you are not in line for the new Barbie car?
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/12/03/pictures-jaguar-boss-claims-fearless-creativity-behind-new-ev/
I honestly think the car companies are playing with us. They want to fail. Nothing else makes sense. Who is going to buy this thing? It is $126K. Men don’t buy pink bat mobiles and many women have zero interest in sports cars. Who exactly is the target audience?
>Who is going to buy this thing?
Probably Eric’s “buddy” over at Jalopnik, or one of his “buddies.”
LOL. How did you know, Adi? 🙂
https://jalopnik.com/jaguar-type-00-concept-is-a-pink-panther-acid-trip-of-a-1851710907
The comments section will either 1) have you laughing your ass off or 2) throwing empty whiskey glasses at the wall.
I don’t go there, RG.:)
Not my kind of people, and it is easier on the brandy snifters. 🙂
Diff’rent strokes fo’ diff’rent folks, so to speak. 🙂
Hi RG,
I saw that Jaguar rendering. It looked to me like a Chrysler Crossfire that got stepped on. Atrocious. Jaguar is doomed.
Hahaha, RG. Almost looks like a bizarrely updated version of the villainous car from the eponymous movie, though that one certainly had more style:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075809/mediaviewer/rm3378653184/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk
Also, impossible to see out of that bastard.
Hi BaDnOn,
Make the Jag a convertible and it looks exactly like my 1986 Barbie Corvette.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/97/db/c9/97dbc96579ae8d96878470d7710767e7–mattel-barbie-corvettes.jpg
So much for Jag’s interpretation of “Break Moulds” and “Copy Nothing”.
Eric, this is a bit off topic but in regards to what a Trump presidency has in store, this man on substack has done some truly impressive research. Everyone knows about his appointees who were bought by AIPAC but nobody is mentioning that the biggest lobbying money this cycle by far came from the crypto industry:
https://cryptadamus.substack.com/p/trumps-transition-team-is-tethered
The financialization economy is the root cause. Companies don’t build things, nor do they provide services. They produce cashflow.
CEOs are expected to provide shareholder value. When everyone’s pension became a 401(k) plan, and all the “advisors” were telling people to buy index funds, shareholders watched their portfolios grow dramatically. Didn’t matter what was behind the rise, just that it roared along, big growth all the time. Because every 2 weeks someone was setting aside a few hundred bucks to toss into the S&P index fund. CEOs got rewarded for doing nothing, or even making negative valuation, masked by the ever increasing S&P.
And once you’re in the club, you start getting offers to sit on boards. This reeks of quid pro quo, where all the various boards give themselves big money deals. As long as no one is paying attention to anything but the stock price (actually the S&P price), it doesn’t matter. Besides, even if there was a shareholder revolt, way back in the 1990s all these companies created super-voting shares to prevent the Gordon Geckos of the world from leveraged buyouts. A poison pill that was presented as a way to keep steady, long term hands on the wheel. What actually happened was that C-suite could do whatever it wished without consequence.
Hard to believe the LX platform (300, Charger, Challenger) was in the market for nearly 20 years (2004-2023).
When that RWD platform was developed, almost every new development in the market was FWD other than a few high dollar luxury brands.
At this point I believe that Carlos was being paid to do what many CEOs are paid to do. Namely, gut companies. Strip mine them for any remaining profits and remove any remaining value from them before they are bankrupted and liquidated.
Daimler did the same thing back in the early 2000s back when there was much more meat to be had. Never forget Bob Eaton was paid about $50 million for selling out Chrysler to Daimler. Not a bad haul for selling something that doesn’t even belong to you.
By the time FCA / Stellantis got their hands on it, there wasn’t much to be had other than to jack up prices and to let quality deteriorate even further, fleecing the last of its customers.
Carlos was paid for a job done well.
The Ford Panther (1979-2011) and GM B body (1977-1996) were right up there with the Chrysler LX platform. They got canned just when they were perfected.
And GM killed the B Body not because it wasn’t selling, but rather it was more profitable to turn Arlington assembly over to building Subs, Tahoes and Yukons.
Must have been VERY profitable, since it dumped almost the entire taxi/police fleet market into Ford’s lap overnight.
‘This is a systemic problem that may only be fixable after everything gets burned to the ground.
And if that’s the only way to fix it, the sooner the better.’
I couldn’t agree more Eric. We’ve seen the result of the likes of Carlos for-ever. Never could reconcile how the Boards of various organizations could reasonably assert that the bean-counter they elevated to CEO is 1000 times more valuable than the producers… unless the resulting dismantling and sell-off of the organization was baked in the cake.
I expect that we’ll see the unraveling continue to accelerate as ‘liquidity’ becomes more of a problem. The worthless currencies could perhaps become ‘ancient relics’. Just a theory… but such that the ‘system’ is reliant upon those worthless pieces of paper and/or digital representations of same, it has become unsustainable and must be discarded for a more righteous way of doing business and basic survival. Fixing the dysfunction can only be achieved by burning the ‘system’ to the ground and starting anew. Fire good. Interesting times.
Exactly, yall savvy 401k participants love both kinds of investment.
Death and destruction.
Death = RTX
Destruxtion = STLA
‘This is a systemic problem that may only be fixable after everything gets burned to the ground.’ — eric
Practically, most vehicle buyers ALREADY are boycotting EeeVees. They want nothing to do with three-ton tubs of lard that whoosh like vacuum cleansers on wheels … because they suck. (You knew that was coming.)
In its limitless stupidity, Big Gov under the ‘Biden’ usurper regime subsidized both EeeVee plants and battery plants. And they’re STILL DOING IT as they avail themselves of a few final weeks to loot the Treasury.
Anencephalic airhead Jenny Granholm plans to hand out $6 billion to Rivian, after it ran out money to finish an EeeVee plant in Georgia. And there’s $7.5 billion on tap for a Stellantis-Samsung b-a-a-a-a-ttery plant. B-a-a-a-a-h-h-h!
Idiot Hahhhhhvid attorneys like Airhead Granholm don’t understand the industrial capacity cycle. Piling on more capacity in an industry plagued by falling demand means prices have to drop to clear inventory. EeeVee makers not graced by corrupt dollops of Govco free money will die off even faster. Lookin’ at you, Scout Motors.
In four years, we will have gone from EeeVee Fever to EeeVee Apocalypse. This vast, harebrained misallocation of capital is a tragedy for US living standards. Stalin did shit like that. His country cracked up in 1991. We’re the Soviets now, comrades.
Indeed, what they’re doing is classic communism. You will meet the production quota comrade, and it will sell. Cue scene offstage where new production goes to warehouse offsite for disassembly and recycling. They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.
Re the sucking sound, what’s the difference between a Hoover and a Harley? On a Hoover, the dirt bag is on the bottom…
>On a Hoover, the dirt bag is on the bottom…
LOL.
Good one, Ernie. 🙂
>harebrained misallocation of capital is a tragedy for US living standards.
Yep.
Too bad, so sad, comrades.
I assume assembly line folks will get cushy union severance pay. Guessing the engineers and IT will not.
Nah, the assembly line folks will get a pat on the back and a foot up the ass. The Union bosses on the other hand still have their cushy salaries and “golden parachutes”. Kinda like Tavares.
I don’t see how French Leyland (aka Stellantis) could survive the damage that Cheapskate Carlos has inflicted. I guess the only thing of interest to pay attention to going forward is which Chinese entities will end up with which brands in the upcoming fire-sale when French Leyland goes belly up
Lest we forget, the French Leyland chairman is none other than ungrateful Fiat heir John Elkann, who happily offloaded parts maker Magneti Marelli right after former FCA (and before that, Fiat Group Auto) CEO Sergio Marchionne had died, and later unsuccessfully tried to offload commercial vehicle maker Iveco to the Chinese. I’m sure that now that he will be given an opportunity to finally get rid of all his annoying “legacy” automotive heirlooms and hand them over to the Chinese, he’ll gladly comply. It’ll be the happiest day of his life.