2004 Chrysler Sebring Touring Convertible 2-door 2.7l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Chrysler stays IPO until 2014

There will not be a Chrysler IPO in 2013. Fiat, according to a report from Forbes, has announced that it will not be able to make the American brand's initial public offering before the end of the year, saying that the short, five-week window that makes up the rest of 2013 is "not practicable."
Not surprisingly, the issue with the Chrysler IPO is the same as it's always been - a disagreement between parent company Fiat, which owns 58.5 percent of the Chrysler Group and a UAW healthcare trust, which owns 41.5 percent. Fiat wants to buy out the UAW VEBA healthcare trust, which is responsible for shouldering retiree healthcare costs, but the two sides are hung up on an actual price tag for the remaining two-fifths of the company.
The original idea saw an IPO as a way of setting a fair market price for the remaining shares, although it's not entirely clear what broke down and led to a delay of the IPO plan. As Forbes points out, by waiting until 2014, Chrysler could be risking a cool-off in the IPO market, which could mean less money in its pocket when the automaker finally goes public.

Apple picks up former FCA quality boss Doug Betts

Apple made a significant personnel move that further signals its entry into the automotive world, hiring former Fiat Chrysler executive Doug Betts for an unspecified role. The information was obtained by The Wall Street Journal, which cites Betts' LinkedIn page. His career included stints at Toyota and Nissan before joining Chrysler Group (now FCA US LLC) in 2007, although his time there didn't end well. He left FCA, where he served as the automaker's head of quality, after the company's dismal showing in Consumer Reports' 2014 Annual Auto Reliability Survey. According to Betts' LinkedIn profile, which has since been pulled down, his job title reads "Operations – Apple Inc" in the San Francisco Bay area. Apple, meanwhile, was unwilling to divulge anything to the WSJ, although there's plenty to infer based on the hire. Betts wasn't the only big auto-related hire. According to the WSJ, Cupertino also lured an unnamed but "leading" autonomous vehicle researcher from Europe, who will be part of a team being setup to study driverless systems. Related Video:

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...