2006 Chrysler Town & Country Touring, Silver, In Good Condition, >86,000 Mi on 2040-cars
Algonquin, Illinois, United States
Body Type:Minivan, Van
Vehicle Title:Clear
Engine:3.3L V6
Fuel Type:Gasoline
For Sale By:Private Seller
Make: Chrysler
Model: Town & Country
Warranty: Vehicle does NOT have an existing warranty
Trim: mini van with dual sliding doors
Options: CD Player, DVD changer with remote and wireless headphones
Drive Type: FWD
Safety Features: Anti-Lock Brakes, Driver Airbag, Passenger Airbag, Side Airbags, New front and rear brakes
Mileage: 85,346
Power Options: Air Conditioning, Cruise Control, Power Locks, Power Windows, Power Seats
Sub Model: Touring
Exterior Color: Silver
Interior Color: Gray
Disability Equipped: No
Chrysler Town & Country for Sale
2012 chrysler town & country touring damaged salvage runs! loaded export welcome(US $8,950.00)
2004 chrysler town & country touring minivan(US $5,500.00)
2007 chrysler town & country limited mini passenger van 4-door 3.8l
2008 touring stow n go clean wpc
2007 chrysler town & country touring van
Excellent condition, mini van, garage kept, complete entertainment package(US $15,200.00)
Auto Services in Illinois
Zeigler Chrysler Dodge Jeep ★★★★★
Walden Automotive ★★★★★
Twin City Upholstery Ltd. ★★★★★
Truetech Automotive ★★★★★
Towing Recovery Rebuilding Assistance Services ★★★★★
Tony`s Auto Body ★★★★★
Auto blog
Moon landing anniversary: How Detroit automakers won the space race
Fri, Jul 19 2019America's industrial might — automakers included — determined the outcome of the 20th centuryÂ’s biggest events. The “Arsenal of Democracy” won World War II, and then the Cold War. And our factories flew us to the moon. Apollo was a Cold War program. You can draw a direct line from Nazi V-2 rockets to ICBMs to the Saturn V. The space race was a proxy war — which beats a real war. It was a healthy outlet for technology and testosterone that would otherwise be used for darker purposes. (People protested, and still do, that money for space should go to problems here on Earth, but more likely the military-industrial complex would've just bought more bombs with it.) As long as we and the Soviet Union were launching rockets into space, we were not lobbing them at each other. JFKÂ’s challenge to “go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,” put American industry back on a war footing. We were galvanized to beat the Russians, to demonstrate technological dominance. (A lack of similar unifying purpose is why we havenÂ’t been to the moon since, or Mars.) NASA says more than 400,000 Americans, from scientists to seamstresses, toiled on the moon program, working for government or for 20,000 contractors. Antagonism was diverted into something inspirational. The Big Three automakers were some of the biggest companies in the moon program, which might surprise a lot of people today. Note to a new generation who marveled when SpaceX launched a Tesla Roadster out into the solar system: Sure, that was neat, but just know that Detroit beat Elon Musk to space by more than half a century. This high point in human history was brought to you by Ford ItÂ’s hard to imagine in this era of Sony-LG-Samsung, but Ford used to make TVs. And other consumer appliances. Or rather Philco, the radio, TV and transistor pioneer that Ford bought in 1961 — the year Gagarin and Alan Shepard flew in space. Ted Ryan, FordÂ’s archives and heritage brand manager, just wrote a Medium article on the central role Philco-Ford played in manned spaceflight. And nothingÂ’s more central than Mission Control in Houston, the famous console-filled room we all know from TV and movies. What we didn't know was, that was Ford. Ford built that. In 1953, Ryan notes, Philco invented a transistor that was key to the development of (what were then regarded as) high-speed computers, so naturally Philco became a contractor for NASA and the military.
Chrysler nets $1.6B income in Q4, Fiat profit up 5%
Wed, 29 Jan 2014Chrysler announced its 2013 financial results today and unveiled its new name and decidedly bank-like logo. Amid the announcement, Chrysler posted big gains in income, while Fiat didn't perform to analysts' expectations.
For 2013, Chrysler had revenue of $72.1 billion, up 10 percent from 2012. Net income reached $2.8 billion, a 65-percent increase. It was the company's third straight year of annual profits.
In terms of unit sales, Chrysler sold 2.4 million cars worldwide in 2013, up 9 percent. According to Automotive News, 1.8 million of those vehicles were sold in the US, a 14-percent increase. The sales growth boosted Chrysler's US market share to 11.4 percent, up 0.2 percent.
Fiat brand chief reassigned then resigns amid flagging sales
Tue, Oct 13 2015Jason Stoicevich was replaced as head of the Fiat brand in North America just the other day. He was immediately reassigned to another job within Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. But according to Automotive News, Stoicevich quit the new job – and the company altogether – the very next day. The development comes amidst flagging sales for the Fiat brand in America. The introduction of the awkward-looking 500L multi-purpose vehicle has been largely regarded as a sales disaster in the US. Despite having just introduced the new 500X into the growing crossover market, and an overall upward trend across FCA group sales, the Fiat brand's figures have been dropping all year. While the Italian brand's volume has fluctuated from month to month compared to last year's sales, the number of cars its dealers sells on an average day has been firmly in decline. Fiat's downward trend reflects a general tendency in the market towards larger vehicles at the expense of smaller ones. However, the powers that be in Auburn Hills evidently felt that a change of leadership was in order, so it placed Dodge chief Tim Kuniskis in charge of all the company's mass-market passenger-car brands – namely Dodge, Chrysler, and Fiat – and moved Stoicevich to running the group's fleet and small-business operations. Stoicevich remained in charge of the company's California Business Center, but it seems as though he was as dissatisfied with the switch as his superiors were with the performance of the brand over which he presided, and so he apparently elected to step down and leave the company.