2007 Chrysler Pt Cruiser Touring Edition--only 87k Miles on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford delays North American production restart from coronavirus lockdown

Ford said on Tuesday it was postponing its plan to restart production at its North American plants due to safety concerns for its workers amid the coronavirus pandemic. To generate cash, the No. 2 U.S. automaker had said last week it was poised to restart production at some plants in North America as early as April 6, bringing back such profitable vehicles as its top-selling F-150 full-sized pickup, the Transit commercial van and SUVs. But on Tuesday, Ford said it had been aiming to resume production at several key U.S. plants on April 14, but would now instead do so at dates it would announce later on. "The health and safety of our workforce, dealers, customers, partners and communities remains our highest priority," Kumar Galhotra, president of Ford's North American operations, said in a statement. Still, the automaker will open a plant in Ypsilanti, Michigan, during the week of April 20, that will make ventilators to treat patients afflicted by the coronavirus. Rival Fiat Chrysler Automobiles said last week it plans to resume production in North America on April 13. General Motors has shuttered its plants indefinitely and has not provided a date for vehicle production to restart. It is facing a delay in the production launch of its redesigned large SUVs and is delaying work on other SUVs. "Once it is safe to resume production, we will do so," a GM spokesman said. As of Monday, Volkswagen was shooting for an April 5 reopening at its Tennessee plant. Honda, Nissan and Subaru facilities in North America will remain closed through April 6, and Hyundai through April 10. Toyota was planning to reopen its North American plants April 17. Plants/Manufacturing Chrysler Fiat Ford GM coronavirus

UAW warns automakers: Restarting U.S. plants is 'too soon and too risky'

WASHINGTON/WARREN, Mich. — The head of the United Auto Workers union on Thursday said it was "too soon and too risky" to reopen auto plants and Michigan's economy in early May, citing insufficient scientific data and coronavirus testing to assure workplaces are safe. The warning from UAW President Rory Gamble on Thursday afternoon came as General Motors Co , Ford Motor Co and Toyota Motor Corp took new steps toward reopening North American vehicle manufacturing operations in an environment where consumer demand is uncertain and worker safety paramount. The union has said that 24 of its members have died from Covid-19, though it was unclear whether they might have become infected in the workplace. Unionized Detroit automakers and non-union German and Asian automakers have been preparing to restart U.S. vehicle making operations by early May. Companies have shifted reopening dates amid uncertainty about government stay-at-home orders. Gamble's statement appeared to derail plans by the Detroit Three to start bringing UAW workers back to vehicle manufacturing jobs on May 4. The longer the automakers cannot produce profitable U.S.-made trucks and sport utility vehicles, the longer they burn cash. The UAW leader's statement was also aimed at Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who has come under pressure from conservative groups and President Donald Trump to ease coronavirus stay-at-home restrictions. "At this point in time, the UAW does not believe the scientific data is conclusive that it is safe to have our members back in the workplace. We have not done enough testing to really understand the threat our members face," Gamble said. "We strongly suggest to our companies in all sectors that an early May date is too soon and too risky to our members, their families and their communities." Gamble said the union was "happy with the auto companiesÂ’ response and cooperation on working through the health and safety protocols we will need in the workplace when it is appropriate to restart." Earlier Thursday, GM began notifying front line managers to come back to work next week to get trained on new safety protocols designed to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus as workers return to plants.

This or That: 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 vs. 1984 Pontiac Fiero

Welcome to another round of This or That, where two Autoblog editors pick a topic, pick a side and pull no punches. Last round pitted yours truly against Associate Editor Brandon Turkus, and my chosen VW Vanagon Syncro narrowly defeated Brandon's 1987 Land Rover. In fact, it was, by far, the closest round we've seen, with 1,907 voters seeing things my way (for 50.8 percent of the vote) versus 1,848 votes for Brandon's Rover (49.2 percent). Sweet, sweet victory! For this latest round of This or That, I've roped Editor Greg Migliore into what I think is a rather fun debate. We've each chosen our favorite terrible cars, setting a price limit of $10,000 to make sure neither of us went too crazy with our automotive atrocities. I think we've both chosen terribly... and I mean that in the best way possible. 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 Jeremy Korzeniewski: Why It's Terrible: Taken in isolation, the Chrysler Crossfire isn't necessarily a terrible car. In fact, it drives pretty darn well, and there's a lot of solid engineering under its slinky shape. Problem is, that engineering was already rather long in the tooth well before Chrysler ever got its hands on it, having come from Mercedes-Benz, which used the basic chassis and drivetrain in a previous version of its SLK coupe and roadster. Granted, the SLK was an okay car, too, but even when new, it hardly set the world on fire with sporty driving dynamics. Chrysler took these decent-but-no-more bits and pieces from the Mercedes parts bin – remember, this car was conceived in the disastrous Merger Of Equals days – and covered them with a rather attractive hard-candy shell. Unfortunately, the super sporty shape wrote checks in the minds of buyers that its well-worn mechanicals were simply unable to cash, though an injection of power courtesy of a supercharged V6 engine in the SRT6 model, as seen here, certainly helped ease some of those woes. In the end, Chrysler was left with a so-called halo car that looked the part but never quite performed the part. It was almost universally panned by critics as an overpriced parts-bin special, which, I must add, was damningly accurate. As a result, sales were very slow, and within the first few months, dealers were clearancing the car at cut-rate prices, just to keep them from taking up too much of the showroom floor. Why It's Not That Terrible, After All: I can speak from personal experience when discussing the Chrysler Crossfire. You see, I owned one. Well, sort of...