1990 Dodge Ram Van B350 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Fiat Chrysler faces $79 million U.S. penalty for fuel economy shortfall

WASHINGTON — Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV on Wednesday said it faces a $79 million U.S. civil penalty for failing to meet 2017 fuel economy requirements, as regulators reported more automakers were falling short of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions standards. The Italian-American automaker said the payment is not expected to have a material impact on its business. Of 18 major carmakers in the United States, 13 including Fiat Chrysler failed to comply with fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards for the 2017 model year without using credits, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The agency said its review of model year 2017 vehicles showed "automakers falling further behind current standards." The 2017 model fleet fell 1 1/2 miles per gallon short of the 33.8 mpg standard based on yearly performance without including credits, NHTSA reported. The shortfall was a half-mile per gallon for the 2016 model year. NHTSA said more automakers were failing to comply with standards for the 2018 and 2019 model years, "and the potential penalties on automakers, which are passed along to consumers, are expected to continue to increase." The Trump administration has used the widening gap between the emissions of automakers' U.S. fleets, which are skewing toward larger vehicles, and national vehicle CO2 emissions standards to bolster its case for freezing vehicle emissions and mileage standards at current levels through 2026. Environmental groups and regulators in California and other states are fighting against any rollback in standards, saying tough rules are needed to address climate change and reduce consumer outlays for fuel. NHTSA and the Environmental Protection Agency are working to finalize as early as next month a rewrite of the Obama administrationÂ’s fuel efficiency requirements, which call for sharp reductions in fleet-wide emissions by 2026. Fiat Chrysler is paying fines for the shortfall in its domestic passenger car fleet, which includes several front-wheel-drive Jeep and rear-drive Dodge SUVs and some sedans and muscle cars. The automaker killed its slow-selling domestic small and midsize sedans. After paying $77.3 million last year for a 2016 model year fuel-economy shortfall, a Fiat Chrysler spokesman confirmed Wednesday the company had received a letter on the 2017 penalty and has 60 days to pay the fine.

Dodge Dart falls short of Consumer Reports Recommended, Caddy XTS and Lincoln MKS, too

The Dodge Dart, Cadillac XTS and Lincoln MKS all failed to earn a "Recommended" rating from Consumer Reports. When it came to the compact Dart, the organization's testers thought the vehicle offered a quiet cabin, solid-feeling chassis and nimble suspension, but the new model ultimately fell short of the coveted rating due to powertrain issues. The institute's reviewers found the base 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine to be underpowered and noted "drivability issues" when the available turbocharged 1.4-liter four was paired with the optional dual-clutch transmission (some of our editors disliked it paired with the six-speed manual). CR also dinged the latter powerplant for sounding "raspy." For what it's worth, we think the forced-induction engine offers an excellent and playful exhaust note, but that's just us.
As for the XTS, CR lauded the car for its luxurious cabin, but the vehicle's experience was dulled by its finicky CUE infotainment interface. Overall, the big Cadillac scored much higher than its cross-town rival from Lincoln. While testers found the American luxury sedan to offer a quiet ride and quality fit and finish, they felt the MKS delivered a "cramped driving position, ungainly handling, uncomposed ride, and limited visibility." Ouch. At the end of the day, both cars fell short of rivals from Japan, Germany and Korea. Check out the full press release below with more details, along with CR's musings on the Chevrolet Spark and Lexus ES.

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.