1999 Dodge Durango Slt Sport Utility 4-door 5.2l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Detroit Three automakers and UAW will continue to require masks

GM CEO Mary Barra at a Warren, Mich., training center in September. (Reuters)   WASHINGTON — Detroit's Big Three automakers and the United Auto Workers (UAW) union said on Wednesday that workers will continue to be required to wear masks in workplaces. The joint statement from the UAW and General Motors, Ford and Chrysler-parent Stellantis NV said it was continuing the requirements "out of an abundance of caution." The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said in May that fully vaccinated people do not need to wear masks in most instances, including at work. The UAW and the automakers said temperature screening upon entering facilities is expected to be phased out. The UAW and automakers continue to recommend autoworkers get vaccinated. Many U.S. employers are still requiring vaccinated workers to wear masks in workplaces. Volkswagen AG's U.S. unit said it will "no longer require masks for fully vaccinated employees after June 21, and will continue to follow CDC guidelines." Toyota is among the automakers that has ended temperature checks and entry questionnaires at U.S. plants but it is continuing to require facial coverings. Honda and Nissan said they had made no changes to their U.S. employee COVID-19 requirements.   Plants/Manufacturing Chrysler Dodge Ford GM Jeep RAM Safety coronavirus

This government surveillance van is both cool and creepy, and it could be yours

Whether you're planning a heist and need to gather information, or you're a government agency tracking down the leader of a crime ring, Hollywood has taught us that the unmarked van is the ideal machine for gathering intel. And apparently that's not just a Hollywood trope, because you can buy this actual, honest-to-goodness ex-government surveillance van: a 1998 Plymouth Grand Voyager. It's being sold by the Chicago suburb of Streamwood, Ill., on the government surplus auction site GovDeals. According to the description, the van was acquired by the town as part of a drug seizure and converted to surveillance duty. It looks like a plain white Grand Voyager for the most part, except for the amber flashing light on the roof. Or at least it looks like a light. It's actually the disguise for the camera periscope. Open up the sliding door of the van and you'll discover a swivel mount for the camera, a TV mounted to the back of the driver's seat, and a toolbox that holds all the electronic equipment, including battery chargers for the van and the camera. There are also solid panels behind the windows so that people walking by can't peer in and see all the equipment. It's a bit less wild than some of the vans we've seen on film, but those Hollywood vans are usually larger commercial vans that can store more people and stuff. Less interesting details include the fact that this Grand Voyager has a 3.3-liter V6 with an automatic transmission. It has just over 100,000 miles and was good for a little more than 150 horsepower and 200 pound-feet of torque when it was new. The interior looks impressively clean, as does most of the exterior, but the description and photos highlight the fact that the front strut towers are rusty and in need of repair. Included are new strut towers, but obviously the welding in and painting is the expensive part. Also, while we think this van is pretty neat, since it's an actual surveillance van like we've seen on film for years, we would feel creepy actually owning it. After all, it's a vehicle for watching people, and while a government might have a legitimate reason for doing that, your average person doesn't. Unless you need a prop for a film, are going to show it off at car shows, or are another city government needing a cheap surveillance car, we think having this would be a little too weird. But if you have one of those reasons, or are less worried about what people think, you have a few more days to bid.

Has Dodge stepped in it again with Scat Pack lawsuit?

Lawsuits are an unfortunate part of doing business in just about any industry, so the latest complaint filed by a California-based aftermarket firm against Chrysler would seem to be nothing more than business as usual. But this isn't the first time the two companies have sparred over this particular issue.
According to a report from Automotive News, the dispute revolves around the Scat Pack name that Chrysler first offered on the Charger, Coronet, Dart and Super Bee starting in 1968. Scat Enterprises, a manufacturer of crankshafts and other components for Dodges and other vehicles, sued Chrysler for using its name. A few years later the Scat Pack disappeared from the Dodge catalog.
Fast forward to August 2013 when Chrysler applied to register the Scat Pack name anew. The US Patent and Trademark Office turned down Chrysler's application, but the automaker proceeded anyway, unveiling new Scat Packs for the Challenger, Charger and Dart at last year's SEMA show.