1964 Chrysler Convertible on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Question of the Day: Most heinous act of badge engineering?

Badge engineering, in which one company slaps its emblems on another company's product and sells it, has a long history in the automotive industry. When Sears wanted to sell cars, a deal was made with Kaiser-Frazer and the Sears Allstate was born. Iranians wanted new cars in the 1960s, and the Rootes Group was happy to offer Hillman Hunters for sale as Iran Khodro Paykans. Sometimes, though, certain badge-engineered vehicles made sense only in the 26th hour of negotiations between companies. The Suzuki Equator, say, which was a puzzling rebadge job of the Nissan Frontier. How did that happen? My personal favorite what-the-heck-were-they-thinking example of badge engineering is the 1971-1973 Plymouth Cricket. Chrysler Europe, through its ownership of the Rootes Group, was able to ship over Hillman Avanger subcompacts for sale in the US market. This would have made sense... if Chrysler hadn't already been selling rebadged Mitsubishi Colt Galants (as Dodge Colts) and Simca 1100s as (Simca 1204s) in its American showrooms. Few bought the Cricket, despite its cheery ad campaign. So, what's the badge-engineered car you find most confounding? Chrysler Dodge Automakers Mitsubishi Nissan Suzuki Automotive History question of the day badge engineering question

Fiat Chrysler, Peugeot owner PSA reportedly in merger talks

Fiat Chrysler and Peugeot owner PSA are in talks to combine in a deal that could create a $50 billion automaker, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday, citing sources. The deal could be in the form of an all-stock deal, the report said. Fiat Chrysler shares rose sharply after the report and were up more than 7% in late afternoon trading. Fiat Chrysler and Peugeot had no comment. Investors have speculated for several years that Fiat Chrysler was hunting for a merger partner, encouraged by the rhetoric of the company's late chief executive, Sergio Marchionne. In 2015, Marchionne outlined the case for consolidation of the auto industry, and tried unsuccessfully to interest General Motors in a deal. Peugeot and Fiat Chrysler had discussed a combination earlier this year, before Fiat Chrysler proposed a $35 billion merger with French automaker Renault SA. Fiat Chrysler Chairman John Elkann broke off talks with Renault in June after French government officials intervened, and pushed for Renault to first resolve tensions with its Japanese alliance partner, Nissan. Following the collapse of the Renault merger plan, Fiat Chrysler CEO Mike Manley left the door open for talks with would-be partners, but said the Italian-American automaker could go it alone despite mounting costs to develop electric vehicles and comply with tougher emissions rules in Europe, the United States and China. Peugeot CEO Carlos Tavares dismissed the idea of a combination with Fiat Chrysler during a discussion with reporters at the Frankfurt auto show last month. "We don't need it," Tavares said when asked whether he was still interested in a deal with Fiat Chrysler. Fiat Chrysler has a commercial vehicle partnership with Peugeot.

The problem with how automakers confront hacking threats

More than anyone, Chris Valasek and Charlie Miller are responsible for alerting Americans to the hacking perils awaiting them in their modern-day cars. In 2013, the pair of cyber-security researchers followed in the footsteps of academics at the University of Cal-San Diego and University of Washington, demonstrating it was possible to hack and control cars. Last summer, their research established which vehicles contained inherent security weaknesses. In recent weeks, their latest findings have underscored the far-reaching danger of automotive security breaches. From the comfort of his Pittsburgh home, Valasek exploited a flaw in the cellular connection of a Jeep Cherokee and commandeered control as Miller drove along a St. Louis highway. Remote access. No prior tampering with the vehicle. An industry's nightmare. As a result of their work, FCA US recalled 1.4 million cars, improving safety for millions of motorists. For now, Valasek and Miller are at the forefront of their profession. In a few months, they could be out of jobs. Rather than embrace the skills of software and security experts in confronting the unforeseen downside of connectivity in cars, automakers have been doing their best to stifle independent cyber-security research. Lost in the analysis of the Jeep Cherokee vulnerabilities is the possibility this could be the last study of its kind. In September or October, the U.S. Copyright Office will issue a key ruling that could prevent third-party researchers like Valasek and Miller from accessing the components they need to conduct experiments on vehicles. Researchers have asked for an exemption in the Digital Millennial Copyright Act that would preserve their right to analyze cars, but automakers have opposed that exemption, claiming the software that runs almost every conceivable vehicle function is proprietary. Further, their attorneys have argued the complexity of the software has evolved to a point where safety and security risks arise when third parties start monkeying with the code. Their message on cyber security is, as it has been for years, that they know their products better than anyone else and that it's dangerous for others to meddle with them. But in precise terms, the Jeep Cherokee problems show this is not the case. Valasek and Miller discovered the problem, a security hole in the Sprint cellular connection to the UConnect infotainment system, not industry insiders.