1995 Jeep Wrangler Rio Grande Sport Utility 2-door 2.5l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

FCA's shifter fiasco proves novel gear selectors are a bad idea

What's wrong with PRNDL? Why are automakers trying to overly complicate the simple task of selecting gears? If there's any lesson to learn from the recent news that NHTSA is investigating 853,000 Fiat Chrysler vehicles over its problematic gear selectors, it's that the trend of fancy shifters needs to stop. Now. Last year, NHTSA opened an investigation into Jeep Grand Cherokee models, and has now expanded this probe to include the 2012-14 Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger. The problem? The shifter – assembled by ZF – is confusing for many drivers. "Testing ... indicates that operation of the (electronic) shifter is not intuitive and provides poor tactile and visual feedback to the driver, increasing the potential for unintended gear selection," a NHTSA document states. More than 100 crashes and over a dozen injuries are linked to this problem, according to The Detroit Free Press. To us, the problem isn't just limited to FCA. These unnecessarily novel gear selectors are spreading like wildfire across the industry. Honda and Acura use a weird pushbutton setup. Lincolns have buttons on the dashboard. Jaguar's shifter electronically raises out of the center console. Mercedes uses a stalk with up-for-Reverse, down-for-Drive, push-for-Neutral arrangement. And what the hell is BMW thinking with its M cars? FCA has since abandoned the confusing shifters in question. The 300, Charger, and Grand Cherokee now use the rotary shift dial that's quickly proliferating across the company's brands. Simplistic gear selectors might not be sexy, but no one ever complained about not being able to find the right gear in a Hyundai Sonata. What's most interesting is that this NHTSA investigation could push FCA – and possibly other automakers – to redesign vehicle functions that otherwise operate as designed. Just because most people will never have a problem putting a Dodge Charger in Reverse doesn't mean there isn't a flaw with the design. But perhaps a more simplistic solution – good ol' PRNDL – would have prevented these issues from the start. Related Video: News Source: The Detroit Free PressImage Credit: Copyright 2016 AOL Government/Legal Chrysler Dodge Jeep FCA shifters

Fires, deaths continue after Jeep fuel tank recall

As Kayla White slowed her SUV behind two other cars to exit a suburban Detroit freeway on Veterans Day, it was rammed from behind by a Cadillac STS. Her red 2003 Jeep Liberty bounced off a Nissan in front of it, rolled onto its side and exploded in flames. Other drivers ran to help but were forced back by the heat. Firefighters arrived in just three minutes but were too late. White, a 23-year-old restaurant hostess who was eight months pregnant, died of burns and smoke inhalation. White is one of more than 70 people killed in fires involving older Jeeps with plastic fuel tanks mounted behind the rear axle. Fiat Chrysler, which makes Jeeps, recalled 1.56 million of them in June 2013 under pressure from US safety regulators. But only 12 percent of the SUVs have been repaired in the 18 months since the recall, a much slower pace than usual. And White's Jeep was not among those fixed. Last week, prosecutors charged the Cadillac driver with committing a moving violation that caused a death. But safety advocates and the lawyer for White's family say the blame belongs as much, if not more, on Chrysler and an auto-industry safety system that moves too slowly to prevent tragedy. The rear-mounted tanks have little structure to protect them if struck from behind, making them susceptible to punctures and fires. Moving the gas tank in front of the axle would be expensive and difficult. So Chrysler's remedy involved installing trailer hitches on the rear of the Jeeps as an extra layer of protection. Government testing showed the hitches protected the tanks in crashes up to 40 mph when stationary Jeeps were hit from behind. But at higher speeds, they wouldn't help. White tried to get the repair done a few weeks before her death but was told by a Jeep dealer that parts weren't available, according to Gerald Thurswell, her family's lawyer. He wouldn't identify the dealership, and his contention could not be independently verified by The Associated Press. Thurswell contends the gas tank ruptured, spilling fuel that touched off the fire. A Chrysler spokesman expressed sympathy to White's family but said the company had no written proof that she asked a dealer about the recall. Two crash reconstruction experts interviewed by the AP say gas wouldn't have spilled from White's Jeep if the tank had been mounted in front of the rear axle. Both say a hitch might have prevented the tank from being damaged, but because both vehicles were in motion, neither expert could say for sure.

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.