1975 Chrysler Imperial Lebaron on 2040-cars

Auto blog

10 years later, a look back at U.S. auto industry’s near-death experience

The U.S. auto industry this month marks a grim and harrowing milestone: A decade ago, the entire industry was staring into the abyss of total collapse. By 2009, of course, the broader economy was teetering on the brink, with mortgage default rates and foreclosures spiraling and the real estate market in the tank. Both Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns had collapsed, President George W. Bush had signed the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, infusing $700 billion of taxpayer money to stabilize Wall Street, and Insurer AIG, stung by huge losses on subprime mortgages, won a federal bailout. Virtually the entire decade had been particularly unkind to the Detroit Three automakers, which were over-reliant on gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs as gasoline prices crept toward the $4 mark, and whose labor costs — especially for health care and retiree pension obligations — were dragging them billions into the red. It was a dreadful, frightening time in Detroit, especially, with reports of plant closures and mass layoffs appearing with alarming regularity. Seeing the federal government's largess with Wall Street, General Motors and Chrysler both went calling for government assistance for themselves. (Ford managed to avoid following suit only by mortgaging all of its assets, including its very brand, years earlier in exchange for billions of dollars in loans.) Yet instead of giving them the "bridge loans" they sought, the incoming Obama administration instead pushed back against GM and Chrysler, eventually guiding them into bankruptcy protection, as the Detroit Free Press recalls in a multimedia story recounting the industry's tumultuous and perilous recent past. The piece uses images of the newspaper's front pages from those days, splashed with what former newsroom colleagues and I would often refer to as "Pearl Harbor font" headlines ("NO DEAL" read the Freep's Dec. 12, 2008, edition). There are also timelines, interactive graphics and snippets of video interviews with two insiders: freshman U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens of Michigan, who served as chief of staff for President Obama's auto task force; and U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell, the wife of the late longtime U.S. Rep. and industry ally John Dingell, who was then an executive at GM.

Are Chrysler's Stow 'N Go seats really that great?

Are Chrysler's Stow 'N Go seats really such a great thing? Seriously, I'm asking. Do owners of the Chrysler Pacifica, as well as the Dodge Grand Caravan and Chrysler Town & Country before it, actually use the innovative functionality that see the second-row captain's chairs fold away into the floor? Frankly, I've always had my doubts. Car reviewers have long sung Stow 'N Go's praises, impressed with the ability to quickly turn the minivan from people carrier to work van. You'll frequently read mentions of needing to move sheets of plywood or treadmills or their kids' entire dorm room. Doing so is without question far easier when you can quickly make the second-row seats disappear as opposed to giving yourself a hernia lifting the things out and storing them in the garage – if removing them is even possible at all. Except here's the thing. We car reviewers have borrowed that van for the purpose of moving whatever it is we needed to move. Maybe the van in question is a long-term test vehicle like our old Pacifica Hybrid, maybe it's the more typical weeklong test loan. Either way, this is not a typical use case. The van is being considered more for its cargo-carrying abilities than its people-carrying abilities, and I just don't think that's representative of the typical minivan owner. Further to that point, the Stow 'N Go seats' flipping and folding capability might be great for versatility, but it makes for less comfortable seats. Although they have definitely improved in the 15-plus years since they were introduced, the Pacifica's Stow 'N Go seats remain thinner and flatter than the typical captain's chair. One can deduce that even Chrysler is aware of this as a downside. You see, the Pacifica Hybrid does not have Stow 'N Go seats since the giant underfloor hole they stow and go into is full of batteries. Instead, it has second-row captain's chairs  that don't seem to be discernibly different from those up front – they're far more comfortable. You can see the difference in the pictures above, with the gas-only Pacifica in red and the Hybrid in blue. I'm therefore left with the question: Would you rather have a far more comfortable seat, or an improved ability to carry some plywood? Considering the second-row designs of rival vans, it would seem that market research for Honda, Toyota and Kia isn't skewing in the direction of plywood. Much like the rest of the automotive industry, the minivan segment is rife for copy-catting.

Marchionne's FCA-GM merger might come after Ferrari spinoff

Sergio Marchionne is continuing to rumble about working out a merger with General Motors, but don't expect anything big to happen before at least early next year. That's because Marchionne would likely wait for the Ferrari spin-off to be complete before beginning his next big deal, according to Automotive News. While the Ferrari IPO on the New York Stock Exchange is expected in the coming weeks, that only concerns 10 percent of the shares. The remaining 80 percent of stock is being distributed among shareholders in 2016. Piero Ferrari holds the final 10 percent with no intention to sell. This strategy allows FCA to claim 80 percent of the Prancing Horse's profits in the automaker's 2015 financial results. According to Automotive News, the tactic has other advantages, as well. FCA would be flush with cash by waiting for the spin-off to be complete, and it would keep Ferrari separate if a GM merger actually happens. Marchionne thinks Ferrari could be valued at over $11 billion in the IPO, and it could make FCA $3.3 billion richer when complete. Marchionne believes a combined FCA/GM could sell 17 million vehicles a year globally and rake in $30 billion in earnings. In the CEO's opinion, the two automakers are wasting money by developing components to do the same things on their vehicles. Although, so far the General's top execs are rebuffing all of his advances.