2005 Chrysler Sebring on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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

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.

The mad genius of killing the Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200

Sergio Marchionne isn't crazy. At least not with respect to the recent announcement that Fiat Chrysler Automobiles will cease production of the Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200. Instead of crazy I'd call this CEO ruthlessly pragmatic, and perhaps short-sighted. The latest revisions to FCA's most recent five-year plan tell some truths about the company's finances. In other words, it can't afford to build mainstream sedans. With only 87,392 units sold in 2015, the Dart is an also-ran in the segment. The axe falls easily there - Chrysler hasn't had a compact-car hit since the second-generation Neon. The 200 isn't so cut and dried: Last year sales increased 52 percent, and the 177,889 total for 2015 is more than those for the Subaru Legacy and Kia Optima. But looking at the overall FCA picture the Chrysler 200 has to go, at least from a short-term perspective. The vehicles that make big money – Ram trucks; Jeep's Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, and Wrangler – can't be made fast enough. FCA can't afford to idle the 200's Sterling Heights, MI, assembly plant to cut back on inventory when other plants are running flat out. It seems crazy to throw away 265,000 sales, but FCA is leaving money on the table by not building more profitable vehicles. The Wirecutter's Senior Autos Editor (and former Autoblogger) John Neff agrees. "As bold as it looks from the outside, he's really making a safe bet that their money is better spent on designing better and building more crossovers and trucks. He's probably right about that." But according to Jessica Caldwell, Executive Director of Strategic Analytics at Edmunds, "FCA's strategy of eliminating the Dart and 200 might be short-sighted if gas prices were to rise and Americans, once again, flocked to small vehicles. FCA must have plans to expand the lineup of small SUVs and position them as small-car alternatives in terms of price and fuel efficiency for this strategy to make sense." FCA's latest announcement focuses mainly on the profitable brands and nameplates. There's hardly a mention of Chrysler, Dodge, or Fiat. And future planning is where the plot holes appear. This realignment cuts dead weight from the product portfolio, but FCA's latest announcement focuses mainly on the profitable brands and nameplates. There's hardly a mention of Chrysler, Dodge, or Fiat. So what's Sergio up to? David Sullivan of AutoPacific thinks Marchionne is still looking for another CEO to hug.