2011 Chrysler Town & Country/ Touring/ 1-owner / Stow And Go on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Canada bailed out GM, Chrysler without really knowing what they were getting into

The Auditor General of Canada recently issued a report that makes at least one thing clear: it doesn't know how effective Canadian government loans given to General Motors and Chrysler in 2009 were in ensuring the viability of both companies. That year, the Canadian and Ontario governments dished out $10.8 billion CAD ($9.6B US) to GM and $2.9 billion CAD ($2.6B US) to Chrysler, but hadn't yet sorted out precisely how the funds were to be used before disbursing them. This happened in spite of the fact that, according to a piece in Bloomberg, the loans weren't meant to be handed out until authorities were clear on the manufacturers' plans for reorganization. In fact, federal officials hadn't finished establishing the concessions made by all the involved parties, the pension liabilities, nor the long-term soundness of the automakers' financial positions. On top of that, apparently it didn't keep close tabs on the money after loaning it: the report says that $1B CAD should have been applied to GM Canada pension plans but was instead given to GM to use. Chrysler repaid $1.7 billion, while GM handed back $3.8 billion and Bloomberg believes the feds in Ottawa still own 110 million shares of The General, which, at the stock price as of writing, would be good for another $3.9 billion. Those were mad, bad days, though, and we're not sure what point the report serves, other than to say, "Oh, by the way...." News Source: BloombergImage Credit: Bill Pugliano / Getty Images Government/Legal Chrysler GM bailout

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...

Former Chrysler dealers could reopen under appeals court ruling

Years after the bankruptcies and subsequent bailouts of Chrysler (now FCA) and General Motors, the automotive industry is still seeing legal decisions about them come through the courts. The latest ruling from a US appeals court has given 4 of the 789 dealers that Chrysler closed in its Chapter 11 process one less hurdle towards reopening. Following the bankruptcy, 105 of the shuttered dealers went through an arbitration process in hopes of reopening, and 32 won their arguments. However, a victory in that undertaking didn't necessarily mean that the stores could reestablish themselves. For these three showrooms in Michigan and one in Las Vegas, state laws allowed nearby competitors from the same automaker to stand in the way of restarting, according to Automotive News. This problem brought yet another lawsuit, and a US district court found that the arbitration decisions did not overrule state laws. The latest appeals court ruling overturned that decision. However, as with many legal proceedings, the process for reopening for these dealers still isn't exactly easy. The latest decision only covers the nearby dealers' ability to protest; it doesn't mandate FCA actually to open the stores again. According to a statement from Michael Palese of FCA legal communications to Automotive News, the ruling, "did not provide for reinstatement of the dealers who prevailed in arbitration, but only gave them a right to a 'customary and usual' letter of intent." It means for these showrooms to start selling again, now they need to work things out with Chrysler's new owner.