2013 Chrysler Town & Country Touring on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Fiat Chrysler to pay $800M in Jeep, Ram emissions cheating case

WASHINGTON — Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV has agreed to a settlement worth about $800 million to resolve claims from the U.S. Justice Department and state of California that it used illegal software that produced false results on diesel-emissions tests, but still faces an ongoing criminal probe. The hefty penalty is the latest fallout from the U.S. government's stepped-up enforcement of vehicle emissions rules after Volkswagen AG admitted in September 2015 to intentionally evading emissions rules. The Fiat Chrysler settlement includes $311 million in total civil penalties to U.S. and California regulators, up to $280 million to resolve claims from diesel owners, and extended warranties worth $105 million. It covers 104,000 Fiat Chrysler 2014-16 Ram 1500 and Jeep Grand Cherokee diesels, the Justice Department said. Regulators said Fiat Chrysler used "defeat devices" to cheat emissions tests in real-world driving. Fiat Chrysler said in a statement that "the settlements do not change the Company's position that it did not engage in any deliberate scheme to install defeat devices to cheat emissions tests." The company did not admit liability. "You wouldn't pay $311 million total dollars to the federal government in civil penalties if there were not a serious problem," U.S. assistant attorney general Jeff Clark told a news conference. The settlement also includes $72.5 million for state civil penalties, and $33.5 million in payments to California to offset excess emissions and consumer claims. German auto supplier Robert Bosch GmbH, which provided the emissions control software for the vehicles, also agreed to pay $27.5 million to resolve claims from diesel owners. Owners will receive an average of $2,800 to obtain software updates as part of the emissions recall, Fiat Chrysler said. Elizabeth Cabraser, a lawyer for the owners, said the "substantial cash compensation" will ensure that consumers get the recall fix. Bosch, which also provided diesel emissions software to Volkswagen, also agreed to pay $103.5 million to settle claims with 47 U.S. states that said the supplier "enabled" the cheating and should have known its customers would use the software improperly, the New York Attorney General's Office said.

Junkyard Gem: 1979 Chrysler Cordoba

The original Cordoba personal luxury coupe, which debuted for the 1975 model year, was a big hit for Chrysler. Through the 1979 model year, it was based on the successful Chrysler B-Body platform, making it a sibling to the Dukes of Hazzard Charger and Governor Moonbeam's Plymouth Satellite sedan. I see a surprising number of Cordobas showing up in the self-service wrecking yards I frequent in California and Colorado, and this two-tone '79 showed up in a San Francisco Bay Area yard a while back. You could get the 1979 Cordoba with typical 1970s fuzzy-velour seats, but this one has the iconic Corinthian Leather of Ricardo Montalban fame. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Yes, soft Corinthian Leather! This one has just about every possible option, if we are to go by the information in the brochure. The vinyl landau roof and two-tone paint were for serious buyers only. This V8 is either a 318 or a 360, and we won't discuss the depressing power figures that you get with engines of the late 1970s. Worth restoring? Not in this kind of condition. Source of parts for other, more valuable B-bodies? Yes. Related Video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Featured Gallery Junked 1979 Chrysler Cordoba View 17 Photos Auto News Chrysler

Appeals court delays 'sensible resolution' meeting between GM, Fiat Chrysler CEOs

DETROIT — Three federal appeals judges have delayed a court-ordered meeting between the CEOs of General Motors and Fiat Chrysler to try to settle a lawsuit over corruption by union leaders. U.S. District Court Judge Paul Borman last week ordered GM CEO Mary Barra and FCA CEO Mike Manley to meet before July 1. But GM on Friday asked the federal appeals court in Cincinnati to overturn the order and remove Borman from the case. In an order issued Monday, three appellate judges delayed Borman's order to provide time to consider legal points raised by GM. GM is suing crosstown rival FCA alleging that it got an advantage by paying off United Auto Workers union leaders to reduce labor costs during contract talks. FCAÂ’s former labor chief, Al Iacobelli, is in prison, although the company denies that it directed any prohibited payments. In his order last week, Borman described the lawsuit as a “nuclear option” that would be a “waste of time and resources” for years if he allows the case to move forward. The judge ordered Barra and Manley to sit down without lawyers by July 1 and reach a “sensible resolution of this huge legal distraction.” Borman wants an update from them on a public video conference that same day. Over the weekend he modified the order to allow lawyers to attend the meeting. In a court filing, GM called BormanÂ’s order a “profound abuse” of power. “The court possesses no authority to order the CEOs of GM and FCA to engage in settlement discussions, reach a resolution and then appear alone at a pretrial conference eight days later, without counsel,” GMÂ’s attorneys said. “Second, the court has no business labeling a properly filed federal lawsuit assigned to the court for impartial adjudication ‘a distractionÂ’ or a ‘nuclear option,’” GM said. Borman canÂ’t be viewed as impartial, company lawyers said. The judge declined to comment. In a court filing Monday, Fiat Chrysler lawyers wrote that GM didn't make a good case to remove Borman because judges routinely direct lawsuit parties to talk about settling. The lawyers wrote that GM originally wanted the case assigned to Borman but now apparently is worried that his tough questions mean he will dismiss GM's claims. “GM should not be permitted now to complain that that judge has turned out to be less hospitable to GMÂ’s claims than GM anticipated. Parties are not permitted to engage in such judge shopping," the filing said.