2002 Chrysler Town & Country, No Reserve on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Fiat Chrysler exec talks up the future of fuel cells

When it comes to a belief in the viability of electric vehicles, you can put automotive folks like Nissan's Carlos Ghosn and Tesla Motors' Elon Musk on one side of the proverbial wall and Fiat Chrysler Chief Technology Officer Harald Wester on the other. Because while the two former executives are staking much of their companies' respective future on plug-in electric drivetrain technology, Wester sees no such future in it at all, according to an interview in Motor Trend. Oh, sure, the Fiat Chrysler technology chief does give the idea of an electrified powertrain some quarter, saying he sees standard hybrids as a solution for the "intermediate" future in addressing both higher gas prices and need to meet progressively more stringent European greenhouse gas-emissions standards. But Wester, who also oversees Fiat Chrysler's Alfa Romeo and Maserati brands, ultimately views hydrogen fuel-cell technology as the way to go for advanced powertrains and minimal emissions. As for battery-electric vehicles? Wester pretty much shoots them, citing everything from a typical EV battery's weight to the challenge of finding electric recharging stations to the fact that much of the electricity needed for those cars is produced via CO2-emitting sources. He forgot to say anything about the CO2 required to bring gasoline or hydrogen to market. Wester's "bah humbug" is actually pretty consistent with the company's party line. Last year, Fiat Chrysler head honcho Sergio Marchionne, in an interview, famously told the general public not to buy the Fiat 500e electric vehicle. That's because he estimated that the company takes a $14,000 loss on each unit sold of Fiat Chrysler's only production EV. News Source: Motor Trend via Green Car Reports Green Chrysler Fiat Electric Hydrogen Cars harald wester

Chrysler trademark suggest new Rebel in the family

Trademark filings can be a first alert in the auto industry that something is coming. For example, Lamborghini trademarked Aventador before we saw its supercar, and Chevrolet did the same thing with Z28. Other times, an automaker files to protect a name and never does anything with it. Chrysler is dredging up a brand from the past by filing a US request for "Rebel." The name is specifically for "motor vehicles, namely automobiles, trucks, vans, sport utility vehicles and structural parts therefor," according to Ignitionist quoting the filing.
In the US, Rebel was previously used on some American Motors Corporation models. It even spawned a muscle car version called the Machine (pictured above). Chrysler eventually bought AMC when it bowed out of the auto industry in 1987.
Chrysler's plans for the name are a complete mystery at the moment. Although, it probably won't be a midsize sedan like the original. That just seems too unlikely given the brand's current, established lineup. Rebel seems like a fantastic name for the performance trim of a vehicle, though. The Jeep Renegade Rebel has a nice ring to it, and a Ram 1500 Rebel pickup could also work. We're going to have to wait and see what's in store for the moniker. Let us know in Comments what model you think would fit the Rebel name.

GM, Chrysler bailouts saved 2.6 million jobs

The Center for Automotive Research (CAR) has been studying the effects of the General Motors and Chrysler bailouts in 2009. Now that the US Treasury has officially sold off the rest of its stake in GM (and Chrysler has already paid back its loan), CAR has released its study on the effects of the bailout with this concluding note: "CAR is confident that in the years ahead, this peacetime intervention in the private sector by the US government will be seen as one of the most successful in US economic history."
Big words, for sure, but there's plenty of evidence to back up the claim. Bailing out GM alone saved 1.2-million jobs. If both GM and Chrysler hadn't been bailed out, US employment would have been reduced by 2.631-million jobs in 2009 and another 1.519-million jobs in 2010, according to the study. If both automakers were allowed to fail, personal income in the US would have decreased by $173.5 billion in 2009 and $110.9 billion in 2010. Instead, the study found that $284.4 billion of personal income was saved by the bailouts.