11 Jeep Compass 41k-miles on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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?

NHTSA investigating power modules on Chrysler Group SUVs and minivans

The Center for Auto Safety is officially petitioning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to begin scrutinizing alleged problems with the totally integrated power module (TIPM) on about 24 Chrysler Group SUVs and minivans. The advocacy group claims that the part's failure can cause affected vehicles to stall or not start at all. NHTSA is still looking into the accusations and deciding whether a full investigation is actually warranted.
The CAS petition claims at least 70 TIPM failures, but according to NHTSA, six of the complaints are for models that don't have the modules. In 34 of the reported cases, the vehicles refused to start, and in 17 of them the engine stalled. There were also two allegations of smoke and one of a fire. However, none of these affected airbag deployment or resulted in a crash.
This petition isn't the first TIPM-related problem for Chrysler Group. A recent report in the New York Times alleged that it found 240 complaints potentially related to the issue on NHTSA's website alone. In September, the automaker also recalled 230,760 examples worldwide (188,723 in the US) of the 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango replace the fuel pump relay circuit inside of the TIPM-7 with one external to the unit. The original part could allegedly cause the models to stall without warning. Even earlier, the company also recalled about 80,000 examples of the Jeep Wrangler and Dodge Nitro in 2007 to have the module reprogrammed.

In Michigan, car hackers could face life imprisonment

Car hackers may not want to mess with vehicles in and around the Motor City. A pair of Michigan lawmakers introduced legislation Thursday that would punish anyone who infiltrates a vehicle's electronic systems with penalties as harsh as life imprisonment. Senate bill 927 says that "a person shall not intentionally access or cause access to be made to an electronic system of a motor vehicle to willfully destroy, damage, impair, alter or gain unauthorized control of the motor vehicle." Offenders will be deemed guilty of a felony, and may be imprisoned for any number of years up to life in prison. The proposed legislation is one of the first attempts nationally to address the consequences for car hacking, which has become a top concern throughout the auto industry. Critics have accused executives of being slow to respond to the threats, which were first known as long as six years ago but gained attention last July when a pair of researchers remotely controlled a Jeep Cherokee. In January, the industry established an Information Sharing and Analysis Center to collectively evaluate security measures and counter breaches. But the Michigan bill isn't noteworthy only because of the life penalty prescribed; it's noteworthy for what's missing in its details. Language in the bill doesn't delineate between independent cyber-security researchers and criminals who intend to inflict harm or havoc. Under its provisions, it's possible Charlie Miller, pictured below, and Chris Valasek, the researchers who demonstrated last summer that the Cherokee could be remotely commandeered and controlled, could face life behind bars. Provisions of the legislation that prevent a person from "altering" the motor vehicle could ensnare car enthusiasts or gearheads who tinker with electronic systems to boost performance, increase fuel efficiency or add aftermarket features. In that context, Senate Bill 927 seems like the latest measure in a running feud between independent researchers, gearheads and big automakers. Car companies don't like third parties poking around their electronic systems and would prefer the researchers not reveal security weaknesses. Researchers, on the other hand, say many carmakers are either slow to fix or unwilling to repair security holes unless they're able to publish their findings.