2014 Chrysler Town & Country Touring 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.

Ferrari and FCA are officially separated

It's been a long time in the making, but it's officially happened: Ferrari is no longer part of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. Following the Italian automaker's initial public offering, it has officially split off from its former parent company. As part of the spin-off, FCA's stakeholders will each receive one common share in Ferrari for every ten they hold in Fiat Chrysler. Special voting shares will be distributed in the same proportions to certain shareholders as well. Those shares being distributed will account for 80 percent of the company's ownership. Another ten percent was floated as part of the company's IPO, while the remaining 10 percent is held by Enzo's son Piero Ferrari (pictured above at center), who serves as vice chairman of the company. The shares will continue to be traded under the ticker symbol RACE on the New York Stock Exchange, and will begin trading this week as well under the same symbol on the Mercato Telematico Azionario, part of the Borsa Italiana in Milan. Since the extended Agnelli family headed by chairman John Elkann (above, right) holds the largest stake in FCA, expect it to continue controlling the largest portion of Ferrari shares as well. Between them, nearly half of the shares in the supercar manufacturer – and we suspect a little more than half of the voting rights – will be controlled by the Agnelli and Ferrari families, who are expected to cooperate to ensure the remaining shareholders don't attempt a takeover of the company. Similar to its former parent company, which operates out of Turin and Detroit, the Ferrari NV holding company is nominally incorporated in the Netherlands, but the automaker will continue to base its operations in Maranello, Italy. That's where it's always been headquartered, on the outskirts of Modena. For the time being, Sergio Marchionne (above, left) remains both chairman of Ferrari and chief executive of FCA – a position to which he is not unaccustomed, having previously headed both Fiat and Chrysler before the two officially merged. Related Video: Separation of Ferrari from FCA Completed LONDON, January 3, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. ("FCA") (NYSE: FCAU / MTA: FCA) and Ferrari N.V. ("Ferrari") (NYSE/MTA: RACE) announced today that the separation of the Ferrari business from the FCA group was completed on January 3, 2016. FCA shareholders are entitled to receive one common share of Ferrari for every 10 FCA common shares held.

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...