Florida Immaculate-only 70k Miles-looks Like A 2012-leather-new Tires-none Nicer on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 Chrysler 200

For the last seven years, the Chrysler Sebring/200 has been a car that few people have managed to say anything good about. When you saw one on the road, it was probably silver and you probably assumed it was rented - especially if it was a convertible. In fact, this writer has never been in one. Ever. I've only watched them go by, trailed always by a roiling wake of invective and vituperation, a lone defender or two asserting meekly and in vain, "It's actually not that bad..."
With roughly 2.3-million units sold every year in the midsize sedan segment where the 200 lives, even tallying 125,476 sales in 2012 (when the 200 was the best-selling car in the Chrysler Group) was never going to be enough. This is the brand's volume offering and the entry point for new-car buyers before they move up to something like a full-size or a crossover. Chrysler's 2011 facelift and rebranding program was a pretty valiant attempt at putting lipstick on a Sebring, but the automaker needed to do a lot better, in every way to command more consideration, sales, respect and resale value - and everyone at The Pentastar knew it.
Enter the 2015 Chrysler 200. This is the sedan that "charts a new course for the Chrysler brand," from its hovering wing badge on the grille to the one billion dollars invested in the company's suburban Detroit Sterling Heights Assembly Plant, including more than doubling the number of quality control inspectors in the new quality assurance center.

Audi gets Q2 and Q4 badges in trademark swap with FCA

Audi has swapped trademarks with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles to snare the rights to the Q2 and Q4 badges for upcoming crossover SUVs. Audi CEO Rupert Stadler confirmed at the Detroit Motor Show that the automaker had finally persuaded FCA to release the two names that would let Audi lock up the Q1 to Q9 badges for its growing SUV family. Audi already plans to drop the Q2 name onto its MQB-based city crossover five-door this year, while the Q4 badge will slot onto the rump of a coupe-like version of the next Q3. It will also reserve the Q1 badge for a 2018 baby crossover, based around the architecture of the next A1 hatch. The A1 will share a lot of its engineering with Volkswagen's Polo-based soft-roader, dubbed T-Cross in concept form. The German company has also pounced on the naming rights for SQ versions of all of its Q-cars, along with F-Tron to cover the day when it pushes hydrogen fuel cell cars into production. Stadler insisted that no money had changed hands in order to pry the two badges off FCA, admitting that they had "each found something we needed." "We promised each other we wouldn't disclose what it cost, but it was not something they were willing to sell," Stadler said. "We tried to get it years ago and they said 'No, never,' but there is never 'never' in business. ... This year I went back to them with a proposal and we talked and there were some negotiations and then we agreed to it." Those negotiations are believed to have centered on a trademark swap with a Volkswagen Group name that FCA desperately (evidently) wants to use on a Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Dodge or Maserati. Asked if Audi had given FCA a trademark in return for Q2 and Q4, Stadler replied, "Something very much like that, yes." Audi has used Italian names on past concept cars that FCA could be interested in, such as the 2001 Avantissimo concept and the 2003 Nuvolari coupe. The latter was named after legendary pre-war racer Tazio, who won grands prix for both Alfa Romeo and Audi's forerunner, Auto Union. Both are unlikely trade chips, with laws in Europe preventing the trademarking of the names of actual people. There is always "quattro" (Italian for "four"), but after investing nearly four decades locking it in as an Audi all-wheel-drive name, it's just not anything like trade bait.

Appeals court delays 'sensible resolution' meeting between GM, Fiat Chrysler CEOs

DETROIT — Three federal appeals judges have delayed a court-ordered meeting between the CEOs of General Motors and Fiat Chrysler to try to settle a lawsuit over corruption by union leaders. U.S. District Court Judge Paul Borman last week ordered GM CEO Mary Barra and FCA CEO Mike Manley to meet before July 1. But GM on Friday asked the federal appeals court in Cincinnati to overturn the order and remove Borman from the case. In an order issued Monday, three appellate judges delayed Borman's order to provide time to consider legal points raised by GM. GM is suing crosstown rival FCA alleging that it got an advantage by paying off United Auto Workers union leaders to reduce labor costs during contract talks. FCAÂ’s former labor chief, Al Iacobelli, is in prison, although the company denies that it directed any prohibited payments. In his order last week, Borman described the lawsuit as a “nuclear option” that would be a “waste of time and resources” for years if he allows the case to move forward. The judge ordered Barra and Manley to sit down without lawyers by July 1 and reach a “sensible resolution of this huge legal distraction.” Borman wants an update from them on a public video conference that same day. Over the weekend he modified the order to allow lawyers to attend the meeting. In a court filing, GM called BormanÂ’s order a “profound abuse” of power. “The court possesses no authority to order the CEOs of GM and FCA to engage in settlement discussions, reach a resolution and then appear alone at a pretrial conference eight days later, without counsel,” GMÂ’s attorneys said. “Second, the court has no business labeling a properly filed federal lawsuit assigned to the court for impartial adjudication ‘a distractionÂ’ or a ‘nuclear option,’” GM said. Borman canÂ’t be viewed as impartial, company lawyers said. The judge declined to comment. In a court filing Monday, Fiat Chrysler lawyers wrote that GM didn't make a good case to remove Borman because judges routinely direct lawsuit parties to talk about settling. The lawyers wrote that GM originally wanted the case assigned to Borman but now apparently is worried that his tough questions mean he will dismiss GM's claims. “GM should not be permitted now to complain that that judge has turned out to be less hospitable to GMÂ’s claims than GM anticipated. Parties are not permitted to engage in such judge shopping," the filing said.