2002 Chrysler Pt Cruiser Base Wagon 4-door 2.4l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Jeep Cherokee faces on-sale delay

A report in The Wall Street Journal looks at some of the obstacles to the 2014 Jeep Cherokee that go beyond its mootable yet "very contemporary" looks, almost all of them based on Fiat's financial position. Starting with that sheetmetal, in defense of it SRT president Ralph Gilles and Jeep design head Mark Allen said they wanted to "make sure the design still looks modern five years from now."
The WSJ piece doesn't cite longevity as a factor, instead saying that its features originated in a design for an Alfa Romeo, the transformation into a Jeep design meant allowing Chrysler get it to market more quickly and save "hundreds of millions of dollars" in engineering.
The need for Fiat to save money while it weathers the European situation has cut budgets for development, engineering and the pace of retooling the Toledo, Ohio plant to build the Cherokee. In a familiar case of snowballing at work, among the effects will be pushing back the Cherokee's volume sales date and delaying updates to some of Chrysler's other products.

Audi gets Q2 and Q4 badges in trademark swap with FCA

Audi has swapped trademarks with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles to snare the rights to the Q2 and Q4 badges for upcoming crossover SUVs. Audi CEO Rupert Stadler confirmed at the Detroit Motor Show that the automaker had finally persuaded FCA to release the two names that would let Audi lock up the Q1 to Q9 badges for its growing SUV family. Audi already plans to drop the Q2 name onto its MQB-based city crossover five-door this year, while the Q4 badge will slot onto the rump of a coupe-like version of the next Q3. It will also reserve the Q1 badge for a 2018 baby crossover, based around the architecture of the next A1 hatch. The A1 will share a lot of its engineering with Volkswagen's Polo-based soft-roader, dubbed T-Cross in concept form. The German company has also pounced on the naming rights for SQ versions of all of its Q-cars, along with F-Tron to cover the day when it pushes hydrogen fuel cell cars into production. Stadler insisted that no money had changed hands in order to pry the two badges off FCA, admitting that they had "each found something we needed." "We promised each other we wouldn't disclose what it cost, but it was not something they were willing to sell," Stadler said. "We tried to get it years ago and they said 'No, never,' but there is never 'never' in business. ... This year I went back to them with a proposal and we talked and there were some negotiations and then we agreed to it." Those negotiations are believed to have centered on a trademark swap with a Volkswagen Group name that FCA desperately (evidently) wants to use on a Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Dodge or Maserati. Asked if Audi had given FCA a trademark in return for Q2 and Q4, Stadler replied, "Something very much like that, yes." Audi has used Italian names on past concept cars that FCA could be interested in, such as the 2001 Avantissimo concept and the 2003 Nuvolari coupe. The latter was named after legendary pre-war racer Tazio, who won grands prix for both Alfa Romeo and Audi's forerunner, Auto Union. Both are unlikely trade chips, with laws in Europe preventing the trademarking of the names of actual people. There is always "quattro" (Italian for "four"), but after investing nearly four decades locking it in as an Audi all-wheel-drive name, it's just not anything like trade bait.

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.