1981 Jeep (amc) Cj7 Base Sport on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Jeep Comanche Moab Concept: Hell yeah!

The moment I saw the Jeep Renegade I knew it was a winner, at least in terms of styling. The Renegade's "face" is exactly what small 21st-century Jeeps should look like. It has loads of Jeep's visual heritage DNA – important! – that has been brought up-to-date in the best possible way. (Now if only they could graft that face on to the new-ish Cherokee...). Where the Renegade falls short is what's under the skin. Thanks to misguided marketing, it is saddled with a rather unremarkable USA-spec 2.4L four, undersized tires, so-so ground clearance, an iffy 9-speed automatic, and a questionable (available) low range. I don't mind the independent suspension; in fact I embrace it, as IFS/IRS is the future in terms of off-road suspension design. So, for me, the Renegade is a close-but-no-cigar vehicle, at least as it currently stands. This new Comanche, however, shows how the Renegade can evolve; both as a 4-door SUV, and in terms of how spin-off models can be developed. Big beefy tires, flared out fenders, and great ground clearance are the main ingredients that make this work visually. Still wish for a 3.6L V6 under the hood, but the 2.0L diesel isn't a bad alternative. Anyway, I think a Comanche pickup makes more sense than the predicted Wrangler-based pickup. Why? I'm not big on retro-vehicles in general. Rarely do they survive long term. Besides, the Comanche would be far more civilized and livable. I could see this Comanche pickup as a daily driver much more so than a Wrangler-based pickup. Yeah, I like and value creature comforts over ultimate off-road ability. I think most pickup buyers would agree. Finally, while there is a large devoted Wrangler following who would love a Wrangler-based pickup, I bet this Renegade-based Comanche would bring more new customers into the Jeep tent – especially over a much wider age demographic. Related Video: Image Credit: FCA Jeep jeep comanche open road

In Michigan, car hackers could face life imprisonment

Car hackers may not want to mess with vehicles in and around the Motor City. A pair of Michigan lawmakers introduced legislation Thursday that would punish anyone who infiltrates a vehicle's electronic systems with penalties as harsh as life imprisonment. Senate bill 927 says that "a person shall not intentionally access or cause access to be made to an electronic system of a motor vehicle to willfully destroy, damage, impair, alter or gain unauthorized control of the motor vehicle." Offenders will be deemed guilty of a felony, and may be imprisoned for any number of years up to life in prison. The proposed legislation is one of the first attempts nationally to address the consequences for car hacking, which has become a top concern throughout the auto industry. Critics have accused executives of being slow to respond to the threats, which were first known as long as six years ago but gained attention last July when a pair of researchers remotely controlled a Jeep Cherokee. In January, the industry established an Information Sharing and Analysis Center to collectively evaluate security measures and counter breaches. But the Michigan bill isn't noteworthy only because of the life penalty prescribed; it's noteworthy for what's missing in its details. Language in the bill doesn't delineate between independent cyber-security researchers and criminals who intend to inflict harm or havoc. Under its provisions, it's possible Charlie Miller, pictured below, and Chris Valasek, the researchers who demonstrated last summer that the Cherokee could be remotely commandeered and controlled, could face life behind bars. Provisions of the legislation that prevent a person from "altering" the motor vehicle could ensnare car enthusiasts or gearheads who tinker with electronic systems to boost performance, increase fuel efficiency or add aftermarket features. In that context, Senate Bill 927 seems like the latest measure in a running feud between independent researchers, gearheads and big automakers. Car companies don't like third parties poking around their electronic systems and would prefer the researchers not reveal security weaknesses. Researchers, on the other hand, say many carmakers are either slow to fix or unwilling to repair security holes unless they're able to publish their findings.

FCA's UAW workers to get $8,010 profit-sharing payout

UAW workers at FCA will soon be receiving $8,010 checks, which represent profit-sharing based on the company's 2020 performance. Although FCA's profit margins in 2020 were slimmer than the year prior, the union-employee payouts are slightly larger, due to a change in the formula that was negotiated in 2019 and has now gone into effect. Employees are now paid $900 for every 1% of profit margin FCA achieves in its North American operations. For 2020, the company enjoyed an 8.9% profit margin, and although that was down slightly from 9.1% in 2019, the checks are larger than last year's $7,280 payout. Still, FCA employees didn't fare quite as well as their counterparts at GM, who stand to receive profit-sharing checks of up to $9,000. GM workers did even better last year, netting $10,000. UAW workers at Ford had less to celebrate. They'll receive $3,525, based on the company's 2020 performance. That's a steep drop from last year's $6,600. FCA earned $6.472 billion in North America in 2020. The company is expecting an improved financial performance in 2021, as it's expected to avoid another coronavirus-related shutdown. It's also expected to benefit from the launch of the three-row Grand Cherokee L, as well as the Jeep Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer, all of which are high-margin products. Related video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.