2007 Chrysler Pacifica Touring Minivan 4 Door, 7 Passenger, 4.0, V6. (59k Miles) on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM, Ford, Chrysler halt some Michigan operations over natural gas shortage

WASHINGTON - General Motors said late on Wednesday it will temporarily suspend operations at 11 Michigan plants and its Warren Tech Center after a utility made an emergency appeal to users to conserve natural gas during extreme winter cold. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles also said it had canceled a shift on Thursday at both its Warren Truck and Sterling Heights Assembly plants and was considering whether it would need to cancel additional shifts. GM said it had been asked by Consumers Energy, a unit of CMS Energy Corp, to suspend operations to allow the utility to manage supply issues after extreme cold temperatures and a fire at a compressor station. It said workers were told not to report for the shifts at its Orion Assembly, Flint Assembly, Lansing Delta Township Assembly and Lansing Grand River Assembly plants, as well as other stamping and transmission plants on Wednesday evening and early Thursday. GM said it was still assessing when employees could return to work. Workers at its Warren Tech Center were also told to stay home on Thursday. In a video message posted on Facebook, CMS Energy Chief Executive Patricia Poppe said large companies, including Fiat Chrysler, Ford Motor Co and GM, had agreed to "interrupt" production schedules through Friday to tackle the issue prompted by a fire at a Michigan facility and the record-breaking cold. Poppe said the usage cuts by large businesses were not enough, and urged 1.8 million Michigan customers to turn down thermostats as much as they could to cut natural gas use in order to protect critical facilities like hospitals and nursing homes. "I need you to take action right now," she said. Ford said it had also taken steps to reduce energy use at its four Michigan plants supplied by Consumers Energy, but added the situation remained fluid. A spokeswoman said it had reduced heating levels at Livonia Transmission and Van Dyke Transmission, stopped heat treatment processes at Sterling Axle and shut down the paint process at Michigan Assembly. Consumers Energy sent an alert to mobile phones in Michigan asking residents to reduce natural gas use.

Junkyard Gem: 1964 Plymouth Valiant V-200 Wagon

When Chrysler introduced the Valiant for the 1960 model year, the automotive world had no idea that this new compact would become one of the most successful products in the company's history. Valiants and its A-Body siblings were built and sold by the millions around the world, with production continuing into the early 1980s (in Australia and South America). The sales pinnacle for the Valiant in the U.S. was 1964, and today's Junkyard Gem is one of those cars: an upscale V-200 station wagon, found in a Denver-area wrecking yard a few weeks back. The Valiant began life as its own marque, became a Plymouth for 1961, left Plymouth for 1962, then returned as a Plymouth model until American Valiant production ceased in 1976, and the Volare took its place. You'll barely see any mention of the Plymouth brand in the 1964 Valiant brochure, and Plymouth badging on the '64s was minimal. You could get the 1964 Valiant wagon as the base V-100, starting at $2,273, or as the nicer V-200 with its $2,388 price tag (that's about $21,150 and $22,220 in 2022 dollars). Valiant coupes and convertibles could be had with the even swankier (by cheap small-car standards) Signet trim level. As Ford showed us in the middle 2000s, numbers are just classier if you spell them out on emblems. In the middle 1960s, substituting an automatic for the base three-on-the-tree column-shift manual transmission jacked up the price of an affordable car by an eye-watering amount. The Torqueflite three-speed automatic and its slick-looking push-button shifter cost 172 bucks extra (around $1,600 today), which made the car more than 7% costlier. A four-on-the-floor manual was available for the first time in a new Valiant that year, but it cost $180. Also new for the 1964 Valiant was a V8 option (a 273-cubic-incher rated at 180 horsepower), but this car has the good old Slant-6. If it's the engine that came with the car when it rolled off the assembly line, it's a 101-horse example with 170 cubic inches… but these cars are notorious for getting engine swaps early and often and I didn't check the block casting numbers. The cassette deck tells us that it was being driven as recently as the late 1980s through middle 1990s. There's some rust in the usual spots, about what this car would have acquired by 1967 if it had stayed in Michigan. This car could have been restored, though the expense for rust repair and interior refurbishment wouldn't have been a good investment from a financial standpoint.

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...