2007 Chrysler Sebring Base Sedan 4-door 2.7l ,extra Clean,rides Fantastic,fun on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Hellcat no help to Fiat-Chrysler's bottom-of-the-pile mpg average

What, you expected the "fastest muscle car ever" to help fleetwide fuel economy? Nope, don't think that's going to happen. That means Fiat Chrysler will likely to continue to languish at the bottom of the heap when it comes to fleetwide fuel economy among the largest automakers serving the US, especially as the automaker starts to sell its Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat. A few hundred Fiat 500E electric vehicles aren't going to turn the trend around. See, Chrysler has once again finished at the bottom of the list when it came to fleetwide fuel economy among automakers for 2014 model-year vehicles, according to a preliminary study by the US Environmental Protection Agency. Chrysler and Fiat had an average of 21.1 miles per gallon. That substantially lagged the overall 24.2 mpg average, but it was an increase from the company's 20.9 mpg average last year and the 20.1 mpg average two years prior. For 2014, General Motors had the second-worst fleetwide fuel economy at an even 22 mpg. Fiat Chrysler does say it's working on improving its fuel economy, according to Automotive News. The company plans on making its inline-four-cylinder and V6 engines smaller, and will sell more vehicles with eight- and nine-speed transmissions. Heck, there's even a plug-in hybrid version of the Chrysler Town & Country minivan in the works for late 2015, and the company can tout fuel-efficiency gains with the Chrysler 200 and Jeep Cherokee. We would be remiss if we didn't note that, compared to its muscle-car forefathers, the Hellcat actually performs pretty well at the pump. Last month, word got out that the 2015 Challenger Hellcat, equipped either with a six-speed manual or an eight-speed automatic transmission, got a combined fuel economy of 16 mpg. Heck, the automatic-tranny version got 22 mpg on the highway. And that's for a car with 707 horsepower and a 10-second quarter-mile time. Still, with the pedal floored, the car can burn a gallon and a half of fuel per minute. Ouch.

Our love of SUVs is killing people in the streets

Americans are fond of supersized fast-food meals and colossal convenience-store fountain drinks, even though they're clearly bad for our health and U.S. adults keep getting fatter. We also like large vehicles, and our love affair with SUVs is killing people in the streets. According to a recent investigation by the Detroit Free Press/USA Today, the increase in SUV sales over the past several years coincides with a sharp rise in pedestrian deaths in the U.S. — up 46 percent since 2009, with nearly 6,000 people killed in 2016 alone. With SUV sales surpassing sedans in 2014 and pickups and SUVs currently accounting for 60 percent of new vehicle sales, it's no wonder Ford announced in April plans to cease U.S. sales of almost all passenger cars. And this followed Fiat Chrysler's move to virtually an all-truck, -SUV and -crossover lineup. While the Freep/USA Today investigation found that the simultaneous surge in SUV sales and pedestrian deaths comes down to vehicle size, it also points to a lack of action on the part of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), even though it knew of the dangers SUVs pose to pedestrians. Also blamed are automakers dragging their feet on implementing active safety features. Using federal accident data, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) determined that there was an 81 percent increase in single-vehicle pedestrian fatalities involving SUVs between 2009 and 2016. Freep/USA Today's analysis of the same data by counting vehicles that struck and killed pedestrians instead of the number of people killed showed a 69 percent increase in SUV involvement. As far back as 2001, researchers at Rowan University forecasted a rise in pedestrian deaths as Americans began switching to SUVs. "In the United States, passenger vehicles are shifting from a fleet populated primarily by cars to a fleet dominated by light trucks and vans," the researchers wrote, with light trucks comprising SUVs.

Marchionne says the Chrysler 200 and Dodge Dart were terrible investments for FCA

In a press conference during the Detroit Auto Show, Sergio Marchionne was quite candid about why the Chrysler 200 and Dodge Dart were discontinued altogether without replacement. He essentially said they weren't worth the trouble. "I can tell you right now that both the Chrysler 200 and the Dodge Dart, as great products as they were, were the least financially rewarding enterprises that we've carried out inside FCA in the last eight years," Marchionne said. "I don't know one investment that was as bad as these two were." Marchionne was responding to a question about whether he felt the company's shift toward trucks and SUVs and sacrifice in sedan development was shortsighted. Marchionne said he felt that the market would likely continue to be strong for trucks and SUVs, and that the sedan market requires enormous investment that might not pay off. He used the 200 and Dart as examples. When we tried out the 200 and the Dart, we had mixed feelings. We enjoyed the 200's potent V6, pleasant interior, and solid handling. However, it was lacking in space (especially in the rear seat area), and doesn't drive any better than the top vehicles in the midsize sedan class. As for the Dart, it was fairly roomy, and had great infotainment thanks to Uconnect, but lackluster handling and a surprising amount of weight left it only average. With that in mind, it's probably not a bad idea to get rid of the 200 and Dart. The sedan segment is shrinking, and FCA can only afford to invest in areas where it can be a class-leader. Related Video: