1978 Jeep Cj7 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2014 North American Car and Truck/Utility of the Year finalists announced [w/poll]

The 2014 North American International Auto Show is right around the corner, which means it's high time we found out which cars and trucks would be finalists for the prestigious North American Car and Truck/Utility of the Year awards.
The finalists - three in cars and three in three trucks/utilities - are dominated by American brands, with two-thirds of the finalists hailing from either General Motors or Chrysler (don't worry Ford, there's always next year), while outliers from Mazda and Acura can be found in each contest. Here now is the list of finalists for the big prizes:
2014 North American Car of the Year:

Fiat Chrysler working on an inline-six to replace the Pentastar V6?

Get out your Skeptics Hat for this one and keep it close by. Allpar cites "reliable sources" to write that Fiat Chrysler appears to be working on a new inline-six engine to be slotted into company products around the globe. The purported engine would be based on the 2.0-liter Global Medium Engine inline-four. Allpar first reported on the potential development in February 2017 and has filed a few updates since then, one citing "internal communications referring to a GME T6" — the "T" meaning turbocharged. It's said that some engineers have changed their online resumes to reflect their focus on the new motor. Apparently, FCA tried adding forced induction to the Pentastar V6 but didn't like the results. The new direction then turned toward a "compact straight-six." In at least one guise, the GME I-6 would come in at just under three liters in order to escape taxes on engines 3.0-liters and above in certain European markets; the 2.0-liter four-cylinder has an actual displacement of 1.995 liters. The present V6 Pentastar comes in 3.2-liter and 3.6-liter guises; a turbocharged 3.0-liter straight-six should be able to replace both as far as output. Hooking up to the company's eTorque system used on the 3.6-liter Pentastar and 5.7-liter Hemi would make things even more punchy. With the trend in truck engine downsizing, it wouldn't be crazy to see such an engine head straight to Ram. The four-cylinder GME unit serves in the Alfa Romeo Giulia and Stelvio, and Jeep Cherokee, Wrangler, and Grand Commander. The big Alfa Romeos and full-size Jeep and Ram models shouldn't have any problem with a longer inline engine. Maserati, which doesn't use the Pentastar engine, could be a candidate as well should it choose to step away from its Ferrari-developed engine cred. Speaking of Ferrari, the Italian brand is working up a new V6 based, in its words, on "a very, very particular architecture." It isn't clear where it will go or if one of the other Italian brands will get access to it, but the Allpar piece says the Ferrari V6 will be based on the core GME architecture for Maserati. Chrysler gave up its last inline-six 11 years ago when the 4.0-liter I-6 retired alongside the JK-series Jeep Wrangler. The engine format is back in vogue, and its reincarnations have received good reviews. But inline-sixes are generally longer, hence FCA's focus on a compact unit, and that could limit the purported engine's placement options.

Trying the new Compass and other Jeeps on for size

If any brand has license to sell several like-sized SUVs, it's Jeep, which invented the concept in the first place. Yet, with the Cherokee, Renegade, and the redesigned 2017 Jeep Compass revealed at the LA Auto Show, just how like-sized is this trio of compact SUVs? Well, as it turns out, that answer is more complicated than just looking at various spreadsheets of specifications. After the cover was pulled off the new Compass, I managed to explore each back-to-back-to-back to see how their back seats and cargo areas compare. Perhaps obviously, the Renegade is the smallest of the trio no matter how you look it. Well, it actually has the most headroom, but rear legroom is cramped (a 6-footer can't sit behind another 6-footer) and it's quite obvious the cargo area is about nine cubic feet smaller with the rear seats raised. However, the Cherokee and Compass are surprisingly similar both on paper and in person – and even more surprisingly, the newer, smaller-on-the-outside Compass is actually a bit more spacious despite being nine inches shorter in overall length. View 14 Photos When seated in back, my knees were just touching the driver seat when it was motored most of the way back to accommodate my 6-foot-3 frame. However, the Cherokee's slightly chunkier seatback meant the Compass actually had a bit more rear legroom. I then set the passenger seat to a more average distance and again, the Compass had a slight advantage. The Cherokee did have a bit more under-thigh support, however, which indicates the seat is mounted a bit higher. But that creates a problem, as headroom is more significantly affected when the panoramic sunroof is specified. In the Cherokee, my head was into the sunroof cavity and resting against its rigid surround. In the Compass, there was just enough clearance. It should be a difference, both in terms of headroom and perceived roominess that those of average height should notice. As for their cargo areas, the Compass' is larger and more useable. With the rear seats raised, it has 27.2 cubic feet versus the Cherokee's 24.6. You can scoot its sliding seat forward to nearly equal the Compass, but of course doing so reduces its rear legroom. The main reason is width. The Cherokee is noticeably narrow and it gets worse when equipped with the optional subwoofer. In terms of maximum cargo volume with the rear seats lowered, the Compass has 59.8 cubic feet to the Cherokee's 54.9.