2006 Chrysler Crossfire Power Driver Seat Alpine Audio Keyless Entry Power Top on 2040-cars

Auto blog

What's in a trademark? Sometimes, the next iconic car name

The United States Patent and Trademark Office is a treasure trove for auto enthusiasts, especially those who double as conspiracy theorists.
Why has Toyota applied to trademark "Supra," the name of one of its legendary sports cars, even though it hasn't sold one in the United States in 16 years? Why would General Motors continue to register "Chevelle" long after one of the most famous American muscle cars hit the end of the road? And what could Chrysler possibly do with the rights to "313," the area code for Detroit?

2015 Chrysler 200 looks to put Pentastar's cars back on track [w/videos]

It's fair to say that Chrysler Corporation has been on a major perception upswing with its new products, but that rise has largely been centered around its trucks and utility vehicles - the car side has been somewhat left out. The outgoing 200 (previously skinned as the Sebring) never garnered any laurels, the Dart has suffered a rather cool reception both critically and in terms of sales, the second-gen 300 is a nice car yet it hasn't sold as well as its predecessor, and even the mighty SRT Viper has had its V10 bark muted by the less costly and multi-talented Chevrolet Corvette Stingray. Resurgent Chrysler could use a hit car, and the 2015 200 may just be it.
It looks great here under the lights at the Detroit Auto Show.
For one thing, it looks great here under the lights at the Detroit Auto Show. Eschewing today's oversized headlamp and grille trend, the sleek 200 (with a coefficient of drag of just .27) displays a 'four-door coupe' sensibility with a sense of style that the old 200 with its gawky greenhouse and forced details never did. The new 200's exterior may look a bit like a greatest hits compendium of other high-style cars (see also: Audi A7, Tesla Model S, etc.), but it doesn't come off as a pastiche, it's all well-integrated and organic all the same.

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.