1988 Chrysler Lebaron Premium J-body Convertible, 2.2l Tbi on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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...

Detroit and Silicon Valley: When cultures collide

Culture is a subject that rarely, if never, gets discussed when traditional auto companies buy — or hugely invest — in Silicon Valley-based companies. The conversation surrounding the investments is usually about how the tech looks appealing and how it's an appropriate step to move the automakers toward autonomy. Culture — the way things are done, the expectations, and the approaches — is something that is overlooked only at one's peril. The potential cultural gap is almost always evident in the obligatory photos of the participants in these deals, with is essentially a photo op of auto execs with their Silicon Valley counterparts. The former — rocking jeans and no ties — look like parochial school kids playing hooky. Don't worry: The regimental outfits will be back in place once they get back in the Eastern time zone. Consider what happened back in 1998 when Daimler bought Chrysler. First of all, there was a denial in Detroit that it happened. It was positioned as a "merger of equals." Which it wasn't. In any corporate situation, when one has more than 50 percent of the business, it owns the whole thing. And the German company was in the proverbial driver's seat. People who were around Auburn Hills back then kept their heads down and their German Made Simple books at hand. Things did not go well. Daimler had had enough by 2007, when it offloaded Chrysler to Cerberus Capital Management — which brought ex-Home Depot CEO Bob Nardelli into the picture, which is a story onto itself. But when you think about the Daimler-Chrysler situation, realize that these were two car companies (at least the Mercedes part of the Daimler organization), so they had that in common, and the language of engineers is something of an Esperanto based on math, so there was that, too. Yet it simply didn't work. It doesn't take too many viewings of HBO's Silicon Valley to know that the business people in that part of the world are far more aggressive than people who ordinarily head and control car companies in Detroit. About 20 years ago, a book came out about the founder of Oracle titled The Difference Between God and Larry Ellison* - and the asterisk on the book jacket leads to: God Doesn't Think He's Larry Ellison. It would be hard to imagine a book about a Detroit executive, even a book that had the decided bias that the tome about Ellison evinces, that would be quite so searing. Sure, there are egos. But they are still perceived to be, overall, "nice" people.

Car technology I'm thankful and unthankful for

The past few years have seen a surge of tech features in new vehicles — everything from cloud-based content to semi-autonomous driving. While some of it makes the driving experience better, not all tech is useful or well thought out. Automakers who are adept at drivetrains, ride quality and in-cabin comforts often fail at infotainment interfaces and connectivity. From testing dozens of vehicles each year and in the spirit of gratitude, here are three car tech features I'm thankful — and a trio I could live without. Thanks Connected search: This seems like a no-brainer since everyone already has it on their smartphones, but not all automakers include it in the dashboard and as part of their nav systems. The best ones, such as Toyota Entune, leverage a driver's connected device to search for a range of services and don't charge a subscription or require a separate data plan for the car. I also like how systems like Chrysler Uconnect use Yelp or other apps to find everything from coffee to gas stations and allow searching via voice recognition. Apple CarPlay and Android Auto: It took two of the largest tech companies to get in-dash infotainment right. While they have their disadvantages (you're forced to use Apple Maps with CarPlay, for example), the two smartphone-integration platforms make it easier and safer to use their respective native apps for phoning, messaging, music and more behind the wheel by transferring a familiar UI to the dashboard — with no subscription required. Heated seats and steering wheels: I really appreciate these simple but pleasant features come wintertime. It's easy to get spoiled by bun-warmers on frosty mornings and using a heated steering wheel to warm the cold hands. I recently tested a 2018 Mercedes-Benz E400 Coupe that also had heated armrest that added to a cozy luxury experience. Bonus points for brands like Buick that allow setting seat heaters to turn on when the engine is remotely started. No thanks Automaker infotainment systems: Automakers have probably poured millions into creating their own infotainment systems, with the result largely being frustration on the part of most car owners. And Apple CarPlay and Android Auto coming along to make them obsolete. While some automaker systems, such as Toyota Entune and FCA's Uconnect, are easy and intuitive to use, it seems that high-end systems (I'm looking at you BMW iDrive and Mercedes-Benz COMAND) are the most difficult.