2005 Chrysler Town And Country Handicap Van on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Question of the Day: Most heinous act of badge engineering?

Badge engineering, in which one company slaps its emblems on another company's product and sells it, has a long history in the automotive industry. When Sears wanted to sell cars, a deal was made with Kaiser-Frazer and the Sears Allstate was born. Iranians wanted new cars in the 1960s, and the Rootes Group was happy to offer Hillman Hunters for sale as Iran Khodro Paykans. Sometimes, though, certain badge-engineered vehicles made sense only in the 26th hour of negotiations between companies. The Suzuki Equator, say, which was a puzzling rebadge job of the Nissan Frontier. How did that happen? My personal favorite what-the-heck-were-they-thinking example of badge engineering is the 1971-1973 Plymouth Cricket. Chrysler Europe, through its ownership of the Rootes Group, was able to ship over Hillman Avanger subcompacts for sale in the US market. This would have made sense... if Chrysler hadn't already been selling rebadged Mitsubishi Colt Galants (as Dodge Colts) and Simca 1100s as (Simca 1204s) in its American showrooms. Few bought the Cricket, despite its cheery ad campaign. So, what's the badge-engineered car you find most confounding? Chrysler Dodge Automakers Mitsubishi Nissan Suzuki Automotive History question of the day badge engineering question

Fiat Chrysler to get $105M fine from NHTSA for recall woes

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is about to send a powerful message to automakers doing business in the United States, assuming reports of an upcoming $105 million fine against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles comes to fruition. In addition to the record-setting monetary fine, according to The Wall Street Journal, FCA will have to accept an independent auditor that will monitor the company's recall and safety processes and will be forced to buy back certain recalled vehicles. In other cases, such as with Jeep Grand Cherokee and Liberty models with gas tanks that could potentially catch fire in certain types of accidents, FCA will offer financial encouragement for owners to get their recall work done or to trade those older vehicles in on new cars, according to the report. FCA could reportedly reduce its fines if it meets certain conditions, though those remain unclear at this time. These actions against FCA are being taken after NHTSA began a probe into the automaker over almost two dozen separate instances where the government claims FCA failed to follow proper procedures for recalls and safety defects. Included in those safety lapses are more than 11 million vehicles currently in customer hands. These penalties and fines are separate from the investigation over security problems with Chrysler's Uconnect system that allowed hackers to obtain remote access into key vehicle systems in 1.4 million vehicles. Related Video: Image Credit: Marco Bertorello/AFP/Getty Earnings/Financials Government/Legal Recalls Chrysler Dodge Fiat Jeep RAM Safety fiat chrysler automobiles fine

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.