14 Chrysler 300 C White Beige Interior Navigation Back Up Cam 22 Inch Lexani Wls on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2019 Toyota Sienna AWD vs 2018 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid | New meets old

The Toyota Sienna has always been an inconspicuous van. They're out there, there's a lot of them and they're huge, but they blend in with darn near everything. Perhaps Toyota noticed that a little while ago and slapped on the slightly garish grille/not a grille plastic thing in the front bumper, but it still doesn't really stand out. On the other hand, our long-term Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid, which is a great deal newer than the Sienna, has slick styling that gets noticed. Toyota hasn't properly redesigned the Sienna since the 2011 model year, and it shows on every front. Despite its many shortcomings, there are still some valid arguments for going with the dinosaur. Ride and handling Of all the reasons to choose a Sienna over the much newer competition, available all-wheel drive has to be the main one. My tester was so equipped, and I got a chance to test it out in both snow and ice. Obviously, the first thing I did in powder was see if the rear end would break loose. I can confirm that with traction control off, the Sienna will slide around a little bit. You won't be doing any sick drifts, but it's undoubtedly more fun than our Pacifica. The Chrysler is fitted with Nokian Hakkapelitta winter tires. As you might guess, this means that braking and grip around corners is better than the Sienna in snow. If the Sienna were to ditch its slippery all-seasons for a proper set of winters, it would be running circles around the Pacifica. Still, I drove our Pacifica through a lake effect blizzard in Buffalo and it never blinked from lack of traction with multiple inches of snow on the ground. Some folks are going to want the assurance of all-wheel drive, and the Sienna will offer it, but don't make it your only option. All-wheel drive might help you get going, but winter tires are there to save the day when sledding gets tough. What impressed most about the Sienna was its ride quality and composure. This van earned its road warrior status on my drive to the Chicago Auto Show from Detroit. The long highway trek was handled without issue by the big minivan chassis. Bumps and road imperfections were soaked up well. Noise wasn't much of an issue either, something minivans can struggle with given the massive amount of space in the cabin ripe for vibrations and rattles. However, an uncomfortable seat led to some soreness after over four hours in the saddle. No matter how I adjusted the lumbar, it didn't seem to take to my 5'10" slim frame.

Future Classic: 1990-2012 Mitsubishi Eclipse

It was meant to be a premiere partnership, pregnant with possibilities: the alliance of a pair of global automotive powerhouses from Japan and America. Eventually the merger gave birth to a trio of highly-regarded sports coupes: the Mitsubishi Eclipse, the Eagle Talon and the Plymouth Laser, cars developed by the company that became Diamond-Star Motors. Although DSM’s beginnings can be traced back to a flirtation in 1970, when Chrysler Corporation took a 15-percent stake in Mitsubishi Motors, the partnership later culminated in a formal pairing in 1985. It was good timing: Chrysler was emerging from near-bankruptcy; the Japanese company just didnÂ’t have anything to please U.S. buyers, and with government-imposed “voluntary” import quotas, its supply lines were broadly restricted. Chrysler, looking to expand its lines, built a plant in Normal, Illinois, but, although Chrysler put up half the $650 million for the facility, it left management to Mitsubishi. And the Japanese facilities provided engines and transmissions. By the end of 1989, production of the Diamond-Star triplets — the Laser, Eclipse and Talon — was in full swing. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Why is the Mitsubishi Eclipse a Future Classic? The Eclipse, supposedly named for an unbeaten 18th-century English racehorse that won 18 races in a row, was the shining star of the line. Because of its long run in series production, the genealogy of the Eclipse is worth discussing. Initially the car, designed at the Mitsubishi Motors North America Design Studio and introduced in 1990, was available in four trim levels: Eclipse, Eclipse GS, Eclipse GS-T (Turbo) and Eclipse GSX. It evolved first as a two-door coupe, later as a convertible or liftback, with front-wheel or all-wheel drive, and with engine choices including naturally aspirated fours, turbocharged fours and V6 options. One really needs a scorecard to chart the generations: 1st Gen (1990-1994), 2nd Gen (1995-1999), 3rd Gen (2000-2005), and 4th Gen (2006-2012). Before the EclipseÂ…well, was eclipsed, buyers of the third and fourth-gen cars could specify a 3.8L V6 engine as well as a four. This swank 2+2 sports car and its nearly identical cousin, the Eagle Talon TSi, emerged as hot rods for the Nineties, and tuners gave them full props for power.

Why the Detroit Three should merge their engine operations

GM and FCA should consider a smaller merger that could still save them billions of dollars, and maybe lure Ford into the deal. Fiat-Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne would love to see his company merge with General Motors. But GM's board of directors essentially told him to go pound sand. So now what? The boardroom battle started when Mr. Marchionne published a study called Confessions of a Capital Junkie. In it, Sergio detailed the amount of capital the auto industry wastes every year with duplicate investments. And he documented how other industries provide superior returns. He's right, of course. Other industries earn much better returns on their invested capital. And there's a danger that one day the investors will turn their backs on the auto industry and look to other business sectors where they can make more money. But even with powerful arguments Marchionne couldn't convince GM to take over FCA. And while that fight may now be over, GM and FCA should consider a smaller merger that could still save them billions of dollars, and maybe lure Ford into the deal. No doubt this suggestion will send purists into convulsions, but so be it. The Detroit Three should seriously consider merging their powertrain operations, even though that's a sacrilege in an industry that still considers the engine the "heart" of the car. These automakers have built up considerable brand equity in some of their engines. But the vast majority of American car buyers could not tell you what kind of engine they have under the hood. More importantly, most car buyers really don't care what kind of engine or transmission they have as long as it's reliable, durable, and efficient. Combining that production would give the Detroit Three the kind of scale that no one else could match. There are exceptions, of course. Hardcore enthusiasts care deeply about the powertrains in their cars. So do most diesel, plug-in, and hybrid owners. But all of them account for maybe 15 percent of the car-buying public. So that means about 85 percent of car buyers don't care where their engine and transmission came from, just as they don't know or care who supplied the steel, who made the headlamps, or who delivered the seats on a just-in-time basis. It's immaterial to them. And that presents the automakers with an opportunity to achieve a staggering level of manufacturing scale. In the NAFTA market alone, GM, Ford, and FCA will build nearly nine million engines and nine million transmissions this year.