Does anyone have an analysis of why FCA vehicles are so unreliable? From what I know...

Does anyone have an analysis of why FCA vehicles are so unreliable? From what I know, their transmissions and electronics are the worst parts of their vehicles. Why? And why haven't they fixed this? Are they being complacent because fanboys always gotta fanboy and they won't care as long as they have enough idiots to buy their piles of junk?

The FCA has had a bad rep since the the 90s. Honestly, it started with the archaic automatic transmissiona they gave the magnum powered rams and Dakota's back then. Basically it was a transmission from the 60s with a torque converter on it. They really couldn't handle the power output well and thus became a mess.

As for recent years, I've seen them get better and better when it comes to their autos. I've not heard much of the electric side of things but I do known that the FCA cannot make an interior that looks /good/. They just can't.

I've heard good things about the 200, but all their other cars are just meh. Boring/bad interior, no real performance outside of Dodge and their muscle cars, Fiat I hardly ever see other than base 500s which are god awful, and the other brands are luxury/supercar brands that most don't have a way of really experiencing without shelling out a lot of money for something that is done by a competitor, but better in the first place.

Just my two cents.

Well, they're trying to make money by offering the same features as more expensive cars at similar production costs while at the same time having lower prices. That money's gotta come from somewhere and that's engineering and parts costs. Less engineering and cheaper parts=reduced reliability.

So basically like I said, retard fanboys are still convinced it's good?

Well, it depends, FCA is a merger of two very different companies. To give you an idea you have to look at both companies legacy for better picture.

Most of European car manufacturers haven't been too good with automatic transmissions, since for a very long time manual was preferred choice here in Europe, thou the trend is slowly starting to change, thus Fiat lacked in automatic transmission department. Fiat's strengh has been making family and small cars. They do excel at Diesel engine technology and they have produced recently very good petrol engines. Engines are the heart of Fiat. Back to the interior, since most of Fiat offering wasn't exactly high class or premium, they had tendency to save money on the interior. Interiors thus never were Fiat's major advantage. In order to save money to provide customers competitive price money was saved on seemingly small details, which in the long exploitation or under not ideal condition had tendency to fail. For example electric windows in most Fiat's are designed with very little tolerance for extra force force required to pull window down (such as when window freezes a bit etc.). Electrical wiring protection amd electrical components are also things where savings are usually made in Fiat cars, for example boot lock might use cheap Chinese switches instead of quality Omron switches.
Add to all this cost saving Italian design quirks + it will do even if it's not perfect -mentality and you have issues like that popping up in these cars. Still, there are many things done right in Italian cars, most of them have good design, and Fiat has been learning a lot from Germans by hiring employees formerly working with German auto makers + contracting some electrical design to German companies (thou looking at Berlin Schönefeld airport not sure if that was a good idea).

Someone should write about Chrysler.

FCA didn't exist in the 90's

Mopar guy here.

First, Chrysler has always tried to give you a lot of car for the money and in the process ends up cutting corners as user said and also sticking the soul out of their cars to bring them in at a good base price. Never ever buy a base model car but at the same time try to avoid packages with gimmicky electronics - and generally avoid the entry model car entirely.

Chrysler also had a long history of crossbreeding. Mitsubishi, Maserati briefly, Mercedes, and now Fiat. If you are considering buying one of these half-breed cars be sure that parts aren't scarce and consider if you might not be further ahead buying the import equivalent, or buying the Chrysler with a blown engine or busted transmission and swapping in a better one from the import version IF they're compatible. Find out.

Finally, Chrysler rust. One place they almost always cut corners is the first proofing so use their rusting as a bargaining point and if you get a rust free one, be proactive about rust proofing if you live in a salty area.

No but Chrsyler owned Dodge and that's were their issues became well known. The fiat merger didn't happen but you're just adding at that point.

Because it's a meme

Chrysler has only improved since Fiat bought it. The Italian wizards have made Chrysler reliable.

>suzuki above toyota
k

Had a PT cruiser. It helped me to understand what made a bad car.

>awful gas milage
>first interior I actually noticed was bad
>overheating issue at 100k
>handled like shit
>slowww

its a meme at this point. pretty average reliability outside of some of the jeep models

Then why does everyone I know who owns an FCA vehicle talk about bringing it in for warranty work constantly? The funny thing is they're so delusional they think going in 3 times a year for repairs and recalls is normal.

Also, FCA brands are consistently rated at the absolute bottom of all reliability charts.

My girlfriend's sebring threw a rod through the block at 60,000 miles

>Also, FCA brands are consistently rated at the absolute bottom of all reliability charts.
nah that's Audi and Bentley
>sebring
pretty sure that's not FCA

the chrysler sebring isn't a fiat-chrysler automobile?

See now I know you're full of shit. Audi is at the top and no one rates $200k+ luxury cars for reliability.

Its a daimler-chrysler vehicle
Not to be pedantic but that's a huge difference.

oh I see what you mean now. You're right, it is Daimler-Chrysler

>Audi is at the top
top kek
delusional VAG fangirls everyone

>27 in electrical reliability chart
>37 in engine reliability chart
the only reason Audi tends to score well in surveys is because you're looking at memester reports that doesn't take severity of the problem into account, to them it's the same to have a burnt bulb than to have the tranny shit the bed

...

Fuck off with your shit tier bait. It's not even shit tier. What is below shit tier?

lol why are VAG fangirls so sensitive to facts
I guess that it's the natural way they have to cope with the fact that they fell for the "Vorsprung Durch Technik" meme and it turns out they bought an unreliable shitheap with the engine in front of the front axle

!mjet put your trip back on you autist

>mjet
I'm not him. I wish I were him to get a chance of at least meeting the Milfista™ though.