2012 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Sport Conversion, Great Mods! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Georgia judge slashes verdict to $40M in Jeep fire case

A judge in Georgia has drastically reduced the damages that Fiat Chrysler Automobiles will have to pay to the family of Remington Walden, who a court said died as a result of the unsafe design of one of its vehicles. While the jury originally awarded the family $150 million at FCA's expense, Judge J. Kevin Chason cut that amount to $40 million, the Detroit News reported. The automaker may still appeal the verdict. The case dates to March 2012, when a 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee in which four-year-old Walden was riding was rear-ended by another vehicle. Due to what the jury ruled was an unsafe fuel tank, a fire erupted, and Walden died in the fire. The family's lawyers successfully argued that the automaker knew there was a problem and didn't take sufficient action to address the issue, while FCA countered that its vehicles met the applicable safety standards when they were built. The jury found FCA 99 percent responsible for the fire and Walden's death, reserving the final one percent for the driver who caused the crash. The court awarded the Waldens $150 million in damages to be paid by the automaker: $120 million for wrongful death, and a further $30 million for pain and suffering. FCA, however, argued that the damages were disproportionate to the incident, noting that the $120 million was 11 times higher and the $30 million four times higher than any comparable awards upheld on appeal in the state. Chason agreed and cut the penalties extensively. The Walden family has reportedly accepted the reduced verdict. But according to the News, company spokesman Michael Palese said, "The reduction in the damage awards does not cure the many errors that tainted this verdict and denied FCA US a fair trial. We are considering our legal options." News Source: The Detroit NewsImage Credit: Jeep Government/Legal Recalls Jeep lawsuit court

EV cost burden pushing automakers to their limits, says Stellantis' CEO Tavares

DETROIT — Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares said external pressure on automakers to quickly shift to electric vehicles potentially threatens jobs and vehicle quality as producers struggle with EVs' higher costs. Governments and investors want car manufacturers to speed up the transition to electric vehicles, but the costs are "beyond the limits" of what the auto industry can sustain, Tavares said in an interview at the Reuters Next conference released Wednesday. "What has been decided is to impose on the automotive industry electrification that brings 50% additional costs against a conventional vehicle," he said. "There is no way we can transfer 50% of additional costs to the final consumer because most parts of the middle class will not be able to pay." Automakers could charge higher prices and sell fewer cars, or accept lower profit margins, Tavares said. Those paths both lead to cutbacks. Union leaders in Europe and North America have warned tens of thousands of jobs could be lost. Automakers need time for testing and ensuring that new technology will work, Tavares said. Pushing to speed that process up "is just going to be counter productive. It will lead to quality problems. It will lead to all sorts of problems," he said. Tavares said Stellantis is aiming to avoid cuts by boosting productivity at a pace far faster than industry norm. "Over the next five years we have to digest 10% productivity a year ... in an industry which is used to delivering 2 to 3% productivity" improvement, he said. "The future will tell us who is going to be able to digest this, and who will fail," Tavares said. "We are putting the industry on the limits." Electric vehicle costs are expected to fall, and analysts project that battery electric vehicles and combustion vehicles could reach cost parity during the second half of this decade. Like other automakers that earn profits from combustion vehicles, Stellantis is under pressure from both establishment automakers such as GM, Ford, VW and Hyundai, as well as start-ups such as Tesla and Rivian. The latter electric vehicle companies are far smaller in terms of vehicle sales and employment. But investors have given Tesla and Rivian higher market valuations than the owner of the highly profitable Jeep and Ram brands. That investor pressure is compounded by government policies aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The European Union, California and other jurisdictions have set goals to end sales of combustion vehicles by 2035.

Land Rover Defender V8 vs. Jeep Wrangler Rubicon 392 | V8 4x4s square off on paper

Land Rover pulled the sheet off its 2022 Defender on Wednesday, introducing another high-performance V8 to the off-road segment. This time, it's a 5.0-liter, supercharged V8 boasting 518 horsepower. It will be available in both the Defender 90 and 110 models. In the former, Land Rover says it can crack off a 0-60 run in just 4.9 seconds on its way to a top speed of 149 mph. The long-wheelbase 110 will be a bit slower, but "slow" probably isn't the right adjective to use here at all.  But Land Rover isn't the only automaker offering a high-performance variant of its off-road SUV. While Jeep may have been sneered at for presenting the 2021 Wrangler Rubicon 392 on the heels of the 2021 Ford Bronco's introduction, it starts to make a lot more sense in this context. There's reportedly a high-output Bronco on the way, too, so call Jeep the dinosaur of the group all you want, but you can't put a price on being first. Well, you can, actually, but that's not the point.  Thankfully, both Land Rover and Jeep have provided enough specs for us to rough out a comparison chart. Since the Rubicon 392 is offered only in four-door guise, we're looking at the long-wheelbase Defender 110 as its direct competitor here. Have a look: There are a few caveats to mention off the top. For starters, we don't have an official curb weight for the V8-powered Defender yet, as Land Rover has not finalized its U.S. specs. We used the European figures (as provided by a spokesperson), which we expect to be accurate within about 50 pounds. The 0-60 time provided by Land Rover was for the Defender 90, which is smaller and somewhat lighter than the 110. When equipped with the inline-6, the Defender 110 is about a tenth of a second slower to 60 than the Defender 90, so we figure it should be roughly the same for the V8.  While the Defender has nearly 50 horsepower on the Wrangler, that advantage disappears thanks to the Land Rover V8's monster weight penalty, which will fall somewhere between 600 and 700 pounds depending on equipment. Yikes. On the flip side, however, the Land Rover has the edge in top speed, and it's not even close. Chalk that up to the tires, we suspect. We know for a fact that the Rubicon 392's all-terrains dictate its speed limiter; Jeep's own engineers told us as much. This could make for a (hypothetically) interesting drag race, as the Jeep's advantage off the line may evaporate once triple digits come into play.