1964 Chrysler New Yorker on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Marchionne says the Chrysler 200 and Dodge Dart were terrible investments for FCA

In a press conference during the Detroit Auto Show, Sergio Marchionne was quite candid about why the Chrysler 200 and Dodge Dart were discontinued altogether without replacement. He essentially said they weren't worth the trouble. "I can tell you right now that both the Chrysler 200 and the Dodge Dart, as great products as they were, were the least financially rewarding enterprises that we've carried out inside FCA in the last eight years," Marchionne said. "I don't know one investment that was as bad as these two were." Marchionne was responding to a question about whether he felt the company's shift toward trucks and SUVs and sacrifice in sedan development was shortsighted. Marchionne said he felt that the market would likely continue to be strong for trucks and SUVs, and that the sedan market requires enormous investment that might not pay off. He used the 200 and Dart as examples. When we tried out the 200 and the Dart, we had mixed feelings. We enjoyed the 200's potent V6, pleasant interior, and solid handling. However, it was lacking in space (especially in the rear seat area), and doesn't drive any better than the top vehicles in the midsize sedan class. As for the Dart, it was fairly roomy, and had great infotainment thanks to Uconnect, but lackluster handling and a surprising amount of weight left it only average. With that in mind, it's probably not a bad idea to get rid of the 200 and Dart. The sedan segment is shrinking, and FCA can only afford to invest in areas where it can be a class-leader. Related Video:

2021 Chrysler Pacifica First Drive | More features, better van

Ever since its introduction as a 2017 model, the Chrysler Pacifica has been one of our favorite minivans. It offers stylish looks inside and out, traditional minivan practicality, excellent infotainment and some of the most compelling powertrain options. For its 2021 model year refresh, the Pacifica smartly expands on all the things we already enjoyed and avoids ruining any inherent goodness, as evidenced by our test van, a new-for-'21 Pinnacle trim level. The Pacifica’s changes start on the outside with redesigned front and rear fascias. These changes are probably the least successful, by which we mean, theyÂ’re not bad, just different. The modest grille and simple bumper design have given way to a deeper main grille and large lower openings, plus a pronounced air dam. It gives the van a wider, lower and meaner look. We donÂ’t dislike it, but it seems different rather than better. We do like the revamped tail with its full-width taillights. And if for some reason you prefer the previous design, the entry-level Chrysler Voyager is just a decontented Pacifica with the old styling. Under the skin, the biggest change is the addition of all-wheel drive, something not shared with the Voyager. The feature has been absent from the Chrysler van lineup for several years, since Chrysler couldnÂ’t fit a driveshaft between the underfloor wells for the Stow ‘n Go second-row seats. That issue has been solved, and now you can have AWD without sacrificing any interior seating flexibility. The AWD system can send all power to the rear wheels as needed, and it also can disconnect the rear driveshaft to increase fuel economy. Our test Pacifica was equipped with all-wheel drive, and it was certainly effective in some of metro DetroitÂ’s snowy conditions, offering a bit more launch traction and some assistance powering out of slow corners. But in the dry, it doesnÂ’t change the driving experience at all. Also, despite the ability to disengage the rear driveshaft, fuel economy still takes a hit compared to the front-drive model, dropping from 19 mpg in town and 28 on the highway, to 17 in the city and 25 on the highway. That's a difference of 2 mpg combined, which works out to be $150 per year in annual fuel costs, according to the EPA.

Fiat Chrysler, surprise, had to buy a lot of emissions credits

The world of carbon emissions uses some unusual units of measure. Take, for example, 8.2 million megagrams. Who needs to know how much that is? Someone at Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, that's who. FCA had to buy that many greenhouse-gas emissions credits from greener automakers, Reuters says, citing a report from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Because its vehicles' collective fuel economy continues to trail the industry average, FCA purchased the emissions credits at of the end of 2014 in order to meet US emissions regulations. About two-thirds of those credits were acquired from Toyota, while the rest were purchased from Tesla and Honda. Daimler and Ferrari, not surprisingly, were among the other automobile companies that had to acquire emissions credits in order to meet US greenhouse gas regulations. Because the price for these credits is set privately by the companies, the EPA didn't disclose how much FCA had to pay to stay on the green side. The reason for the millions FCA likely spent is because the company is making a slow progress building and selling cleaner cars. The company did increase average fuel efficiency by about one mile per gallon to almost 22 mpg for the 2015 model year, but it wasn't enough. Such a performance likely only put the automaker in a last-place tie with General Motors. The emissions credits purchased from Tesla are notable because that California-based maker of electric vehicles has long generated substantial revenue by selling various credits to its less-electrified counterparts. In 2013, Tesla sold more of California's ZEV credits than any other automaker, but Nissan took that title in 2014. While these are not the same as the EPA's GHG credits, they do offer another way to track which automakers are meeting the targets and which need help. Related Video: News Source: ReutersImage Credit: Flickr/Ian YVR Government/Legal Green Chrysler Fiat Fuel Efficiency mpg