1962 Chrysler Newport on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Is it time for American carmakers to give up on dual-clutch transmissions? [w/poll]

Last week, in the midst of Detroit's first days seeking relief in Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code, Automotive News contributor Larry P. Vellequette penned an editorial suggesting that American car companies raise the white flag on dual clutch transmissions and give up on trying to persuade Americans to buy cars fitted with them. Why? Because, Vellequette says, like CVT transmissions, they "just don't sound right or feel right to American drivers." (Note: In the article, it's not clear if Vellequette is arguing against wet-clutch and dry-clutch DCTs or just dry-clutch DCTs, which is what Ford and Chrysler use.) The article goes on to state that Ford and Chrysler have experimented with DCTs and that both consumers and the automotive press haven't exactly given them glowing reviews, despite their quicker shifts and increased fuel efficiency potential compared to torque-converter automatic transmissions.
Autoblog staffers who weighed in on the relevance of DCTs in American cars generally disagreed with the blanket nature of Vellequette's statement that they don't sound or feel right, but admit that their lack of refinement compared to traditional automatics can be an issue for consumers. That's particularly true in workaday cars like the Ford Focus and Dodge Dart, both of which have come in for criticism in reviews and owner surveys. From where we sit, the higher-performance orientation of such transmissions doesn't always meld as well with the marching orders of everyday commuters (particularly if drivers haven't been educated as to the transmission's benefits and tradeoffs), and in models not fitted with paddle shifters, it's particularly hard for drivers to use a DCT to its best advantage.
Finally, we also note that DCT tuning is very much an evolving science. For instance, Autoblog editors who objected to dual-clutch tuning in the Dart have more recently found the technology agreeable in the Fiat 500L. Practice makes perfect - or at least more acceptable.

Question Of The Day: Most overlooked heroic engine?

All of us know that the small-block Chevrolet V8 was a masterpiece of engineering that made the high-performance overhead-valve V8 affordable to the masses, and that the Mercedes-Benz OM617 diesel is basically immortal, and that the Toyota R engine defined what it means for a vehicle to be considered Warlord Grade. The AMC straight-six. The Model T engine. The Volvo Redblock. Those engines get the respect they deserve. But what about the engines that we don't think much about, the ones that worked hard in their millions and somehow missed attaining legend status? The list of engines beloved by their aficionados but not thought of often by the rest of us goes on and on: the Renault Ventoux, Mitsubishi 4G1, MeMZ-968, and so on. But my vote goes to the Chrysler flathead straight-six. This engine was produced starting in 1929 and was still being made for stationary industrial use in the early 1970s. It powered just about every type of Chrysler vehicle made for decades, hauled supplies for all the major Allied armies in World War II, and was even developed into a five-bank, 30-cylinder tank engine. It was simple and reliable and outlived most of its competition, and you rarely hear much about it these days. What's your choice?

Court ruling to delay Fiat's Chrysler buyout?

We've already reported on the attempts of Fiat to purchase the remaining 41.5-percent stake in Chrysler, currently owned by the United Auto Workers' VEBA healthcare trust. And while the issues still aren't resolved, Fiat has received both a bit of good news and a bit of bad news from a Delaware judge.
The good news is that the court ruled in favor on two key arguments of Fiat's, relating to what is a fair price for the Chrysler shares. The rulings essentially slash half a billion dollars off the price of the 54,000 shares owned by VEBA, according to a report from Reuters.
The bad news is that this makes the UAW an even more difficult opponent in negotiations. Its VEBA fund is meant to cover ever escalating retiree healthcare costs, so naturally, the UAW wants to get as much money as possible. Losing a big chunk of cash isn't likely to make the union more cooperative.