1998 Dodge Ram 1500 St Extended Cab Pickup 2-door 5.2l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Question of the Day: Most heinous act of badge engineering?

Badge engineering, in which one company slaps its emblems on another company's product and sells it, has a long history in the automotive industry. When Sears wanted to sell cars, a deal was made with Kaiser-Frazer and the Sears Allstate was born. Iranians wanted new cars in the 1960s, and the Rootes Group was happy to offer Hillman Hunters for sale as Iran Khodro Paykans. Sometimes, though, certain badge-engineered vehicles made sense only in the 26th hour of negotiations between companies. The Suzuki Equator, say, which was a puzzling rebadge job of the Nissan Frontier. How did that happen? My personal favorite what-the-heck-were-they-thinking example of badge engineering is the 1971-1973 Plymouth Cricket. Chrysler Europe, through its ownership of the Rootes Group, was able to ship over Hillman Avanger subcompacts for sale in the US market. This would have made sense... if Chrysler hadn't already been selling rebadged Mitsubishi Colt Galants (as Dodge Colts) and Simca 1100s as (Simca 1204s) in its American showrooms. Few bought the Cricket, despite its cheery ad campaign. So, what's the badge-engineered car you find most confounding? Chrysler Dodge Automakers Mitsubishi Nissan Suzuki Automotive History question of the day badge engineering question

Junkyard Gem: 1976 Dodge D100, United States Army Edition

Members of the United States military have been driving Dodge trucks since the Army bought its first Dodge Brothers ambulance in 1917, and plenty of third-generation D-series pickups ended up in Army service during the mid-1970s. Most of these were 3/4-ton W200s and D200s (designated as M880s), but today's Junkyard Gem is a 1/2-ton D100 CARGO PICKUP W/CAB, found in a Denver self-service wrecking yard. Eventually, the Army auctions off old vehicles, and that happened to this battered D100 Custom at some point. This truck appears to have started life with Navy gray paint, which was painted over in Army-grade olive drab. Perhaps there was some vehicle-shuffling done by the Pentagon. The most recent layer of stickers shows that this truck's final military job was for the U.S. Army Recruiting Command. Power came from the legendary Chrysler Slant-6, in this case the 225-cubic-inch version rated at 105 horsepower. Like most fleet vehicles of the last 50 or so years, it has an automatic transmission. You couldn't expect every soldier to be able to work a three-pedal truck, not even way back in 1976. The Rust Monster has taken a few bites out of this truck, enough that its resale value converged with the current price of scrap vehicles. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Better price, mileage and payload than Ford or Chevy!

Killing the Dart and 200 might lower FCA's fuel economy burden

Killing the Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200 could allow FCA US to take advantage of an intriguing quirk in the next decade's fuel economy regulations. By increasing its ratio of trucks versus cars, the automaker might not need to worry so much about hitting the more stringent efficiency rules. At first thought, it might seem harder for an automaker with a ton of trucks to meet the government's mandated 54.5 mile per gallon corporate average fuel economy for 2025. However, every company doesn't need to hit that lofty figure, according to The Detroit Free Press. The exact target varies by the product mix between trucks and cars. "While passenger car and light truck categories have separate CAFE targets, it's still true that more trucks versus cars in a company lineup means a lower combined CAFE target," Brandon Schoettle, Project Manager Sustainable Worldwide Transportation at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, told Autoblog. "While passenger car and light truck categories have separate CAFE targets, it's still true that more trucks versus cars in a company lineup means a lower combined CAFE target." FCA US' current product blend has 80 percent pickups and CUVs, which means the company stands to benefit from a lower fuel economy target. It might not seem entirely fair environmentally, but this is a great move from a business perspective. The new CAFE rules aren't set in stone, according to The Detroit Free Press, but potentially taking advantage of the regulation is just one more reason to cut the Dart and 200. Modern crossovers also aren't gas guzzlers like older SUVs, which could make it easier to hit the fuel economy target. "Utilities offer practicality and versatility that cars do not, and now, built on car architectures, they do not penalize consumers on fuel economy as they once did," AutoTrader Senior Analyst Michelle Krebs told Autoblog. Schoettle warns that FCA is still making a gamble by killing the small sedans. "Depending on the previous sales volumes and how much these vehicles might have exceeded their specific CAFE targets, it's possible that these cars helped earn CAFE credits for FCA that they could bank for future use," he said. "Future sales breakdowns [car vs.