Convertible With Woody Sides on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Has Dodge stepped in it again with Scat Pack lawsuit?

Lawsuits are an unfortunate part of doing business in just about any industry, so the latest complaint filed by a California-based aftermarket firm against Chrysler would seem to be nothing more than business as usual. But this isn't the first time the two companies have sparred over this particular issue.
According to a report from Automotive News, the dispute revolves around the Scat Pack name that Chrysler first offered on the Charger, Coronet, Dart and Super Bee starting in 1968. Scat Enterprises, a manufacturer of crankshafts and other components for Dodges and other vehicles, sued Chrysler for using its name. A few years later the Scat Pack disappeared from the Dodge catalog.
Fast forward to August 2013 when Chrysler applied to register the Scat Pack name anew. The US Patent and Trademark Office turned down Chrysler's application, but the automaker proceeded anyway, unveiling new Scat Packs for the Challenger, Charger and Dart at last year's SEMA show.

8 automakers, 15 utilities collaborate on open smart-charging for EVs

We're going to lead with General Motors here. GM is one of eight automakers working with 15 utilities and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) at developing a "smart" plug-in vehicle charging system. Why did we start with GM? Because it's the first automaker whose press release we read that mentioned the other seven automakers. Points for sharing. For the record, the collaboration also includes BMW, Toyota, Mercedes-Benz, Honda, Chrysler, Mitsubishi and Ford. The utilities include DTE Energy, Duke Energy, Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric. The idea is to develop a so-called "demand charging" system in which an integrated system lets the plug-ins and utilities communicate with each other so that vehicle charging is cut back at peak hours, when energy is most expensive, and ramped up when the rates drop. Such entities say there's a sense of urgency to develop such a system because the number of plug-in vehicles on US roads totals more than 225,000 today and is climbing steadily. There's a lot of technology involved, obviously, but the goal is to have an open platform that's compatible with virtually any automaker's plug-in vehicle. No timeframe was disclosed for when such a system could go live but you can find a press release from EPRI below. EPRI, Utilities, Auto Manufacturers to Create an Open Grid Integration Platform for Plug-in Electric Vehicles PALO ALTO, Calif. (July 29, 2014) – The Electric Power Research Institute, 8 automakers and 15 utilities are working to develop and demonstrate an open platform that would integrate plug-in electric vehicles (PEV) with smart grid technologies enabling utilities to support PEV charging regardless of location. The platform will allow manufacturers to offer a customer-friendly interface through which PEV drivers can more easily participate in utility PEV programs, such as rates for off-peak or nighttime charging. The portal for the system would be a utility's communications system and an electric vehicle's telematics system. As the electric grid evolves with smarter functionality, electric vehicles can serve as a distributed energy resource to support grid reliability, stability and efficiency. With more than 225,000 plug-in vehicles on U.S. roads -- and their numbers growing -- they are likely to play a significant role in electricity demand side management.

Move over Audi, now Chrysler has a beef with Tesla's claims

In the same week that Audi said "not so fast" to some claims from Tesla, Chrysler has responded to a new press release from the California-based EV-maker by saying "not exactly, Tesla." The statement, released through the company's blog, comes in response to Tesla claiming it was "the only American car company to have fully repaid the government." Chrysler notes that it, too, recently paid back Uncle Sam from its 2008 bailout. Similar to Audi's recent press release, which was eventually and mysteriously deleted from the German automaker's site, Chrysler is both right and wrong in its statement.
Tesla specifically said that it had paid back the Department of Energy loans that many automakers received - including Fisker and VPG Autos - while Chrysler's retort argues Tesla is "unmistakably incorrect" since it repaid the government in 2011 a full six years early. Technically, the statements from both automakers are correct, but Tesla's startup loan originated from the DoE, while Chrysler's loan came in bailout form from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Further, as The Detroit News notes, Chrysler's loan still cost taxpayers well over a billion dollars after all was said and done - those negative assets tied to "old Chrysler" in the bankruptcy did not require repayment.