2006 Chrysler Town & Country Lwb on 2040-cars

Auto blog

This or That: 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 vs. 1984 Pontiac Fiero

Welcome to another round of This or That, where two Autoblog editors pick a topic, pick a side and pull no punches. Last round pitted yours truly against Associate Editor Brandon Turkus, and my chosen VW Vanagon Syncro narrowly defeated Brandon's 1987 Land Rover. In fact, it was, by far, the closest round we've seen, with 1,907 voters seeing things my way (for 50.8 percent of the vote) versus 1,848 votes for Brandon's Rover (49.2 percent). Sweet, sweet victory! For this latest round of This or That, I've roped Editor Greg Migliore into what I think is a rather fun debate. We've each chosen our favorite terrible cars, setting a price limit of $10,000 to make sure neither of us went too crazy with our automotive atrocities. I think we've both chosen terribly... and I mean that in the best way possible. 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 Jeremy Korzeniewski: Why It's Terrible: Taken in isolation, the Chrysler Crossfire isn't necessarily a terrible car. In fact, it drives pretty darn well, and there's a lot of solid engineering under its slinky shape. Problem is, that engineering was already rather long in the tooth well before Chrysler ever got its hands on it, having come from Mercedes-Benz, which used the basic chassis and drivetrain in a previous version of its SLK coupe and roadster. Granted, the SLK was an okay car, too, but even when new, it hardly set the world on fire with sporty driving dynamics. Chrysler took these decent-but-no-more bits and pieces from the Mercedes parts bin – remember, this car was conceived in the disastrous Merger Of Equals days – and covered them with a rather attractive hard-candy shell. Unfortunately, the super sporty shape wrote checks in the minds of buyers that its well-worn mechanicals were simply unable to cash, though an injection of power courtesy of a supercharged V6 engine in the SRT6 model, as seen here, certainly helped ease some of those woes. In the end, Chrysler was left with a so-called halo car that looked the part but never quite performed the part. It was almost universally panned by critics as an overpriced parts-bin special, which, I must add, was damningly accurate. As a result, sales were very slow, and within the first few months, dealers were clearancing the car at cut-rate prices, just to keep them from taking up too much of the showroom floor. Why It's Not That Terrible, After All: I can speak from personal experience when discussing the Chrysler Crossfire. You see, I owned one. Well, sort of...

Jeep in St. Louis hacked from Pittsburgh

One of America's most popular vehicles contains a security flaw that allows hackers to remotely commandeer it from anywhere on the planet. Cyber-security researchers Chris Valasek and Charlie Miller say they've accessed critical vehicle controls on a 2014 Jeep Cherokee that allowed them to remotely control critical vehicle functions like braking, transmission function, and steering. Automakers have downplayed the possibility a car could be remotely compromised, but the significance of the findings detailed Tuesday could cause them to reevaluate the threats posed to hundreds of thousands of vehicles already on the road. A key finding – the pair needed no physical access to the Jeep to pull off the attack. Valasek and Miller accessed the controls via a security hole in the Sprint cellular connection to Chrysler's UConnect infotainment system. In the course of their research, Valasek sat in his Pittsburgh home and remotely manipulated Miller's Jeep as he drove along a highway outside St. Louis. If you know a car's IP address, they say, a hacker could control it from anywhere. "We didn't add anything, didn't touch it," Valasek told Autoblog. "A customer could drive one of these things off a lot, and they'd have no clue it had these open attack surfaces." Remotely, he disabled brakes, turned the radio volume up, engaged windshield wipers and tampered with the transmission. Further, they could conduct surveillance on the Jeep, measuring its speed and tracking its whereabouts. They conducted the experiments over multiple breaches. They made their findings public on the same day the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the federal agency in charge of vehicle safety, released its latest report on the readiness of government and automakers to fend off these sorts of cyber attacks. Later today, two US Senators are expected to introduce legislation that would help consumers better understand the potential risks of car hacking. In the early stages of their research, Valasek and Miller found a security flaw in the car's wi-fi that allowed them to remotely manipulate controls from a range of about three feet. But in recent months, they found another vulnerability in the Sprint cellular connection in the UConnect system. That was a key breakthrough. "Lo and behold, we found we could communicate with this thing using cellular, and then more research, and 'Holy cow,' we're using the Sprint network to communicate with these vehicles," Valasek said.

FCA US under-reported death and injury claims to NHTSA

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says FCA US significantly under-reported death and injury claims due to flaws in its early warning system. The government first discovered a potential problem with the automaker's reporting in late July, and FCA US has been investigating the issue since. NHTSA claims that the problem appears linked to the way the company gathers and reports safety information. The agency is still investigating how serious the flaws are and their causes. "This represents a significant failure to meet a manufacturer's safety responsibilities," NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind.Rosekind said in a statement. FCA US admits that it "identified deficiencies" in the reporting, but in a statement the company said that it notified NHTSA of the issue immediately. The company promised that it is taking this problem "extremely seriously" and pledged to remedy the situation. In late July, FCA US was hit with a potential $105-million fine by NHTSA for the way the automaker conducted some recalls. As part of that agreement, the company also consented to more rigorous oversight by safety regulators in the future and a buy-back of some affected vehicles. Other automakers have been punished for failing to submit EWR data. Honda incurred a $70 million fine in January from NHTSA for missing 1,729 incidents over 11 years. Ferrari had to pay $3.5 million in 2014 for not sending them in for three years. Statement from NHTSA Administrator, Mark Rosekind, on Fiat Chrysler Automobiles' under-reported discrepancy in FCA's Early Warning Report data September 29, 2015 "In late July, NHTSA notified Fiat Chrysler Automobiles of an apparent discrepancy in FCA's Early Warning Report data. FCA has informed NHTSA that in investigating that discrepancy, it has found significant under-reported notices and claims of deaths, injuries and other information required as part of the Early Warning Reporting system. Preliminary information suggests that this under-reporting is the result of a number of problems with FCA's systems for gathering and reporting EWR data. This represents a significant failure to meet a manufacturer's safety responsibilities. NHTSA will take appropriate action after gathering additional information on the scope and causes of this failure." – Mark Rosekind, NHTSA Administrator. Statement: TREAD Reporting September 29, 2015 , Auburn Hills, Mich.