Guess you never figured that the costs in making that smaller car more fuel efficient would drive the cost up, so it would be similar to a larger car anyways?   Your not going to see a huge improvement in MPGs by just making a car smaller or lighter like you did 30-40 years ago-many of those improvements where due to improved transmissions, fuel injection etc. Weight is a major issue with smaller cars because they still have perform the same as a larger vehicle in crash testing, so you have airbags, crumple zones, etc that add to weight.    Also don't forget that once you hit the 25 MPG mark, its all diminishing returns after that anyways http://www.mpgillusion.com/p/what-is-mpg-illusion.html  

In the US. 

At this point, it doesn't seem like a good idea to design a Chrysler product for that brand, as the brand won't sell enough to justify the expense. It would make more sense to just build and sell the next generation Peugeot products here and replace the badge on it with a Chrysler badge, or if they want less brands to manage world wide sell those products as a Peugeot (selling Pacifica under that brand) and axe Chrysler.   Chrysler may be too damaged to rebuild and it may just be easier to introduce Peugeot which would be a new brand to NA at this point.

That was easy.....

With 47 square feet falling close to middle of MPG versus Footprint section of line that is declining, why do we hear so much about resistance to make cars smaller because they would have to get better fuel economy?  Obviously smaller cars would be require to get better MPG, but they generally do.  Same with larger vehicles allowed to get lower MPG, but they generally do get lower MPG due to added size and mass.  What else is going on?  It isn’t like any car has much chance of reaching those numbers anyway.  Government regulations often don’t make much sense, and these requirements are hard to follow, especially below about 40 and above 55 square feet.   

True, and also interesting and IMO relevant to this conversation, that original Mustang wasn’t that different for its time when many large family vehicles were much faster.  The Mustang with 271 HP (gross rating) 289 V8 was quick for its time, but did not sell well either due to higher cost or buyers didn’t feel they needed the extra power.  The vast majority of Mustangs, even 289 with 4-barrel carburetors, could be outrun by many family sedans and station wagons with big-block V8s.  Mustang’s tremendous sales success over first few years wasn’t driven primarily by speed.  Below from Hemmings states K-code was very small percentage:   “Included with the “Hi-Po” 289 were a Special Handling Package and a full complement of 6.95 x 14 dual-red-stripe tires. The entry fee for this performance boost: a whopping $442.60 over the additional $75 assigned to the 260-cu in engine option. With the exception of the $283.20 air conditioning, no other factory or dealer Mustang accessory had such an impact on buyer’s wallets, which means K-code production was understandably low. Over the course of a three model-year run (technically all 19641/2; Mustangs have a ’65 model year VIN), just 13,231 of the nearly 1.7 million Mustangs that rolled from the assembly line were equipped as such: 7,273 from introduction through ’65; 5,469 in ’66; and a mere 489 in ’67 according to Marti Auto Works.“   https://www.hemmings.com/stories/1964-1-2-67-ford-mustang-k-code-289/  

Ford changes plans daily.  the 3-row EV was imminent, redesigned, imminent, then cancelled.  Until I see it, I don't believe it.

I don't really see something coming in 2026 as being super far off. 

They sold a whopping 11,426 of those and 2,615 Supras.  If you want to be generous and include the BRZ twin, you're at 14,771 GR86+BRZ.

Good luck. I jumped in around late '18, when it dipped below $10. Then the pandemic hit, dropped into the $4's, then they suspended the dividend.  Had to wait a while to get my original investment back.   HRG