1995 Chrysler Lebaron Gtc Convertible , Low Miles , Everything Works !! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Consumer Reports says these are the worst new cars of 2014

Consumer Reports has announced its annual list of worst vehicles, a cringe-inducing contrast to its list of top vehicles. Ignominiously leading the way in 2014 is Chrysler, which has a staggering seven models listed.
Jeep nearly sweeps the small SUV segment by itself, with its Compass, Patriot and 2.4-liter version of the new Cherokee, while the only midsize sedans listed by CR were the Chrysler 200 and Dodge Avenger. The new Dodge Dart and the Dodge Journey round out CR's condemnation of Chrysler.
Ford is taking heat as well, with the Taurus, Edge and their counterparts from Lincoln all listed as the worst vehicles in their respective segments. Toyota doesn't fare much better, with its Lexus IS, Scion iQ and tC also making the list.

Dodge to resurrect Scat Pack?

Before social media ever existed, if automotive enthusiasts wanted to be noticed or recognize other fans, they joined a car club. For Dodge muscle car lovers from 1968 through 1971, that group was known as the Scat Pack. Just like the Charger, Challenger and Dart nameplates, it looks like the Scat Pack could be getting a resurrection by Chrysler.
Automotive News is reporting that Chrysler recently renewed its trademark on the Scat Pack name, and while this is in no way a guarantee that the name will return, AN talked to Tim Kuniskis, Dodge President and CEO, who stoked the fire a little more. In the article, Kuniskis said that the name is "a very important part of our history" and added that "we like the whole idea of having a Scat Pack of cars." Scat Pack models were identified by their bumblebee stripes and helmet-wearing bumblebee logo, and the idea of a modern Scat Pack doesn't seem all that outlandish in light of recent vehicles like the Charger SRT Super Bee and the Ram 1500 Rumble Bee Concept.
What do you think, is this a cool idea, or is it just an unwelcome bit of nostalgia? Have you say in Comments.

Is it time for American carmakers to give up on dual-clutch transmissions? [w/poll]

Last week, in the midst of Detroit's first days seeking relief in Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code, Automotive News contributor Larry P. Vellequette penned an editorial suggesting that American car companies raise the white flag on dual clutch transmissions and give up on trying to persuade Americans to buy cars fitted with them. Why? Because, Vellequette says, like CVT transmissions, they "just don't sound right or feel right to American drivers." (Note: In the article, it's not clear if Vellequette is arguing against wet-clutch and dry-clutch DCTs or just dry-clutch DCTs, which is what Ford and Chrysler use.) The article goes on to state that Ford and Chrysler have experimented with DCTs and that both consumers and the automotive press haven't exactly given them glowing reviews, despite their quicker shifts and increased fuel efficiency potential compared to torque-converter automatic transmissions.
Autoblog staffers who weighed in on the relevance of DCTs in American cars generally disagreed with the blanket nature of Vellequette's statement that they don't sound or feel right, but admit that their lack of refinement compared to traditional automatics can be an issue for consumers. That's particularly true in workaday cars like the Ford Focus and Dodge Dart, both of which have come in for criticism in reviews and owner surveys. From where we sit, the higher-performance orientation of such transmissions doesn't always meld as well with the marching orders of everyday commuters (particularly if drivers haven't been educated as to the transmission's benefits and tradeoffs), and in models not fitted with paddle shifters, it's particularly hard for drivers to use a DCT to its best advantage.
Finally, we also note that DCT tuning is very much an evolving science. For instance, Autoblog editors who objected to dual-clutch tuning in the Dart have more recently found the technology agreeable in the Fiat 500L. Practice makes perfect - or at least more acceptable.