1999 Dodge Grand Caravan Se Mini Passenger Van 4-door 3.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ram exec: first 30-mpg pickup truck will 'win'

It is totally possible, today, to take the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel pickup truck, load it up with gear and people, and drive it from Texas to Michigan while getting 38 miles per gallon. We know because we did it. Officially, though, the 1500 gets just 20 mpg combined. A more impressive number is the 28 mpg on the highway. Bob Hegbloom, the Ram brand director, thinks that there's a more important fuel economy target to hit: 30 mpg. Whichever truck company can manage that feat, he recently told Automotive News, "wins." It's kind of an obvious thing to say, but in the 1500 with both the EcoDiesel and the V6 Pentastar engine, Hegbloom said, "fuel economy is so important." Hegbloom didn't promise that the next EcoDiesel truck will manage to get on up over the 30 hump, but he did say that Ram is not sitting still when it comes to fuel economy. "I just want to have continuous improvement and to keep gaining every day," he said. "We sat still in the past and it doesn't lead to a great place."

This or That: 2005 Dodge Ram SRT-10 vs. 2005 Subaru WRX STI [w/poll]

Some cars, due to ultimate desirability, particular rareness, or spectacular performance/prestige eventually become collectible. It's darn near impossible to know which ones will make it into the rarefied stratosphere of collectibility – why is a late 1960s AMC AMX so affordable these days, whereas prices for late '70s Pontiac Trans Ams are soaring? – but there are some useful indicators to keep tabs on. We're not exactly experts on investing, but we do know cars. As such, we've decided to take our non-expertise on one hand, combine it in the other with our knowledge of all things automotive, wad it up, throw it out and ask for your forgiveness. Or something like that. I've challenged Senior Editor Seyth Miersma to choose a car he thinks will become a future collector's item that's not more than 10 years old, and for no more than $25,000. I've done the same, and we vigorously argued for and against each other's picks. I feel good about my choice, but I don't have the best track record in these contests (I've lost three times, won twice, but they've all been pretty close), so, while I'm not going to beg (please vote for me!), I do hope you find my argument convincing. But first, let's hear from Seyth: Miersma: Ten-years old or newer makes this challenging. At that age most vehicles feel like a plain old used car to me, few hit the "classic" button. But the Subaru WRX STI has always been a special car, and the 2005 cutoff year proves to be very attractive for the parameters of our contest. It's rare; with fewer than 5,000 STI models sold that model year. It's probably the best looking WRX STI ever sold in America; narrowly avoiding the dreadful "horse collar" front fascia. And it's got one of the more die-hard car-geek followings out there. For $25,000, you can also still find examples that have reasonable miles, are in good condition, and haven't all been molested by grown-up Initial D wannabes. With the street racers hacking up collectable examples every day, I like my odds for steep appreciation by way of conservation. I couldn't agree more. It really is difficult to predict what cars will catch the eye of collectors, and the WRX STI seems like a pretty good choice. But I think mine is even better, and I can't let him know that I'd love to park just such an STI in my very own garage. And so goes my argument: Korzeniewski: I like your choice as a driver, Seyth. I'm less convinced of its status as a sure-fire collectible.

Auto Mergers and Acquisitions: Suicide or salvation?

We love the Moses figure. A savior riding in from stage right with the ideas, the smarts, and the scrappiness to put things right. Alan Mullaly. Carroll Shelby. Lee Iacocca. Andrew Carnegie. Steve Jobs. Elon Musk. Bart Simpson. Sergio Marchionne does not likely view himself with Moses-like optics, but the CEO of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles recently gave a remarkable, perhaps prophetic interview with Automotive News about his interest and the inevitability of merging with a potential automotive partner like General Motors. Marchionne has been overtly public about his notion that GM must merge with FCA. For a bit of context, GM sold 9.9 million vehicles in 2014, posting $2.8 billion in net income, while FCA sold 4.75 million units and earned $2.4 billion in net income, painting a very rosy FCA earnings-to-sales picture. But that's not the entire picture. Most people in the auto industry still remember the trainwreck that was the DaimlerChrysler "merger" written in what turned out to be sand in 1998. It proved to be a master class in how not to fuse two companies, two cultures, two continents, and two management teams. Oh, it worked for the two individuals at both helms pre-merger. They got silly rich. And the industry itself was in a misty romance at the time with mergers and acquisitions. BMW bought Rolls-Royce. Volkswagen Group bought Bentley, Bugatti, and Lamborghini, putting all three brands into their rightful place in both products and positioning. No marriages there, so no false pretense. Finally, Nissan and Renault got married in 1999. A successful marriage requires several rare elements in this atmosphere of gas fumes and power lust. But a successful marriage requires several rare elements in this atmosphere of gas fumes and power lust, the principle part being honesty. Daimler and Chrysler lied to each other. The heads of each unit, the product planners, and finance all presented their then-current and long-range forecasts to each other with less-than-forthright accuracy. Daimler was the far greater equal and no one from the Chrysler side enjoyed that. The cultures were entirely different, too, and little was done to bridge that gap. Which brings me back to the present overtures by Marchionne to GM. "There are varying degrees of hugs," Marchionne stated in the Automotive News piece. "I can hug you nicely, I can hug you tightly, I can hug you like a bear, I can really hug you." Seriously?