2000 Jeep Xj Rock Crawler/mud Buggy on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Final Toledo Jeep decision may have nothing to do with city's efforts

Toledo, OH is doing all that it can to keep production of the Jeep Wrangler in its boundaries, but the biggest issue facing the plant may be insurmountable, no matter how desperately the city wants to keep the Wrangler local. The Wrangler is built in a rather interesting manner at the Toledo Supplier Park: Fiat Chrysler only handles the very final assembly of each vehicle, while two other companies, Kuka, a German firm, and Hyundai-Mobis, a member of the sprawling Hyundai empire, produce the body and chassis, respectively. The vehicles are then transferred over to the FCA part of the park, where they're painted and completed. This was, as The Detroit News explains, a convenient arrangement back in 2006 when the supplier park opened. Chrysler, which was still owned by Daimler at the time, arranged for Kuka and Mobis to handle production, saving it a huge sum of money. Both suppliers own their own machinery and buildings and employ their own workers. Now that FCA is a relatively healthy entity, though, there's not a lot of need to be sharing profits with two other companies. "What [FCA boss Sergio Marchionne] would like is to have the advantages of high-capacity utilization, owning that capacity and taking advantage of that for himself versus having a supplier doing some of the things his competitors do internally," David Cole, chairman emeritus at the Ann Arbor, MI-based Center for Automotive Research, told The News. "It really adds another level of complexity to the situation." While Sergio Marchionne is a man that generally gets what he wants, it seems unlikely that either Mobis or Kuka would give up their role quietly. According to Jon Zapf, Mobis North America's chairperson for UAW Local 12, the company "definitely wants to maintain their part of this production process." According to The News, Jeep is likely to announce the location of next-generation Wrangler production in June. Expect to hear much more on this one in the coming months.

NHTSA boss Strickland weighs in on Jeep recall fracas

Adding yet another chapter to the ongoing Jeep recall story, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) head David Strickland has gone on record to defend the government's request that Chrysler recall 2.7 million out-of-production Jeep Grand Cherokee and Jeep Liberty vehicles after the agency investigated fiery rear-end collisions that have reportedly killed at least 51 people over the years. In statements made to The Detroit News, Strickland said, "We felt very strongly that the process that we undertook and the findings that we made and ... we made the decision to issue a recall request. We do not take that very lightly." The top US auto safety regulator stopped short of telling owners to park their cars until the automaker takes action. "They can make their own risk assessment and their own choices," he said.
Chrysler does not intend to recall the models, insisting the "vehicles met and exceeded all applicable requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including FMVSS 301, pertaining to fuel-system integrity" when they were manufactured and sold. "The company does not agree with NHTSA's conclusions and does not intend to recall the vehicles cited in the investigation. The subject vehicles are safe and are not defective," Chrysler announced last week in a statement. "We believe NHTSA's initial conclusions are based on an incomplete analysis of the underlying data, and we are committed to continue working with the agency to resolve this disagreement."
Legally, Chrysler has until June 18 to formally respond to NHTSA's request. If the automaker does not take action, NHTSA is expected to issue a formal finding and seek a recall.

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.