Clean Rust Free Knapeheide Utility Runs Excellent Fleet Maintained Save $$$$$$$$ on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Chop the top of your new Dodge Viper for $35,000

We have good news, and we have bad news. First, the good: It's now possible to get a brand-new Dodge Viper roadster, which is nice, considering we're in the dead of summer and many of us like wind-in-the-hair motoring. Now, the bad: This is not a factory option from the automaker, instead coming courtesy of an aftermarket company called Prefix Performance, and that means it's going to cost you some serious coin.
Called Medusa, this drop-top Viper was created without the knowledge or consent of Dodge, but that's probably fine because Prefix works with the automaker already for the final preparation of the American supercar, including paint. According to the company, the current, fifth-gen Viper was built with a convertible version in mind, so no chassis strengthening is required. From the looks of the somewhat grainy photos available, the conversion appears of very high quality.
Want one? Well, that means you're going to need to procure a Viper - Prefix has 10 units ready for transformation as it stands - and that's going to cost at the very least $102,485. Then, you'll need to write a check for an additional $35,000 for Prefix to surgically remove the car's roof. Thing is, for that kind of cash, a prospective owner could buy, among other very nice options, a Viper hardtop and a loaded Miata, or a Corvette Stingray convertible and several pockets full of change. Or, perhaps a new Viper hardtop and a used, first-gen Viper convertible?

Auto Mergers and Acquisitions: Suicide or salvation?

We love the Moses figure. A savior riding in from stage right with the ideas, the smarts, and the scrappiness to put things right. Alan Mullaly. Carroll Shelby. Lee Iacocca. Andrew Carnegie. Steve Jobs. Elon Musk. Bart Simpson. Sergio Marchionne does not likely view himself with Moses-like optics, but the CEO of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles recently gave a remarkable, perhaps prophetic interview with Automotive News about his interest and the inevitability of merging with a potential automotive partner like General Motors. Marchionne has been overtly public about his notion that GM must merge with FCA. For a bit of context, GM sold 9.9 million vehicles in 2014, posting $2.8 billion in net income, while FCA sold 4.75 million units and earned $2.4 billion in net income, painting a very rosy FCA earnings-to-sales picture. But that's not the entire picture. Most people in the auto industry still remember the trainwreck that was the DaimlerChrysler "merger" written in what turned out to be sand in 1998. It proved to be a master class in how not to fuse two companies, two cultures, two continents, and two management teams. Oh, it worked for the two individuals at both helms pre-merger. They got silly rich. And the industry itself was in a misty romance at the time with mergers and acquisitions. BMW bought Rolls-Royce. Volkswagen Group bought Bentley, Bugatti, and Lamborghini, putting all three brands into their rightful place in both products and positioning. No marriages there, so no false pretense. Finally, Nissan and Renault got married in 1999. A successful marriage requires several rare elements in this atmosphere of gas fumes and power lust. But a successful marriage requires several rare elements in this atmosphere of gas fumes and power lust, the principle part being honesty. Daimler and Chrysler lied to each other. The heads of each unit, the product planners, and finance all presented their then-current and long-range forecasts to each other with less-than-forthright accuracy. Daimler was the far greater equal and no one from the Chrysler side enjoyed that. The cultures were entirely different, too, and little was done to bridge that gap. Which brings me back to the present overtures by Marchionne to GM. "There are varying degrees of hugs," Marchionne stated in the Automotive News piece. "I can hug you nicely, I can hug you tightly, I can hug you like a bear, I can really hug you." Seriously?

This government surveillance van is both cool and creepy, and it could be yours

Whether you're planning a heist and need to gather information, or you're a government agency tracking down the leader of a crime ring, Hollywood has taught us that the unmarked van is the ideal machine for gathering intel. And apparently that's not just a Hollywood trope, because you can buy this actual, honest-to-goodness ex-government surveillance van: a 1998 Plymouth Grand Voyager. It's being sold by the Chicago suburb of Streamwood, Ill., on the government surplus auction site GovDeals. According to the description, the van was acquired by the town as part of a drug seizure and converted to surveillance duty. It looks like a plain white Grand Voyager for the most part, except for the amber flashing light on the roof. Or at least it looks like a light. It's actually the disguise for the camera periscope. Open up the sliding door of the van and you'll discover a swivel mount for the camera, a TV mounted to the back of the driver's seat, and a toolbox that holds all the electronic equipment, including battery chargers for the van and the camera. There are also solid panels behind the windows so that people walking by can't peer in and see all the equipment. It's a bit less wild than some of the vans we've seen on film, but those Hollywood vans are usually larger commercial vans that can store more people and stuff. Less interesting details include the fact that this Grand Voyager has a 3.3-liter V6 with an automatic transmission. It has just over 100,000 miles and was good for a little more than 150 horsepower and 200 pound-feet of torque when it was new. The interior looks impressively clean, as does most of the exterior, but the description and photos highlight the fact that the front strut towers are rusty and in need of repair. Included are new strut towers, but obviously the welding in and painting is the expensive part. Also, while we think this van is pretty neat, since it's an actual surveillance van like we've seen on film for years, we would feel creepy actually owning it. After all, it's a vehicle for watching people, and while a government might have a legitimate reason for doing that, your average person doesn't. Unless you need a prop for a film, are going to show it off at car shows, or are another city government needing a cheap surveillance car, we think having this would be a little too weird. But if you have one of those reasons, or are less worried about what people think, you have a few more days to bid.