2005 Chrysler Pt Cruiser 2.4l Turbo Convertible on 2040-cars

Auto blog

The next steps automakers could take after sales drop again in April

DETROIT (Reuters) - Major automakers on Tuesday posted declines in U.S. new vehicle sales for April in a sign the long boom cycle that lifted the American auto industry to record sales last year is losing steam, sending carmaker stocks down. The drop in sales versus April 2016 came on the heels of a disappointing March, which automakers had shrugged off as just a bad month. But two straight weak months has heightened Wall Street worries the cyclical industry is on a downward swing after a nearly uninterrupted boom since the Great Recession's end in 2010. Auto sales were a drag on U.S. first-quarter gross domestic product, with the economy growing at an annual rate of just 0.7 percent according to an advance estimate published by the Commerce Department last Friday. Excluding the auto sector the GDP growth rate would have been 1.2 percent. Industry consultant Autodata put the industry's seasonally adjusted annualized rate of sales at 16.88 million units for April, below the average of 17.2 million units predicted by analysts polled by Reuters. General Motors Co shares fell 2.9 percent while Ford Motor Co slid 4.3 percent and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV's U.S.-traded shares tumbled 4.2 percent. The U.S. auto industry faces multiple challenges. Sales are slipping and vehicle inventory levels have risen even as carmakers have hiked discounts to lure customers. A flood of used vehicles from the boom cycle are increasingly competing with new cars. The question for automakers: How much and for how long to curtail production this summer, which will result in worker layoffs? To bring down stocks of unsold vehicles, the Detroit automakers need to cut production, and offer more discounts without creating "an incentives war," said Mark Wakefield, head of the North American automotive practice for AlixPartners in Southfield, Michigan. "We see multiple weeks (of production) being taken out on the car side," he said, "and some softness on the truck side." Rival automakers will be watching each other to see if one is cutting prices to gain market share from another, he said, instead of just clearing inventory. INVESTORS DIGEST BAD NEWS Just last week GM reported a record first-quarter profit, but that had almost zero impact on the automaker's stock. The iconic carmaker, whose own interest was once conflated with that of America's, has slipped behind luxury carmaker Tesla Inc in terms of valuation.

Junkyard Gem: 1993 Plymouth Voyager SE AWD

Under Lee Iacocca's leadership, Chrysler printed bales of money by designing a small, front-wheel-drive van based on the versatile K platform. Chrysler didn't invent the minivan, of course, but those first 1984 Dodge Caravans and Plymouth Voyagers instantly put small vans square in the middle of the American vehicle mainstream (and began the long downward spiral of the station wagon here). For the 1991 model year, the second generation of Chrysler minivans hit our roads, and they were bigger, better-appointed and available with all-wheel-drive. Here's one of those early second-gen vans, found in a Denver-area boneyard a few months back. The 1984 Voyager was a genuine minivan, scaling in at a mere 2,984 pounds (about the same as the current Toyota Corolla). The wheelbases of the second-generation Voyager and Grand Voyager grew just a fraction of an inch longer, but the vans themselves got longer and heavier anyway. The curb weight of today's Junkyard Gem was 4,008 pounds. By 1993, minivans were under sales assault by a new crop of SUVs, particularly the Ford Explorer (which debuted for the 1991 model year) and Chrysler's own Jeep Grand Cherokee (which first appeared as a 1993 model). Chrysler's XJ Cherokee had been siphoning away minivan sales since Day One, having first hit Jeep showrooms at the same time as the first Voyagers and Caravans went on sale. Still, the 1993 Caravan/Grand Caravan, Voyager/Grand Voyager and Town & Country obliterated those trucks when it came to usable interior space, safety, ride comfort and fuel economy. Plymouth used the Voyager name on rebadged Dodge Sportsman full-size vans from the 1974 through 1983 model years, during which time Chrysler attempted to sell their big fuel-swilling passenger vans as sensible station wagons. The Grand Voyager had a wheelbase stretch of just over seven inches versus that of the regular Voyager; the SE was the lower of the two trim levels available for the AWD-equipped version in 1993. In 1993, base-grade front-wheel-drive Voyagers had 2.5-liter Chrysler four-cylinder engines as standard equipment, while front-wheel-drive Grand Voyagers got Mitsubishi 6G72 V6 engines. If you bought a new all-wheel-drive Grand Voyager that year, your van had this Chrysler 3.3-liter pushrod V6, rated at 150 horsepower and 180 pound-feet. Sadly, Chrysler stopped installing turbocharged 2.2 engines in their minivans after 1990.

What's the right car for the 'Planes, Trains, and Automobiles' remake?

As the Thanksgiving holiday approaches so, too, does the season in which many Americans will rewatch that holiday classic, "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles." The Steve Martin and John Candy movie is a staple of holiday-season viewing. Soon, however, it will be joined by a new version. Paramount Pictures is doing a remake of "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles," starring Will Smith and Kevin Hart. In the 1987 original, Martin and Candy rent a pea-soup green Chrysler LeBaron Town&Country convertible (well, sort of), which suffers a series of mishaps including catching fire yet still chugs along. It was a star turn for the wood-sided K-car droptop (though not the last), and that got us thinking: What should the Smith and Hart duo get stuck with at Marathon Rent-A-Car? Of course, it needs to be a convertible. Among the widely used rental-car convertibles, a Ford Mustang or a Chevy Camaro would be too sporty and cool. This trip is supposed to be miserable. A Buick Cascada or a Beetle convertible would be more appropriate. Of the two, a Beetle is probably better from a comedy standpoint.  But there is another car that stands out as the clear winner: the Chrysler PT Cruiser convertible. Granted, the PT convertible went out of production in 2008, making it a bit old for a current rental lot — but not too old. And the PT Cruiser was even offered with a Woodie package, providing even greater alignment with the LeBaron of old. However, the Woodie package was only offered from 2002–2004, so it predated the convertible by one model year. We think that in this case, the filmmakers should put aside strict historical accuracy and apply the faux-wood appliques to the PT convertible for maximum continuity with the original movie. Besides, the original car wasn't technically a Chrysler LeBaron: it had a different name and badging, plus a non-factory color. It wasn't too different from the Wagon Queen Family Truckster from "Vacation" in that regard. So, what do you think? Is it time for the PT Cruiser to join the great pantheon of movie road-trip cars? Or would something else make for a better movie motors classic?