1969 Chrysler Newport Custom Hardtop 2-door 6.3l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

The problem with how automakers confront hacking threats

More than anyone, Chris Valasek and Charlie Miller are responsible for alerting Americans to the hacking perils awaiting them in their modern-day cars. In 2013, the pair of cyber-security researchers followed in the footsteps of academics at the University of Cal-San Diego and University of Washington, demonstrating it was possible to hack and control cars. Last summer, their research established which vehicles contained inherent security weaknesses. In recent weeks, their latest findings have underscored the far-reaching danger of automotive security breaches. From the comfort of his Pittsburgh home, Valasek exploited a flaw in the cellular connection of a Jeep Cherokee and commandeered control as Miller drove along a St. Louis highway. Remote access. No prior tampering with the vehicle. An industry's nightmare. As a result of their work, FCA US recalled 1.4 million cars, improving safety for millions of motorists. For now, Valasek and Miller are at the forefront of their profession. In a few months, they could be out of jobs. Rather than embrace the skills of software and security experts in confronting the unforeseen downside of connectivity in cars, automakers have been doing their best to stifle independent cyber-security research. Lost in the analysis of the Jeep Cherokee vulnerabilities is the possibility this could be the last study of its kind. In September or October, the U.S. Copyright Office will issue a key ruling that could prevent third-party researchers like Valasek and Miller from accessing the components they need to conduct experiments on vehicles. Researchers have asked for an exemption in the Digital Millennial Copyright Act that would preserve their right to analyze cars, but automakers have opposed that exemption, claiming the software that runs almost every conceivable vehicle function is proprietary. Further, their attorneys have argued the complexity of the software has evolved to a point where safety and security risks arise when third parties start monkeying with the code. Their message on cyber security is, as it has been for years, that they know their products better than anyone else and that it's dangerous for others to meddle with them. But in precise terms, the Jeep Cherokee problems show this is not the case. Valasek and Miller discovered the problem, a security hole in the Sprint cellular connection to the UConnect infotainment system, not industry insiders.

Chrysler's Hurricane engine detailed ahead of 2016 launch

We've been hearing distant rumblings about Chrysler's new Hurricane engine for some time now, but details have been hard to come by. Now, Automotive News is adding some specifics to the scuttlebutt, citing Chrysler documents. According to the industry publication, the Hurricane will blow onto the scene in 2016, but it's not an all-new engine. Rather, it will be rooted in the company's existing 2.0-liter four-cylinder Tigershark powerplant (shown above), albeit with "many new technologies to achieve excellent fuel economy."
It's not clear what sort of technologies Chrysler is referring to, but the Hurricane is expected to continue to use an aluminum block, and the finished product is expected to generate even better figures than the existing 2.0-liter's 160 horsepower and 148 pound-feet of torque (as found in the Dodge Dart). Automotive News notes that the updated 2.4-liter Tigershark debuting in the entry-level 2014 Jeep Cherokee has its basis in the 2.0-liter lump, but unlike the smaller engine, it's been fitted with MultiAir2 electrohydraulic variable valve timing to realize 184 hp and 171 lb-ft and greater efficiency.
Perhaps the Hurricane will incorporate the latter in its bag of tricks? Either way, we're hoping for a more generous torque curve than the what's in the current 2.0-liter Tigershark, which is something of a slug in the Dart - even for a base economy compact.

Canada bailed out GM, Chrysler without really knowing what they were getting into

The Auditor General of Canada recently issued a report that makes at least one thing clear: it doesn't know how effective Canadian government loans given to General Motors and Chrysler in 2009 were in ensuring the viability of both companies. That year, the Canadian and Ontario governments dished out $10.8 billion CAD ($9.6B US) to GM and $2.9 billion CAD ($2.6B US) to Chrysler, but hadn't yet sorted out precisely how the funds were to be used before disbursing them. This happened in spite of the fact that, according to a piece in Bloomberg, the loans weren't meant to be handed out until authorities were clear on the manufacturers' plans for reorganization. In fact, federal officials hadn't finished establishing the concessions made by all the involved parties, the pension liabilities, nor the long-term soundness of the automakers' financial positions. On top of that, apparently it didn't keep close tabs on the money after loaning it: the report says that $1B CAD should have been applied to GM Canada pension plans but was instead given to GM to use. Chrysler repaid $1.7 billion, while GM handed back $3.8 billion and Bloomberg believes the feds in Ottawa still own 110 million shares of The General, which, at the stock price as of writing, would be good for another $3.9 billion. Those were mad, bad days, though, and we're not sure what point the report serves, other than to say, "Oh, by the way...." News Source: BloombergImage Credit: Bill Pugliano / Getty Images Government/Legal Chrysler GM bailout