1951 Chrysler New Yorker Base 5.4l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Marchionne recruiting activist investors to prompt GM merger

Sergio Marchionne may have been rebuffed in his previous advances at General Motors, but he's not about to give up that easily. According to The Wall Street Journal, the Fiat Chrysler chief is now turning to activist investors to help coax GM into joining forces. Marchionne has been a staunch and ceaseless advocate of the need for consolidation, arguing that the industry needs to amalgamate into larger groups that will share resources and reduce overhead. Under his leadership, the Fiat group consolidated its own operations, and officially merged with Chrysler last year. But he's also been pursuing additional mergers with the likes of Volkswagen, Peugeot, Ford, and Opel (to name just a few). Now he's pursuing a merger with GM, which has not shown much enthusiasm towards the idea. For one thing, GM is a much larger company, and probably doesn't need FCA as much as FCA needs it. For another, it has a troubled past with Marchionne, who in 2005 dissolved an agreed merger (of sorts) with GM, yet still managed to get the General to pay Fiat some $2 billion in the process. However, Marchionne is evidently hoping that the intervention of activist investors could compel GM CEO Mary Barra and company to proceed with a merger anyway. For precedent, he's looking at the recent negotiation between GM and some of its stakeholders that prompted the company to buy back $5 billion of its own shares, demonstrating Barra's willingness to deal with investors. The more compelling precedent, however, may have been set in 2006, when activist investor Kirk Kerkorian locked arms with Carlos Ghosn to get GM to consider joining the alliance between Renault and Nissan. GM ultimately declined, and Ghosn turned instead of Daimler (which of course has its own history of having merged with Chrysler). Only time will tell if this initiative will prove more successful, but one thing's for sure, and that's that Marchionne isn't about to relent in his pursuit of a major merger partner.

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

Is it time for American carmakers to give up on dual-clutch transmissions? [w/poll]

Last week, in the midst of Detroit's first days seeking relief in Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code, Automotive News contributor Larry P. Vellequette penned an editorial suggesting that American car companies raise the white flag on dual clutch transmissions and give up on trying to persuade Americans to buy cars fitted with them. Why? Because, Vellequette says, like CVT transmissions, they "just don't sound right or feel right to American drivers." (Note: In the article, it's not clear if Vellequette is arguing against wet-clutch and dry-clutch DCTs or just dry-clutch DCTs, which is what Ford and Chrysler use.) The article goes on to state that Ford and Chrysler have experimented with DCTs and that both consumers and the automotive press haven't exactly given them glowing reviews, despite their quicker shifts and increased fuel efficiency potential compared to torque-converter automatic transmissions.
Autoblog staffers who weighed in on the relevance of DCTs in American cars generally disagreed with the blanket nature of Vellequette's statement that they don't sound or feel right, but admit that their lack of refinement compared to traditional automatics can be an issue for consumers. That's particularly true in workaday cars like the Ford Focus and Dodge Dart, both of which have come in for criticism in reviews and owner surveys. From where we sit, the higher-performance orientation of such transmissions doesn't always meld as well with the marching orders of everyday commuters (particularly if drivers haven't been educated as to the transmission's benefits and tradeoffs), and in models not fitted with paddle shifters, it's particularly hard for drivers to use a DCT to its best advantage.
Finally, we also note that DCT tuning is very much an evolving science. For instance, Autoblog editors who objected to dual-clutch tuning in the Dart have more recently found the technology agreeable in the Fiat 500L. Practice makes perfect - or at least more acceptable.