2014 Chrysler 300 Series Limousine on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Detroit 3 to implement delayed unified towing standards for 2015

Car buyers have a responsibility to be well-informed consumers. That's not always a very simple task, but some guidelines are self-evident. If you live in a very snowy climate, you generally know a Ford Mustang or Chevrolet Camaro might not be as viable a vehicle choice as an all-wheel drive Explorer or Traverse, for example. If you want a fuel-efficient car, it's generally a good idea to know the difference between a diesel and a hybrid. But what if it's kind of tough to be an informed consumer? What if the information you need is more difficult to come by, or worse, based on different standards for each vehicle? Well, in that case, you might be a truck shopper.
For years, customers of light-duty pickups have had to suffer through different ratings of towing capacities for each brand. For 2015 model year trucks, though, that will no longer be a problem. According to Automotive News, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler Group have announced that starting with next year's models, a common standard will be used to measure towing capacity. The Detroit Three will join Toyota, which adopted the Society of Automotive Engineers' so-called SAE J2807 standards way back in 2011.
The standard was originally supposed to be in place for MY2013, but concerns that it would lower the overall stated capacity for trucks led Detroit automakers to pass. Ford originally passed, claiming it'd wait until its new F-150 was launched to adopt the new standards, leading GM and Ram to follow suit. Nissan, meanwhile, has said it will adopt the new standards as its vehicles are updated, meaning the company's next-generation Titan should adhere to the same tow ratings as its competitors.

Why FCA-PSA merger is no quick fix for their China problem

BEIJING — Fiat Chrysler and Peugeot owner PSA's merger is unlikely to provide a quick fix to their problems in China, as both companies have long struggled to find the right products at the right price for the world's top car market, analysts say. The companies said on Thursday they aimed to reach a binding deal in the coming weeks to create the world's fourth-biggest automaker by production volume. But scale alone will not make Italian-American Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) and France's PSA Group more competitive in a market where they have been slow to adapt to trends and win over consumers, leading their sales to lag far behind foreign rivals such as Volkswagen and General Motors. PSA does not have enough competitive SUV models, and neither company has enough electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, or enough cars packed with hi-tech features for Chinese tastes, analysts say. In a market where 28 million cars were bought in 2018, FCA sold just 155,215, while PSA sold 257,723, according to consultancy LMC Automotive. At the end of September, FCA had a market share of 0.5% in China's passenger car market, while PSA's was 0.6%. Analysts say they have been squeezed by Japanese and local brands, which have product line-ups better suited to Chinese tastes at cheaper prices. "Both companies are very home-market centred and have failed to adapt to shifts in Chinese market preferences," said Bill Russo, head of Shanghai-based consultancy Automobility Ltd and a former senior Asia-based Chrysler executive. "Neither company has recognized and delivered on the trends of shared, connected and electric vehicles,” Russo said. That makes them ill-prepared to deal with further shifts in the Chinese market, which saw annual sales contract for the first time since the 1990s last year and is expected to see another drop this year. "China's overall market is experiencing a transmission and adjustment period," said Alan Kang, a Shanghai-based senior analyst at LMC Automotive. "It is very hard for these two companies, which do not have enough competitive up-to-date products, to quickly recover with the merger." FCA has a partnership in China with Guangzhou Automobile Group, which said on Thursday it backed the merger. PSA has been trying to reboot its operations in China.

Labor Day: A look back at the largest UAW strikes in history

American made is almost an anachronism now, but good manufacturing jobs drove America's post-war economic golden age. Fifty years ago, if you held a job on a line, you were most likely a member of a union. And no union was more powerful than the United Auto Workers. Before the slow decline in membership started in the 1970s, the UAW had over 1.5 million members and represented workers from the insurance industry to aerospace and defense. The UAW isn't the powerhouse it once was. Today, just fewer than 400,000 workers hold membership in the UAW. Unions are sometimes blamed for the decline of American manufacturing, as companies have spent the last 30 years outsourcing their needs to countries with cheap labor and fewer requirements for the health and safety of their workers. Unions formed out of a desire to protect workers from dangerous conditions and abject poverty once their physical abilities were used up on the line; woes that manufacturers now outsource to poorer countries, along with the jobs. Striking was the workers' way of demanding humane treatment and a seat at the table with management. Most strikes are and were local affairs, affecting one or two plants and lasting a few days. But some strikes took thousands of workers off the line for months. Some were large enough to change the landscape of America. 1. 1936-1937 Flint Sit-Down Strike In 1936, just a year after the UAW formed and the same year they held their first convention, the union moved to organize workers within a major manufacturer. For extra oomph, they went after the largest in the world – General Motors. UAW Local 174 president Walter Reuther focused on two huge production facilities – one in Flint and one in Cleveland, where GM made all the parts for Buick, Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Chevrolet. Conditions in these plants were hellish. Workers weren't allowed bathroom breaks and often soiled themselves while standing at their stations. Workers were pushed to the limit on 12-14 hour shifts, six days a week. The production speed was nearly impossibly fast and debilitating injuries were common. In July 1936, temperatures inside the Flint plants reached over 100 degrees, yet managers refused to slow the line. Heat exhaustion killed hundreds of workers. Their families could expect no compensation for their deaths. When two brothers were fired in Cleveland when management discovered they were part of the union, a wildcat strike broke out.