2008 Chrysler 300 Stretch Limousines 140" 12 Passengers on 2040-cars

Auto blog

FCA's shifter fiasco proves novel gear selectors are a bad idea

What's wrong with PRNDL? Why are automakers trying to overly complicate the simple task of selecting gears? If there's any lesson to learn from the recent news that NHTSA is investigating 853,000 Fiat Chrysler vehicles over its problematic gear selectors, it's that the trend of fancy shifters needs to stop. Now. Last year, NHTSA opened an investigation into Jeep Grand Cherokee models, and has now expanded this probe to include the 2012-14 Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger. The problem? The shifter – assembled by ZF – is confusing for many drivers. "Testing ... indicates that operation of the (electronic) shifter is not intuitive and provides poor tactile and visual feedback to the driver, increasing the potential for unintended gear selection," a NHTSA document states. More than 100 crashes and over a dozen injuries are linked to this problem, according to The Detroit Free Press. To us, the problem isn't just limited to FCA. These unnecessarily novel gear selectors are spreading like wildfire across the industry. Honda and Acura use a weird pushbutton setup. Lincolns have buttons on the dashboard. Jaguar's shifter electronically raises out of the center console. Mercedes uses a stalk with up-for-Reverse, down-for-Drive, push-for-Neutral arrangement. And what the hell is BMW thinking with its M cars? FCA has since abandoned the confusing shifters in question. The 300, Charger, and Grand Cherokee now use the rotary shift dial that's quickly proliferating across the company's brands. Simplistic gear selectors might not be sexy, but no one ever complained about not being able to find the right gear in a Hyundai Sonata. What's most interesting is that this NHTSA investigation could push FCA – and possibly other automakers – to redesign vehicle functions that otherwise operate as designed. Just because most people will never have a problem putting a Dodge Charger in Reverse doesn't mean there isn't a flaw with the design. But perhaps a more simplistic solution – good ol' PRNDL – would have prevented these issues from the start. Related Video: News Source: The Detroit Free PressImage Credit: Copyright 2016 AOL Government/Legal Chrysler Dodge Jeep FCA shifters

eBay Find of the Day: 1979 Chrysler ETV-1 electric car prototype

Electric cars may be reaching their time in the sun with successes like the Tesla Model S, but the basic concept goes back to practically beginning of motoring. EVs also saw a brief renaissance in the 1970s when automakers were trying find a way around rising fuel prices. This 1979 Chrysler ETV-1 concept for sale on eBay Motors is a great example from that era.
Built in 1979, designers hoped the ETV-1 would preview what an electric car would look like in 1985. The base price was slated to start at $6,400, or the rough equivalent of $20,536, which seems like an optimistic price. General Electric created the ETV-1's powertrain, and Chrysler was in charge of styling. At the time, the Department of Energy called it "the first advanced four-passenger subcompact experimental electric car."
While it seems ancient compared to today's EVs, the ETV-1 featured regenerative braking and a computer-controlled electric motor. Chrysler reported a 100-mile range at 45 miles per hour with two passengers in the car. The range fell to 75 miles with four passengers. Acceleration was not brisk with Chrysler claiming the run to 30 mph in 9 seconds. Power was stored in 18 lead-acid batteries, and a full charge took 10 hours from a home outlet.

Dealer chain accuses FCA of paying dealers to pad sales [UPDATE]

UPDATE: The story has been updated to include a full press release from Fiat Chrysler Automobiles on the Napleton Automotive Group's allegations. A Chicago-based dealership group has filed an explosive lawsuit against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles accusing the company of paying dealers to fake new-vehicle sales, Automotive News reports. Edward Napleton, president of the Napleton Automotive Group, filed the suit on Tuesday. It claims that FCA offered Napleton money to fudge end-of-month sales figures. According to the filing, dealers would report false transactions, only to "back out" at the start of a new month "before the factory warranty on the vehicles could be processed and start to run." According to Automotive News, FCA was aware of the false reports and rewarded dealership managers for hitting sales targets. The lawsuit cites one example at Napleton Arlington Heights Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram where an FCA business center manager offered Napleton $20,000 "to falsely report the sales of 40 new vehicles." The payment would be disguised "as a co-op advertising credit to the dealer's account." Such a move would prevent a sales audit, AN reports. Napleton rejected the deal, telling FCA it was illegal. He later learned a similar arrangement was made with a competing dealer to falsify the sale of 85 vehicles. They were given "tens of thousands of dollars as an illicit reward for their complicity in the scheme." FCA has vehemently denied the accusation in a statement obtained by Automotive News. "While the lawsuit has not yet been served on FCA US, the company believes that the claim is without merit and was filed by internal counsel to the dealer group as FCA US has concurrently been discussing with the dealer group the need to meet its obligations under some of its dealer agreements," the statement said. "The company is confident in the integrity of its business processes and dealer arrangements and intends to defend this action vigorously." There are additional allegations, as well, claiming FCA "strong-armed its dealers to achieve sales numbers" and accusing the company of maintaining a "pattern of conduct towards its dealers [that] has been one of coercion and threats of termination having nothing to do with the actual performance of its dealers." FCA is riding a wave of 69 consecutive months of year-over-year sales gains. More on this one as it becomes available. FCA Strongly Rejects Allegations by Two U.S.