1954 Chrysler New Yorker Deluxe 2 Door Sedan on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

Killing the Dart and 200 might lower FCA's fuel economy burden

Killing the Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200 could allow FCA US to take advantage of an intriguing quirk in the next decade's fuel economy regulations. By increasing its ratio of trucks versus cars, the automaker might not need to worry so much about hitting the more stringent efficiency rules. At first thought, it might seem harder for an automaker with a ton of trucks to meet the government's mandated 54.5 mile per gallon corporate average fuel economy for 2025. However, every company doesn't need to hit that lofty figure, according to The Detroit Free Press. The exact target varies by the product mix between trucks and cars. "While passenger car and light truck categories have separate CAFE targets, it's still true that more trucks versus cars in a company lineup means a lower combined CAFE target," Brandon Schoettle, Project Manager Sustainable Worldwide Transportation at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, told Autoblog. "While passenger car and light truck categories have separate CAFE targets, it's still true that more trucks versus cars in a company lineup means a lower combined CAFE target." FCA US' current product blend has 80 percent pickups and CUVs, which means the company stands to benefit from a lower fuel economy target. It might not seem entirely fair environmentally, but this is a great move from a business perspective. The new CAFE rules aren't set in stone, according to The Detroit Free Press, but potentially taking advantage of the regulation is just one more reason to cut the Dart and 200. Modern crossovers also aren't gas guzzlers like older SUVs, which could make it easier to hit the fuel economy target. "Utilities offer practicality and versatility that cars do not, and now, built on car architectures, they do not penalize consumers on fuel economy as they once did," AutoTrader Senior Analyst Michelle Krebs told Autoblog. Schoettle warns that FCA is still making a gamble by killing the small sedans. "Depending on the previous sales volumes and how much these vehicles might have exceeded their specific CAFE targets, it's possible that these cars helped earn CAFE credits for FCA that they could bank for future use," he said. "Future sales breakdowns [car vs.

Fiat Chrysler’s Sergio Marchionne throws more cold water on Tesla, EVs

Fiat Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne has once again sounded off on industry upstart Tesla and its wunderkind boss, Elon Musk. In the process, he doubled down on FCA's reluctance to follow its competitors headlong into electrifying its vehicle fleet, saying "we're not betting the bank on going fully electric in the next decade. It won't happen." Marchionne made his comments on Monday during remarks at the New York Stock Exchange, where he was marking the 70th anniversary of Ferrari. They come as Tesla struggles to ramp up production of its Model 3 sedan, its first mass-market offering, and the company continues to hemorrhage money. Here's what he said: "We still don't have a viable model for delivering an electric car. As much as I like Elon Musk, and he's a good friend, and actually he's done a phenomenal job of marketing Telsa, I remain unconvinced of a new economic viability of the model that he's pitching. So I think we need to be careful, because when we embrace electrification, and I made comments on the fact that we lose money on every Fiat 500, the electric that we sell in the U.S. Now that's reflective of the 2011-2010 costs in terms of components. Those costs have come down. If I were to do it again, I would certainly reduce the amount of the loss, but I would not make any money. And you can't run economic entities on losses. It doesn't happen. "So how do we find a convergence of technology bringing prices of components down and allows us to price accordingly — or we need to navigate through this process in a combined way between combustion and electrification to yield at least a minimum of economic returns that allows for our continuity? The last thing you want is me to be successful selling cars for 24 months and then go bust. That's not a good story. Especially in a place like this which rewards economic success. Let's not sit here and design our own future in the tank. Let's try and do it properly. We will do all the right things. We are investing without making a lot of noise on electrification. We will combine it with combustion to yield the right level of CO2. But we're not betting the bank on going fully electric in the next decade. It won't happen." It's not the first time Marchionne has publicly expressed doubts about Tesla's business plan.