2014 Sport New 2l I4 16v Automatic Fwd Suv on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Massachusetts man charged $48,000 for a tow [w/video]

Tow truck operators are right up there with landlords and IRS auditors on the list of professionals you don't want to deal with. A man in Massachusetts has all the more reason to avoid a tow after he was hit with a $48,000 bill, Fox 25 reports. Joel Ramer and his girlfriend were off-roading in Walpole, MA last week when they wandered were they shouldn't have. They landed in a mud pit on private property. Ramer said it took Assured Collision towing company 12 hours to free his vehicle from the muck. But when he got the bill for the tow, he thought the accounting department must have been off by a decimal. "When I went to pick up the vehicle from Assured Collision, he'd informed me there was some damage done to the vehicle, but didn't get into details. He also informed me the bill was $48,000," Ramer told Fox. "I thought they made a mistake." The phrase 'some damage' was putting it lightly. Ramer says Assured Collision totaled his Jeep. "Frame is broken, leaf spring is broken, drive shaft is broken," Ramer said. The itemized bill showed Ramer exactly what he was paying for. Assured Collision charged him $16,000 for an on-scene supervisor. That's $1,250 an hour. The Statewide Towing Association told Fox 25 that the actual industry standard is $175-$325 an hour. The company also claimed that power lines put them at risk, calling it a "hazmat situation." That allowed them to tack on another $5,000 fee for dangerous condition liability insurance. Finally, there was an extra $10,000 fee for an off-road recovery incident response unit. Insurance won't help with the cost of the tow, so Ramer's broke Jeep is in Assured Collision's hands. On top of the enormous bill and busted Jeep, Ramer was arrested and cited for trespassing on land owned by a utility company and disturbing the peace. Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston

Ram, Jeep redesigns on hold, Alfa Romeo models may come sooner

Last summer, FCA outlined an ambitious five-year plan that sketched out the company's product intentions for each of its brands through the end of 2018. However, even the best strategies sometimes need tweaking. According to Reuters after speaking with unnamed people at auto suppliers, FCA is now possibly delaying at least a dozen projects in North America for a variety of reasons. From vehicle to vehicle, these postponements allegedly last anywhere from just a few months to over a year. The sources from the suppliers claim that in some cases these tweaks are for engineering and design changes. The next-gen Ram 1500 reportedly has among the shorter delays and is being pushed from mid-2017 to November 2017, according to Reuters. Also, the much-discussed future Jeep Wrangler is allegedly moving a little later to July 2017. Among the vehicles purportedly seeing longer delays, the next-gen Grand Cherokee could get pushed back about a year to 2018. That then forces the launch of the three-row, luxury Grand Wagoneer to be even further away. Jeep's upcoming C-segment CUV and the all-new Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger, and Challenger might also see postponements. The one brand allegedly seeing an accelerated plan is Alfa Romeo. Without going into detail, the sources from these suppliers claim that the Italian automaker is getting even more vehicles for its lineup and could get them even faster than planned. "Those plans need to be flexible and fluid, with the potential to add some vehicles, pull some forward and extend the life cycle of others," FCA said to Reuters about all of these allegations. "We look at these programs on a vehicle-by-vehicle basis." Investment in the auto industry has been a major topic for FCA CEO Sergio Marchionne as of late. He believes consolidation is necessary so that companies aren't burning money on the same projects. Related Video: News Source: ReutersImage Credit: Bill Pugliano / Getty Images Plants/Manufacturing Alfa Romeo Chrysler Dodge Fiat Jeep RAM Sergio Marchionne FCA fca us

Ram and Jeep diesel emissions allegations spur class action lawsuits

This shouldn't come as a surprise. Last week, the EPA issued a notice of violation to FCA after it determined that Jeep and Ram installed eight undisclosed auxiliary emissions control devices on diesel vehicles. Since then US law firm Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC and Canadian firm Sotos LLP have launched class action suits on behalf of owners. These latest lawsuits are unrelated to a previous class action suit brought against FCA and Cummins over NOx emissions in 2007 to 2012 Ram models. The violation notice – and the subsequent lawsuits – covers 2014 to 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ram 1500 models equipped with the 3.0-liter turbodiesel V6, a total of about 104,000 vehicles in the US. The EPA says that while the emissions control devices aren't necessarily illegal, installing them without disclosing them to the EPA is, as they produce more emissions in real world use than in testing. Skirting certification in this way might be a violation of the Clean Air Act. FCA could see fines of up to $45,000 per vehicle, depending on the outcome of the EPA investigation. FCA denies that these are cheat devices, and has proposed software updates to bring the vehicles into compliance. As for the lawsuits, Heninger Garrison Davis says that "Fiat Chrysler marketed those vehicles as environmentally friendly with enhanced fuel efficiency, better performance, and lower emissions. Although the diesel vehicles were successfully marketed as 'clean,' their environmentally-friendly representations were deceptive to consumers." The suit seeks an undisclosed amount of compensation for owners of these vehicles. In Canada, Sotos LLP is seeking $250 million in damages on behalf of owners. This suit, filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, also claims deception on the part of FCA, "resulting in losses and damage" to owners. These are similar claims to group actions against Volkswagen with regard to its diesel emissions cheating scandal. While VW is fixing or buying back many of the affected vehicles, the company is defending itself against some suits on behalf of owners, saying it expects " no decline in the residual values of the affected vehicles as a result of this issue." Don't be surprised if FCA mounts a similar defense.