2022 Chrysler Pacifica Touring L on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Why Stellantis needs Chrysler

Stellantis has a secret weapon. It’s called Chrysler. Rumors swirled this year that the 96-year-old namesake brand of the former Chrysler Corp. could be on the chopping block, but Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares promptly shot them down. Now what? The brand has three nameplates: the 300 sedan, the Pacifica minivan and Voyager minivan, which is just an entry-level version of the Pacifica. Sedans and vans are not high priorities for most automakers, but they work for Chrysler. And because it is such a small brand, it has great opportunity. Consider the existing product line: The Pacifica is one of the best minivans you can buy. Stellantis has a lot of brands, but it doesnÂ’t have that many singular products that are at or near the top of their segments. The Pacifica is good, but the Pacifica Hybrid is unmatched. ItÂ’s an affordable, plug-in electric minivan thatÂ’s efficient and functional. ThereÂ’s nothing else like it on the market. The 300 is ancient, and unlike its platform mate, the highly evolved Dodge Charger, the 300 has languished. The 300 is still a decent premium sedan, but itÂ’s gone from trendsetter to afterthought. Chrysler needs a new 300 thatÂ’s different from the Charger and offers some kind of premium proposition. In this view, a rear-wheel-drive flagship thatÂ’s performance-oriented but civilized would work. The existing formula, essentially, just updated. ThereÂ’s a lot of equity in the 300 nameplate, and frankly the Chrysler brand needs vehicles, so killing this sedan doesnÂ’t make a lot of sense. Find an identity and make it work.  2021 Chrysler Pacifica Pinnacle View 19 Photos A revitalized 300 and a winning Pacifica buy some time. Then? Just two more vehicles would make Chrysler considerably stronger. Resist the urge to go with a sports car, which would drain time and resources. Did the Crossfire do anything for Chrysler? Even if they nail it, itÂ’s still a niche vehicle. Instead, go for the obvious — but make it interesting. A midsize crossover with an amazing interior and a plug-in powertrain, like the Lincoln Aviator, would do the trick. Offer two- and three-row variants. This might bump up against Jeep and its Wagoneer family. DonÂ’t worry, Jeep will be fine. This is about resuscitating Chrysler. Do something clever with the suspension (again, like the Aviator and its Mustang-derived chassis) or add some kind of conversation-starting technology, like VolvoÂ’s safety features. The other model should be all-electric.

FB Tuning debuts 400-hp carbon-bodied Chrysler Crossfire in Monaco

The Chrysler Crossfire was, suffice it to say, a matter of taste. Based on old Mercedes-Benz mechanicals, it included retro styling accents and an armadillo roofline. Some loved it, but there was clearly room for improvement - not to mention more sales - and that's just what Italian coachbuilder FB Tuning had to showcase at the Top Marques show in Monaco this year.
Called the FB-ONE, it's based on the Crossfire, which itself was based on the same R170 chassis as the first-generation Mercedes-Benz SLK. It packs the same 3.2-liter V6 as well, which FB claims to have tuned farther than anything Daimler-Chrysler ever managed with the same engine. Whereas the SLK32 AMG packed 354 horsepower and the Crossfire SRT-6 offered 330, the FB-One packs a nice, round 400 hp, which ought to be good for a 0-60 time of little over four seconds.
As you can see, that's not all they've done with FB-One. It's also been rebodied in carbon fiber, with gold accents, deep-dish alloys that look like they came out of a casino and the headlights from an Audi A8. Whether the result is your cup of tea likely depends, as it did with the Crossfire in the first place, on your own personal tastes, so check it out for yourself in the video below.

Appeals court delays 'sensible resolution' meeting between GM, Fiat Chrysler CEOs

DETROIT — Three federal appeals judges have delayed a court-ordered meeting between the CEOs of General Motors and Fiat Chrysler to try to settle a lawsuit over corruption by union leaders. U.S. District Court Judge Paul Borman last week ordered GM CEO Mary Barra and FCA CEO Mike Manley to meet before July 1. But GM on Friday asked the federal appeals court in Cincinnati to overturn the order and remove Borman from the case. In an order issued Monday, three appellate judges delayed Borman's order to provide time to consider legal points raised by GM. GM is suing crosstown rival FCA alleging that it got an advantage by paying off United Auto Workers union leaders to reduce labor costs during contract talks. FCAÂ’s former labor chief, Al Iacobelli, is in prison, although the company denies that it directed any prohibited payments. In his order last week, Borman described the lawsuit as a “nuclear option” that would be a “waste of time and resources” for years if he allows the case to move forward. The judge ordered Barra and Manley to sit down without lawyers by July 1 and reach a “sensible resolution of this huge legal distraction.” Borman wants an update from them on a public video conference that same day. Over the weekend he modified the order to allow lawyers to attend the meeting. In a court filing, GM called BormanÂ’s order a “profound abuse” of power. “The court possesses no authority to order the CEOs of GM and FCA to engage in settlement discussions, reach a resolution and then appear alone at a pretrial conference eight days later, without counsel,” GMÂ’s attorneys said. “Second, the court has no business labeling a properly filed federal lawsuit assigned to the court for impartial adjudication ‘a distractionÂ’ or a ‘nuclear option,’” GM said. Borman canÂ’t be viewed as impartial, company lawyers said. The judge declined to comment. In a court filing Monday, Fiat Chrysler lawyers wrote that GM didn't make a good case to remove Borman because judges routinely direct lawsuit parties to talk about settling. The lawyers wrote that GM originally wanted the case assigned to Borman but now apparently is worried that his tough questions mean he will dismiss GM's claims. “GM should not be permitted now to complain that that judge has turned out to be less hospitable to GMÂ’s claims than GM anticipated. Parties are not permitted to engage in such judge shopping," the filing said.