1998 Chrysler Sebring Limited Convertible Runs, But Needs Work on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Which of these five plug-ins should win the 2017 Green Car of the Year?

It's going to be a competitive race for the 2017 Green Car Of The Year. With a minivan in the running for the first time in ages, the five finalists announced by Green Car Journal today include five very different plug-in vehicles. As Ron Cogan, the editor and publisher of Green Car Journal, said in a statement, "electrification is now considered by most automakers an essential technology for current and future high-efficiency models." Let's check out the list: Toyota Prius Prime, the updated plug-in version of the world's best-selling hybrid. Chevy Bolt, GM's all-new entry into the long-range EV game. Chrysler Pacifica, a family hauler with the ability to go 30 miles on electric power. Kia Optima. The nomination is for the full line-up, but really the hybrid and plug-in hybrid models are the green stars here. BMW 330e iPerformance, one of the automaker's many new plug-in hybrids that bring battery power to models outside the i sub-brand. Green Car Journal will announce the winners at the Los Angeles Auto Show on November 17th, along with some, "other green transportation announcements," whatever that means. Last year, the winner was the 2016 Chevy Volt, the first model to snatch up two wins. Which do you think should win this year? Related Video: News Source: Green Car JournalImage Credit: REUTERS/Kevork Djansezian Green LA Auto Show BMW Chevrolet Chrysler Kia Toyota Chevy Bolt chrysler pacifica green car of the year toyota prius prime bmw 330e

Labor Day: A look back at the largest UAW strikes in history

American made is almost an anachronism now, but good manufacturing jobs drove America's post-war economic golden age. Fifty years ago, if you held a job on a line, you were most likely a member of a union. And no union was more powerful than the United Auto Workers. Before the slow decline in membership started in the 1970s, the UAW had over 1.5 million members and represented workers from the insurance industry to aerospace and defense. The UAW isn't the powerhouse it once was. Today, just fewer than 400,000 workers hold membership in the UAW. Unions are sometimes blamed for the decline of American manufacturing, as companies have spent the last 30 years outsourcing their needs to countries with cheap labor and fewer requirements for the health and safety of their workers. Unions formed out of a desire to protect workers from dangerous conditions and abject poverty once their physical abilities were used up on the line; woes that manufacturers now outsource to poorer countries, along with the jobs. Striking was the workers' way of demanding humane treatment and a seat at the table with management. Most strikes are and were local affairs, affecting one or two plants and lasting a few days. But some strikes took thousands of workers off the line for months. Some were large enough to change the landscape of America. 1. 1936-1937 Flint Sit-Down Strike In 1936, just a year after the UAW formed and the same year they held their first convention, the union moved to organize workers within a major manufacturer. For extra oomph, they went after the largest in the world – General Motors. UAW Local 174 president Walter Reuther focused on two huge production facilities – one in Flint and one in Cleveland, where GM made all the parts for Buick, Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Chevrolet. Conditions in these plants were hellish. Workers weren't allowed bathroom breaks and often soiled themselves while standing at their stations. Workers were pushed to the limit on 12-14 hour shifts, six days a week. The production speed was nearly impossibly fast and debilitating injuries were common. In July 1936, temperatures inside the Flint plants reached over 100 degrees, yet managers refused to slow the line. Heat exhaustion killed hundreds of workers. Their families could expect no compensation for their deaths. When two brothers were fired in Cleveland when management discovered they were part of the union, a wildcat strike broke out.

Detroit and Silicon Valley: When cultures collide

Culture is a subject that rarely, if never, gets discussed when traditional auto companies buy — or hugely invest — in Silicon Valley-based companies. The conversation surrounding the investments is usually about how the tech looks appealing and how it's an appropriate step to move the automakers toward autonomy. Culture — the way things are done, the expectations, and the approaches — is something that is overlooked only at one's peril. The potential cultural gap is almost always evident in the obligatory photos of the participants in these deals, with is essentially a photo op of auto execs with their Silicon Valley counterparts. The former — rocking jeans and no ties — look like parochial school kids playing hooky. Don't worry: The regimental outfits will be back in place once they get back in the Eastern time zone. Consider what happened back in 1998 when Daimler bought Chrysler. First of all, there was a denial in Detroit that it happened. It was positioned as a "merger of equals." Which it wasn't. In any corporate situation, when one has more than 50 percent of the business, it owns the whole thing. And the German company was in the proverbial driver's seat. People who were around Auburn Hills back then kept their heads down and their German Made Simple books at hand. Things did not go well. Daimler had had enough by 2007, when it offloaded Chrysler to Cerberus Capital Management — which brought ex-Home Depot CEO Bob Nardelli into the picture, which is a story onto itself. But when you think about the Daimler-Chrysler situation, realize that these were two car companies (at least the Mercedes part of the Daimler organization), so they had that in common, and the language of engineers is something of an Esperanto based on math, so there was that, too. Yet it simply didn't work. It doesn't take too many viewings of HBO's Silicon Valley to know that the business people in that part of the world are far more aggressive than people who ordinarily head and control car companies in Detroit. About 20 years ago, a book came out about the founder of Oracle titled The Difference Between God and Larry Ellison* - and the asterisk on the book jacket leads to: God Doesn't Think He's Larry Ellison. It would be hard to imagine a book about a Detroit executive, even a book that had the decided bias that the tome about Ellison evinces, that would be quite so searing. Sure, there are egos. But they are still perceived to be, overall, "nice" people.