2005 Chrysler Crossfire Limited on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Is it time for American carmakers to give up on dual-clutch transmissions? [w/poll]

Last week, in the midst of Detroit's first days seeking relief in Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code, Automotive News contributor Larry P. Vellequette penned an editorial suggesting that American car companies raise the white flag on dual clutch transmissions and give up on trying to persuade Americans to buy cars fitted with them. Why? Because, Vellequette says, like CVT transmissions, they "just don't sound right or feel right to American drivers." (Note: In the article, it's not clear if Vellequette is arguing against wet-clutch and dry-clutch DCTs or just dry-clutch DCTs, which is what Ford and Chrysler use.) The article goes on to state that Ford and Chrysler have experimented with DCTs and that both consumers and the automotive press haven't exactly given them glowing reviews, despite their quicker shifts and increased fuel efficiency potential compared to torque-converter automatic transmissions.
Autoblog staffers who weighed in on the relevance of DCTs in American cars generally disagreed with the blanket nature of Vellequette's statement that they don't sound or feel right, but admit that their lack of refinement compared to traditional automatics can be an issue for consumers. That's particularly true in workaday cars like the Ford Focus and Dodge Dart, both of which have come in for criticism in reviews and owner surveys. From where we sit, the higher-performance orientation of such transmissions doesn't always meld as well with the marching orders of everyday commuters (particularly if drivers haven't been educated as to the transmission's benefits and tradeoffs), and in models not fitted with paddle shifters, it's particularly hard for drivers to use a DCT to its best advantage.
Finally, we also note that DCT tuning is very much an evolving science. For instance, Autoblog editors who objected to dual-clutch tuning in the Dart have more recently found the technology agreeable in the Fiat 500L. Practice makes perfect - or at least more acceptable.

NHTSA preparing to wallop FCA, automaker 'failed to do its job'

As embattled the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration may be, but that certainly doesn't mean it isn't willing or able to put the smack down on automakers that violate its recall procedures. Following a public hearing on Thursday, the government safety arm is preparing what will likely be some very serious punishments for Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. FCA stands accused of mishandling 23 individual recalls covering some 11 million vehicles since 2013, with NHTSA claiming the Italian-American automaker kept it "in the dark," failing to notify the government of safety defects. Uncle Sam also alleges that FCA failed to notify consumers of important safety notices and didn't provide a steady supply of replacement parts. For these charges, the automaker could be fined up to $35 million per recall, which could mean a maximum of $805 million in fines. FCA could also be forced to buy back the unrepaired vehicles. "We have serious concerns with Fiat Chrysler notifications to owners and to NHTSA about its recalls. In every one of the 23 recalls, we have identified ways in which Fiat Chrysler failed to do its job," Jennifer Timian, the head of the Office of Defects Investigation, said during the FCA hearing, The Detroit News reports. The company also "repeatedly failed to provide NHTSA with other critical information about its recalls, including changes to the vehicles impacted by the recalls and its plans for remedying those vehicles." Fiat Chrysler, for its part, didn't really fight back during its hearing, although Scott Kunselman (shown above during the hearing), the senior vice president of vehicle safety and regulatory affairs at FCA, did tell The News that, "We absolutely had no mis-intent." "The plan is to move forward," Kunselman said, adding that the company has "fallen short," and that "some of the things we've done were sloppy." NHTSA administrator Mark Rosekind told The News that the regulator would issue its sanctions by the end of July, adding that he saw no way that FCA could avoid punishment.

The problem with how automakers confront hacking threats

More than anyone, Chris Valasek and Charlie Miller are responsible for alerting Americans to the hacking perils awaiting them in their modern-day cars. In 2013, the pair of cyber-security researchers followed in the footsteps of academics at the University of Cal-San Diego and University of Washington, demonstrating it was possible to hack and control cars. Last summer, their research established which vehicles contained inherent security weaknesses. In recent weeks, their latest findings have underscored the far-reaching danger of automotive security breaches. From the comfort of his Pittsburgh home, Valasek exploited a flaw in the cellular connection of a Jeep Cherokee and commandeered control as Miller drove along a St. Louis highway. Remote access. No prior tampering with the vehicle. An industry's nightmare. As a result of their work, FCA US recalled 1.4 million cars, improving safety for millions of motorists. For now, Valasek and Miller are at the forefront of their profession. In a few months, they could be out of jobs. Rather than embrace the skills of software and security experts in confronting the unforeseen downside of connectivity in cars, automakers have been doing their best to stifle independent cyber-security research. Lost in the analysis of the Jeep Cherokee vulnerabilities is the possibility this could be the last study of its kind. In September or October, the U.S. Copyright Office will issue a key ruling that could prevent third-party researchers like Valasek and Miller from accessing the components they need to conduct experiments on vehicles. Researchers have asked for an exemption in the Digital Millennial Copyright Act that would preserve their right to analyze cars, but automakers have opposed that exemption, claiming the software that runs almost every conceivable vehicle function is proprietary. Further, their attorneys have argued the complexity of the software has evolved to a point where safety and security risks arise when third parties start monkeying with the code. Their message on cyber security is, as it has been for years, that they know their products better than anyone else and that it's dangerous for others to meddle with them. But in precise terms, the Jeep Cherokee problems show this is not the case. Valasek and Miller discovered the problem, a security hole in the Sprint cellular connection to the UConnect infotainment system, not industry insiders.