Touring Bruno Handicap Lift Stow N Go Power Doors 2009 Town And Country 41k on 2040-cars

Auto blog

The Plug-In Hybrid Chrysler Pacifica | Translogic 212

Unless you've been living under a rock, you probably know that minivans have a bit of a rep for being uncool. The poor minivan has been relegated to that of a tool solely intended to get kids to and from soccer games. Here at Autoblog, we're already proponents of the minivan for its incredibly utility and under-the-radar, nearly hipster-like ironic coolness. This year, the good folks at Chrysler are working to change the soccer-mom stereotype by giving its people-hauler a much needed injection of style, lots of new tech, and a plug-in hybrid option in the form of the new Pacifica. Translogic host Jonathon Buckley sat down with Matt McAlear, Senior Manager of Chrysler Brand Product Marketing to discuss how Chrysler went from inventing the segment all the way back in 1984 to reinventing it in 2016. Matt explains that not only is the Pacifica "...the first hybrid in the minivan segment," but it's alsm one of the most functional hybrids available. With room for 7 passengers plus cargo and 30 miles of all-electric range, the features on the van are nothing to scoff at. After the chat, Bucko takes the minivan to someone who will be able to appreciate it even more than him, a mom of two. Click here to find more episodes of Translogic Click here to learn more about our host, Jonathon Buckley

Bring back the Bronco! Trademarks we hope are actually (someday) future car names

Trademark filings are the tea leaves of the auto industry. Read them carefully – and interpret them correctly – and you might be previewing an automaker's future product plans. Yes, they're routinely filed to maintain the rights to an iconic name. And sometimes they're only for toys and clothing. But not always. Sometimes, the truth is right in front of us. The trademark is required because a company actually wants to use the name on a new car. With that in mind, here's a list of intriguing trademark filings we want to see go from paperwork to production reality. Trademark: Bronco Company: Ford Previous Use: The Bronco was a long-running SUV that lived from 1966-1996. It's one of America's original SUVs and was responsible for the increased popularity of the segment. Still, it's best known as O.J. Simpson's would-be getaway car. We think: The Bronco was an icon. Everyone seems to want a Wrangler-fighter – Ford used to have a good one. Enough time has passed that the O.J. police chase isn't the immediate image conjured by the Bronco anymore. Even if we're doing a wish list in no particular order, the Bronco still finds its way to the top. For now (unfortunately), it's just federal paperwork. Rumors on this one can get especially heated. The official word from a Ford spokesman is: "Companies renew trademark filings to maintain ownership and control of the mark, even if it is not currently used. Ford values the iconic Bronco name and history." Trademarks: Aviator, AV8R Company: Ford Previous Use: The Aviator was one of the shortest-run Lincolns ever, lasting for the 2003-2005 model years. It never found the sales success of the Ford Explorer, with which it shared a platform. We Think: The Aviator name no longer fits with Lincoln's naming nomenclature. Too bad, it's better than any other name Lincoln currently uses, save for its former big brother, the Navigator. Perhaps we're barking up the wrong tree, though. Ford has made several customized, aviation themed-Mustangs in the past, including one called the Mustang AV8R in 2008, which had cues from the US Air Force's F-22 Raptor fighter jet. It sold for $500,000 at auction, and the glass roof – which is reminiscent of a fighter jet cockpit – helped Ford popularize the feature. Trademark: EcoBeast Company: Ford Previous Use: None by major carmakers.

Fiat Chrysler will pay $70M to settle safety disclosure suit

FCA US will pay a $70 million civil penalty to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for failing to submit Early Warning Report data going back to 2003. The automaker will also provide any missing data since that time, and an auditor will monitor future compliance. NHTSA says the failures to report this information "stem from problems in FCA's electronic system for monitoring and reporting safety data, including improper coding and failure to account for changes in brand names." There are no allegations of any intentional deception by the automaker. NHTSA will wrap up the latest fine with the previous consent order against FCA US earlier this year for the automaker's handling of 23 recalls. The company will know owe the safety regulator a total of $140 million in cash, and there will be possibility of $35 million more in deferred penalties if FCA doesn't comply with the agency's requests. In a statement about the fine to Autoblog, FCA US said the automaker "accepts these penalties and is revising its processes to ensure regulatory compliance." The company strongly believes that it didn't miss any safety problems over the time with this problem. Early Warning Reports include information on deaths, injuries, crashes, and other potential safety concerns, and NHTSA often uses the data in investigations for possible recalls. In September, the safety agency first announced the automaker failed to submit these documents. At the time, the regulator's administrator Mark Rosekind promised to "take appropriate action after gathering additional information on the scope and causes of this failure." FCA US also released a statement then about the lapse and said the company notified NHTSA immediately after discovering the problem. FCA US is not the first company to run afoul of NHTSA's reporting requirement. The agency fined Triumph Motorcycles and Honda this year for similar lapses. It also punished Ferrari in 2014. U.S. DOT Fines Fiat Chrysler $70 million for Failure to Provide Early Warning Report Data to NHTSA WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has imposed a $70 million civil penalty on Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) for the auto manufacturer's failure to report legally required safety data. The penalty follows FCA's admission in September that it had failed, over several years, to provide Early Warning Report data to NHTSA as required by the TREAD Act of 2000.