2004 Chrylser Sebring Convertible Limited on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Stellantis aims to eliminate separate inverter, charger to improve EV efficiency

Stellantis has announced that, in collaboration with French battery company Saft and French National Center for Scientific Research, has made significant progress in eliminating two major components of an electric vehicle powertrain: the on-board charger and the power inverter for the motor. The company claims that doing this will allow for better space use in vehicles, as well as improvements in efficiency, cost and reliability of components. As a quick primer, also explained in the below video, the on-board charger and power inverter are sort of translators to get the right current to different parts of the electric powertrain. The on-board charger takes AC power from the grid and converts it to DC to charge the batteries. Then when power goes from the batteries to the electric motor, the power inverter converts that DC power back to AC. These components aren't exactly small. Frequently you'll find them packaged somewhere under the hood. What Stellantis and its cohorts have developed, and have been using on a test vehicle since last summer, are small power inverter boards that can be mounted very closely to the battery packs. They can handle both conversion needs, for charging and discharging, instead of needing two separate devices. The most obvious perk to this is that you can do away with those traditional components and free up more space, either for making smaller vehicles without losing interior volume, or adding space to a vehicle that wouldn't have had it otherwise. There's the additional benefit of reduced weight, something that EVs struggle with. Stellantis also claims improvements in efficiency, reliability, and cost, however, it didn't go into detail as to how this setup would do that exactly. We'll try to get in touch with representatives from Stellantis in order to get more information. We're still a ways out from seeing this technology in production Stellantis vehicles. The company said it aims to apply it to vehicles by the end of the decade. Saft is also looking at using it on stationary battery systems as well. So maybe we'll see it on a 2029 Ram 1500 REV, but for now, we'll be living with traditional chargers and inverters. Related Video: Green Alfa Romeo Chrysler Dodge Fiat RAM Technology Electric

Future Classic: 1990-2012 Mitsubishi Eclipse

It was meant to be a premiere partnership, pregnant with possibilities: the alliance of a pair of global automotive powerhouses from Japan and America. Eventually the merger gave birth to a trio of highly-regarded sports coupes: the Mitsubishi Eclipse, the Eagle Talon and the Plymouth Laser, cars developed by the company that became Diamond-Star Motors. Although DSM’s beginnings can be traced back to a flirtation in 1970, when Chrysler Corporation took a 15-percent stake in Mitsubishi Motors, the partnership later culminated in a formal pairing in 1985. It was good timing: Chrysler was emerging from near-bankruptcy; the Japanese company just didnÂ’t have anything to please U.S. buyers, and with government-imposed “voluntary” import quotas, its supply lines were broadly restricted. Chrysler, looking to expand its lines, built a plant in Normal, Illinois, but, although Chrysler put up half the $650 million for the facility, it left management to Mitsubishi. And the Japanese facilities provided engines and transmissions. By the end of 1989, production of the Diamond-Star triplets — the Laser, Eclipse and Talon — was in full swing. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Why is the Mitsubishi Eclipse a Future Classic? The Eclipse, supposedly named for an unbeaten 18th-century English racehorse that won 18 races in a row, was the shining star of the line. Because of its long run in series production, the genealogy of the Eclipse is worth discussing. Initially the car, designed at the Mitsubishi Motors North America Design Studio and introduced in 1990, was available in four trim levels: Eclipse, Eclipse GS, Eclipse GS-T (Turbo) and Eclipse GSX. It evolved first as a two-door coupe, later as a convertible or liftback, with front-wheel or all-wheel drive, and with engine choices including naturally aspirated fours, turbocharged fours and V6 options. One really needs a scorecard to chart the generations: 1st Gen (1990-1994), 2nd Gen (1995-1999), 3rd Gen (2000-2005), and 4th Gen (2006-2012). Before the EclipseÂ…well, was eclipsed, buyers of the third and fourth-gen cars could specify a 3.8L V6 engine as well as a four. This swank 2+2 sports car and its nearly identical cousin, the Eagle Talon TSi, emerged as hot rods for the Nineties, and tuners gave them full props for power.

Buy Ford and GM stock and make 5%

Want to make a five-percent return when 10-year treasuries are paying around two percent? Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) have solid balance sheets, strong cash flow, solid earnings, and growing markets. By all accounts, they are smart investments. But the market is down on these stocks. Why? Some of the stupid excuses include: They are cyclical companies The Detroit 3 have lost 3.5 million in sales since 2000 The world economy is shaky GM recently filed for bankruptcy Their markets have peaked They haven't changed their ways Let's take these criticisms one by one: They Are Cyclical Companies Yes, they are cyclical. Every company is cyclical. Every industry is cyclical. Some more than others, but not every company is immune from swings in the market. Banks used to be 'non-cyclical' leader, not anymore. Airline stocks are just as cyclical as auto stocks, yet they are trading at multiples greater than the auto industry. Why? And what accounts for the irrational stock price for Tesla (TSLA)? At least Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) make money and have positive cash flows. In fact, both companies have a net positive cash position. They have more cash on hand than liabilities. Auto sales in the United States hit a record 17.5 million vehicles in 2015. During the Great Recession, Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) cut their break even points to 10 million vehicles per year. Anything above an annual U.S. volume of 10 million vehicles is profit. And what a profit they make. Sales of Ford's F-150 continues to be the best-selling vehicle in the United States for over 30 years. Detroit 3 Have Lost 3.5 million in Sales Since 2000 Automotive News reports General Motors (GM), Ford (F) and Chrysler (FCA) have lost a combined 3.5 million vehicles sales since 2000. So how can they be making more money? Two big reasons – Fleet Sales and the UAW. Fleet Sales The Detroit 3 used to own car rental companies to keep their factories running. Ford owned Hertz (HTZ), General Motors owned all of National Car Rental and 29 percent of Avis, and Chrysler, the forerunner to Fiat Chrysler (FCA), used to own Thrifty Car Rental and Dollar Rent-A-Car. The Detroit 3 owned these rental companies to have a place to sell their bad product and keep their factories running. These were low margin sales, and in many cases, were money losers for the Detroit 3. They no longer own auto rental companies.