1950 Chrysler Windsor / Royal on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Major automakers urge Trump not to freeze fuel economy targets

WASHINGTON — Major automakers are telling the Trump administration they want to reach an agreement with California to avoid a legal battle over fuel efficiency standards, and they support continued increases in mileage standards through 2025. "We support standards that increase year over year that also are consistent with marketplace realities," Mitch Bainwol, chief executive of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group representing major automakers, will tell a U.S. House of Representatives panel on Tuesday, according to written testimony released on Monday. The Trump administration is weighing how to revise fuel economy standards through at least the 2025 model year, and one option is to propose freezing the standards through 2026, effectively allowing automakers to delay investments in technology to cut greenhouse gas emissions from burning petroleum. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not formally submitted its joint proposal with the Environmental Protection Agency to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review. Even so, last week, California and 16 other states sued to challenge the Trump administration's decision to revise U.S. vehicle rules. Auto industry executives have held meetings with the Trump administration for months and have urged the administration to try to reach a deal with California even as they support slowing the pace of reduction in carbon dioxide emissions that the Obama administration rules outlined. One automaker official said part of the message to President Donald Trump at a meeting on Friday will be to consider California like a foreign trade deal that needs to be renegotiated. Automakers want to urge him to get automakers a "better deal" — as opposed to potentially years of litigation between major states and federal regulators. On Friday, Trump is set to meet with the chief executives of General Motors, Ford, Fiat Chrysler and the top U.S. executives of at least five other major automakers, including Toyota, Volkswagen AG and Daimler AG, to talk about revisions to the vehicle rules. Senior EPA and Transportation Department officials will also attend. Environmental groups are eager to keep the rules in place, saying they will save consumers billions in fuel costs. A coalition of groups plans to stage a protest outside Ford's headquarters in Michigan.

Junkyard Gem: 2002 Chrysler PT Cruiser Dream Cruiser Series 1

It has become fashionable to hate the PT Cruiser these days, but Chrysler really hit a home run with the idea of a retro-looking, Neon-based vehicle that — legally speaking — qualified as a light truck according to American regulations and thus didn't need to comply with the costly fuel-economy and crash-safety rules applied to cars. PT Cruisers sold like crazy for the first half of the 2000s and even developed something of a cult followingÂ… but familiarity bred contempt once every parking lot and traffic jam in the country filled up with cute-looking retrowagons. I didn't start seeing many of these cars trucks in junkyards until about a decade ago, at which point the Chrysler section of every yard instantly became about 50% PT Cruisers. Most of the time, I ignore them as car-graveyard background noise, but the rare turbocharged Cruisers or those with manual transmissions can catch my eye, as well as those with weird body kits. The more interesting special-edition PT Cruisers also seem worth documenting as historically significant Junkyard Gems, and here's one of the rarest of all: a Dream Cruiser Series 1, found last summer in Colorado. Inspired by Detroit's Woodward Dream Cruise, the '02 Dream Cruiser Series 1 was the first of many special-edition PT Cruisers (if you're going to collect them all, you'll need to find a Pacific Coast Highway Edition, a Sunset Boulevard Edition, a Woodie Edition, and all the subsequent Dream Cruiser Series cars). All the Series 1 Dream Cruisers came in metallic Inca Gold paint, allegedly inspired by the paint on the 1998 Pronto Cruiser concept car. Chrysler planned to build 7,500 of these cars trucks, but I cannot verify actual production numbers. This is the first I've seen in a self-service wrecking yard, at any rate. The Dream Cruiser Series 1 got leather seats and interesting gold-trimmed interior surfaces. This one looks a bit rough inside, but we can assume it was glorious when new. Resale value on the PT Cruiser has cratered in recent years, so even a runner has little chance of evading the cold steel jaws of the crusher, once it starts to rust. Because every performance upgrade you can do with a Neon can also be done to a PT Cruiser, it would be possible to swap all the relevant mechanical bits from an SRT-4 Neon into a snazzy-looking Dream Cruiser and have the quickest PT Cruiser in your timezone. You should do this. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences.

This or That: 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 vs. 1984 Pontiac Fiero

Welcome to another round of This or That, where two Autoblog editors pick a topic, pick a side and pull no punches. Last round pitted yours truly against Associate Editor Brandon Turkus, and my chosen VW Vanagon Syncro narrowly defeated Brandon's 1987 Land Rover. In fact, it was, by far, the closest round we've seen, with 1,907 voters seeing things my way (for 50.8 percent of the vote) versus 1,848 votes for Brandon's Rover (49.2 percent). Sweet, sweet victory! For this latest round of This or That, I've roped Editor Greg Migliore into what I think is a rather fun debate. We've each chosen our favorite terrible cars, setting a price limit of $10,000 to make sure neither of us went too crazy with our automotive atrocities. I think we've both chosen terribly... and I mean that in the best way possible. 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 Jeremy Korzeniewski: Why It's Terrible: Taken in isolation, the Chrysler Crossfire isn't necessarily a terrible car. In fact, it drives pretty darn well, and there's a lot of solid engineering under its slinky shape. Problem is, that engineering was already rather long in the tooth well before Chrysler ever got its hands on it, having come from Mercedes-Benz, which used the basic chassis and drivetrain in a previous version of its SLK coupe and roadster. Granted, the SLK was an okay car, too, but even when new, it hardly set the world on fire with sporty driving dynamics. Chrysler took these decent-but-no-more bits and pieces from the Mercedes parts bin – remember, this car was conceived in the disastrous Merger Of Equals days – and covered them with a rather attractive hard-candy shell. Unfortunately, the super sporty shape wrote checks in the minds of buyers that its well-worn mechanicals were simply unable to cash, though an injection of power courtesy of a supercharged V6 engine in the SRT6 model, as seen here, certainly helped ease some of those woes. In the end, Chrysler was left with a so-called halo car that looked the part but never quite performed the part. It was almost universally panned by critics as an overpriced parts-bin special, which, I must add, was damningly accurate. As a result, sales were very slow, and within the first few months, dealers were clearancing the car at cut-rate prices, just to keep them from taking up too much of the showroom floor. Why It's Not That Terrible, After All: I can speak from personal experience when discussing the Chrysler Crossfire. You see, I owned one. Well, sort of...