2002 Silver Chrysler Concorde Lxi 113k Miles Needs Trans Work on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

The mad genius of killing the Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200

Sergio Marchionne isn't crazy. At least not with respect to the recent announcement that Fiat Chrysler Automobiles will cease production of the Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200. Instead of crazy I'd call this CEO ruthlessly pragmatic, and perhaps short-sighted. The latest revisions to FCA's most recent five-year plan tell some truths about the company's finances. In other words, it can't afford to build mainstream sedans. With only 87,392 units sold in 2015, the Dart is an also-ran in the segment. The axe falls easily there - Chrysler hasn't had a compact-car hit since the second-generation Neon. The 200 isn't so cut and dried: Last year sales increased 52 percent, and the 177,889 total for 2015 is more than those for the Subaru Legacy and Kia Optima. But looking at the overall FCA picture the Chrysler 200 has to go, at least from a short-term perspective. The vehicles that make big money – Ram trucks; Jeep's Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, and Wrangler – can't be made fast enough. FCA can't afford to idle the 200's Sterling Heights, MI, assembly plant to cut back on inventory when other plants are running flat out. It seems crazy to throw away 265,000 sales, but FCA is leaving money on the table by not building more profitable vehicles. The Wirecutter's Senior Autos Editor (and former Autoblogger) John Neff agrees. "As bold as it looks from the outside, he's really making a safe bet that their money is better spent on designing better and building more crossovers and trucks. He's probably right about that." But according to Jessica Caldwell, Executive Director of Strategic Analytics at Edmunds, "FCA's strategy of eliminating the Dart and 200 might be short-sighted if gas prices were to rise and Americans, once again, flocked to small vehicles. FCA must have plans to expand the lineup of small SUVs and position them as small-car alternatives in terms of price and fuel efficiency for this strategy to make sense." FCA's latest announcement focuses mainly on the profitable brands and nameplates. There's hardly a mention of Chrysler, Dodge, or Fiat. And future planning is where the plot holes appear. This realignment cuts dead weight from the product portfolio, but FCA's latest announcement focuses mainly on the profitable brands and nameplates. There's hardly a mention of Chrysler, Dodge, or Fiat. So what's Sergio up to? David Sullivan of AutoPacific thinks Marchionne is still looking for another CEO to hug.

Hyundai-Kia claims 'greenest' title from Honda, Big Three still big losers

Let's start with the good news. On average, any new car you buy in the US today will be 43 percent cleaner than any average new car in 1998. Here's some more good news, for Korea anyway, Hyundai-Kia has been named the cleanest automaker in the latest study by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which looked at 2013 model year vehicles sold between October 2012 and September 2013 from the top eight automakers (by volume). The bad news? The big three Detroit automakers are, on average, still making the dirtiest cars in the showroom. The big three Detroit automakers are, on average, still making the dirtiest cars in the showroom. The problem for Ford, General Motors and Chrysler lies in their trucks, which sell well but tend to have pretty bad fuel economy (compared to sedans, at least). The UCS calculates its list by averaging "the per-mile emissions for each light-duty vehicle sold by each automaker" and then factors in "the fuel economy, fuel type, and sales volume of each type of vehicle sold by each automaker" and "the upstream global warming emissions from producing and distributing the fuel used by each vehicle, as well as emissions from the vehicles themselves." That all means that, the more trucks you sell, the worse you're gonna do. Then again, the more trucks you sell with 18 mpg, the more you're helping drivers put CO2 into the air, so the UCS is doing a fair comparison of the things that this study is trying to track. More details on the methodology are available on page six of the study PDF. In case you were wondering (we were), UCS did make sure to use the revised mpg numbers for Hyundai and Kia models that were originally overstated. Hyundai has apologized for and fixed those figures and even with the new, corrected numbers, Hyundai's total emissions are dropping at a rate of about three percent a year, enough for it to take the greenest company title for the first time. In fact, this is the first time that an automaker other than Honda has come out on top in the UCS ranking, which has been released six times now, including the first one in 2000 (which looked at 1998 model year data). In 2010, Honda was almost knocked off the winner's perch by both Hyundai and Toyota, but managed to hold on. Chrysler, on the other hand, came in dead last (again) in the ranking of the top eight automakers, snagging the "dirtiest tailpipe" award once (again). Read the UCS' press release below.