What Stellantis Must Do to Thrive, or Even Survive
It’s difficult to read anything particularly positive about the abrupt on-a-Sunday departure of Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares—it’s clear that he was not a beloved, team-building figure, and few begged him to stay. A statement issued by Shawn Fain, president of the United Auto Workers, said this: “For weeks, thousands of UAW members at Stellantis have been calling for the company to fire Carlos Tavares due to his reckless mismanagement of the company.”
In a sense, Fain got his wish. But it’s unfair to put all the blame for Stellantis’ downright miserable 2024 on Tavares. His resignation could rally the troops, at least briefly, but sustaining any momentum is entirely dependent on who is chosen to replace him, and that may not happen for months. The new CEO must be tough, but he or she must also be a bridge-builder, able to implement a turnaround quickly, backed by some effective and convincing public relations. I’d name names if I could think of any: Roger Penske and Bob Lutz are too old and wouldn’t want the job anyway. Ford CEO Jim Farley? He’d be a provocative choice.
As usual, though, it boils down to product and price. What does Stellantis—for us, that means Chrysler, Dodge, Ram, Jeep, Maserati, Fiat and Alfa Romeo—have in the pipeline that will instill confidence in the dealer network, and generate a positive buzz among customers? The new Dodge Charger is punching above its weight in terms of favorable media coverage, but it’s just one model. The battery-electric Ram 1500 Ramcharger is impressive, but the truck is wading into an uncertain market. There’s a Dodge Dakota replacement finally coming, which is good news for dealers, at least.
Those of us who have been covering the automotive business for a while have seen Chrysler—after nearly four years, “Stellantis” still doesn’t roll off the tongue—go down for the count several times, sometimes saved by pulling a rabbit out of its hat. The Chrysler (and Dodge and Plymouth) minivans, introduced for 1984, left the competition absolutely flatfooted. The 1994 Dodge Ram pickup, the first with the “big rig” look in front, was a massive success. The Chrysler PT Cruiser, introduced for 2001, was a huge hit.
What do the above-mentioned successful products have in common? One thing: Each represented outside-the-box thinking, backed by the willingness to take chances. Well before the 1994 Dodge Ram debuted, Bob Lutz, then the head of Chrysler’s product development, showed the design to a small group of automotive journalists. The then-current Dodge Ram had been allowed to atrophy, while Ford and General Motors managed to keep their full-sized trucks reasonably fresh. With the radical 1994 Ram, “We have nothing to lose,” Lutz said then. The 1993 Dodge Ram sold 95,542 copies; the fresh-thinking 1994 model sold 232,092.
The Chrysler minivans, the 1994 Ram, the 2001 PT Cruiser were all justifiably regarded as the “next big thing.” Think about it: When was the last “next big thing?” The 2004 Toyota Prius, maybe? The resurgence of the pony cars, with the Ford Mustang, Chevrolet Camaro and Dodge Challenger? Stellantis needs to look deep into the ideas that have been presented by its employees and see if there’s something worth taking a chance on, something so different it could change the market landscape. Easier said than done, but the company has done it before. If there’s a time to take a few chances on the next big thing, it’s now.
Stellantis corporate seems surprised by the fact that the return of Fiat and Alfa have not invigorated Americans, and Chrysler is hanging on with a minivan, and some leftover 2023 Chrysler 300s, which is still using the (admittedly innovative) design of the 2005 model. What is the new CEO going to do with that information? Remember this statement, issued last August? “Stellantis acknowledges the interest in its North American brands and reaffirms the Company’s commitment to its entire portfolio of 14 powerful, iconic brands, which were each given a 10-year timeframe to build a profitable and sustainable business. Like the Jeep and Ram brands, Chrysler and Dodge are at the forefront of Stellantis’ transformation to clean mobility, benefitting from the Group’s cutting-edge technology and scale. The Company is not pursuing splitting off any of its brands.” Huh.
Finally, there’s the matter of electricity. America has spoken: We are not yet ready to give up on gasoline. My press car this week is electric, and it needed charging last night. I live in the boondocks, and the only charging station reasonably nearby was, and this isn’t a surprise, having problems. The lone charger I could get to take my credit card pumped out electricity at 50kw, when I had hoped to use the 350kw charger. Meaning I sat there for a long time to get less of a charge than I wanted. I was not happy.
I saw electric cars come and go. A Lucid, a Hyundai towing a U-Haul, a couple of Chevrolets, a Volkswagen, two Ford Mustang Mach E’s. Nothing from Stellantis, which admittedly has been well behind the electric curve. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Will electric vehicles come into their own? When? Five years? Ten? Longer? The lack of enthusiasm for electrics has caught most every manufacturer with their collective pants down, requiring a hasty recalibration of current and future products, a prime example being the timeframe for the twin-turbo Hurricane six-cylinder gasoline engine being moved up to fill in for questionable demand for the electric-only 2025 Charger. Stellantis has to guess right about how deep they want to dive into the electric market in the U.S. I don’t envy the people who have to make that decision.
Bottom line: To thrive, or possibly even survive as we know it, Stellantis must find a CEO who can energize the troops, make peace with suppliers, is forward-thinking enough to green-light an innovative product lineup, and can communicate a positive message.
Sounds simple. It isn’t. But the company’s future, if there is to be one, may hang on it.
Ok Stellantis send us the Vauxhall we always wanted.
Ho ho! Your comment reminded me that in Canada we were still getting Vauxhalls into the early 1970s, and they were just utterly inadequate for North American use (except for Vancouver Island, with its lack of road salt and freeways). My mother owned one, briefly, perhaps out of nostalgia for her British childhood but probably because it cost $200, until it broke entirely. It was replaced by a Nova and later by a string of Malibu wagons, which were something of a capitulation to Yank technology from her point of view but a smart decision for a family of five in Ottawa.
I was in Britain last year and rented a Vauxhall small van with diesel engine and manual 5-speed. It was pretty darn good. I was very surprised. Great handling *for a minivan* and quick *for a diesel.*
What the US needs is good quality simple, reliable, reasonably priced, cars and pickups. Maybe even back to rollup windows, simple ac and heat, big motor(for Fun) only enough electronics to barely meet emissions.
My thoughts exactly. I owned one. Stick shift w a unhealthy clutch. That can be fixed. Automatic and true plug in hybrid. Rolling it out. Colorful will surpass the bland grey ur white American brands.
Just like with Jaguar, if you are going to survive you have to get rid of bean counters and glitzy advertising execs in the offices and hire some REAL car guys. It is simple and has been proven successful time after time in the past.
I told my stepson who has worked for Chrysler/Dodge for the last 30 years when the bean counters bought them out that it was the beginning of the end. As long as Stellantis maintains “it’s the bottom line that counts” mentality they will continue their bottom slide but then that is what and who they are and will always be. Should have left the car business alone. No soul.
“Bean counters” (As a professional Accountant, I hate the term) have pulled Chrysler’s butt out of the fire and bankruptcy more than once. Was the K Car a “Car Guy” offering? How many Scat Pack designated cars are selling enough now to make a profit or keep a factory going? When GM was in its heyday, it was a combination of insightful design coupled with economies of scale and shared architecture that helped it dominate. Check your history before you expel the time trodden tripe of sideline quarterbacks.
Touche! The car guys referred to we’re from the marketing and sales side of the business, and they managed to sell a lot of cars — at a loss! Volume does not make profit, especially when you have to pay customers to purchase your cars (think rebates and zero percent loan rates).
Good point. I still remember a picture presented in the London Free Press taken of unsold, built on spec Chrysler sedans in storage at the Michigan State Fairgrounds in the late 70’s. The site was full. I am sure that the photo is available somewhere within social media. We should have seen that there were problems coming from Chrysler and their corporate culture. Even that many years ago.
Not sure about the idea of lionizing accountants when talking about saving Chrysler. During their first taste of bankruptcy, Chrysler Canada booked the Toronto SkyDome to host all of it’s CDN dealers in explaining how the company was going to survive. The few dealership reps that I have spoken to about that event will say that it was Chrysler Canada’s dealerships that bailed out Chrysler that first time. And bad feelings continue to exist as to how accounts with the dealerships were finally settled.
It wasn’t entirely the ‘bean counters’ more bad business decisions. They should have continued building the Charger/Chalengers for at least two more years until Windsor got up and running. Stopping the production early was a huge mistake.
They need to restore the Ram trucks and bring back quality affordable small CUV models not based on Fiat models.
Large Hemi cars are not going to fix this. People need cars with utility that they can afford and companies can still make max profits on the investment.
The Hemi cars were cool but for every Hellcat sold a number of V6 models were sold at a loss. Quality dropped and it killed Ram. Jeep is not a $100k SUV brand and the wrangler went from a good buy yo an over priced Mess. Buying the GM lines was a mistake.
This is going to get bad and not just for Chrysler.
The UAW desl was like throwing gas on a dumpster fire. Fain knew it too.
Look at stock prices of the auto companies. See how many are below $15. Only the few over $50 per share have much leverage but they still are not out of the woods.
More will die, merge and partner.
The EV problem is not going away. With elections every 4 years and CARB states the mfgs will still have to be prepared for changes.
Another key will be less models, brands and platforms. Doing more with less.
Agreed. The future does not look good with the duplication of brands and product nobody really wants or at a price they can afford. The quality has been poor so that scares people away too. Stellantis has been a bad idea from the start with bad execution. Or is the execution about to be coming?
The price per share is almost completely irrelevant in a company’s valuation. The share price multiplied by the total number of outstanding shares determines market value. Put another way: if Stellantis did a 10-for-1 reverse split, do you think the company would suddenly be 10x better? The share price would be 10x higher.
I agree with your somewhat, but stock price is in fact very relevant to a company’s market valuation. Just as torque is very relevant to horsepower.
Both are just part of the equation.
Stock matters. If too low you can be bought out easily in most cases but most of these companies are too damaged.
But even this low investors are paying $140 a share to invest in Nividia vs $3 for Mazda and $11 for Ford. This makes it hard to pay off loans, invest in development of new products or get vendors to trust you pay them if times get harder.
I think the problem is far more significant than just looking at Stelantis. Observe how many young people are interested in cars, period. They don’t see them as art or power but more as a utilitarian need. What sells is on the inside—take Hyundai and Kia, for example. They are ugly as all heck, but people are drawn to the technology and the inside of the car.
Get this new Charger with the inline 6 into as many hands as you can quickly. Make sure Freiburger, Dulcich, Finnegan and all the other recently cancelled TV host gearheads with legit car-people cred get to mess with one. They all get great youtube and other social media exposure and several of them are huge Dodge fans. Ship one to Australia and have Mighty Car Mods do something epic with it. This would be money better spent than trying to sell any Alfas in North America.
Boxy style it the Charger Platform and offer as a new 300. Offer it in Magnum (wagon) form.
Amortize the minivan over time so you can price battle sell them at entry point of the market. Strip the fluff, equip them with just enough to be workable for people. They already renamed these Caravan in Canada. Don’t worry about updating the platform… make them for 12 years. Offer 8 colours a year on the vans with 2 of them eye-popping and 2 of them subtle that you discontinue. Do a slight marketing push around that and don’t worry about it being “old platform”. They will sell long after the media thinks they are stale.
Figure out which of your Peugot, Vauxhall, etc. offerings can be a Dodge, Jeep, Chrylser in a niche you are not filling for the core customer base and get them over here. If the only Chrysler is the 300 that is okay. If this mean one Euro-sized car becomes a new Neon so be it. Stop trying to sell the other brands in North America as conquest sales or fresh ideas… it is a waste of marketing money. CEO vanity over logic.
If you are going to go down… make the final car off the line a Viper.
Excellent analysis and advice. I hear the CEO job is open!
Good comments all–sign this guy up!
Here is the trouble. You have nothing but the Hornet to offer set emissions and CAFE.
Cool cars like this have driven them to a buy out. They need some cheaper quality small CUV models that are high profit and popular. This is what has GM, Toyota and Hyundai though the latter has quality issues.
Even GM is selling enough smaller cars to make so they can design a new V8 that is coming for the Trucks.
It used to be you could run an automaker by heart and desire. But today it is like a game of chess. Every move has to be calculated and matched with 4 moves ahead.
With development cost do high you really can’t afford many mistakes anymore either. A failed platform can really hurt a company.
The trouble we have now is they are Closing Auburn Hills and do you think the French and Italians will make a product that will hold mass America appeal or even durability. It took the Germans to fix Lambo.
The last thing they need is an halo car. Fix the Ram and Wrangler and find a way to make them more affordable yet profitable. Then fund high profit high mileage CUV that are not Fiat under the skin,
I don’t think Chrysler have to panic over models as Stellantis has deep pockets, but they do need to worry about their dealers. The market for ev’s may yet turn positive (don’t write in please) in which case they will look like geniuses. Otherwise they may have bet poorly.
What if though they used that Charger platform (ice & ev) to make some regular sedans and wagons? Yes I know the Charger can be a 4 door and that is a mistake, but make a cool to look at wagon with lower spec ev or single turbo I6. That gets a different product in the market that Ford and GM don’t have. If you could sell 75,000 units it will keep the dealers from going broke while you finalise a line-up for the future.
I mean you could produce a little ute from that platform too, but…
The market for EV’s is positive, if you haven’t noticed EV sales have increased in every year. Where the ‘failure’ is is that they haven’t taken over like GM and Ford have counted on. And, negative stories on EV’s get a lot more clicks on auto web sites than positive ones, so we know where the editorial attitude is going.
They’re going to take over. Just not as quickly as some fools originally predicted.
Stellantis has followed identically the same iill fated strategy of Chrysler in the mid 70’s, producing similar results. 1. Defocus engineering and onto accounting. 2. Drive down costs with no regards to vehicle quality.
The Jeep Grand Cherokee used to be a very good vehicle, most reliable in the Jeep portfolio. Now they are poor quality, especially electronics and software systems. Even Jeep dealer mechanics will whisper that the last reliable GC’s were 2018-19, before the latest electronics.
Message to Stellantis: refocus on product quality and you will have me again as a customer.
Agree! I’ve got a 2018 GC. Not getting rid of it!
I just can’t figure the I6. The Hemi was a cheap engine to build. The DOHC I6 has to be very expensive as most DOHCI6 are.
Affordability is the future.
The I6, if I recall correctly, doesn’t require buying CAFE credits from Tesla. That was a big reason why the HEMI had to die.
I understand that but the all aluminum engine, DOHC and Twin Turbo is a high cost engine to build. I would thing an updated hemi could have been done at a lower cost and they could still offer a V8 for the truck line.
Chevy has taken the LS and created the new LT and has a third gen coming. Small light and efficient in meeting emissions.
Outside the heads the Hemi was copied from the LS engine.
GM tried the DOHC I6 and it was limited in what it would fit and was very expensive to build. They even did a 5 cylinder version and it was not much easier to fit.
Its certainly a higher cost engine, but I bet there is more utility for applications outside of North America because of that smaller displacement. Considering how desirable BMW’s 3.0 inline six is globally these days, I am sure Stellantis sees a way to kill two birds with one stone.
I expect it will find its way in high end Euro cars we will never see.
But they will be bulky. This is a tall engine and be a tough fit.
We has Dodge slant six for a reason.
I think Stellantis was very vested in EV they will struggle now while trying to make ICE engines. The Fiat engines are not getting it done and they have shown few small turbo 4 or 3 cylinders required to meet regulations.
The I six will not win many hearts in America. Sound alone from the exhaust is a problem.
I bet we will see them, well, provided Alfa Romeo actually survives in the US.
Will it be more reliable, get better mpg or even fit under a sleek hood?
My neighbors new Alfa is a flat bed queen.
I expect Alfa to fie here.
Also you can sell a Ferrari based engine in an Alfa but not a Ram engine in an Alfa. Not at that price.
and the I5 was scheduled as a turbo for the HUMMER H3 … which never happened.
Yes they had big plans but they never really got the engine right. It was rough and never got the mpg it needed.
The 3.6 won out as it was smoother got better mpg and it could do trucks snd FWD models. It was much more flexible.
They did have chain issues but post 2017 they were gone.
The inline engines were underfunded as GM was broke and it showed in their results.
I recently bought a new car: 2025 Subaru Forester. This is “the car” these days and replaces sedans and is really a kind of easy to park station wagon. A car with a convertible interior for people or things, a Swiss Army Knife.
CR-V, RAV4, Sportage, Rogue, Equinox, Bronco Sport and Escape – where is the Stellantis equal to these important cars? And don’t say Jeep. The Renegade is a clown car toy and the Compass is old, cramped, outdated, too expensive and junk. I’ve driven plenty as rentals, they are absolute crap. I think the reason they don’t bother to compete in this very important space is because they can’t. That’s not something you can fix over night. Stellantis will simply become a smaller company and shrink and fire and layoff and sell off their way out of this problem, becoming smaller and even less competitive as they go. Turns out you just can’t “Hell Cat” your way out of your structural problems forever.
I would disagree. I own a 2019 Compass, and the worst I can say on it is that the cup holders are too low. But the company company decided the Jeep brand was a cash cow, and is now paying the price.
Placing US nameplates on European platforms isn’t going to work. Whoever thought North American buyers would accept European vehicles that have already been rejected here (Fiat, Alfa, Puegeot) as long as they had a US nameplate needs to find a new line of work.
Ford (Fiat) Transit? Dodge Ram /Ducato vans built by Fiat? (Mercedes) Sprinters? All European vehicles with an American badge. And all mass-market successes.
The Transit is a Ford of Europe, not Fiat.
Oops! Right. But the point stands.
Oops! Right you are. But the point stands.
How about building a product that buyers want and for a reasonable price? Isn’t that the magic formula? In the early 60’s Ford basically re-skinned the Falcon and sold millions of Mustangs in the first 3 years. Why doesn’t anybody strive to do that anymore? Our choices now are black, sliver and white boxes that all look the same, and you need to read the nameplate to identify the manufacturer. No thanks.
Amen. Preach it, Bro
Ford has done it again with the Escape turd and turned it into the Bronco “sport “!!
I am not a “euro-hater” although some of their EU policies have me scratching my head, and I liked Sergio. He at least wore sweaters and was a car guy, But I think the answer is to keep the Europeans away Chrysler. They don’t understand the American market and never will. Look at the trail of destruction from D-B, Fiat, and now Stellantis
Unfortunately true as regards those brands, but look at the huge successes of Mercedes, BMW and Porsche in the North American market — those companies clearly do understand what we want!
Good point. Maybe they can hire away one of THEIR CEOs!
Those companies have learned over time by what works in this market. Case in point… Initially, Mercedes SUV’s were only made here in the US because it was a niche vehicle at the time designed for this market….Think about the changes in BMW as well..that started in the 80’s when young professionals ditched their parents Buicks and Mercury’s and started buying Audi and BMW. I remember when Peugeot was actually pretty strong in parts of the country… but they never “Americanized” and failed.
As the senior Chrysler service manager for all of a “southern province in Canada” once told me when I asked about warranty on the THIRD set of engine oil seals in a 1990 Neon, “Well, if you were stupid enough to buy a Neon, you got what you deserved” (yes, he actually told me that), then all I can say is “Chrysler, you got what you deserved”.
I shall not miss Chrysler. Not. one. bit.
First of all you have to have real car guys running your business, not some of these dumb idiots (CEO’s) that float around from company to company, then they have to have some common sense and have pride in their product. Look back in history at the leaders when American car companies actually manufactured great cars. These are the kind of people we need!
SUVs are where it’s at now, and who wants a Hornet or Durango? I’d buy an I6 wagon with a six-speed manual, as would many Hagerty readers, but we know that few others would.
I always hated the “Ram” for their trucks. Ford and Chevy use their names on their pickups. What’s wrong with “Dodge Trucks?”
So they can move the trucks globally without being saddled with the Dodge brand. I am sure, multiple times, it has been discussed to possibly shutter Chrysler or Dodge or both. Ram and Jeep have carried the CDJ division for years if not decades.