2014 Chrysler 300c Base on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Auto bailout cost the US goverment $9.26B

Depending on your outlook, the US Treasury's bailout of General Motors, Chrysler (now FCA) and their financing divisions under the Troubled Asset Relief Program was either a complete boondoggle or a savvy move to secure the future of some major employers. Regardless of where you fall, the auto industry bailout has officially ended, and the numbers have been tallied. Of the $79.69 billion that the Feds invested to keep the automakers afloat, it recouped $70.43 billion – a net loss of $9.26 billion. The final nail in the coffin for the auto bailout came in December 2014 when the Feds sold its shares in Ally Financial, formerly GMAC. The deal turned out pretty good for the government too because the investment turned a 2.4 billion profit. The actual automakers have long been out of the Treasury's hands, though. The current FCA paid back its loans six years early in 2011, the Treasury sold of the last shares of GM in late 2013. According to The Detroit News, the government's books actually show an official loss on the auto bailouts of $16.56 billion. The difference is because the larger figure does not include the interest or dividends paid by the borrowers on the amount lent. While it's easy to see fault in any red ink on the Feds' massive investment, the number is less than some earlier estimates. At one time, deficits around $44 billion were thought possible, and another put things at a $20.3 billion loss. Outside of just the government losing money, the bailouts might have helped the overall economy. A study from the Center for Automotive Research last year estimated that the program saved 2.6 million jobs and about $284.4 billion in personal wealth. It also indicated that the Feds' reduction in income tax revenue alone from Chrysler and GM going under could have been around $100 billion for just 2009 and 2010, significantly more than any loss in the bailout.

Buying bang for your buck: Chrysler 300 and Kia Cadenza

In today's car market a Chrysler or Kia with a base price of $30K can easily become $45K, just by checking a few random boxes. You can do the math – that extra $15K will cost you $300/month over the life (and death) of a 60-month payment book. If your goal is only to get places in a stylish sedan capable of staying with traffic, you can keep your outlay far closer to the base price of these cars. Although they may not appear on many shopping lists, there's a lot to like in the lower-spec versions of both Chrysler's 300 and Kia's upscale Cadenza. The Chrysler is relatively ancient among current product platforms, while the Cadenza was Kia's first upmarket initiative, now supplemented by the larger K900 and the fall debut of Kia's Stinger GT. But you will not find a better transportation value in a Kia showroom than its underappreciated Cadenza. Here's a closer look at both: CHRYSLER 300: This car is a testament to all that was right about the DaimlerChrysler merger of the late '90s. At the time of the 300 introduction, elements of its platform were taken from the Mercedes E-Class, and with proportions suggesting a mix of stately American and neoclassic German, the 300 continues to offer a "just right" mix of respectable accessibility. The guy owning the package store could "Dub" it, while Miss Daisy would have been eminently comfortable in its back seat. In 2017, the 300 is an outlier in the sedan landscape. This is a large four-door with rear-wheel drive (all-wheel drive is optional). But in a sea of Accord this or Avalon that, the 300 impresses as an almost-relevant update of sedans in your murky past. The attachment to Chrysler products of 50 years ago goes beyond the Hemi that might be under the hood; it's the entire vibe of a car company trying hard to distinguish itself in today's marketplace. Despite numerous updates, the Chrysler still seems last century, and that's just fine with older drivers with the cash – or credit rating – to consider a $40K car. Behind the wheel, Chrysler's 300 exhibits all we love about American motoring. You would never confuse the handling with 'crisp,' but it's competent, while the ride is almost sublime. This is a car that in fully-loaded form deserves a Hemi, but the V6 is generally unobtrusive, and might net you 30 mpg on the highway. The conventional, 8-speed automatic goes about its business exactly as an automatic should.

Next-gen Jeep Wrangler to pack 300-hp Hurricane turbo four

Fiat Chrysler has been working for some time now on a new turbocharged four-cylinder engine. Dubbed "Hurricane," the engine is now said to produce nearly 300 horsepower. And its first application could be in the next-generation Jeep Wrangler. With that much power coming from such a small engine, the Hurricane would offer an even higher level of specific output than the 1.75-liter engine in the Alfa Romeo 4C – one of FCA's highest-stressed engines – far eclipsing the 4C's 120 horsepower per liter with 150 hp/l. By way of comparison, the latest 2.0-liter, four-cylinder version of Ford's EcoBoost engine produces "only" 245 hp (122.5 hp/l). The 2.0-liter turbo four in the latest Mercedes-AMG CLA45 and GLA45, however, produces 375 hp. To get so much out of so little an engine, FCA will utilize a twin-scroll turbocharger and variable valve timing. That could make it ideally suited towards a compact performance model, but according to Automotive News, its first application could be in the new the Wrangler. The larger 3.6-liter Pentastar V6 produces 285 hp, nearly as much as the Hurricane will. But with a smaller engine, an eight-speed transmission, and aluminum construction, the new Jeep will likely benefit from dramatically-improved fuel consumption. Related Video: