2004 Chrysler Sebring Convertible V6 Automatic Cruise 6-way Pwr Driver Seat on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Federal judge throws out GM's racketeering lawsuit against Fiat Chrysler

  DETROIT — A federal judge on Wednesday threw out a racketeering lawsuit General Motors had filed against smaller rival Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, saying the No. 1 U.S. automaker's alleged injuries were not caused by FCA's alleged violations. GM officials said in statement they "strongly disagree" with the order by U.S. District Court Judge Paul Borman, whom the automaker had sought to have removed from the case, and would appeal. "There is more than enough evidence from the guilty pleas of former FCA executives to conclude that the company engaged in racketeering, our complaint was timely and showed in detail how their multi-million dollar bribes caused direct harm to GM," GM said in a statement. The Detroit company added that Borman's decision "would let wrongdoers off the hook." GM filed the racketeering lawsuit against FCA last November, alleging its rival bribed United Auto Workers (UAW) union officials over many years to corrupt the bargaining process and gain advantages, costing GM billions of dollars. GM was seeking "substantial damages" that one analyst said could have totaled at least $6 billion. FCA had called the case meritless and asked Borman to dismiss it. On Wednesday, Borman dismissed the lawsuit "with prejudice," meaning GM cannot refile the complaint. "The direct victims of defendants' alleged bribery scheme are FCA's workers," Borman wrote of FCA. "GM's high labor costs were not an injury proximately caused by FCA's bribes, and any competitive injury that GM suffered as a result of FCA's advantage in labor costs is an indirect injury." "The dismissal of GM's complaint with prejudice earlier today vindicates our position," FCA said in a statement. On Monday, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied GM's petition to remove Borman from the case, but said the two automakers' chief executives didn't have to meet to try to settle the case as Borman had ordered. In calling for that, Borman had called the lawsuit "a waste of time and resources."   Government/Legal UAW/Unions Chrysler Fiat GM

eBay Find of the Day: 1979 Chrysler ETV-1 electric car prototype

Electric cars may be reaching their time in the sun with successes like the Tesla Model S, but the basic concept goes back to practically beginning of motoring. EVs also saw a brief renaissance in the 1970s when automakers were trying find a way around rising fuel prices. This 1979 Chrysler ETV-1 concept for sale on eBay Motors is a great example from that era.
Built in 1979, designers hoped the ETV-1 would preview what an electric car would look like in 1985. The base price was slated to start at $6,400, or the rough equivalent of $20,536, which seems like an optimistic price. General Electric created the ETV-1's powertrain, and Chrysler was in charge of styling. At the time, the Department of Energy called it "the first advanced four-passenger subcompact experimental electric car."
While it seems ancient compared to today's EVs, the ETV-1 featured regenerative braking and a computer-controlled electric motor. Chrysler reported a 100-mile range at 45 miles per hour with two passengers in the car. The range fell to 75 miles with four passengers. Acceleration was not brisk with Chrysler claiming the run to 30 mph in 9 seconds. Power was stored in 18 lead-acid batteries, and a full charge took 10 hours from a home outlet.

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.