Chrysler Pt Cruiser 4dr Wagon Low Miles Sedan Manual Gasoline 2.4l Dohc Smpi 16- 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.

2015 Chrysler 200 snags EPA ratings of 18 mpg city and 29 highway

While Chrysler hasn't officially announced fuel economy figures for its new 200 sedan, the information for one model has just leaked out thanks to the US Department of Energy's FuelEconomy.gov website. It certified the 200 with the 295-horsepower and 262-pound-feet 3.6-liter Pentastar V6, nine-speed automatic and all-wheel drive as getting 18-miles-per-gallon city, 29-mpg highway and 22-mpg combined.
Last year's front-wheel drive 200 with a less-powerful version of the Pentastar was rated at 19-mpg city, 29-mpg highway and 22-mpg combined. That means that buyers are getting more power and all-wheel drive traction at almost no loss in economy. However, compared to current, all-wheel drive sedan competitors, the Chrysler comes in the middle. The Ford Fusion with all-wheel drive with the 2.0-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder has 240 hp and 270 lb-ft of torque is somewhat down on power but bests it in economy at 22-mpg city, 31-mpg highway and 25-mpg combined. The current Subaru Legacy 3.6R loses in both metrics with 256 hp and 247 lb-ft and a rating of 18-mpg city, 25-mpg highway and 20-mpg combined. However, Subaru claims the next generation with the same engine will boast 20-mpg city, 28-mpg highway and 23-mpg combined. But these numbers are just estimates from the automaker at the moment, and they haven't yet been certified by the EPA yet.
The numbers for the four-cylinder and front-wheel drive 200 drivetrains are not yet available, but Chrysler has been promising the sedan gets an estimated 35-mpg highway with the 184-hp and 173-lb-ft Tigershark 2.4-liter four-cylinder engine. We won't know for sure until it's certified, but we'll keep you posted.

Move over Audi, now Chrysler has a beef with Tesla's claims

In the same week that Audi said "not so fast" to some claims from Tesla, Chrysler has responded to a new press release from the California-based EV-maker by saying "not exactly, Tesla." The statement, released through the company's blog, comes in response to Tesla claiming it was "the only American car company to have fully repaid the government." Chrysler notes that it, too, recently paid back Uncle Sam from its 2008 bailout. Similar to Audi's recent press release, which was eventually and mysteriously deleted from the German automaker's site, Chrysler is both right and wrong in its statement.
Tesla specifically said that it had paid back the Department of Energy loans that many automakers received - including Fisker and VPG Autos - while Chrysler's retort argues Tesla is "unmistakably incorrect" since it repaid the government in 2011 a full six years early. Technically, the statements from both automakers are correct, but Tesla's startup loan originated from the DoE, while Chrysler's loan came in bailout form from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Further, as The Detroit News notes, Chrysler's loan still cost taxpayers well over a billion dollars after all was said and done - those negative assets tied to "old Chrysler" in the bankruptcy did not require repayment.