Very Rare-1 Of 98-1971 Dodge Charger R/t-vcode-440-sixpack-air Grabber-automatic on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Dodge Dart falls short of Consumer Reports Recommended, Caddy XTS and Lincoln MKS, too

The Dodge Dart, Cadillac XTS and Lincoln MKS all failed to earn a "Recommended" rating from Consumer Reports. When it came to the compact Dart, the organization's testers thought the vehicle offered a quiet cabin, solid-feeling chassis and nimble suspension, but the new model ultimately fell short of the coveted rating due to powertrain issues. The institute's reviewers found the base 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine to be underpowered and noted "drivability issues" when the available turbocharged 1.4-liter four was paired with the optional dual-clutch transmission (some of our editors disliked it paired with the six-speed manual). CR also dinged the latter powerplant for sounding "raspy." For what it's worth, we think the forced-induction engine offers an excellent and playful exhaust note, but that's just us.
As for the XTS, CR lauded the car for its luxurious cabin, but the vehicle's experience was dulled by its finicky CUE infotainment interface. Overall, the big Cadillac scored much higher than its cross-town rival from Lincoln. While testers found the American luxury sedan to offer a quiet ride and quality fit and finish, they felt the MKS delivered a "cramped driving position, ungainly handling, uncomposed ride, and limited visibility." Ouch. At the end of the day, both cars fell short of rivals from Japan, Germany and Korea. Check out the full press release below with more details, along with CR's musings on the Chevrolet Spark and Lexus ES.

1979 Dodge Li'l Red Express in Generation Gap showdown with 1933 Ford Pickup

Auto enthusiasts love a good debate, whether it's Mustang versus Camaro or Ferrari against Lamborghini. But how about a battle between two very different vintages of classic pickup trucks? In this case, the fight is between a 1979 Dodge Li'l Red Express and a 1933 Ford Model 46 truck with a flathead V8.
The shootout comes courtesy of the internet series Generation Gap, and its concept is super-simple. One guy prefers classics, and the other likes newer rides. They choose a category, pick two vehicles and put them head to head. In this case, neither is exactly modern, though. The Ford is more than old enough to receive Social Security checks, and the Dodge is hardly a young whippersnapper.
Other than both being pickups, these two models were made to serve very different functions. The Li'l Red Express was basically the progenitor of today's muscle trucks, with a big V8 that made it one of the quickest new models in its day (admittedly, 1979 was a rough time for automotive performance). On the other hand, the '33 Ford was just meant to work, with little pretense for anything else. One of the hosts describes it as "the simplest, most difficult" vehicle he's driven because of the tricky double clutchwork necessary to shift gears. Scroll down to watch the video and try to decide which of these two American classics you would rather have in your garage.

Chrysler recalling 49K Chargers for headlight components

Chrysler has issued a recall for about 49,375 2011 and 2012 Dodge Chargers with halogen headlamps due to a problem with the lights. The automaker says that there could be an issue with the jumper harness and other related components.
The automaker says that 43,450 cars are affected in the US, 2,850 in Canada, 375 in Mexico and 2,700 outside of North America. The vehicles will have their headlight assemblies, including the jumper harnesses and bulbs, inspected and potentially replaced. Dodge says that its engineers investigated reports of that were similar to what was found when it recalled about 10,000 police Chargers in 2012 for overheating light components. There have been no injuries or accidents related to fault, according to Chrysler.
The automaker will be in contact with affected owners, and schedule the service. Naturally, any repairs will be free of charge. Scroll down for the company's full announcement.