2013 Chrysler Town & Country*nearly New*touring*dvd*sat Radio*loaded on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Chrysler honors Arsenal of Democracy's 75th anniversary

The Allied victory in World War II wouldn't have been possible without the Arsenal of Democracy. This phrase, originally coined by President Franklin D. Roosevelt 75 years ago today, described the war-time transformation of US manufacturing, especially the auto industry, to produce tanks and planes instead of cars and trucks. One of the earliest purpose-built facilities was the Albert Kahn-designed Detroit Arsenal, located in suburban Warren, MI, literally across the street from the future site of the General Motors Technical Center. Built by Uncle Sam, the plant churned out M3 Grant and M4 Sherman tanks with frightening speed, but it wouldn't have been possible without Chrysler. The company (which is ironically now allied to a former supplier of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy) operated the plant and applied automotive mass-production techniques to producing the government-designed tanks. The plant was so successful, according to Fiat Chrysler historian Brandt Rosenbusch, that it singlehandedly outpaced the entire Third Reich's tank production by 5,000 units over the course of the war. The Detroit Arsenal was also responsible for a quarter of all American tank production during the war. And like so many wartime factories, women formed a large percentage of the workforce, as men were drafted out of assembly work and into the armed forces. Chrysler has commemorated the 75th anniversary of the Arsenal of Democracy speech with a video on the Detroit Arsenal and its role there. And as for the site today? It built tanks up until 1997, and still serves as the home of the US Army's TACOM (Tank-automotive and Armaments Command) Life Cycle Management Command, a major site for tank research and development. News Source: Fiat Chrysler Automobiles via YouTube Chrysler Military Classics Videos FCA warren

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...

Vans aren't glamorous, but they're key to EU blessing FCA-PSA merger

MILAN/PARIS — Their silhouettes don't stir dreams of adventure like a sports car or trendy SUV, but vans are a rare source of profit for European carmakers, which is why EU regulators are focused on them as they decide whether to back an industry mega-merger. European competition regulators are worried that Fiat Chrysler and Peugeot maker PSA's proposed merger may harm competition in small vans. With a total of 755,000 vans sold last year in Europe, the combined Fiat Chrysler (FCA) and PSA would get a market share of around 34%, based on industry data, more than double that of Renault and Ford, with shares around 16% each. Volkswagen and Daimler follow with market shares of 12% and 10% respectively. "Commercial vans are important for individuals, SMEs and large companies when it comes to delivering goods or providing services to customers," European Union competition chief Margrethe Vestager said in a statement, announcing an in-depth investigation into the proposed merger. "They are a growing market and increasingly important in a digital economy where private consumers rely more than ever on delivery services." Dario Duse, a managing director at consultancy firm AlixPartners, said demand for vans was not based on people's disposable income, as for cars, but rather on GDP and industrial trends, and in particular the logistics industry, where big players such as Amazon or DHL operate. "Logistics is a business segment which is having a significant growth, for several reasons including e-commerce, where you need efficient and agile vans for interurban and city deliveries," he said. "LCVs (light commercial vehicles) may recover faster than passengers cars in the post-COVID-19 phase." Sales of vans up to 3.5 tonnes in Europe amounted to 2.2 millions vehicles last year, compared to 15.8 million for passenger cars, according to data provided by the European Auto Industry Association (ACEA). The light commercial vehicles (LCVs) market may be secondary in terms of volumes, but it remains highly profitable in an industry where margins are constantly under pressure. Margins are generally higher than on passenger cars, up to 5-10 additional percentage points, AlixPartners says. "With LCVs you don't have to fulfill a series of consumer expectations that drive additional complexity and costs, such as for interiors. LCV customers are more rational and business driven," Duse said. And while electrification in heavy trucks is complicated, it might come sooner for LCVs.