2014 Chrysler 300c Base on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Fiat Chrysler exec talks up the future of fuel cells

When it comes to a belief in the viability of electric vehicles, you can put automotive folks like Nissan's Carlos Ghosn and Tesla Motors' Elon Musk on one side of the proverbial wall and Fiat Chrysler Chief Technology Officer Harald Wester on the other. Because while the two former executives are staking much of their companies' respective future on plug-in electric drivetrain technology, Wester sees no such future in it at all, according to an interview in Motor Trend. Oh, sure, the Fiat Chrysler technology chief does give the idea of an electrified powertrain some quarter, saying he sees standard hybrids as a solution for the "intermediate" future in addressing both higher gas prices and need to meet progressively more stringent European greenhouse gas-emissions standards. But Wester, who also oversees Fiat Chrysler's Alfa Romeo and Maserati brands, ultimately views hydrogen fuel-cell technology as the way to go for advanced powertrains and minimal emissions. As for battery-electric vehicles? Wester pretty much shoots them, citing everything from a typical EV battery's weight to the challenge of finding electric recharging stations to the fact that much of the electricity needed for those cars is produced via CO2-emitting sources. He forgot to say anything about the CO2 required to bring gasoline or hydrogen to market. Wester's "bah humbug" is actually pretty consistent with the company's party line. Last year, Fiat Chrysler head honcho Sergio Marchionne, in an interview, famously told the general public not to buy the Fiat 500e electric vehicle. That's because he estimated that the company takes a $14,000 loss on each unit sold of Fiat Chrysler's only production EV. News Source: Motor Trend via Green Car Reports Green Chrysler Fiat Electric Hydrogen Cars harald wester

Move over Audi, now Chrysler has a beef with Tesla's claims

In the same week that Audi said "not so fast" to some claims from Tesla, Chrysler has responded to a new press release from the California-based EV-maker by saying "not exactly, Tesla." The statement, released through the company's blog, comes in response to Tesla claiming it was "the only American car company to have fully repaid the government." Chrysler notes that it, too, recently paid back Uncle Sam from its 2008 bailout. Similar to Audi's recent press release, which was eventually and mysteriously deleted from the German automaker's site, Chrysler is both right and wrong in its statement.
Tesla specifically said that it had paid back the Department of Energy loans that many automakers received - including Fisker and VPG Autos - while Chrysler's retort argues Tesla is "unmistakably incorrect" since it repaid the government in 2011 a full six years early. Technically, the statements from both automakers are correct, but Tesla's startup loan originated from the DoE, while Chrysler's loan came in bailout form from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Further, as The Detroit News notes, Chrysler's loan still cost taxpayers well over a billion dollars after all was said and done - those negative assets tied to "old Chrysler" in the bankruptcy did not require repayment.

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.