2003 Chrysler Town & Country Limited Wheel Chair Accessible 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...

Automakers not currently promoting EVs are probably doomed

Okay, let's be honest. The sky isn't falling – gas prices are. In fact, some experts say that prices at the pump will remain depressed for the next decade. Consumers have flocked to SUVs and CUVs, reversing the upward trend in US fuel economy seen over the last several years. A sudden push into electric vehicles seems ridiculous when gas guzzlers are selling so well. Make hay while the sun shines, right? A quick glance at some facts and figures provides evidence that the automakers currently doubling down on internal combustion probably have some rocky years ahead of them. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles is a prime example of a volume manufacturer devoted to incremental gains for existing powertrains. Though FCA will kill off some of its more fuel-efficient models, part of its business plan involves replacing four- and five-speed transmissions with eight- and nine-speed units, yielding a fuel efficiency boost in the vicinity of ten percent over the next few years. Recent developments by battery startups have led some to suggest that efficiency and capacity could increase by over 100 percent in the same time. Research and development budgets paint a grim picture for old guard companies like Fiat Chrysler: In 2014, FCA spent about $1,026 per car sold on R&D, compared with about $24,783 per car sold for Tesla. To be fair, FCA can't be expected to match Tesla's efforts when its entry-level cars list for little more than half that much. But even more so than R&D, the area in which newcomers like Tesla have the industry licked is infrastructure. We often forget that our vehicles are mostly useless metal boxes without access to the network of fueling stations that keep them rolling. While EVs can always be plugged in at home, their proliferation depends on a similar network of charging stations that can allow for prolonged travel. Tesla already has 597 of its 480-volt Superchargers installed worldwide, and that figure will continue to rise. Porsche has also proposed a new 800-volt "Turbo Charging Station" to support the production version of its Mission E concept, and perhaps other VW Auto Group vehicles. As EVs grow in popularity, investment in these proprietary networks will pay off — who would buy a Chevy if the gas stations served only Ford owners? If anyone missed the importance of infrastructure, it's Toyota.

FCA earnings improve in first quarter

Following on the recent global financial releases from Ford and from General Motors for the first quarter of 2015, FCA is now putting out its own numbers, and things look quite good for the company. The automaker posted adjusted earnings before taxes and interest of $895 million, a 22-percent jump from Q1 2014, and net profits of $103 million, a $296-million boost from last year. Revenue was also up 19 percent to $30 billion. Despite the favorable figures, actual worldwide shipments fell slightly by 2 percent to 1.1 million vehicles. FCA is giving some credit for these strong Q1 results to the automaker's performance in the NAFTA region. Shipments grew 8 percent to 633,000 vehicles, and net revenue jumped a strong 38 percent to $18.1 billion. Adjusted earnings reached $672 million, compared to $425 million in 2014. The company especially praised the Jeep Renegade, Chrysler 200, and Ram 1500 for helping the bottom line. The numbers could have been even higher, but the corporation admitted that "higher warranty and recall costs" partially drug things down. For the full year in 2015, FCA expects to ship between 4.8 and 5 million vehicles worldwide and post up to $5 billion in adjusted earnings. There should be about $1.3 billion in net profit, as well. FCA CLOSED Q1 WITH NET REVENUES OF ˆ26.4 BILLION, UP 19% AND ADJUSTED EBIT AT ˆ800 MILLION, UP 22% 30/04/15 FCA closed Q1 with net revenues of ˆ26.4 billion, up 19% and adjusted EBIT at ˆ800 million, up 22%. Net industrial debt was ˆ8.6 billion, up ˆ0.9 billion. Full year guidance confirmed. Worldwide shipments were 1.1 million units, 2% lower than Q1 2014, reflecting strong performance in NAFTA and weak market conditions in LATAM. Jeep's positive performance continued with worldwide shipments up 11% and sales up 22%. Net revenues were up 19% to ˆ26.4 billion (+4% at constant exchange rates, or CER). Adjusted EBIT was ˆ800 million, up ˆ145 million from Q1 2014, with all segments except LATAM posting positive results. The positive impact of foreign exchange translation was offset by negative impacts at a transactional level. Net profit was ˆ92 million, up ˆ265 million compared to the net loss of ˆ173 million in Q1 2014. Net industrial debt was ˆ8.6 billion, up ˆ0.9 billion from year-end mainly due to timing of capital expenditures and working capital seasonality. Liquidity remained strong at ˆ25.2 billion. The Group confirms its full-year guidance.