2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee Altitude 4x4 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

What would you drive in 1985?

Bereft of live baseball games to watch, I've turned to the good ship YouTube to watch classic games. While watching the 1985 American League Championship Series last night, several of the broadcast's commercials made its way into the original VHS recording, including those for cars. "Only 8.8% financing on a 1985 Ford Tempo!" What a deal! That got me thinking: what would I drive in 1985?  It sure wouldn't be a Tempo. Or an IROC-Z, for that matter, despite what my Photoshopped 1980s self would indicate in the picture above. I posed this question to my fellow Autobloggists. Only one could actually drive back then, I was only 2 and a few editors weren't even close to being born. Here are our choices, which were simply made with the edict of "Come on, man, be realistic."  West Coast Editor James Riswick: OK, I started this, I'll go first. I like coupes today, so I'm pretty sure I'd drive one back then. I definitely don't see myself driving some badge-engineered GM thing from 1985, and although a Honda Prelude has a certain appeal, I must admit that something European would likely be in order. A BMW maybe? No, I'm too much a contrarian for that. The answer is therefore a 1985 Saab 900 Turbo 3-Door, which is not only a coupe but a hatchback, too. If I could scrounge up enough Reagan-era bucks for the ultra-cool SPG model, that would be rad. The 900 Turbo pictured, which was for auction on Bring a Trailer a few years ago, came with plum-colored Bokhara Red, and you're damn sure I would've had me one of those. Nevermind 1985, I'd probably drive this thing today.   Associate Editor Byron Hurd: I'm going to go with the 1985.5 Ford Mustang SVO, AKA the turbocharged Fox Body that everybody remembers but nobody drives. The mid-year update to the SVO bumped the power up from 175 ponies (yeah, yeah) to 205, making it almost as powerful (on paper, anyway) as the V8-powered GT models offered in the same time frame. I chose this particular car because it's a bit of a time capsule and, simultaneously, a reminder that all things are cyclical. Here we are, 35 years later, and 2.3-liter turbocharged Mustangs are a thing again. Who would have guessed?

Jeep Cherokee won't get diesel until sales of oil-burning Grand Cherokee improve

Okay Jeep fans, you want more diesel options? Time to step up and prove it. The only way Jeep will offer a diesel powerplant in the Cherokee, according to brand head Mike Manley, is if sales of the Grand Cherokee EcoDiesel nearly double.
Currently, about eight percent of the Grand Cherokees sold feature the 3.0-liter, EcoDiesel V6. That's simply not enough to warrant the bringing an oil-burning Cherokee to the US market, despite the vehicle's presence in Europe, where it's sold with a 2.8-liter diesel V6.
"Cherokee is slightly different because of its weight and size. When I think about bringing Cherokee diesel here, I would like to see Grand Cherokee diesel get much higher than eight percent," Manley told Automotive News. "It would have to be in mid-double digits."

$40M award for boy's death in Jeep fire upheld by Georgia high court

The Georgia Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously upheld a $40 million award to the family of a 4-year-old boy killed in 2012 when the 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee in which he was riding was rear-ended and burst into flames. A lower court in 2015 reduced a jury verdict from nearly $150 million to $40 million. Fiat Chrysler spokesman Michael Palese said the company was "disappointed in this decision. We are considering our legal options." The Jeep's fuel tank was placed near the back of the vehicle, which plaintiffs said made it vulnerable to rear-end collisions. The Supreme Court ruling said "evidence showed that Chrysler had long known that mounting a gas tank behind the rear axle was dangerous. Evidence also showed that Chrysler's placement of the gas tank behind the rear axle was contrary to industry trends, which favored placing tanks in front of the rear axle." Fiat Chrysler lawyers said during the trial that the fire did not cause Walden's death and blamed the driver of the pickup truck that hit the vehicle. The company said Thursday it "continues to extend sympathies to the family of Remi Walden for their loss." On appeal, the company contended it was prejudicial to raise Fiat Chrysler Chief Executive Sergio Marchionne's compensation, which totaled more than $68 million, according to a company executive who testified at trial. The automaker had denied there was a safety issue and has said the vehicles were no more dangerous than comparable SUVs built at the time. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) linked more than 50 deaths to the Jeep fuel-tank issue. Under government pressure, Fiat Chrysler recalled 1.56 million 2002-07 Jeep Liberty and 1993-2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee SUVs in June 2013 to address fire risks and agreed to install trailer hitches to protect the gas tanks. The recall and a "customer satisfaction campaign" that covered the Jeep in the fatal Georgia crash occurred after Marchionne held private talks with senior U.S. Transportation Department officials in 2013. The Georgia Supreme Court opinion said the award was proper in part because Marchionne was "alleged to have specifically interjected himself in a federal safety investigation to the detriment" of the Walden family. In 2015, NHTSA announced Fiat Chrysler would pay a then-record $105 million civil penalty over lapses in safety recalls involving millions of vehicles, including older Jeep SUVs for fire risks. Reporting by David ShepardsonRelated Video: