Florida~convertible~steel Blue~leather~cd~new Tires~canvas~03 04 05 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

VW walks away from Aurora after self-driving startup partners with FCA

BERLIN — Volkswagen has ended its partnership with self-driving car software firm Aurora, two days after the Silicon Valley start-up said it would build autonomous platforms for commercial vehicles with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. "The activities under our partnership have been concluded," a VW spokesman said in a statement on Tuesday following an earlier Financial Times report on the move which said VW now wanted to work with Ford Motor Co on autonomous driving. Ford's majority-owned subsidiary Argo AI is building an automated "driver" that could compete with Aurora's technology. Aurora said Tuesday "Volkswagen Group has been a wonderful partner to Aurora since the early days of development of the Aurora Driver." The company's statement added that it continues to work "with a growing array of partners." The autonomous vehicle industry is still in its infancy, and alliances and strategies are fluid. Aurora has sought to remain independent and serve a number of would-be autonomous vehicle makers rather than be acquired. Aurora, which said in February it had raised $530 million in new funding, also has partnerships with Hyundai Motor Co and China's Byton to develop and test self-driving systems for automakers, fleet owners and others. After announcing its partnership with Aurora in early 2018, VW last June began discussions with Ford to develop a range of commercial vehicles, later extending the discussions to include electric vehicles and Argo's autonomous driving technology as part of an alliance designed to save billions in costs. VW and Ford have not announced partnerships involving electric or autonomous vehicle technology. Green Chrysler Fiat Ford Volkswagen Technology Emerging Technologies Autonomous Vehicles

2015 Chrysler 300 First Drive [w/video]

When Chrysler last updated its 300 in 2011, the fullsize sedan market was a very different place than it is today. Ford's redesigned Taurus was in showrooms, sure, but segment stalwarts like the Toyota Avalon and Chevrolet Impala were languishing at the tail end of their model cycles. And still, the second-generation 300 (not counting the "letter series" cars from the 1950s and '60s, of course) failed to recapitulate the booming success of the model reboot in 2004. Something in the combination of the down economy, higher gas prices and great product from front-wheel-drive entries in the class kept the 300 from the six-digit sales numbers it saw in the early 2000s. For the 2015 model year, Chrysler hopes that a more clearly defined purpose for its big sedan, combined with liberal dipping into the corporate tech toy box, will rekindle buyer interest. Considering the mild characters and front-driver dynamics of its mainstream competition, the promise of V8 power and rear-wheel drive should at least turn the heads of those looking for a car with a little edge. I grabbed the keys of the edgiest of the bunch, the sport-intended 300S, and found a big sedan that gives away some practicality to the rest of its segment mates. The trade-off for the dip in pragmatism is an uptick and driving fun and attitude that should make all the difference for the right buyer. Even though the hard-to-miss face of the 300 has come in for another nip and tuck, that attitude is still clearly on display, too. The grille of the 300 is some 33-percent larger than the outgoing model, though it's still far less brutal than the throwback styling of the 2005 "Baby Bentley" car, at least to my eyes. The cheese grater insert is metallic in most trims of the 300, though the 300S you see in my photo set gets the meaner blacked-out treatment. A quick scroll through our gallery will show you that the rest of the 300 has been similarly changed but not reinvented. Light clusters front and rear are revised, the rear clip has been re-forged with less busy styling, and the whole car has been de-chromed to a large extent (this 300S is wearing the least blingy outfit of the bunch). That rear spoiler is S-model specific. I held the existing 300 interior in fairly high regard, and this new car improves on that base.

This or That: 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 vs. 1984 Pontiac Fiero

Welcome to another round of This or That, where two Autoblog editors pick a topic, pick a side and pull no punches. Last round pitted yours truly against Associate Editor Brandon Turkus, and my chosen VW Vanagon Syncro narrowly defeated Brandon's 1987 Land Rover. In fact, it was, by far, the closest round we've seen, with 1,907 voters seeing things my way (for 50.8 percent of the vote) versus 1,848 votes for Brandon's Rover (49.2 percent). Sweet, sweet victory! For this latest round of This or That, I've roped Editor Greg Migliore into what I think is a rather fun debate. We've each chosen our favorite terrible cars, setting a price limit of $10,000 to make sure neither of us went too crazy with our automotive atrocities. I think we've both chosen terribly... and I mean that in the best way possible. 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 Jeremy Korzeniewski: Why It's Terrible: Taken in isolation, the Chrysler Crossfire isn't necessarily a terrible car. In fact, it drives pretty darn well, and there's a lot of solid engineering under its slinky shape. Problem is, that engineering was already rather long in the tooth well before Chrysler ever got its hands on it, having come from Mercedes-Benz, which used the basic chassis and drivetrain in a previous version of its SLK coupe and roadster. Granted, the SLK was an okay car, too, but even when new, it hardly set the world on fire with sporty driving dynamics. Chrysler took these decent-but-no-more bits and pieces from the Mercedes parts bin – remember, this car was conceived in the disastrous Merger Of Equals days – and covered them with a rather attractive hard-candy shell. Unfortunately, the super sporty shape wrote checks in the minds of buyers that its well-worn mechanicals were simply unable to cash, though an injection of power courtesy of a supercharged V6 engine in the SRT6 model, as seen here, certainly helped ease some of those woes. In the end, Chrysler was left with a so-called halo car that looked the part but never quite performed the part. It was almost universally panned by critics as an overpriced parts-bin special, which, I must add, was damningly accurate. As a result, sales were very slow, and within the first few months, dealers were clearancing the car at cut-rate prices, just to keep them from taking up too much of the showroom floor. Why It's Not That Terrible, After All: I can speak from personal experience when discussing the Chrysler Crossfire. You see, I owned one. Well, sort of...