2002 Jeep Wrangler X Sport Utility 2-door 4.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Some Jeep Cherokees and Chrysler 200s to get standard stop-start in 2015

Automakers the world over are striving to find ways to make their models more efficient, and Chrysler has a solution for some versions of the 2015 Chrysler 200 and 2015 Jeep Cherokee (2014 model shown). The Tigershark 2.4-liter four-cylinder in the 200 and the 3.2-liter Pentastar V6 in the Cherokee are getting a slight boost later this year thanks to the addition of Chrysler's Engine Stop-Start system as standard equipment. The company predicts modest gains - a three-percent improvement in fuel economy and a three percent reduction in CO2 emissions with the new tech compared to without it. While it's not much, those who sit in traffic a lot may see a difference.
Chrysler's stop/start system uses a high-speed starter motor to restart the vehicle in a claimed a third of a second. It works by detecting when the vehicle comes to a stop and turning off the engine. A more powerful battery maintains all of the model's accessories while it sits. When the driver lets off the brake, the car starts up again to drive away. There is even a button in the cabin to turn the ESS off, if desired.
The Jeep will be the first to receive ESS in the third quarter of this year to coincide with the start of production of the 2015 model-year version. The 200 will follow in the fourth quarter as a rolling change in production.

Dodge, Jeep and Ram could soon be owned by Chinese automakers

For the past several years, Fiat Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne has made it widely known that the automaker he helms is up for grabs. First, he sent an email to GM CEO Mary Barra, who immediately refused to even discuss a merger. Later, Marchionne set his sights on Volkswagen. That too was swiftly rebuffed. It seemed like no global automaker was remotely interested in a partnership. Now, Automotive News reports that several Chinese automakers have come calling, only FCA isn't ready to answer. At least not yet. The news broke this morning that a major Chinese automaker had made an offer to purchase FCA for slightly above market value. FCA refused, saying the offer wasn't quite generous enough. It's unclear which automaker made the offer, but Automotive News says there's more than one interested party. FCA representatives have recently traveled to China to meet with Great Wall Motors, while Chinese representatives were seen at FCA corporate headquarters in Auburn Hills, Mich. The Chinese government has a lot of money invested in local automakers. It's putting pressure on these automakers to expand globally, including to the United States. As it stands, it's a matter of when a Chinese automaker will start selling cars here, not if. Purchasing an established automaker with a wide range of products and a huge dealer network would do wonders in giving the Chinese a foothold here. Sure, Geely owns Volvo, but a luxury automaker doesn't have nearly as much reach as a more mainstream company like FCA. This seems like the best case scenario for both a Chinese automaker looking to move into the U.S. and for FCA, at least from a business standpoint. The latter doesn't seem to have any other interested parties. It will be interesting to see how FCA would sell a deal like this to the public. We're not sure everyone will be happy with Dodge, Jeep and Ram falling under Chinese ownership. FCA didn't turn down the Chinese because they didn't like the idea. It turned down the offer because there wasn't enough money on the table. Related Video: News Source: Automotive News Earnings/Financials Alfa Romeo Chrysler Dodge Fiat Jeep RAM

Fires, deaths continue after Jeep fuel tank recall

As Kayla White slowed her SUV behind two other cars to exit a suburban Detroit freeway on Veterans Day, it was rammed from behind by a Cadillac STS. Her red 2003 Jeep Liberty bounced off a Nissan in front of it, rolled onto its side and exploded in flames. Other drivers ran to help but were forced back by the heat. Firefighters arrived in just three minutes but were too late. White, a 23-year-old restaurant hostess who was eight months pregnant, died of burns and smoke inhalation. White is one of more than 70 people killed in fires involving older Jeeps with plastic fuel tanks mounted behind the rear axle. Fiat Chrysler, which makes Jeeps, recalled 1.56 million of them in June 2013 under pressure from US safety regulators. But only 12 percent of the SUVs have been repaired in the 18 months since the recall, a much slower pace than usual. And White's Jeep was not among those fixed. Last week, prosecutors charged the Cadillac driver with committing a moving violation that caused a death. But safety advocates and the lawyer for White's family say the blame belongs as much, if not more, on Chrysler and an auto-industry safety system that moves too slowly to prevent tragedy. The rear-mounted tanks have little structure to protect them if struck from behind, making them susceptible to punctures and fires. Moving the gas tank in front of the axle would be expensive and difficult. So Chrysler's remedy involved installing trailer hitches on the rear of the Jeeps as an extra layer of protection. Government testing showed the hitches protected the tanks in crashes up to 40 mph when stationary Jeeps were hit from behind. But at higher speeds, they wouldn't help. White tried to get the repair done a few weeks before her death but was told by a Jeep dealer that parts weren't available, according to Gerald Thurswell, her family's lawyer. He wouldn't identify the dealership, and his contention could not be independently verified by The Associated Press. Thurswell contends the gas tank ruptured, spilling fuel that touched off the fire. A Chrysler spokesman expressed sympathy to White's family but said the company had no written proof that she asked a dealer about the recall. Two crash reconstruction experts interviewed by the AP say gas wouldn't have spilled from White's Jeep if the tank had been mounted in front of the rear axle. Both say a hitch might have prevented the tank from being damaged, but because both vehicles were in motion, neither expert could say for sure.