WHAT? Marchionne Says Fiat Chrysler Can Build A Tesla Model 3 Killer But Doesn't Want To

He is right: electric cars don't make money, and with low prices of oil why build them?

Tesla is betting the Farm that YOU are wrong about the ability to make money.
IF they don't make money on the 3-series they are doomed. THey CAN make money if they are priced realistically. THe fact is - a Model 3 at $35,000 is not realistic - and I suspect there will be very few under $40,000. With the advent of autonomous cars - they can now make a steering wheel optional equipment!

You build them to reduce the pollution in and around urban areas - while this transfers the pollution to the electric plant area - it is easier to address that than a million cars - some of which will not be maintained by their owners.

Regarding Tom's pollution comment. Bloomberg News reported this week the Tesla's in Hong Kong produce 20% more CO2 than petro-powered vehicles driven the same distance. China and a slew of other countries get their electric power from coal as it is cheaper and growing economies need lots of cheap energy to improve their citizens lives. As the cost of electricity rises dramatically in the USA will the bottom 50% want or can they afford electric vehicles?

I don't think the Hong Kong data is substantiated. Even if electricity is 100% coal-powered the economies of scale from a power plant still make it less polluting than an ICE. The Model S is also a huge car, the Model 3 uses 20% less electricity than the Model S per mile.

BTW, I pay $50/mo in electricity with a Model S versus $350/mo for gas in my previous car with 33 MPG. If you live close to a Tesla Supercharger, then the ROI is even greater.

San Jose Driver, something doesn't add up in your numbers. $350/month at a generous Calif. $5.00/gallon is 70 gallons per month and at 33 mpg is 2200 miles per month or 70 miles per day. Using Tesla's own calculator on their web site that works out to $150.00 per month using San Jose's average $.20/Kwh.

Move out of the Bay Area to where the national average is $2.00/gal and using the same 33 mpg the monthly gas cost is $140, a wash. The EV extra cost, range angst, and inconvenience are difficult for average person to rationalize at this point in time. That could change but a lot has to happen even beyond the availability of a Model 3.

EV's charge at night when the PG&E off-peak rate is $0.15/kWh. Most EV drivers have a Time-of-Use plan or solar panels with a net-metering plan. Also the 33 MPG on his old car may have been the highway rating, not mixed or observed.

Cheaper than that even $0.12/kWh off-peak: http://www.pge.com/tariffs/tm2/pdf/ELEC_SCHEDS_EV.pdf

Vette71, technically I live in Santa Clara. They have their own utility (Silicon Valley Power) where the cost is $.11/kWh. I also get some free charging in garages. Range anxiety becomes a non-issue after a week or two and the convenience of charging at home and never having to go to a gas station far outweigh the gas advantages for me. I think after most people try living with a long range electric car they will never go back. Even driving a BMW rental car a few weeks ago seemed like a dramatic downgrade.

This is just Sergio being Sergio. Always trying to be the smartest guy in the room but missing the point entirely as head of a major automobile company. Show us what you can do not what you do not want to do.

He can't do anything so he wants to run his mouth.

Just as bad as the way Trump speaks "Oh, I could do it, and better! I just don't want to". You can't prove a negative like that. All is does is generate press because people talk about it, and they didn't have to lift a finger.

Sergio has his own logic on why it wouldn't make sense for Fiat to do it. Elon has his own logic on why he thinks he can make it work. What's the big whoop? At the end of the day, Tesla will sell cars that Fiat doesn't sell so it's no "loss" to Fiat. If Tesla doesn't make it work, it's their investors that will lose out, not the other car mfrs so I'm not sure why they're making a big stink about it. Unless they see Tesla's sales as "stealing" their sales and if that's the case, they should just prove their technology/cars are better than Tesla's cars.

Can't afford to...

Not only that - but FCA is already getting out of the small car business because it cannot make any money in it. (At least for Chrysler)

But then - I still believe that even Tesla cannot make real money at the $35,000 price. GM will lose money on every BOLT - but it at least has other profitable lines - TESLA doesn't. AND that means that they MUST make money on the Model 3 =-and significant money too. I don't see the possibility right now.

But in the end - ANY of the larger car makers could make a Model 3 competitor -even FCA - since Elan Musk has released his patents for use by other car manufacturers. Gm has already proven that. However - making money is the issue - something no one has yet done - and it is money that would be the determining factor - unless California mandates making electric cars.

I agree, again, with TomM. Every company has to make money...they can delay doing it when they can show a clear path to profitability, but I just don't see it with Tesla. It's a cult/hip stock, but as a company is not viable....it's just like Amazon all over again, but at least Amazon found in web services a profit opportunity.

i wouldnt mind getting a tesla if it looked better. they are just sooooo plain looking for 100k car. gotta respect what theyve done in the segment and performance numbers, it would be nice if they werent so avg looking.

Really? I still think the Model S looks better than most cars on the road. It is simple, but the clean lines are one of the things I like about it.