Limited!serviced!navigation!back Up Camera!dvd System!swivel 'n Go!no Reserve!08 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Junkyard Gem: 1982 Chrysler LeBaron Convertible

Things looked very grim at Chrysler during the late 1970s, as Oil Crisis-shocked car shoppers avoided buying thirsty land yachts and ancient-technology compacts in droves. The Carter administration grudgingly bailed out the company with loan guarantees in 1979 (leaving "small enough to fail" American Motors to seek help from the French government) and Chrysler needed a huge sales hit in a big hurry. Under the leadership of Lee Iacocca (freshly canned by Henry Ford II), Chrysler developed the modern, front-wheel-drive K Cars and the company was saved. The very first K Cars hit the road for the 1981 model year, and I'm always on the lookout for those historic early Ks when I'm searching for interesting bits of automotive history in junkyards. The '81 and '82s have become nearly impossible to find, but this once-plush LeBaron convertible appeared in a Northern California yard last month. While a bafflingly complex family tree of K-derived vehicles grew up in Chrysler showrooms through 1995 (including the hot-selling Caravan/Voyager/Town and Country minivans), the only "true" US-market K-Cars are the Dodge Aries, Dodge 400/600 coupe, Plymouth Reliant and Chrysler LeBaron. 1982 was the first model year for the K LeBaron and this car was built in March of that year, so we're looking at one of the very early successors to the Dodge Diplomat-based LeBarons of the 1970s. Chrysler developed a homegrown 2.2-liter, overhead-cam straight-four engine that proved very successful, and a 94-horsepower version of that engine was the base powerplant for the 1982 LeBaron. This car appears to have just about every option available that year, so of course the original buyer went for the 2.6-liter Mitsubishi Astron straight-four. With hemispherical combustion chambers, the 2.6 could be called a Hemi (a few Ks even got "2.6 HEMI" badging); horsepower came to just 93 in 1982, but the 132 pound-feet of torque beat out the 117 lb-ft of the Chrysler 2.2 that year. Silver-faced gauges and complicated radio controls were all the rage during the Late Malaise Era, and this car has both. Note the Chronometer next to the HVAC controls, a digital design with green vacuum-fluorescent display lifted from the previous-generation rear-wheel-drive LeBaron. The non-cloth bits of the convertible-top mechanism look decent enough, so perhaps some junkyard-shopping LeBaron owner will rescue them.

25,000 Jeep Grand Cherokee, Dodge Durango SUVs recalled over brake feel

Chrysler has announced that it is recalling over 25,000 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango SUVs from several markets over concerns about brake feel under hard braking. The affected models are from the 2012 and 2013 model years, although the actual dates of production aren't available. 18,700 are in the US, while 825 are in Canada, 530 are in Mexico and a further 5,200 outside of North America.
According to a statement, Chrysler was informed of the issue by a component supplier for the Ready Alert Braking system, which primes the brakes in anticipation of an emergency stop. A component in the system was restricting the flow of brake fluid too much.
As Chrysler is quick to point out, the way the brakes functioned was in compliance with regulations and there are no reported cases of drivers losing braking power. Instead, the issue rests with what Chrysler calls a pedal feel that "was not consistent with customer expectations." So it would seem Chrysler is being proactive and fixing a problem not because there's a legal issue at work, but simply because it doesn't feel the way the manufacturer wants it to. Well done.

Is it time for American carmakers to give up on dual-clutch transmissions? [w/poll]

Last week, in the midst of Detroit's first days seeking relief in Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code, Automotive News contributor Larry P. Vellequette penned an editorial suggesting that American car companies raise the white flag on dual clutch transmissions and give up on trying to persuade Americans to buy cars fitted with them. Why? Because, Vellequette says, like CVT transmissions, they "just don't sound right or feel right to American drivers." (Note: In the article, it's not clear if Vellequette is arguing against wet-clutch and dry-clutch DCTs or just dry-clutch DCTs, which is what Ford and Chrysler use.) The article goes on to state that Ford and Chrysler have experimented with DCTs and that both consumers and the automotive press haven't exactly given them glowing reviews, despite their quicker shifts and increased fuel efficiency potential compared to torque-converter automatic transmissions.
Autoblog staffers who weighed in on the relevance of DCTs in American cars generally disagreed with the blanket nature of Vellequette's statement that they don't sound or feel right, but admit that their lack of refinement compared to traditional automatics can be an issue for consumers. That's particularly true in workaday cars like the Ford Focus and Dodge Dart, both of which have come in for criticism in reviews and owner surveys. From where we sit, the higher-performance orientation of such transmissions doesn't always meld as well with the marching orders of everyday commuters (particularly if drivers haven't been educated as to the transmission's benefits and tradeoffs), and in models not fitted with paddle shifters, it's particularly hard for drivers to use a DCT to its best advantage.
Finally, we also note that DCT tuning is very much an evolving science. For instance, Autoblog editors who objected to dual-clutch tuning in the Dart have more recently found the technology agreeable in the Fiat 500L. Practice makes perfect - or at least more acceptable.