2006 Chrysler Crossfire Limited Coupe 2-door 3.2l **no Reserve on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Why Stellantis needs Chrysler

Stellantis has a secret weapon. It’s called Chrysler. Rumors swirled this year that the 96-year-old namesake brand of the former Chrysler Corp. could be on the chopping block, but Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares promptly shot them down. Now what? The brand has three nameplates: the 300 sedan, the Pacifica minivan and Voyager minivan, which is just an entry-level version of the Pacifica. Sedans and vans are not high priorities for most automakers, but they work for Chrysler. And because it is such a small brand, it has great opportunity. Consider the existing product line: The Pacifica is one of the best minivans you can buy. Stellantis has a lot of brands, but it doesnÂ’t have that many singular products that are at or near the top of their segments. The Pacifica is good, but the Pacifica Hybrid is unmatched. ItÂ’s an affordable, plug-in electric minivan thatÂ’s efficient and functional. ThereÂ’s nothing else like it on the market. The 300 is ancient, and unlike its platform mate, the highly evolved Dodge Charger, the 300 has languished. The 300 is still a decent premium sedan, but itÂ’s gone from trendsetter to afterthought. Chrysler needs a new 300 thatÂ’s different from the Charger and offers some kind of premium proposition. In this view, a rear-wheel-drive flagship thatÂ’s performance-oriented but civilized would work. The existing formula, essentially, just updated. ThereÂ’s a lot of equity in the 300 nameplate, and frankly the Chrysler brand needs vehicles, so killing this sedan doesnÂ’t make a lot of sense. Find an identity and make it work.  2021 Chrysler Pacifica Pinnacle View 19 Photos A revitalized 300 and a winning Pacifica buy some time. Then? Just two more vehicles would make Chrysler considerably stronger. Resist the urge to go with a sports car, which would drain time and resources. Did the Crossfire do anything for Chrysler? Even if they nail it, itÂ’s still a niche vehicle. Instead, go for the obvious — but make it interesting. A midsize crossover with an amazing interior and a plug-in powertrain, like the Lincoln Aviator, would do the trick. Offer two- and three-row variants. This might bump up against Jeep and its Wagoneer family. DonÂ’t worry, Jeep will be fine. This is about resuscitating Chrysler. Do something clever with the suspension (again, like the Aviator and its Mustang-derived chassis) or add some kind of conversation-starting technology, like VolvoÂ’s safety features. The other model should be all-electric.

10 years later, a look back at U.S. auto industry’s near-death experience

The U.S. auto industry this month marks a grim and harrowing milestone: A decade ago, the entire industry was staring into the abyss of total collapse. By 2009, of course, the broader economy was teetering on the brink, with mortgage default rates and foreclosures spiraling and the real estate market in the tank. Both Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns had collapsed, President George W. Bush had signed the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, infusing $700 billion of taxpayer money to stabilize Wall Street, and Insurer AIG, stung by huge losses on subprime mortgages, won a federal bailout. Virtually the entire decade had been particularly unkind to the Detroit Three automakers, which were over-reliant on gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs as gasoline prices crept toward the $4 mark, and whose labor costs — especially for health care and retiree pension obligations — were dragging them billions into the red. It was a dreadful, frightening time in Detroit, especially, with reports of plant closures and mass layoffs appearing with alarming regularity. Seeing the federal government's largess with Wall Street, General Motors and Chrysler both went calling for government assistance for themselves. (Ford managed to avoid following suit only by mortgaging all of its assets, including its very brand, years earlier in exchange for billions of dollars in loans.) Yet instead of giving them the "bridge loans" they sought, the incoming Obama administration instead pushed back against GM and Chrysler, eventually guiding them into bankruptcy protection, as the Detroit Free Press recalls in a multimedia story recounting the industry's tumultuous and perilous recent past. The piece uses images of the newspaper's front pages from those days, splashed with what former newsroom colleagues and I would often refer to as "Pearl Harbor font" headlines ("NO DEAL" read the Freep's Dec. 12, 2008, edition). There are also timelines, interactive graphics and snippets of video interviews with two insiders: freshman U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens of Michigan, who served as chief of staff for President Obama's auto task force; and U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell, the wife of the late longtime U.S. Rep. and industry ally John Dingell, who was then an executive at GM.

Renault delays decision on merger with Fiat Chrysler

PARIS — Renault has delayed a decision on whether to merge with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, a deal that could reshape the global auto industry as carmakers race to make electric and autonomous vehicles for the masses. The deal still looks likely, but faced new criticism Tuesday from Renault's leading union and questions from its Japanese alliance partner Nissan. The French government is also putting conditions on the deal, including job guarantees and an operational headquarters based in France. The French carmaker's board will meet again at the end of the day Wednesday to "continue to study with interest" last week's merger proposal from FCA, Renault said in a statement. A Renault board meeting Tuesday to study the deal was inconclusive. The company didn't explain why, but a French government official said board members don't want to rush into a deal and are seeking agreement on all parts of the potential merger. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in line with government policy, told The Associated Press the conditions outlined by France's finance minister still "need to be met." France and Italy are both painting themselves as winners in the deal, which could save both companies 5 billion euros ($5.6 billion) a year. But workers worry a merger could lead to job losses, and analysts warn it could bog down in the challenges of managing such a hulking company across multiple countries. And a possible loser is Japan's Nissan, whose once-mighty alliance with Renault and Mitsubishi is on the rocks since star CEO Carlos Ghosn's arrest in November. Nissan CEO Hiroto Saikawa cast doubt Tuesday on whether his company will be involved in a Renault-Fiat Chrysler merger — and suggested adding Fiat Chrysler to the looser Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi alliance instead. Saikawa said in a statement that the Renault-Fiat Chrysler deal would "significantly alter" the structure of Nissan's longtime partnership with Renault, and Nissan would analyze its contractual relationships to protect the company's interests. If Renault's board says "yes" to Fiat Chrysler, that would open the way for a non-binding memorandum of understanding to start exclusive merger negotiations. The ensuing process — including consultations with unions, the French government, antitrust authorities and other regulators — would take about a year. A merger would create the world's third-biggest automaker, worth almost $40 billion and producing some 8.7 million vehicles a year.