Chrysler Announces Ram Leadership Changes

Bigland Hegbloom II

Ram has a new leader. Chrysler announced that Reid Bigland — head of U.S. sales and president and CEO of Chrysler Canada — will now be head of Alfa Romeo as well. The promotion means Bigland will step down from his leadership position for both Ram Truck and Ram Commercial divisions, which he's helped direct for the last two years.

Robert Hegbloom, who started with Chrysler in 1986 and has supported Ram throughout the years, will take over the Ram reins. Hegbloom previously served as director of Ram Truck Brand and was instrumental in creating, coordinating and executing the Ram Commercial side of the truck brand with the additions of the Ram Cargo Van, the Ram 4500/5500, the Ram ProMaster full-size van and the coming ProMaster City compact van. Hegbloom was also instrumental in convincing top executives that moving the three-quarter-ton Ram 2500 to coil rear springs was a good investment. After conducting our 2014 Ultimate Three-Quarter-Ton HD Challenge, we think he was right. The announcement did not say who will replace Hegbloom. Maybe most importantly, Hegbloom will become a Chrysler North American Free Trade Association board member and will be able to participate in future product plans.

There's no telling what might change in the short term at Ram, but our first opportunity to see how it handles the transition will be at the 2014 State Fair of Texas next month. Our guess is this change will be relatively seamless given how involved Hegbloom has been since the first day of Bigland's tenure as head of Ram. But we'll reserve judgment until we see the next-gen Ram 1500 or possible Colorado/Canyon fighter.

Manufacturer's image


Ram-Commercial-logo II

Ram Truck & Commercial timeline IIThis is the five-year plan for Ram Commercial as presented by Bob Hegbloom at the last year's Work Truck Show. The show is typically a good place to meet with fleet buyers who want to know what's coming so they can better plan for their business's future. 


IMG_7944a II

This is Bob Hegbloom introducing Easton Corbin at a special event in Las Vegas before the American Country Music Awards, where he got to announce to quite a few excited dealers that Ram had just sold more pickups than Chevy for the month. 


@Big Al

"Our country has changed it's stance on this issue and now the 'green' energy generators are complaining that no one will buy their carbon credits."

Our system is different than Australia's from what I have read. You guys refer to it as a "Carbon Tax", and requires companies to obtain emission permits that companies have to buy from the government. How these permits are able to be sold and traded is completely different due the the factor there is too much government oversight in it and not a free market like it is here.

The whole point of carbon credits is to make it to where these companies don't need subsidies or tax payer money to survive. If you are against subsidies then why would you be against something that wound potentially end or reduce them?

Yes, these companies would need subsidies or government loans to get their start just as many students need student aid to get their start through college. Research and development takes money and you can't just start out cleaning emissions with nothing. These subsidies will be there with or without carbon credits. All carbon credits does is reduce the need for subsidies in order make a profitable business out of cleaning air and reducing emissions.

Tell, me why would you foresee anyone getting into the business or even starting the research of reducing or removing emissions if there wasn't a profit from it? You can regulate those to reduce their emissions, but as we seen with Caterpillar getting out of the heavy duty on-highway truck market in 2009 due to the cost of meeting the 2010 emissions standards. Companies will not waste their money if they don't see that it is profitable for them. No one will put forth the money required to this kind of research unless there is something to gain. Carbon credits gives them something to gain.

@ papa jim - self interest is a primitive survival mechanism therefore the choice to wrong another to benefit oneself is inherent (original sin comes to mind). Guilt or shame tends to keep us on the straight and narrow. That response is also primitive and developed due to the fact that we stood a better chance of surviving as a group. Many complex social rituals developed as a way to keep the group in line and build group identity. That also aids survival. The problem is that it starts to fall apart when we have the ability to nuke a rival tribe without ever having to look into their eyes.

Companies by nature are large and impersonal. GM and its ignition fiasco is an example of the mob looking on but expecting someone else to be responsible for stopping it.

If one looks at Brazil, their legislated safety standards are considerably less stringent than ours. The moral and ethical choice would be to sell them cars like ours with superior safety ratings. Does that happen? No. They sell to the legislated level which maximizes profits. Morally and ethically it is wrong but legally it is perfectly fine.


It's been about 45 years since I last blitzed through all of Ayn Rand's novels and columns.

She wrote that it's immoral to ask that someone live their life for someone else. It is in opposition to that person's self interest to do so. It isn't simply a reflex or a primitive impulse. Her hierarchy of moral thought makes for very good reading.

Yes we were going to have a carbon tax as well. The higher fuel taxes in the EU could almost be considered a carbon tax as they are there to reduce fuel usage, thus a reduction in carbon emissions.

The US has far less taxation on fuel, does this mean that carbon credits will not sell in the US? The US fuel situation is similar to our position with the carbon tax.

The US will end up paying more for energy through the use of inefficient instruments. I cost money to manage all of this administration, billions in fact.

Carbon credits and the sale of carbon credits is to be a global activity. Australia can still buy and sell them. Except the use of them here is minimalised now.

But, like all global activities I can buy carbon credits and still sell them.

I mean it's like selling anything. If a market doesn't exist for a product or service it will not sell. But artificially support that segment you will have people invest. Sort of like the chicken tax and other protectionist barriers.

Don't confuse pseudo free market activity with government taxation.

The stock market so to speak and government tax are two different issues.

You see here the green energy crowd are upset that they aren't receiving the handouts and protection of the past.

This makes is awkward for them to continue with their green agenda. Without this they have nothing to sell.

In Australia's situation it makes less sense for a business to want carbon credits if they aren't penalised for producing carbon.

So, as you can see ALL1 our governments make poor decisions in relation to OUR money. The impact of just one piss poor decision can have a roll on effect with band aid solutions to prop up and protect the original decision.

This is called red tape and protectionism. Green energy is a good idea, like pickup trucks. But the actual instruments to manage them can be their undoing.

This developing green energy situation in the US could very well end up like the chicken tax and the green industry could be propped up for decades to come. It's your tax dollars.

I'm not stating that I don't want to reduce emissions or build pickups. What I'm stating is the methods employed seem to favour certain interest groups, companies, etc. To protect them at the expense of progress and the consumer.

I believe in protecting the consumer first and foremost as we are the engines of a modern economy.

"Yes, these companies would need subsidies or government loans to get their start just as many students need student aid to get their start through college"

Yes, but there is good regulation and poor regulation (or assistance). Sort of like my hammer comment, a hammer is an instrument as well as regulation/taxation, etc, a hammer can build or destroy.

As for R&D. Well it isn't my responsibility to bring products and new ideas to the market. My only contribution is the fact I buy something and a smart company re-invests that money into their future. It isn't the taxpayers responsibility.

I do support R&D money for universities, not business.

How many restaurants does the government prop up if they have the wrong menu or employ the wrong people?

Now look at the Big 3. They had the wrong menu with an overall piss poor group of employees. They were saved.

Why should any other business be treated differently?

Your view on the sale of carbon credits seems to be focused at the 'retail' level.

Try and look at what is propping up this industry. There's a massive amount of subsidy, protection, handouts, etc to make these carbon credits viable.

How many decades will these protective instruments be in place in the US to prop up the carbon credit market?

Like I stated how long has the chicken tax been in place? It's still there protecting full size trucks from imports. This is costing the consumer money.

To reduce carbon there has to be regulation and standards set. Then adherence to those standards. If this is done you don't require carbon credits.

Housing and construction is built to a standard. Do we have building credits? Buildings are constructed to environmental and energy standards as well.

The actual sale of these carbon credits isn't directly propped up. Like the car yard that sells a US full size pickup. He gets very little in the way of handouts.

But, then look at all of the protection, regulation, taxation, etc to get that pickup to him.

Without all of those things protecting the actual 'product' or pickup there would probably a different product the car yard would be selling.

And, I really don't think the car yard owner cares if he sells a pickup or sports car at the end of the day.

The same as the guys selling these carbon credits. They don't care if they sell bonds, stocks or carbon credits. So long as they turn a profit at the overall expense of the consumer.

Remove these instruments and you have no market to sell carbon credits. And yet you will still reduce your emissions.

@papa jim - I'll have to try to familiarize myself with her work.
We as a society have gotten lazy and expect corporations and government to do the right thing for us. It doesn't work because those in power will ultimately do what is right for them.
That applies equally to either end of the political spectrum. We cannot expect things to change unless we find middle ground and try to understand why the left and right feel the way they do.
To fix the problems endemic or epidemic (depending on how you view things) may take decades to correct. If a political term in office is only 4 years and one can hope to get 2 terms in, that is not enough time to change things around.

That means there needs to be a bipartisan multi-term approach to change.

That isn't going to happen if one does not move beyond ideology.

@Big Al

Again, our carbon credit system is not the same as Australia's "carbon tax" system or any of the other countries for that matter. Read about how your countries "carbon tax" works and how our system will work and then come back and talk to me. You will see that a lot of what you just said is null and void with our system.

Here, look at all the countries that have a "carbon tax" in this list and then look at what it stated for the US. --->

"United States

There is no nationwide carbon tax levied in the United States, although a few states and localities have introduced the tax."

You speak of subsidies and protection, but as I have been trying to tell you the goal of our system is to try to reduce the need of subsidies in the environmental technologies sector. They do this trough the sale of carbon credits. Instead of getting money through subsides, they will get it through the sale of carbon credits. I am really tired of explaining this to you yet you keep referring to how things are in Australia's and the EU's "carbon tax" system. Again, they are not the same.

"Like I stated how long has the chicken tax been in place? It's still there protecting full size trucks from imports. This is costing the consumer money."

I hope it will be in place forever. You say it is costing us money(which I don't see how), but I see it as getting us jobs since those companies that want to sell small trucks here built factories here to do so. What is so bad abut that?

The comments to this entry are closed.