2002 Chrysler Concorde Lx Sedan 4-door 2.7l No Reserve 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...

Harsh words from senators over Chrysler's delay in reporting hack

The federal agency charged with protecting American motorists wants to know more about how hackers remotely commandeered and controlled a Jeep Cherokee. Hours after Fiat Chrysler Automobiles recalled 1.4 million cars affected by a flaw in their cellular connections, officials with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said Friday they'll further probe the defect by conducting a formal recall query investigation. "Opening this investigation will allow NHTSA to better assess the effectiveness of the remedy proposed," the agency said in a written statement. The remedy works, said Chris Valasek, one of the researchers who first discovered the security flaw. After testing for the vulnerability again Friday, he wrote on Twitter: "Looks like I can't get to @0xcharlie's Jeep from my house via my phone. Good job FCA/Sprint!" From his Pittsburgh home, Valasek had previously accessed and controlled co-worker Charlie Miller's Jeep along a St. Louis highway. Researchers have demonstrated remote hacks before, but the scope and severity of the Jeep vulnerability was unprecedented. The recall for a cyber threat was the first of its kind. Although a software patch and changes made by cellular provider Sprint appeared to fix the problem, news of the exploit and Chrysler's response brought a fresh round of consternation on Capitol Hill, where federal lawmakers had already expressed concerns about automotive cyber security. The Jeep hack elevated their concerns to a new level. "Cyber threats in cars are real and urgent, no figment of the imagination, as this huge recall demonstrates," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT). "Incredibly, Chrysler delayed disclosing this chilling cyber-security danger egregiously and inexcusably, and strong sanctions are appropriate to send a message that other auto manufacturers will heed." Chrysler had known about the security gap since October, and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) wondered why it took the company so long to let customers know they were at risk. "Despite knowing about this security gap for nearly nine months, Chrysler is only now recalling 1.4 million vehicles to fix this vulnerability," he said. That's a potential pitfall for Chrysler, and something NHTSA will likely address in its investigation. Automakers are supposed to report safety-related defects to the agency within five days of discovery. But according to a chronology of events Chrysler submitted in its recall paperwork, it didn't inform NHTSA until July 15.

Fiat Chrysler will pay $70M to settle safety disclosure suit

FCA US will pay a $70 million civil penalty to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for failing to submit Early Warning Report data going back to 2003. The automaker will also provide any missing data since that time, and an auditor will monitor future compliance. NHTSA says the failures to report this information "stem from problems in FCA's electronic system for monitoring and reporting safety data, including improper coding and failure to account for changes in brand names." There are no allegations of any intentional deception by the automaker. NHTSA will wrap up the latest fine with the previous consent order against FCA US earlier this year for the automaker's handling of 23 recalls. The company will know owe the safety regulator a total of $140 million in cash, and there will be possibility of $35 million more in deferred penalties if FCA doesn't comply with the agency's requests. In a statement about the fine to Autoblog, FCA US said the automaker "accepts these penalties and is revising its processes to ensure regulatory compliance." The company strongly believes that it didn't miss any safety problems over the time with this problem. Early Warning Reports include information on deaths, injuries, crashes, and other potential safety concerns, and NHTSA often uses the data in investigations for possible recalls. In September, the safety agency first announced the automaker failed to submit these documents. At the time, the regulator's administrator Mark Rosekind promised to "take appropriate action after gathering additional information on the scope and causes of this failure." FCA US also released a statement then about the lapse and said the company notified NHTSA immediately after discovering the problem. FCA US is not the first company to run afoul of NHTSA's reporting requirement. The agency fined Triumph Motorcycles and Honda this year for similar lapses. It also punished Ferrari in 2014. U.S. DOT Fines Fiat Chrysler $70 million for Failure to Provide Early Warning Report Data to NHTSA WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has imposed a $70 million civil penalty on Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) for the auto manufacturer's failure to report legally required safety data. The penalty follows FCA's admission in September that it had failed, over several years, to provide Early Warning Report data to NHTSA as required by the TREAD Act of 2000.