2014 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited 4-door 3.6l - Poison Spyder - Rock Krawler - 37's on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Marchionne uses racial epithet to describe what must power future Alfa Romeo models

Sergio Marchionne and his Fiat empire have a lot riding on the US return of the Alfa Romeo brand. The endeavor has been in progress for what feels like a lifetime - certainly for as long as Fiat has had the Chrysler brand under its Italian wing.
It's not surprising that Fiat CEO Marchionne needs a perfect first Alfa to mark a return to America. And here's where things get dicey. Nobody would argue with Marchionne's insistence that Alfa Romeo's be powered by Italian engines - as Marchionne himself is quoted to have said at the 2013 Detroit Auto Show, "There are some things that are well done in Italy."
If not what he said, then, it's how he said it that has eyebrows raised. "I cannot come up with a schlock product, I just won't. I won't put an American engine into that car. With all due respect to my American friends, it needs to be a wop engine." Wait, what's that?

What would you drive in 1985?

Bereft of live baseball games to watch, I've turned to the good ship YouTube to watch classic games. While watching the 1985 American League Championship Series last night, several of the broadcast's commercials made its way into the original VHS recording, including those for cars. "Only 8.8% financing on a 1985 Ford Tempo!" What a deal! That got me thinking: what would I drive in 1985?  It sure wouldn't be a Tempo. Or an IROC-Z, for that matter, despite what my Photoshopped 1980s self would indicate in the picture above. I posed this question to my fellow Autobloggists. Only one could actually drive back then, I was only 2 and a few editors weren't even close to being born. Here are our choices, which were simply made with the edict of "Come on, man, be realistic."  West Coast Editor James Riswick: OK, I started this, I'll go first. I like coupes today, so I'm pretty sure I'd drive one back then. I definitely don't see myself driving some badge-engineered GM thing from 1985, and although a Honda Prelude has a certain appeal, I must admit that something European would likely be in order. A BMW maybe? No, I'm too much a contrarian for that. The answer is therefore a 1985 Saab 900 Turbo 3-Door, which is not only a coupe but a hatchback, too. If I could scrounge up enough Reagan-era bucks for the ultra-cool SPG model, that would be rad. The 900 Turbo pictured, which was for auction on Bring a Trailer a few years ago, came with plum-colored Bokhara Red, and you're damn sure I would've had me one of those. Nevermind 1985, I'd probably drive this thing today.   Associate Editor Byron Hurd: I'm going to go with the 1985.5 Ford Mustang SVO, AKA the turbocharged Fox Body that everybody remembers but nobody drives. The mid-year update to the SVO bumped the power up from 175 ponies (yeah, yeah) to 205, making it almost as powerful (on paper, anyway) as the V8-powered GT models offered in the same time frame. I chose this particular car because it's a bit of a time capsule and, simultaneously, a reminder that all things are cyclical. Here we are, 35 years later, and 2.3-liter turbocharged Mustangs are a thing again. Who would have guessed?

FCA to appeal reduced judgment in Georgia Jeep case

FCA is appealing the $40 million verdict against it in a case in Georgia where a four-year-old boy died in a fire in a Jeep Grand Cherokee, according to The Detroit News. The jury originally awarded the child's family $150 million, but the judge decided to significantly to reduce the amount based on other precedents. The automaker has been considering further legal options since the decision was announced in July. The boy's death happened in 2012 when he was riding in a Grand Cherokee. The vehicle was rear-ended, and the fuel tank burst, causing a fire. This is the same issue that led to a recall of millions of the SUVs and a recent agreement with the US government from FCA to pay to get them fixed. In the original ruling, the jury said that the automaker was 99 percent responsible for the fatality and didn't adequately warn owners. It asked the company to pay $120 million for wrongful death and $30 million for his pain and suffering. FCA countered that the Jeeps met the safety standards of the time they were made. FCA requested that the jury's award be reduced in May calling the amount "grossly excessive." If the family didn't agree to a lower amount, the company also threatened to seek a new trial. Among the arguments was that $30 million was too much for the child's one minute of suffering. The parents did accept the judge's adjusted figure, though.