Town & Country Handicap Accessible Wheelchair Van Braun Side Entry Self Driver on 2040-cars

Auto blog

This or That: 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 vs. 1984 Pontiac Fiero

Welcome to another round of This or That, where two Autoblog editors pick a topic, pick a side and pull no punches. Last round pitted yours truly against Associate Editor Brandon Turkus, and my chosen VW Vanagon Syncro narrowly defeated Brandon's 1987 Land Rover. In fact, it was, by far, the closest round we've seen, with 1,907 voters seeing things my way (for 50.8 percent of the vote) versus 1,848 votes for Brandon's Rover (49.2 percent). Sweet, sweet victory! For this latest round of This or That, I've roped Editor Greg Migliore into what I think is a rather fun debate. We've each chosen our favorite terrible cars, setting a price limit of $10,000 to make sure neither of us went too crazy with our automotive atrocities. I think we've both chosen terribly... and I mean that in the best way possible. 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 Jeremy Korzeniewski: Why It's Terrible: Taken in isolation, the Chrysler Crossfire isn't necessarily a terrible car. In fact, it drives pretty darn well, and there's a lot of solid engineering under its slinky shape. Problem is, that engineering was already rather long in the tooth well before Chrysler ever got its hands on it, having come from Mercedes-Benz, which used the basic chassis and drivetrain in a previous version of its SLK coupe and roadster. Granted, the SLK was an okay car, too, but even when new, it hardly set the world on fire with sporty driving dynamics. Chrysler took these decent-but-no-more bits and pieces from the Mercedes parts bin – remember, this car was conceived in the disastrous Merger Of Equals days – and covered them with a rather attractive hard-candy shell. Unfortunately, the super sporty shape wrote checks in the minds of buyers that its well-worn mechanicals were simply unable to cash, though an injection of power courtesy of a supercharged V6 engine in the SRT6 model, as seen here, certainly helped ease some of those woes. In the end, Chrysler was left with a so-called halo car that looked the part but never quite performed the part. It was almost universally panned by critics as an overpriced parts-bin special, which, I must add, was damningly accurate. As a result, sales were very slow, and within the first few months, dealers were clearancing the car at cut-rate prices, just to keep them from taking up too much of the showroom floor. Why It's Not That Terrible, After All: I can speak from personal experience when discussing the Chrysler Crossfire. You see, I owned one. Well, sort of...

U.S. automakers unite in opposition to possible Trump vehicle tariffs

WASHINGTON — The U.S. auto industry urged President Donald Trump's administration on Monday not to saddle imported cars and auto parts with steep tariffs, after the U.S. Commerce Department sent a confidential report to the White House late on Sunday with its recommendations for how to proceed. Some trade organizations also blasted the Commerce Department for keeping the details of its "Section 232" national security report shrouded in secrecy, which will make it much harder for the industry to react during the next 90 days Trump will have to review it. "Secrecy around the report only increases the uncertainty and concern across the industry created by the threat of tariffs," the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association said in a statement, adding that it was "alarmed and dismayed." "It is critical that our industry have the opportunity to review the recommendations and advise the White House on how proposed tariffs, if they are recommended, will put jobs at risk, impact consumers, and trigger a reduction in U.S. investments that could set us back decades." Representatives from the White House and the Commerce Department could not immediately be reached. The industry has warned that possible tariffs of up to 25 percent on millions of imported cars and parts would add thousands of dollars to vehicle costs and potentially devastate the U.S economy by slashing jobs. Administration officials have said tariff threats on autos are a way to win concessions from Japan and the EU. Last year, Trump agreed not to impose tariffs as long as talks with the two trading partners were proceeding in a productive manner. "We believe the imposition of higher import tariffs on automotive products under Section 232 and the likely retaliatory tariffs against U.S. auto exports would undermine - and not help - the economic and employment contributions that FCA, US, Ford Motor Company and General Motors make to the U.S. economy," said former Missouri Governor Matt Blunt, the president of the American Automotive Policy Council. Some Republican lawmakers have also said they share the industry's concerns. In a statement issued on Monday, Republican Congresswoman Jackie Walorski said she fears the Commerce Department's report could "set the stage for costly tariffs on cars and auto parts." "President Trump is right to seek a level playing field for American businesses and workers, but the best way to do that is with a scalpel, not an axe," she added.

Ferrari borrows $2.6 billion to finance FCA spinoff

Ferrari announced Monday that it is borrowing about $2.6 billion to finance its spinoff from Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. Here's how it breaks down: Ferrari NV, the automaker's parent company based in the Netherlands, is taking out loans totaling 2.5 billion euros. That's equivalent to $2.64 billion at current exchange rates, and is divided between a term loan of $2.12 billion and a revolving credit facility of $529 million. The larger term loan "will be used to refinance indebtedness owing to Fiat Chrysler Automobiles," among other purposes. That ought to constitute the lion's share of the $2.38 billion which the Prancing Horse marque was, according to reports last year, slated to pay its current parent company in order to help FCA fund its ambitious growth plans. The separate line of credit is earmarked "to be used from time to time for general corporate and working capital purposes of the Ferrari group." Though Ferrari is not expected to take any other Fiat Chrysler properties with it, the "group" in this case would include its various financial services and distribution arms around the world that may have been separately incorporated. As noted in the statement below, the financial arrangement "represents a further step towards the separation of Ferrari from the FCA Group," following the separate stock issues from both companies as independent from each other. FERRARI N.V. SIGNS ˆ2.5 BILLION SYNDICATED CREDIT FACILITY Ferrari N.V. (NYSE: RACE) ("Ferrari") announced today that it has entered into a ˆ2.5 billion syndicated loan facility with a group of ten bookrunner banks. The facility comprises a bridge loan (the "Bridge Loan") and a term loan (the "Term Loan") of ˆ2 billion in aggregate and a revolving credit facility of ˆ500 million (the "RCF"). Proceeds of the Bridge Loan and Term Loan will be used to refinance indebtedness owing to Fiat Chrysler AutomobilesN.V. (NYSE: FCAU) ("FCA") and other indebtedness and for other general corporate purposes. Proceeds of the RCF may be used from time to time for general corporate and working capital purposes of the Ferrari group. The Bridge Loan has a 12 month maturity with an option for Ferrari to extend once for a six-month period. Ferrari intends to refinance the Bridge Loan prior to its maturity with longer term debt, including through capital markets or other financing transactions. The Term Loan, which comprises a majority of the total facility, and the RCF each have a maturity of five years.