2002 Chrysler Sebring Limited 71k Miles Clean Carfax on 2040-cars

Auto blog

FCA's puzzling trademark spree includes Apache and Orange Peelz

Here's one for the Mystery Machine. As noted by the WagoneerFans forum and picked up by Motor1, Fiat Chrysler recently went on a one-day trademark application spree at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. On March 6, the automaker applied for the names Apache, Farout, Orange Peelz, Shocker, Tomahawk, and Top Dog. All have been requested for "Land vehicles, namely, passenger automobiles," and the best guess so far has them being applied to concepts during next month's Easter Jeep Safari, which, assuming it goes ahead, will happen April 4-20. As for historical ties, one name has a connection to Dodge, another was a codename for a Dodge engine, and one was used on a previous Easter Jeep Safari concept. Tomahawk rings the loudest bell, that name applied to the four-wheeled, Viper-engined concept motorcycle that Dodge rolled out at the 2003 Detroit Auto Show. The company supposedly sold nine examples of the "rolling sculpture" through Neiman Marcus over a four-year period. It doesn't appear FCA has used the name since, internally or otherwise. There is, however, a Cherokee tomahawk — not referring to a Jeep, but the light, short-handled ax used by the Native American Cherokee tribe. This one seems made for Safari use. Apache has a Dodge and a Jeep tie-in. At one time, Apache was the codename for the 6.4-liter Hemi V8 marketed as the 392 V8 on the Charger and Challenger R/T Scat Pack trims. That engine makes 485 horsepower and 475 pound-feet of torque. But Jeep showed a Wrangler Apache concept (pictured) at the 2012 Easter Jeep Safari, built with a Mopar conversion kit for a 6.4-liter Hemi making 470 hp and 470 lb-ft. Mopar sold the V8 swap kits at least through 2016, but they appear to have fallen off the Mopar menu. At one time there were rumors of a supercharged Apache with more than 600 horsepower, and wouldn't that be a welcome surprise in Moab. The Farout could be a more or less extreme overlanding take on last year's Easter Jeep Safari Wayout concept, depending on whether one considers "way" or "far" more radical. The Shocker, Jeep might be disappointed to discover, already has an outside link in the Jeep Shocker stickers made for Wichita State fans who love America's 4x4. As for Orange Peelz, it's pretty close to Pedro's bicycling degreaser called Oranj Peelz, but a Jeep conception could be anything. Except maybe a paint color. Related Video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.

Killing the Dart and 200 might lower FCA's fuel economy burden

Killing the Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200 could allow FCA US to take advantage of an intriguing quirk in the next decade's fuel economy regulations. By increasing its ratio of trucks versus cars, the automaker might not need to worry so much about hitting the more stringent efficiency rules. At first thought, it might seem harder for an automaker with a ton of trucks to meet the government's mandated 54.5 mile per gallon corporate average fuel economy for 2025. However, every company doesn't need to hit that lofty figure, according to The Detroit Free Press. The exact target varies by the product mix between trucks and cars. "While passenger car and light truck categories have separate CAFE targets, it's still true that more trucks versus cars in a company lineup means a lower combined CAFE target," Brandon Schoettle, Project Manager Sustainable Worldwide Transportation at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, told Autoblog. "While passenger car and light truck categories have separate CAFE targets, it's still true that more trucks versus cars in a company lineup means a lower combined CAFE target." FCA US' current product blend has 80 percent pickups and CUVs, which means the company stands to benefit from a lower fuel economy target. It might not seem entirely fair environmentally, but this is a great move from a business perspective. The new CAFE rules aren't set in stone, according to The Detroit Free Press, but potentially taking advantage of the regulation is just one more reason to cut the Dart and 200. Modern crossovers also aren't gas guzzlers like older SUVs, which could make it easier to hit the fuel economy target. "Utilities offer practicality and versatility that cars do not, and now, built on car architectures, they do not penalize consumers on fuel economy as they once did," AutoTrader Senior Analyst Michelle Krebs told Autoblog. Schoettle warns that FCA is still making a gamble by killing the small sedans. "Depending on the previous sales volumes and how much these vehicles might have exceeded their specific CAFE targets, it's possible that these cars helped earn CAFE credits for FCA that they could bank for future use," he said. "Future sales breakdowns [car vs.

Auto bailout cost the US goverment $9.26B

Depending on your outlook, the US Treasury's bailout of General Motors, Chrysler (now FCA) and their financing divisions under the Troubled Asset Relief Program was either a complete boondoggle or a savvy move to secure the future of some major employers. Regardless of where you fall, the auto industry bailout has officially ended, and the numbers have been tallied. Of the $79.69 billion that the Feds invested to keep the automakers afloat, it recouped $70.43 billion – a net loss of $9.26 billion. The final nail in the coffin for the auto bailout came in December 2014 when the Feds sold its shares in Ally Financial, formerly GMAC. The deal turned out pretty good for the government too because the investment turned a 2.4 billion profit. The actual automakers have long been out of the Treasury's hands, though. The current FCA paid back its loans six years early in 2011, the Treasury sold of the last shares of GM in late 2013. According to The Detroit News, the government's books actually show an official loss on the auto bailouts of $16.56 billion. The difference is because the larger figure does not include the interest or dividends paid by the borrowers on the amount lent. While it's easy to see fault in any red ink on the Feds' massive investment, the number is less than some earlier estimates. At one time, deficits around $44 billion were thought possible, and another put things at a $20.3 billion loss. Outside of just the government losing money, the bailouts might have helped the overall economy. A study from the Center for Automotive Research last year estimated that the program saved 2.6 million jobs and about $284.4 billion in personal wealth. It also indicated that the Feds' reduction in income tax revenue alone from Chrysler and GM going under could have been around $100 billion for just 2009 and 2010, significantly more than any loss in the bailout.