2002 Chrysler Sebring Limited 71k Miles Clean Carfax on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Junkyard Gem: 1992 Chrysler Imperial Landau

The Chrysler Imperial (sold as a separate marque and called, simply, the Imperial for the 1955-83 model years) was at the top of the Chrysler pyramid for many decades. For most of that time, it was a great big opulent statuswagon, slathered with chrome and powered by some of the most potent engines in the Chrysler inventory. For the early 1990s, however, the Imperial became a member of the many-branched K-Car family tree. Here's a solid-looking '92, now in its final parking spot in a Denver self-service wrecking yard. The 1990-92 Imperial wasn't a bad car, but it also wasn't much like the Imperials of past decades. Under the hood, the Chrysler 3.8-liter pushrod V6, which went on to a distinguished three-decades-long career in Chrysler minivans and Jeep Wranglers. It made a not-too-shabby-for-the-time 150 horsepower in 1992. The padded vinyl landau roof was looking extremely dated by the 1990s, but some Imperial buyers still went for this option. The 1992 Imperial had leather upholstery, but opinions differ as to whether Chrysler still referred to it as Soft Corinthian Leather by this time. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Better than Mercedes-Benz, Audi, Rolls-Royce, and Jaguar, according to this ad. The base price of the '92 Imperial was $26,705 (about 46 grand in inflation-adjusted 2016 dollars). A new 1992 BMW 525i listed at $35,600, while a 1992 Lexus ES300 was $25,250. The $23,500 Mazda 929, with rear-wheel-drive and 190 horses, seems like the steal of 1992 for luxury-car shoppers. Related Video: Featured Gallery Junked 1992 Chrysler Imperial View 19 Photos Auto News Chrysler chrysler imperial

Carmakers ask Trump to revisit fuel efficiency rules

Car companies operating in the US are required to meet stringent fuel efficiency standards (a fleet average of 54.5MPG) through 2025, but they're hoping to loosen things now that President Trump is in town. Leaders from Fiat Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, Toyota and VW have sent a letter to Trump asking him to rethink the Obama administration's choice to lock in efficiency guidelines for the next several years. The car makers want to revisit the midterm review for the 2025 commitment in hopes of loosening the demands. They claim that the tougher requirements raise costs, don't match public buying habits and will supposedly put "as many a million" jobs up in the air. The Trump administration hasn't specifically responded to the letter, although Environmental Protection Agency nominee Scott Pruitt had said he would return to the Obama-era decision. The automakers' argument doesn't entirely hold up. While the EPA did estimate that the US would fall short of efficiency goals due to a shift toward SUVs and trucks, the job claims are questionable. Why would making more fuel efficient vehicles necessarily cost jobs instead of pushing companies to do better? As it is, even a successful attempt to loosen guidelines may only have a limited effect. All of the brands mentioned here are pushing for greater mainstream adoption of electric vehicles within the next few years -- they may meet the Obama administration's expectations just by shifting more drivers away from gas power. This article by Jon Fingas originally appeared on Engadget, your guide to this connected life. Related Video: News Source: ReutersImage Credit: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg via Getty Images Government/Legal Green Chrysler Fiat GM Honda Hyundai Nissan Toyota Volkswagen Fuel Efficiency CAFE standards Trump

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.