2005 Chrysler Sebring Limited Convertible 2-door 2.7l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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

FCA and Cummins named in diesel emissions class-action lawsuit

Chrysler is now the first United States-based carmaker to be sued for allegedly skewing emissions results. In a move that sounds eerily similar to the troubles of European manufacturers, Chrysler is claimed to have hid diesel engine characteristics causing emissions as much as 14 times higher than permitted by regulations. According to Bloomberg, the lawsuit alleges that Chrysler, together with its diesel engine partner Cummins, has concealed the nitrogen oxide output of certain Ram vehicles produced between 2007 and 2012. The NOx pollutants were meant to be broken down in a process called regeneration in the truck's NAC system, or NOx Absorption Catalyst, which predated the 2013-introduced SCR, or Selective Catalytic Reduction system. By design, the NAC captures and stores NOx emissions, converting them to nitrogen and oxygen through a catalytic process. The lawsuit claims the Cummins engine's system has a limited capacity to store the emissions, and as a result the pollutants escape, increasing emissions, worsening fuel consumption and wearing down the catalytic converter. The later, cleaner SCR system uses a urea-water injection, and it gradually replaced the NAC on Cummins 6.7-liter engines, as it was first implemented in 2011 and made standard in 2013. As Bloomberg notes, the model years of Ram trucks involved in the lawsuit predate the earliest Volkswagen "Dieselgate" models by two years. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of 500,000 truck owners, accuses Chrysler and Cummins of fraud, false advertising and racketeering. As an underlying motive, the filing mentions a 2001 change in EPA emissions standards. Announced to become effective in 2010, the EPA requirements drove Chrysler and Cummins to try and reach those already by 2007. However, the NAC system is said to have fallen short of these goals, and the filing claims that Chrysler and Cummins chose to "rig" the engines instead. The affected vehicles predate the 2014 merger of Chrysler and Fiat. FCA US has released a statement regarding the lawsuit, saying it will contest the lawsuit "vigorously". News Source: BloombergImage Credit: Getty Editorial Government/Legal Green Chrysler Dodge RAM Emissions Diesel Vehicles FCA cummins diesel

What's in a trademark? Sometimes, the next iconic car name

The United States Patent and Trademark Office is a treasure trove for auto enthusiasts, especially those who double as conspiracy theorists.
Why has Toyota applied to trademark "Supra," the name of one of its legendary sports cars, even though it hasn't sold one in the United States in 16 years? Why would General Motors continue to register "Chevelle" long after one of the most famous American muscle cars hit the end of the road? And what could Chrysler possibly do with the rights to "313," the area code for Detroit?