Chrysler: Town & Country Touring Edition on 2040-cars

Auto blog

180,000 new vehicles are sitting, derailed by lack of transport trains

If you're planning on buying a new car in the next month or so, you might want to pick from what's on the lot, because there could be a long wait for new vehicles from the factory. Locomotives continue to be in short supply in North America, and that's causing major delays for automakers trying to move assembled cars.
According to The Detroit News, there are about 180,000 new vehicles waiting to be transported by rail in North America at the moment. In a normal year, it would be about 69,000. The complications have been industry-wide. Toyota, General Motors, Honda and Ford all reported experiencing some delays, and Chrysler recently had hundreds of minivans sitting on the Detroit waterfront waiting to be shipped out.
The problem is twofold for automakers. First, the fracking boom in the Bakken oil field in the Plains and Canada is monopolizing many locomotives. Second, the long, harsh winter is still causing major delays in freight train travel. The bad weather forced trains to slow down and carry less weight, which caused a backup of goods to transport. The auto companies resorted to moving some vehicles by truck, which was a less efficient but necessary option.

MotorWeek retro review revisits the Chrysler PT Cruiser

I have a long history with the Chrysler PT Cruiser. My mom was working at Automobile magazine when it launched, and she brought home their long-term tester all the time. My buddy Adam's mom bought one in the early 2000s, and I drove it on many an occasion. When I left Winding Road in early 2010 and joined Autoblog, the car I got on Day 1 was... well, I think you can guess. I will never forget driving that 2010 PT Cruiser to a rest stop outside of Toledo, Ohio, to meet then editor-in-chief John Neff and buy his old camera. I will also never forget the look on Neff's face when he pulled into the parking lot in his 1991 Ford Taurus SHO, saw the PT, and started laughing. I have always hated this car. But when it launched around the turn of the millennium, it was a huge deal – not just for Chrysler, but for the industry. Retro styling was all the rage, and the PT had it in spades. On top of that, it was seriously functional – one of the first widely accepted tall hatchbacks in an era where Americans wanted sedans. MotorWeek has now dug up its original PT Cruiser review for its latest retro review offering. Watch the video above to see what the ever-charismatic John Davis and his crew thought of the PT way back when it was actually relevant.

Marchionne blames design 'dummies' for poor Chrysler 200 reception

I like the new Chrysler 200. In fact, we have one in the office this week, and every time I see it outside, I think to myself, "That's a really good looking car." But truly good automotive design allows form to perfectly blend with function, and that's where the 200 falls short – so short, in fact, that Chrysler's midsize sedan has yet to earn a full recommendation from the folks at Consumer Reports. The problem? That slick roof design. During an interview at the Detroit Auto Show this month, Fiat-Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne said the 200's rear roofline compromised ingress and egress from the rear seats, and that's why CR can't fully recommend it. "The 200 failed because somebody thought that the rear-seat entry point inside the 200 – which is our fault, by the way – is not up to snuff," Marchionne said to Automotive News. Marchionne went on to say that FCA's designers copied the roofline of the Hyundai Sonata, which "has the same problem." He continued, "We didn't copy the car, we copied the entry point to the rear seat. Dummies. I acknowledge it." Harsh words, but Marchionne isn't alone in his sentiments. FCA design boss Ralph Gilles tweeted today, "He is right, we might have gone too aggressively after aero. Which we achieved as it is best in class. No free lunch." So yes, the 200 looks good. But following this incident, perhaps a redesign will ditch that sloping roof for something that's a bit more functional. Related Video: