03 Pt Cruiser Newer Engine, Transmission, Just Painted, Many New Parts. 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.

Why this could be the perfect time for Apple to make a car play

While the automotive and technology worlds have been pouring billions into autonomous vehicles (AVs) and preparing to bring them to market soon as shared robo-taxis, Apple has mostly sat on the sidelines. Of course, Apple is the last company to ever make its intentions known, and the super-secret tech cult giant hasn't been totally out of the AV game based on the clues that have slipped out of its Cupertino, Calif., citadel over the past few years. Related: Apple self-driving cars are real — one was just in an accident News first broke in 2015 that it had assembled an automotive development team, in part by poaching high-profile talent from car companies, to work on a top-secret self-driving vehicle project code-named Titan. (Thank you very much, Nissan.) Apple also subsequently broke cover by making inquiries into using a Northern California AV testing facility and receiving a permit to test AVs on public roads in California. But then as the AV race started to heat up in the last few years, Apple reportedly began scaling back its car activities by downsizing team Titan. More recently, Apple's car project has shown signs of life with the hiring a high-level engineer away from Waymo and luring one Tesla's top engineers and a former employee back to Apple. It also inked a deal with Volkswagen to provide a technology platform and software to convert the automaker's new T6 Transporter vans into autonomous shuttles for employees at tech company's new campus. That is a far cry from giving rides to Wal-Mart shoppers, like Waymo is doing as part of its AV testing in Phoenix. But this could be the perfect time for Apple to enter the AV market now that ride-sharing is reaching critical mass and automakers and others are planning to deploy fleets of robo-taxis. Apple could easily establish a niche as a high-end ride-sharing service – and charge a premium – given its cult-like brand loyalty and design savvy. The growth of car subscription models could also play in Apple's favor since is already has many people hooked on paying for phones in monthly installments – and eager to upgrade when a new and better model becomes available. To achieve this, some believe Apple will fulfill co-founder and CEO Steve Job's dream of building a car. And as the world's first and only $1 trillion company it's sitting on a mountain of cash that certainly gives it the means. But other tech darlings like Tesla and Google have discovered how difficult it can be to build cars at scale.

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...