2004 Chrysler Crossfire Base Coupe 2-door 3.2l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Waymo self-driving taxis in Arizona are now carrying paying passengers

CHANDLER, Ariz. — Alphabet's Waymo on Wednesday launched a significant development in its costly, decade-long quest for autonomous transportation: Its self-driving taxis are now actually generating fares. With little fanfare, the company has begun charging passengers to use its driverless vehicles in a roughly 100-mile (160 km) zone in four Phoenix suburbs — Chandler, Tempe, Mesa and Gilbert — where it has been testing its technology since 2016. Producing revenue is a strategic milestone, putting Waymo ahead of U.S. rivals, primarily General Motors' Cruise Automation and Uber Technologies, which have yet to launch their own paid self-driving services. All are racing to win customers and recoup billions spent developing the technology. To use Waymo's service, dubbed Waymo One, riders must download an app and provide a credit card number, similar to ride-sharing services Uber and Lyft. A human driver will be behind the wheel, but only to intervene in case of emergency. Major challenges remain, starting with technical hurdles. A Waymo One taxi tested by Reuters last week proved slow and jerky at times. Whether customers will continue using the service once the novelty wears off remains to be seen. Regulations governing the industry across the country are an incoherent patchwork, a significant hurdle to fast expansion. Waymo would not say exactly how many of its cars would be on the road in Arizona. It said its around-the-clock service initially would be limited to "hundreds" of people invited to sign up last year. For now, pricing is roughly in line with that of Uber and Lyft. A 15-minute, 3-mile (4.8 km) drive taken by Reuters last week cost $7.59, just above the $7.22 offered by Lyft. "Over time, we hope to make Waymo One available to even more members of the public," Chief Executive John Krafcik wrote in a blog on Wednesday. "Self-driving technology is new to many, so we're proceeding carefully." 10 million miles, $1 billion The company has been testing its driverless cars for a decade. Its fleet, now numbering 600 vehicles, has logged more than 10 million miles on public roads in and around 25 U.S. cities. Alphabet does not disclose its total investment, but industry experts put that sum at well over $1 billion. Monetizing driverless technology has been slow going.

Junkyard Gem: 1992 Chrysler Imperial Landau

The Chrysler Imperial (sold as a separate marque and called, simply, the Imperial for the 1955-83 model years) was at the top of the Chrysler pyramid for many decades. For most of that time, it was a great big opulent statuswagon, slathered with chrome and powered by some of the most potent engines in the Chrysler inventory. For the early 1990s, however, the Imperial became a member of the many-branched K-Car family tree. Here's a solid-looking '92, now in its final parking spot in a Denver self-service wrecking yard. The 1990-92 Imperial wasn't a bad car, but it also wasn't much like the Imperials of past decades. Under the hood, the Chrysler 3.8-liter pushrod V6, which went on to a distinguished three-decades-long career in Chrysler minivans and Jeep Wranglers. It made a not-too-shabby-for-the-time 150 horsepower in 1992. The padded vinyl landau roof was looking extremely dated by the 1990s, but some Imperial buyers still went for this option. The 1992 Imperial had leather upholstery, but opinions differ as to whether Chrysler still referred to it as Soft Corinthian Leather by this time. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Better than Mercedes-Benz, Audi, Rolls-Royce, and Jaguar, according to this ad. The base price of the '92 Imperial was $26,705 (about 46 grand in inflation-adjusted 2016 dollars). A new 1992 BMW 525i listed at $35,600, while a 1992 Lexus ES300 was $25,250. The $23,500 Mazda 929, with rear-wheel-drive and 190 horses, seems like the steal of 1992 for luxury-car shoppers. Related Video: Featured Gallery Junked 1992 Chrysler Imperial View 19 Photos Auto News Chrysler chrysler imperial

Toyota Sienna vs Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid | Minivan comparison test

Shopping for a new car can be difficult due to the sheer number of choices. Which brand do you start with, which do you skip and are you missing something worthwhile? Thankfully, minivans are much simpler. There are effectively only four choices, they're all pretty good and they're even different enough to make choosing the right one for you a bit easier. This comparison features the two most recently updated minivans: the Toyota Sienna versus the Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid. Besides their common newness, they stand out in another fundamental way: they're both hybrids. Now, they're very different hybrids – the Toyota comes standard with a traditional gasoline-electric system like that of a Prius, whereas the Pacifica is offered with an optional plug-in hybrid system that provides an estimated 32 miles of all-electric range before effectively turning into a traditional hybrid – but in both cases, fuel economy is the priority. With the rare exception, the minivan segment has exclusively used V6 engines, which provide sufficient power to move hefty loads of people and stuff. The Chrysler Pacifica comes standard with a V6, while a V6 is the sole powertrain option for the Honda Odyssey and new 2022 Kia Carnival. The fuel economy difference between those and our hybrid competitors is staggering: The new Sienna gets an EPA-estimated 36 mpg combined while the Odyssey and V6 Pacifica get 22 mpg. That equates to saving an estimated $750 every year on gas, according to the EPA. And the Pacifica Hybrid could potentially save you even more as long as you routinely utilize its electric range. This frugality alone could send the Sienna and Pacifica Hybrid to the top of many shopping lists, but as we've seen in previous tests, they offer more than enough in other respects to warrant top consideration. But which is better, Sienna or Pacifica? Well, we knew this was going to be close, and we were right. After averaging the scores from 16 categories, the difference between first and second was a mere 0.06 out of 10. When we added extra weight to key minivan-buying attributes (second-row space/versatility, safety features and functionality, infotainment, interior storage, cargo space/versatility, value and fuel economy), the gap was only 1 point out of a possible 230. We then triple checked and conducted a recount, but the order remained. In the end, there are no losers here.