2009 Chrysler Town And Country Limited on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Is your new-car warranty good at the race track?

We've all heard the horror stories. Your buddy knows a girl that was dating a guy whose best friend's brother once broke his brand-new, recently purchased performance car while making runs at a drag strip or laps at a track day, and the manufacturer wouldn't cover the repair under warranty. True story? Urban legend? Complete crap? Yes, no, maybe. One thing's for sure: Automotive warranties have always come with caveats. In 1908, an ad in the Trenton Evening Times clearly stated: "All Ford Cars Guaranteed for One Year." Although it changed over time, by 1925 the Ford New Car Guarantee only covered 90 days on material and 30 days on labor, and it clearly stated that that there was "No guarantee whatever on Fan Belts, Glass, Bulbs, Wiring, Transmission, Bands, Hose Connections, Commutator Shells, Rollers, Spark Plugs or Gaskets." Whether or not Ol' Henry would pay to fix your Model T if you broke it shaving a tenth off your lap time at the local board track seems to be lost to history. We're guessing no. But what about today? Do new-car warranties in 2017 cover cars when they are driven on race tracks? We researched the warranties of 14 auto brands to find out, and the answer is yes, no, maybe, depending on the brand, in some cases the model, and whether or not your car is modified from stock. Acura has been out of the high-performance car game for a number of years, but jumps back into the party in 2017 with its hybrid-powered $173,000 NSX supercar. And Acura's warranty, as well as Honda's, clearly states that it does not cover "the use of the vehicle in competition or racing events." View 33 Photos So we asked Sage Marie, Senior Manager of Public Relations for Honda and Acura. "If the car is stock, the warranty covers it on a track just as it does on the street. No question," he told us. "However, if the car is modified, say with slick tires or other components that would put higher stresses on the vehicle's parts and systems, then we would have to investigate the circumstances further." Marie went on to say the same would be true for any Acura model or Honda vehicle, including the new 2017 Honda Civic Si. This became a common theme. Chevrolet actually started this practice with the fifth-generation Camaro on the high-performance ZL1 and Z/28 models.

UAW turns its focus to Fiat Chrysler, which may resist more than Ford did

DETROIT — The United Auto Workers union on Monday turned its bargaining focus to Fiat Chrysler, raising the possibility of another strike against a Detroit automaker. Ford workers ratified their contract Friday night, while the union settled with General Motors last month after a 40-day strike by 49,000 workers that shut down the companyÂ’s U.S. production. Ford, which has 55,000 UAW workers, mostly followed the pattern agreement set at GM. But industry analysts say the same deal will cost Fiat Chrysler a lot more money because of the makeup of its workforce. Fiat Chrysler CEO Mike Manley said recently that automakers are in “different conditions” in terms of labor forces, hinting the company may be reluctant to follow the pattern. The union, however, expects FCA to follow the template set by GM and Ford. “We look forward to bargaining a fair, balanced and patterned contract as FCA is a profitable company,” the UAW said in a statement. “You cannot brag about your earnings to Wall Street and at the same time ignore the sacrifice of your workforce that put you in that profitable position.” The deal with Ford and GM gives workers hired after 2007 pay raises so they reach top UAW production wages within four years. It also gives temporary workers a path to full-time jobs within three years. Workers hired after 2007 now are paid lower wages than workers hired before that, even though theyÂ’re doing the same jobs. Workers hired before 2007 get a mix of annual pay raises and lump sum payments. Fiat Chrysler has more workers hired after 2007, and a higher percentage of temporary workers than either Ford or GM. That means the terms of the contract would cost the company more money, said Kristin Dziczek, vice president of labor and manufacturing with the Center for Automotive Research, an industry think tank in Ann Arbor, Michigan. “They are looking at significant cost increases,” Dziczek said of FCA. She says a strike against FCA isnÂ’t out of the question, and depends on how willing the company is to follow the pattern set by Ford and GM. FCA said in a statement it welcomes bargaining toward a deal to keep investing in the companyÂ’s future and creating opportunities for employees and communities. Ford has about 18,500 workers hired after 2007 who will get big pay raises with the new contract, compared with GM's 17,000. But Fiat Chrysler has over 20,000 union employees hired after 2007.

Auto bailout cost the US goverment $9.26B

Depending on your outlook, the US Treasury's bailout of General Motors, Chrysler (now FCA) and their financing divisions under the Troubled Asset Relief Program was either a complete boondoggle or a savvy move to secure the future of some major employers. Regardless of where you fall, the auto industry bailout has officially ended, and the numbers have been tallied. Of the $79.69 billion that the Feds invested to keep the automakers afloat, it recouped $70.43 billion – a net loss of $9.26 billion. The final nail in the coffin for the auto bailout came in December 2014 when the Feds sold its shares in Ally Financial, formerly GMAC. The deal turned out pretty good for the government too because the investment turned a 2.4 billion profit. The actual automakers have long been out of the Treasury's hands, though. The current FCA paid back its loans six years early in 2011, the Treasury sold of the last shares of GM in late 2013. According to The Detroit News, the government's books actually show an official loss on the auto bailouts of $16.56 billion. The difference is because the larger figure does not include the interest or dividends paid by the borrowers on the amount lent. While it's easy to see fault in any red ink on the Feds' massive investment, the number is less than some earlier estimates. At one time, deficits around $44 billion were thought possible, and another put things at a $20.3 billion loss. Outside of just the government losing money, the bailouts might have helped the overall economy. A study from the Center for Automotive Research last year estimated that the program saved 2.6 million jobs and about $284.4 billion in personal wealth. It also indicated that the Feds' reduction in income tax revenue alone from Chrysler and GM going under could have been around $100 billion for just 2009 and 2010, significantly more than any loss in the bailout.