1984 Jeep Scrambler Cj8 Cj Fuel Injected Built Daily Driver on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Say goodbye to the Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200

Fiat-Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne outlined an update to the company's five-year business plan Wednesday, and among the changes, the Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200 sedans will soon be phased out. The company's presentation to investors states that the "market shift from cars to trucks and UVs [utility vehicles is] now seen as permanent shift in demand," and FCA wants to respond as quickly as possible. Killing the 200 and Dart will allow FCA to build more Jeep and Ram models at the Sterling Heights, MI, and Belvidere, IL, plants where the sedans were produced. We already knew FCA was planning to shift 200 and Dart production to Mexico, to free up the Sterling Heights facility for Ram 1500 production, and the Belivdere site for Jeep Cherokee output. The Cherokee will move from its current home in Toledo, OH, to allow for increased Wrangler production. It's no shock that FCA wants to shift its focus to crossovers and trucks. In December 2015, for example, combined sales of the Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200 were 15,310. The Jeep Cherokee, which uses the same platform as the Dart and 200, outsold both models combined, with 24,049 sales. Both the Dart and 200 had troubles from the beginning. Marchionne recently blamed designers for the 200 not receiving a Consumer Reports 'recommended' rating, and the Dart was one of the lowest-scoring cars in a CR reliability study. Featured Gallery 2013 Dodge Dart: Review View 27 Photos Related Gallery 2015 Chrysler 200 View 43 Photos Image Credit: Copyright 2016 Drew Phillips / AOL Chrysler Dodge Jeep RAM FCA confirmed

In Michigan, car hackers could face life imprisonment

Car hackers may not want to mess with vehicles in and around the Motor City. A pair of Michigan lawmakers introduced legislation Thursday that would punish anyone who infiltrates a vehicle's electronic systems with penalties as harsh as life imprisonment. Senate bill 927 says that "a person shall not intentionally access or cause access to be made to an electronic system of a motor vehicle to willfully destroy, damage, impair, alter or gain unauthorized control of the motor vehicle." Offenders will be deemed guilty of a felony, and may be imprisoned for any number of years up to life in prison. The proposed legislation is one of the first attempts nationally to address the consequences for car hacking, which has become a top concern throughout the auto industry. Critics have accused executives of being slow to respond to the threats, which were first known as long as six years ago but gained attention last July when a pair of researchers remotely controlled a Jeep Cherokee. In January, the industry established an Information Sharing and Analysis Center to collectively evaluate security measures and counter breaches. But the Michigan bill isn't noteworthy only because of the life penalty prescribed; it's noteworthy for what's missing in its details. Language in the bill doesn't delineate between independent cyber-security researchers and criminals who intend to inflict harm or havoc. Under its provisions, it's possible Charlie Miller, pictured below, and Chris Valasek, the researchers who demonstrated last summer that the Cherokee could be remotely commandeered and controlled, could face life behind bars. Provisions of the legislation that prevent a person from "altering" the motor vehicle could ensnare car enthusiasts or gearheads who tinker with electronic systems to boost performance, increase fuel efficiency or add aftermarket features. In that context, Senate Bill 927 seems like the latest measure in a running feud between independent researchers, gearheads and big automakers. Car companies don't like third parties poking around their electronic systems and would prefer the researchers not reveal security weaknesses. Researchers, on the other hand, say many carmakers are either slow to fix or unwilling to repair security holes unless they're able to publish their findings.

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.