$2.99 gas from Chrysler—Deal or no deal?

Americans are feeling pain at the pump, with gas prices continuing to soar. To adjust to the challenges posed by the rising cost of living, consumers are putting off vehicle purchases or buying smaller cars instead of more profitable trucks and SUVs. As a result, automakers are experiencing decreased sales and profits.

One of the biggest losers: Chrysler. The company is trying to rebound from a disappointing April (sales were 23-percent below the same period last year) with its own economic stimulus plan: fixed-rate gasoline for new-car buyers. But is this really a good deal for the consumer?

Chrysler is not the first to use gasoline as an incentive, and it isn't the last, as Suzuki has stepped up to offer free gas for the summer along with zero-percent financing. Discounted or even free gas speaks to consumers' hearts and purse strings. On the surface, it may seem a pretty good deal, considering the national average is $3.61/gallon. But some Chrysler vehicles don't excel at fuel economy; Chrysler doesn't currently even offer a small hybrid or an efficient subcompact car in their fleet.

For now, let's forget about the environmental or energy independence concerns of burning more fuel. Given that (generous) assumption, is $2.99 gas enough to make up for Chrysler’s lackluster fleet fuel economy when it comes to ownership costs? As you might guess, it depends on how long you keep the vehicle:

The first three years
Given current gasoline prices of $3.61, you would need to buy a car with 21 percent better fuel economy than a Chrysler product to have equal fuel costs during the three years of discounted gas. That’s a big difference, but here are some examples (all fuel economy figures are from CR's tests, and are "overall"—mixture of city and highway driving—mpg):

Instead of this Chrysler:	You could buy this car and have lower fuel costs over three years, even without discounted gas.
Dodge Durango 5.7L, 4WD (13 mpg)	Toyota Highlander AWD (18 mpg) or Honda Pilot AWD (17 mpg)
Dodge Caliber SXT FWD (24 mpg)	Honda Fit (32 mpg)
Dodge Nitro SLT AWD (16 mpg)	Honda CR-V AWD (21 mpg) or Toyota RAV4 4-cyl., AWD (23 mpg)

Six years
But let’s say that you keep a car longer than three years. After that time’s up (whether you’ve consumed your allotted quota of discounted gas or not), you go back to paying the same fuel prices as everyone else. Here the difference lessens: you would need to buy a car with about 9.5 percent better fuel economy than the Chrysler product to equal things out.

Instead of this Chrysler:	You could buy this car and have lower fuel costs over six years, even without discounted gas.
Dodge Charger 3.5L V6 (19 mpg)	Toyota Avalon (22 mpg)
Dodge Caliber SXT FWD (24 mpg)	Nissan Versa (28 mpg)
Chrysler Pacifica AWD (16 mpg)	Toyota Highlander AWD (18 mpg)
Dodge Caravan 3.8L V6 (16 mpg)	Toyota Sienna (19 mpg) Honda Odyssey (19 mpg)

Ten years
The difference grows to be less and less—you only need to get a vehicle that gets about 5.5 percent better fuel economy.

Of course, these percentages will differ if gas prices keep on climbing. But after the three years of cheap gas are up, you could wind up having to pay to fill up a 13 mpg Dodge Durango or 16 mpg Dodge Nitro—and you'll then be paying just what everyone else is shelling out.

Beyond that, there are a lot of extenuating circumstances:

Chrysler restricts the number of gallons of gas covered by the deal to what they expect you to consume in 12,000 miles. (That’s the average annual number of miles driven in the U.S.) To do that, they use an average mpg figure for each model. That combines all of the model versions available: big engines and small engines, two-wheel drive and four-wheel drive.

If you combine that calculation method with the disparity between CR's fuel economy testing vs. the revised 2008 EPA overall estimates, you might not get all of your fuel covered:

Vehicle

CR overall fuel economy

Using CR overall, gallons used in 36,000 miles

Average MPG calculated by Chrysler

Gallons of fuel Chrysler will discount

Is annual fuel use covered?

Chrysler Sebring Touring (4-cyl.)	23	1,565	21	1,714	Yes
Dodge Charger (3.5L V6)	19	1,895	18	2,000	Yes
Dodge Caliber SXT (2.0L, FWD)	24	1,500	24	1,500	Yes
Dodge Nitro SLT (AWD)	16	2,250	18	2,000	No
Jeep Patriot AWD (2.4L 4-cyl.)	20	1,800	23	1,565	No
Dodge Durango 4WD (5.7L V8)	13	2,769	15	2,400	No
Chrysler Pacifica AWD	16	2,250	17	2,118	No
Dodge Ram 2500 (6.7L turbodiesel)	13	2,769	15	2,400	No
Dodge Grand Caravan (3.8L V6)	16	2,250	19	1,895	No

On the other hand, if you buy the more efficient version in a model lineup (say a four-cylinder Chrysler Sebring, when the average was calculated including V6 Sebrings), you can get more quota of free gas than you'd consume. (You can use that extra on another car that you own, assuming it takes the same fuel type.) Same goes if you drive more highway miles, where fuel economy is better. The gas deal reduces the amount of the cash-back incentives. Often the savings calculated above can make up for the difference in the incentives, but sometimes it doesn't—particularly for vehicles with big initial incentives.

Change in incentives

Cash-back without gas plan

Cash back with gas plan

Loss in incentive

Gallons of discount fuel

Fuel savings

At $3.61, do fuel savings exceed incentive loss?

Chrysler Sebring Touring	$500	0	$500	1,714	$1,083	Yes
Dodge Charger	2,000	$500	1,500	2,000	1,240	No
Dodge Caliber	750	0	750	1,500	930	Yes
Dodge Nitro	1,250	0	1,250	2,000	1,240	No
Jeep Patriot	500	0	500	1,565	970	Yes
Dodge Durango	2,500	1,000	1,500	2,400	1,488	No
Chrysler Pacifica	2,500	500	2,000	2,118	1,313	No
Dodge Ram 2500 diesel	4,500	2,000	2,500	2,400	2,784 @ $4.15 diesel	Yes
Dodge Grand Caravan	2,500	500	2,000	1,895	1,175	No

Keep in mind that cash-back is money instantly off of the price of the car. It reduces the loan price, thus reducing interest payments. Plus you know you’re getting the money—you don’t have to make sure you fit the rules of the discount gas deal.

On the other hand, the gas deal requires you to pay for gas with your credit card. That's no problem if you pay off your balance each month, but otherwise you’ll be paying interest on your purchases, eating into the savings. Same goes for if you would have paid cash for fuel rather than charging it as required by the deal.

One somewhat esoteric buyer category who can really benefit from this plan—someone buying a diesel heavy-duty pickup truck. Given that diesel prices are averaging $4.15 per gallon, fixing the price at the same $2.99 as gasoline is a big difference. And the Dodge Ram 2500 diesel we tested gets the same 13 mpg fuel economy as a Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra heavy-duty diesel. (Then again, the 2009 Ram truck is redesigned with notable improvements over the 2008, so you might want to wait anyway.) A diesel Grand Cherokee would also benefit, but the Dodge Sprinter van isn't included in the program.

Yes, you may save some money on gas, at least in the short term. But our owner cost data shows that, even with growing fuel costs, depreciation remains the biggest chunk of vehicle ownership costs. The competitors' vehicles listed in the chart have lower depreciation than their Chrysler counterparts, saving thousands over the life of the car and erasing the savings from the cheap gas deal. Also consider that, in general, vehicles sold with hefty discounts see more rapid depreciation than those that sell for closer to retail price. After all, it has essentially depreciated BEFORE you drove it off the lot, and it will continue to drop in value soon as it leaves the dealership. A model with better fuel economy (not to mention test scores and reliability) will likely hold its value better and be cheaper to refuel, possibly negating the benefit of the gas card.

Finally, you do more with a car than put gas in it—you drive it. You want it to be comfortable and perform well. Most of the Chrysler products listed (except the now-discontinued Pacifica) score near the bottom of our Ratings, while the competing cars listed score near the top.

It's interesting that in the same week that Chrysler announced this plan, Ford announced the widespread use of six-speed automatic transmissions to improve fuel economy. Most car companies, including Chrysler, are moving to technologies like this to improve efficiency.

Of course, Chrysler has to move its current inventory now. Discount gas is a way to promote their cars. But that doesn't mean you should be swayed by cheap(er) gas to buy a vehicle that gets so-so fuel economy, loses a lot of resale, or doesn't perform well in our Ratings. As with any car purchase, it pays to do your homework, looking at the complete purchase and ownership picture, and not be swayed by advertising.

—Tom Mutchler

For tips on saving gasoline and alternative fuels, see our fuel economy guide. 

Pressing matters - Toyota wasn’t alone in receiving government assistance

The automotive press was abuzz earlier this month as corporations flung around statements related to the development of hybrid vehicles, suggesting Toyota may have received an unfair advantage by receiving government funding for research and development. However, Toyota isn’t the only automaker to receive government assistance. More than a decade ago, American tax dollars supported an auto industry initiative to develop a marked advance focused on developing a marketable, 80-mpg family car.

This conflict flared up recently after Business Week magazine published a quote from Jim Press, former president of Toyota’s U.S. division: “The Japanese government paid for 100 percent of the development of the battery and hybrid system that went into the Toyota Prius.” In September 2007, Press left Toyota to become Chrysler’s vice chairman and president.

While Press’s statement may not sound earth shaking, the news rocked Detroit. The impression left is that Toyota received an unfair advantage (i.e., government support), when some captains of the American car industry have long justified their delay, both on and off the record, in developing hybrids by claiming that such complex vehicles can’t make money due to huge development costs. They may be right. Even if the Japanese government did help pay for the development of the Prius, that doesn’t necessarily make it profitable. (Jim Press is shown here at  the 2001 New York International Auto Show with first-generation Prius prepped for the transit authority.)

There is some dispute about the veracity or the details of Press’s claim. Toyota has refuted it. Chrysler has clarified the statements in a media-focused blog with “He said the Japanese government strongly supported R & D (research and development) investment in battery development, and the Prius and other Japanese models benefited from that investment in industry.” Yet, in testimony in 2007, Press told Congress that the Japanese government did not pay for any Prius research and development.

Whatever the truth may be, all the attention this story has generated may have left a false impression in readers’ minds. It implies that if only the U.S. government supported Detroit the way the Japanese government does Toyota, Detroit might not have lost the race to develop efficient, advanced hybrid cars.

A quick history lesson debunks this myth:

From 1993 to 2000, the United States did spend about $1.2 billion helping the American auto industry develop hybrids just like the Prius. The program was called the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV). It was a joint effort between the Department of Energy, national laboratories, universities, and the Big 3 U.S. automakers (through a research consortium called USCAR). The goal was for each of the automakers to build a prototype family sedan that could achieve 80 mpg and cost no more than a similar conventional car.

Chrysler, Ford, and GM each produced prototypes that got at least 70 mpg: the Chrysler ESX3, Ford Prodigy, and General Motors Precept. All three were diesel-electric hybrids. But none of the companies have built such cars, as the original program mandate had envisioned, after PNGV was replaced by the fuel-cell focused FreedomCAR initiative in 2003.

According to a 2002 article in Issues magazine by Daniel Sperling, founding director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California at Davis and a member of the California’s Air Resources Board (commonly known as CARB), the PNGV had one other lasting effect: The prospect of the world’s richest country teaming with some of the world’s (then) largest automakers spurred Japan and Europe to develop similar task forces: the European Car of Tomorrow Task Force and the Japan Clean Air Program.

And unlike the U.S. companies, the fruits of Toyota’s participation in those efforts are visible on our roads every day.

—Eric Evarts

Discuss Hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles in the CR forums.

Midsized sedan crash tests - front, side looking good

In the latest crash tests from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), all seven midsized sedans provide good frontal crash protection and six provide good side-impact protection. However, results for the rear tests were mixed, with only the Kia Optima earning a good rating. With its latest report, the Institute notes that there has been a marked improvement in side-crash performance for midsized sedans, but it appears more can be done to protect passengers from possible whiplash injuries from rear-end collisions.

As we wrote in "Many cars don't protect against whiplash injuries": "A rear-end crash occurs every 17 seconds in the U.S. But a surprising number of vehicles offer inadequate protection from the whiplash injuries that can result, according to crash-test data and our own analysis."

This is again proven true with the latest test results from the IIHS, in which five of the seven vehicles tested earned marginal or poor ratings for rear-crash protection. Because rear crashes are rarely fatal, and the IIHS rear tests relatively new, Consumer Reports does not currently use them as a prerequisite for recommending a vehicle.

The good news with this test group is that vehicles are indeed improving, with better designs and increased safety equipment enabling them to more effectively protect occupants in the high-risk front and side collisions. As always, do check safety ratings before making a vehicle purchase. 

Midsized sedans
The April crash-test group from IIHS is listed below in rank order, with the specific air bag configuration tested and applicable model years listed. See how these vehicles perform in the crash test videos.

Dodge Avenger / Chrysler Sebring
Front - Good; Side - Good; Rear - Acceptable
With front and rear head-curtain air bags and front torso air bags.
Front, side, and rear: 2008 Avenger, 2007-2008 Sebring

Infiniti G35
Front - Good; Side - Good; Rear - Marginal
With front and rear head-curtain air bags and front torso air bags.
Front, side, and rear: 2007-2008 models

Nissan Altima
Front - Good; Side - Good; Rear - Marginal
With front and rear head-curtain air bags and front torso air bags.
Front, side, and rear: 2007-2008 models

Chevrolet Malibu
Front - Good; Side - Good; Rear - Marginal
With front and rear head-curtain air bags and front torso air bags.
Front and rear: 2008 models. Side: 2008 models built after February 2008.

Saturn Aura
Front - Good; Side - Good; Rear - Marginal
With front and rear head-curtain air bags and front torso air bags.
Front, side, and rear: 2007-2008 models

Mitsubishi Galant
Front - Good; Side - Good; Rear - Poor
With front and rear head-curtain air bags and front torso air bags.
Front and rear: 2004-2008 models. Side: 2007-2008 models.

Kia Optima
Front - Good; Side - Acceptable; Rear - Good
With front and rear head-curtain air bags and front torso air bags.
Front and rear: 2006-2008 models. Built after September 2005.
Side: 2006-2008 models. Built after June 2006.

See how these sedans and more than 200 other models perform in the crash test videos.

—Jeff Bartlett

Learning from the K-cars

This year, as gas prices head for $4 a gallon in New York, it seems like every Japanese carmaker is showing a tiny micro-car at the Javits center. Most look kind of like an egg sitting on a roller skate. They have room for two, or a very cozy four passengers. They are powered by gas engines of up to a motorcycle-sized 660 cc. Or, in many cases they dispense with a gas engine altogether and run on electric power.

More than a mere novelty, these tiny cars can be instructive. These automakers are building them to meet a market demand in Japan, where they are subject to only one-fifth the tax burden of other cars. Still, in Japan's compact cities, car buyers are demanding electric cars. The government doesn't mandate them, and the electric versions are subject to the same tax burden as the gas-powered models, but the drive is there.

In Japan, these tiny models are referred to as Kei-cars, or keijidosha, which literally means "light automobile."

Americans will remember a different type of K-car. As I was walking across town Tuesday night, I passed an immaculately kept Dodge Aries wagon from the 1980s—a rare site anywhere today, much less in Manhattan. It was surprising how small the Aries looked compared with the modern Toyota Camrys and Volkswagen Jettas surrounding it. Not nearly as small as the Japanese Kei-cars, however.

On the surface, the Kei cars look much more interesting and promising than the K-car. Now, more than ever, size matters. And these models show that people can get by with less vehicle.

—Eric Evarts

See the 2008 New York auto show coverage.

New York auto show - Random thoughts

The keynote speaker for this morning's breakfast was Bob Nardelli, President and CEO of Chrysler. In his introduction, it was said that he knew the company's products well, since he used to own a PT Cruiser, Prowler, and a Jeep. No word as to whether or not he used Stanley hammers or DeWalt drills when he headed Home Depot.

Everything seems to be moving at the speed of sound these days. Decisions, according to Mr. Nardelli, are made at Chrysler with either a "quick yes or a quick no, but no more slow maybes." Acura, too, is coming up to speed as they touted the expression "say no to slow." Judging by the rather dull appearance of its redesigned TSX, I don't think the company will get a "say yes to best dressed" anytime soon.

With all the talk about going "green" I still find it curious that Mercedes calls its cleaner diesel engines "BlueTec." Why not go "GreenTec"?

It's amazing to me that "adults" have to be reminded to turn down the ringers on their cell phones before the start of a press conference.

The rear styling of the Saturn Flextreme concept is revising the look of the 1963 Chevrolet Corvette split-window. Nope, can't see out of the back of this one, either.

Toyota is really taking the "green" theme seriously. It has signs posted all over its display saying, "The fabric panels and overhead canopies in the Toyota display are made from post-industrial and post-consumer content using non-toxic inks." Hmmm. The company must be trying to ease its guilt or counter-balance the Land Cruisers, Sequoias, and Tundras it has on display.

My colleague Jake Fisher made this pronouncement: the new Acura TSX is said to be wider and longer but sporty and agile, and the new Nissan Maxima is claimed to be smaller but sporty and agile. That, naturally, reminded me of a commercial for the AMC Pacer which claimed that its wide stance helped give it a stable ride. It also could also be counted on to help you make a mean sandwich.   

—Mike Quincy

See the 2008 New York auto show coverage.

Inside scoop - Chrysler to focus on improving interiors

Chrysler recently invited members of the press to a Manhattan showing of the new 2009 Dodge Ram pickup and Journey crossover SUV, providing insight to the common company weakness--interiors--and what the future holds for its production cabins.

Chrysler executives speaking included Klauss Busse, Chief Designer for Jeep and Truck Interiors, and Mike Accavitti, Director of Global Marketing for Dodge and its SRT high-performance arm. The presentation began with Mr. Accavitti giving an overview of the new Ram. He then turned things over to Mr. Busse, who spent a good deal of time explaining improvements to the pickup's interior (left). The Ram is the first graduate of Chrysler's Advance Interior and Component Design studio, whose mission is to improve the look and feel of the company's interiors.

If production models remain true to the pre-release Ram we saw, the truck's interior could be a more pleasant place to spend time in than the inside of any Chrysler product in recent memory. Padded surfaces cover the door panels and dash, which also features stitching that is real rather than molded in. Rubberized switchgear feels and looks upscale, panel fits are improved, and all materials appear to be of a much higher quality than we've seen lately from Chrysler. The high-end model on display even had a heated steering wheel - said to be a segment first.

All this made the Journey presentation somewhat disappointing, especially when we peeked inside (left). And this time, a discussion of the quality of the interior was not part of the show. Having seen and sat in it, I can see why. While it looks like Chrysler spent a few more bucks on the inside of the top-of-the-line Journey R/T on display than on recent CR test models including the Dodge Avenger, Caliber, Nitro, and Jeep Patriot and Compass, it wasn't anywhere near as nice as the pickup —or as those found in some competing models. When we asked if some of the bits and design cues from the truck might find their way into Chrysler's car lineup soon, Accavatti assured us Chrysler management knows something needs to be done.

"The first step is realizing and admitting you have a problem," Accavatti said. He went on to say that specific complaints including hard plastics, and what he called a "stark" look, would be addressed across the board soon.

Let's hope he's right. While Chrysler vehicles have drawn criticism for their interiors of late, our testing has also revealed some other issues, including coarse powertrains and suspensions that seem noisy and not fully sorted out. Reliability has also been an issue. Among other things, we think the company should focus on the surfaces where people sit, and those that they touch and look at, is as good a place to start making improvements as any.

Plans call for redoing the Jeep Compass and Patriot first, with the updates due to showrooms by the end of calendar '08. New interiors for other models will follow. We look forward to seeing the results.

—Jim Travers

Also read: "Chrysler threatens to pull plastic plug on "Playskool" interiors." For insights on another Journey, view and listen to their discography.

American Top Picks 2008

It’s time again for the annual American Top Picks list. While we don’t consider country of origin as a factor in our Ratings for our primary Top Picks list, the piles of mail (snail and e-mail) we get leave us no doubt that many people factor “buying American” into their decision. So, for those folks, this list looks at what domestic-branded cars are the best choices out there.

It would be a relatively simple matter to compile this list if Top Picks were merely the highest-scoring car in each group. But to be a Top Pick, a car has to have performed well in our testing, be relatively trouble-free to own, and safe, too. Here are the other criteria to determining a Top Pick:

We need to have reliability data for the car, and that data must show at least average or better reliability.

Stability control must be readily available.

If crash tested, the results have to be decent.

These criteria wind up knocking some very good cars—particularly some recent GM products—out of contention from our American Top Picks list. To illustrate, here’s the list of the top-rated domestic-branded car in each class next to the one that meets all of the criteria:

Category

Top-scoring American car

American Top Pick

Small sedan	None recommended	None
Family sedan	Chevrolet Malibu LTZ V6	Ford Taurus
Upscale sedan	Cadillac CTS	Buick Lucerne CXS
Luxury sedan	Cadillac STS	Cadillac STS
Small SUV	Saturn Vue XR	None
Midsized SUV	Saturn Outlook XR GMC Acadia SLT2 Ford Taurus X	Saturn Outlook XR GMC Acadia SLT2 Ford Taurus X
Minivan	Chrysler Town and Country	None
Pickup truck	Chevrolet Avalanche	Chevrolet Silverado
Fun to drive	Chevrolet Corvette Z06	None
Green car	None tested	None

Let’s look at each class in detail, except luxury sedan, which doesn’t need further explanation:

Small sedan: Not many choices here. Although the Ford Focus has scored quite well in the past (it was a Top Pick as late as 2005), we haven’t tested the freshened 2008 model. The underwhelming Chevrolet Cobalt scores too low to be recommended.

Family sedan: The new Malibu is a very impressive car, but we don’t have reliability data on this redesign. (Data on other vehicles on its Epsilon platform ranges from below-average to above-average reliability.) The fun-to-drive Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan lacks ESC, so it’s out of the running—hence the Taurus.

Upscale sedan: The CTS is a very impressive car, but we don’t have reliability data yet for this version. The Lincoln MKZ lacks ESC. That takes us to the Buick Lucerne CXS V8.

Small SUV: The Saturn Vue XR isn’t a stand-out, but it does score the highest of any tested small domestic-branded SUV. However, we don’t have reliability data on the new Vue. Beyond that, no small domestic SUV—Chevrolet Equinox/Pontiac Torrent, Jeep Compass/Patriot, Ford Escape/Mercury Mariner—scores high enough to be recommended.

Midsized SUV: There isn’t a lack of good recommended vehicles in this category; it’s a matter of picking, literally, which one fits. The Outlook/Acadia straddle the midsized and large category. The Taurus X is also accommodating inside.

Minivan: There’s only really one game in the domestic town: the Chrysler Town and Country/Dodge Caravan. (The outdated Chevrolet Uplander goes away next year.) While the Chrysler minivans used to score near the top of their class, this redesign is mediocre. We don’t have reliability data for the redesign.

Pickup truck: The Avalanche outscores all pickups in our Ratings, including the Toyota Tundra. But it hasn’t been reliable. Unlike the Tundra, first year reliability of the Silverado has been average, so it made our Top Picks list.

Fun to drive: The Corvette Z06 is an awesome car, but Corvette reliability is well-below average. The CTS could also qualify here, but again, no reliability data. Going down the list, the Mustang GT lacks ESC; we don’t have reliability data on the Dodge Viper; and the Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky have subpar reliability. The Dodge Charger R/T V8 is reliable and fast, but its overly light steering feel keeps it from being truly fun to drive.

Green car: Not many domestics qualify here. We haven’t tested the latest Ford Escape Hybrid, but since it lacks ESC, it wouldn’t qualify for the list anyhow. We also haven’t tested latecomers to the hybrid market like the Saturn Aura Greenline, the redesigned Saturn Vue Greenline, or the Chevrolet Malibu hybrid. GM’s “light-hybrid” system does improve mileage, but it’s not on par with full-hybrid systems found on the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid. Next year brings full-hybrid versions of the Vue and Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan.

To sum up:

Some recent GM models are extremely impressive, and they would make fine choices—if reliability works out.

Ford needs to get ESC on their mainstream family cars. (We’re told 2009 should bring increased ESC availability.)

Chrysler and Ford really aren’t competitive in the upscale and luxury sedan segments—especially against a resurgent Cadillac.

The domestics are lagging behind in the small sedan and minivan segments, fields where they used to be more competitive.

While the domestics are starting to roll out more hybrid sedans and SUVs, they still lack a high-mileage small “green” car.

See our true list of overall Top Picks for 2008. See the Top Picks videos.

—Tom Mutchler

Wintertime of our convertible discontent

We're working on a test group of four-seater convertibles for the May issue, just in time for the start of top-down season here in the Northeast.  But we're driving the cars around now, and it's gray, dreary, and cold outside. And on this particular day, it's raining hard enough to make Noah consider taking the Ark out of retirement. (Unlike other magazines or Web sites, we don't jet off to some sunny place with a fleet of borrowed ragtops to write a story.)

Then again, most of the cars in this group have folding hardtops. Part of the spin surrounding these complicated convertibles is that hardtops provide better interior isolation from noise and harsh weather. So despite the winter doom and gloom, we should be as happy as (hard-shell) clams, right?

Maybe not. Things started badly, right from when we picked up our Pontiac G6 GT at the dealer. The salesman took care to demonstrate the luggage blind; like most modern convertibles, you need to have a sliding cover in place in the trunk before the car allows you to fold the power top. This reduces trunk space, but it also prevents you from crushing your luggage with the top, or the top with your luggage. He lifted up the trunk lid, stuck his arm in to show how the blind worked - and then the heavy deck lid closed down on his arm. Seems our deck lid couldn't keep itself up. (We eventually got that fixed. And the salesman's arm was fine.)

Then the noises settled in. When it was cold, multiple noises and creaks came from the hardtop. Our G6 wasn't the only convertible in the fleet to do this; loud, nearly-continuous creaks came from the interface between the roof and windshield header in our hardtop Chrysler Sebring Limited convertible, as well. That's assuming you can hear them over the wind noise, suspension groans, or the luggage blind rattling around in the trunk. One logbook comment says that the Sebring is "noisier than a pickup truck loaded with plastic pipe."

The Sebring had another annoying problem. Like some other coupes, the power windows drop about an inch when you open the door. This lets cabin air out as you slam the big door, making it easier to shut the frameless glass against the weather stripping. But the windows developed a mind of their own - or maybe just plain lost it. Sometimes the window wouldn't automatically go all the way up. Other times the window seemed to freeze in place, so you had to slam the door to get it to close fully. Slamming the window across the weather stripping makes a sound like something is going to break. And once when parked and running, all four windows dropped about 3 inches on their own, as if the top was about to lower on its own.

So, are hardtops where it's at, modern convertible-speaking? One big plus: they do allow designers to put in larger rear windows. Our soft-top Mitsubishi Eclipse convertible is at the opposite extreme. The Eclipse's rear window is a narrow slit. Even backing it out of my narrow garage is scary and almost requires a seeing-eye dog to pull off this mundane task.

Like many things in the automotive world, how well a technology works depends on its execution. The Jaguar XK convertible we tested had a soft top that was nearly as quiet as some coupes. Our Saab 9-3 2.0T soft-top convertible isn't particularly noisy, and it has a decent sized rear window.

One last thought: even though it makes a car more desirable to rent during a Florida vacation, turning a crummy sedan into a crummy convertible doesn't make it better. 

Would someone please order a batch of warm, sunny weather? Soon. Life is too short to have a bunch of convertibles in the garage and lousy weather overhead. Especially when top-up is when they are least enjoyable.

—Tom Mutchler 

Chrysler threatens to pull plastic plug on “Playskool” interiors

Last week, the bankruptcy news of an auto parts supplier in Dearborn, Michigan, may have a direct impact on consumers. And it reveals some insight into what goes into the parts of the car that owners see and touch every day.

Plastech Engineered Products makes interior components for Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors vehicles. About a week ago, Plastech declared bankruptcy amidst a dispute with Chrysler, as widely reported. As a result, Plastech stopped supplying Chrysler interior components, causing the automaker to run short of parts and shut down four factories temporarily, with the potential to close many more.

The standoff didn’t last for long before a temporary agreement could be reached and production resumed. According to the trade paper Automotive News, the new arrangement will “allow the automaker to resume production at four idled plants and avoid shutdown of all its assembly operations.” Plastech has secured a line of credit to keep operations running for the time being.

Chrysler’s initial announcement of the four plant closings gives us an idea what cars have critical interior parts built by Plastech:
• The Belvidere, Ill., factory builds the Dodge Caliber, Jeep Compass, and Jeep Patriot SUVs.
• Newark, Delaware builds the Chrysler Aspen and Dodge Durango SUVs.
• Sterling Heights, Michigan, builds the Chrysler Sebring and Dodge Avenger.
• The Dodge Nitro, Jeep Liberty, and Jeep Wrangler are built in Toledo, Ohio.

Consumer Reports has tested the Caliber, Compass, Patriot, Durango, Sebring (three of them), Avenger, Nitro, and Wrangler, and we are currently testing a Jeep Liberty.

When we tested the Nitro, we said its interior “looks cheap, with hard plastics, rough-finished components, large gaps, and loose pieces.” Likewise the Patriot, we said, “is full of cheap plastics, some of which are poorly finished.” We said the Sebring’s interior, “looks cheap and insubstantial.”

All these vehicles came in for similar harsh criticism. (Of course, suppliers like Plastech build components to manufacturer specs.) Some automotive writers have referred to this generation of Chrysler interiors as looking like they come from Playskool toys. One of our engineers likened driving the Compass to “sitting in an Igloo ice chest.”

Last year Chrysler announced it would create a new “advanced” interior design studio to focus on building better interiors. The first product of that effort, according to the company, is the new Dodge Ram pickup displayed at the Detroit Auto Show. It certainly had the highest initial quality interior we’ve seen on a new Chrysler design in a long time.

The particulars in this dispute remain a bit unclear. If Plastech had collapsed, many people would have been in trouble. The same Automotive News article mentioned that the company “owns more than 35 plants in North America and generated $1.4 billion in sales last year, [and] employs 7,700 people.”

In the end, we hope future Chrysler products will offer consumers more comfortable, better-finished interiors. (In theory, that could be good for everyone’s business.) The 2009 Ram has us optimistic. Just hope more jobs aren’t lost, or threatened, in the process.

—Eric Evarts

Edited 2/12/08

Three-row SUV tests and videos

For our test group in the January 2008 issue we drove 3-row SUVs. These vehicles, designed to fit seven or eight passengers, have become the popular choice among families. They also come with all-wheel-drive.

The full road tests from the magazine have been posted at ConsumerReports.org, along with videos from our auto staff experts. These videos highlight our tests of each vehicle, plus they demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of each model.

"People movers" features the Buick Enclave, Ford Taurus X, Subaru Tribeca, and Toyota Highlander. Watch the videos.

We also look at the redesigned Chrysler minivans—the Chrysler Town & Country and Dodge Grand Caravan.

—Liza Barth

Claim check: Chrysler Town & Country, the Jenga mobile

Sometimes car advertising is a literal balancing act. Decades ago Lincoln showed a diamond cutter performing his craft in the back seat. More recently, Lexus famously balanced a pyramid of champagne glasses on the hood of a running (but not moving) LS.

Now Chrysler shows kids playing Jenga in the back of a Town & Country minivan to advertise its "smooth ride" and flexibility of the Swivel n' Go seating. But can you really play Jenga in a moving minivan? Off to the Consumer Reports test track to find out!

--Tom “The Driver” Mutchler

You are what you drive

Cars are like clothing. They make you feel a certain way when you are in them and convey an image to the world. To many, they are an extension of who you are—whether it’s fashionable or not. Driving a big truck or beat-up old car could be the equivalent to wearing sweat pants and T-shirt, whereas driving a fancy luxury vehicle feels like you should be wearing a tux or evening gown. Of course, people buy cars with function in mind, but we all like to look good while doing our chores.

Recently, I started the conscious exercise of considering how I feel when I’m driving each Consumer Reports test car. In my Walter Mitty psychological experiment, I take on a different personality, whether it’s confidence, a feeling of importance, or a bit of shame or embarrassment if I’m driving a gas-guzzling machine.

We recently tested luxury vehicles costing upwards of $50,000, plus two ultra-luxury vehicles that topped out at just over $90,000. As I got into this premium sedan, a feeling of confidence came over me. The ride was quite smooth, like I was gliding over the road. The seats cradled me in comfort. I felt very fancy—like a wealthy executive. This car definitely attracts attention. I noticed other drivers checking me out, probably to see who was driving such an expensive car. After a while I felt uneasy with my newfound status, interrupting my mobile method acting. No surprise the S-Class could call me out, since my normal commuting car is a low-profile, 10-year-old sedan.

When we tested pickup trucks, I received different stares from drivers. While driving the Toyota Tundra, other motorists weren’t checking me out the same way as when I drove the Mercedes. The curious looks revealed more confusion or possibly amusement. Perhaps I looked a little out of my element in the pickup. Drivers probably noticed my uneasiness maneuvering the monstrous truck. I felt like the towering Wizard of Oz looking over his subjects (only to find out in the end I wasn’t so big and powerful after all). I got a good laugh when I not-so gracefully had to get in and out in a skirt. In a time when there is so much talk about fuel efficiency, I was a bit uncomfortable commuting in a vehicle that wastes so much gas (especially since I clearly wasn’t using it for what it was made to do—haul stuff).

When I drove the Chrysler minivans recently, I felt an uncontrollable urge to yell “quiet down back there” even though there were no passengers with me. The “soccer mom” persona was overwhelming.

Whatever the model you drive, it conveys your personality and perhaps even shapes it. Cars also convey status, suggesting wealth, importance, or a practical nature. I’ll explore automotive status symbols in a future post, once I shake the budget-minded, active-lifestyle persona from the December-issue small SUVs test.

—Liza Barth

Final Thoughts: Chrysler Sebring

FOR SALE: 2007 Chrysler Sebring Touring V6. Silver/gray cloth. One careful owner with 30 different drivers. Not garaged much. Only 4,941 miles. (Not exactly a hot pick from our lot.) Starts reliably since we had a wiring problem fixed, but the wire harness still hangs under dashboard, ready to be kicked by left foot. Radio mysteriously didn't work once. Seats with bowling-ball-like lower back support reminiscent of "posture-correcting" school chairs. So-so handling and ride control. Few high points include stability control, satellite radio (when it works), and heated cloth seats.

Buyer will miss out on minor '08 tweaks to slightly improve some complaints. Good for pretending you have a rental car company. (63 percent of Sebrings sell to fleets, according to Fleet Central.)

Considering the bath we took when we traded in our four-cylinder Sebring, we're not expecting much money for this one. After all, even after the strike, Chrysler has so many Sebrings and Dodge Avengers in inventory that they shut down the Sterling Heights Assembly factory for days to allow supply to dwindle to meet demand, according to The Detroit News (see the sidebar at the link).

$17,000 or best offer. Buyer beware.

—Tom Mutchler

SEMA - If you build it, they will come. Maybe.

The SEMA show is a great place to go if you like retro, repro, retro mods, muscle cars, or even retro repro muscle cars. The place is full of variations on the theme, along with parts suppliers and restoration shops catering to what continues to be a robust business. That is, it must be growing judging by the amount of square footage allocated to them.

Need a '55 Chevy body shell? No problem. If you'd like to build a brand-new one, most of the parts are available. Certain old pickup truck bodies and other models are also available, and more reborn oldies are coming on the market all the time. As CR auto engineer Tom Mutchler recently blogged, there's a company making new 1967 Ford Mustang fastback body shells. The choice is yours whether you want to go with a period powertrain, suspension, brakes and interior, or upgrade to modern components. Examples of both are on display here in Vegas.

Other companies get even more creative. Plymouth never made a 1968 GTX station wagon back in the muscle car glory days. But there's one on the show floor, complete with bucket seats, center console, and giant hood scoop covering a 440 six-pack (meaning 440 cubic-inches of Detroit V8 and three two-barrel carburetors for you young'uns), just like was offered in the '68 GTX 2-door hardtop. Even though Plymouth never made one, this mix of new and old parts makes for a memorable rolling advertisement for the suspension component company displaying it. Part of me thinks this GTX is kind of cool, but then I've always liked station wagons. Still, somehow, I doubt the market will require them to build too many more. "Sounds like my kind of wagon," says my colleague Mike Quincy, who has 2 kids, a house in the suburbs... the whole nightmare. Sometimes it puts a grin on one's face to drive something that can haul more than just the family...

--Jim Travers

Discuss SEMA in our Auto Show and Aftermarket forums.

Too many questions in the world of autos

As I sit in the American Airlines terminal of Bradley International airport, waiting out a five-hour delay en route to the Texas Truck Rodeo, I have some time on my hands to ponder all things automotive.

Reflecting back on a busy week driving different cars, some questions come to mind:

• Why does a $19,000 Volkswagen Rabbit have a clock that's easier to adjust than a $50,000 BMW?
• Why does our new Subaru Impreza WRX (complete with a wicked-fast 224-hp turbocharged engine) not come with a trip computer but instead only gives you an "average MPG" readout? I can understand the manufacturer wanting to save the cost of a real trip computer, but I can't imagine anyone buying a car like the WRX is overly obsessed with fuel economy. I'd be more worried about how much fuel range is left after frequently dipping into that power. It seems like a strange decision.
• Why does Mercedes think its cars should be smarter than me? When I drive the S-Class, I really like the cooled seats and I've (finally) come to master many of the car's complex controls. However, when I've got the seats blowing cool air all over my back, and the trip computer giving me the "distance to empty" readout, I want these settings to still be the default when I turn the car on again. Why do the engineers insist on turning everything off rather than leaving it the way I left it?
• Why does the base, $23,000 Volvo C30 not come with standard cruise control? Even the most basic Hyundai Sonata comes with this feature.
• I often used our Ford F-250 heavy-duty pickup truck this summer and actually utilized the truck for what it was designed for--serious work chores. But why would anyone drive this rig everyday and put up with the harsh ride, incredible noise and rotten fuel economy (10 mpg, overall, in our tests) if the bed and hauling capacities weren't being used? I appreciate the irony that I'm about to board a plane to the heart of truck country, but are there really people out there who drive 2500-series trucks as a daily commuter car? With consistently empty beds and nothing to tow?
• Why do some (but not all) state and/or local municipalities give hybrid vehicles special permission to drive in certain highway lanes--for example, the Lexus RX400h, which got 23 mpg overall--but not allow a fuel-sipping, non-hybrid model (like the manual transmission Honda Fit, which got 34 mpg)?
• Why isn't satellite radio standard on every car? Or an auxiliary jack for iPods?
• Will the upcoming Dodge Challenger help to turn around Chrysler's latest streak of so-so cars, or deflate the high-octane dreams of musclecar enthusiasts? (See our tests of the new-ish Chrysler Sebring, Dodge Caliber, Dodge Nitro, and Jeep Patriot.)
• Will the Chevy Camaro get here soon enough to be a sales rival to the Challenger?
• Will my plane ever get here?

Check back later for reports from the Texas Truck Rodeo. Until then, what questions do you have for and about the auto industry? Use the Comments function below.

--Mike Quincy

Just In: Chrysler Minivans

Like many Americans my age (mid-30s), my family's Chrysler minivan was a household fixture while growing up. For years, the company that invented and popularized the modern minivan (hold your comments about VWs, Corvair Corvan/Greenbriers, and Stout Scarabs, please) also ruled that market with the best product. My parents owned three: a 1988 Dodge Caravan LE, a 1994 Plymouth Grand Voyager, and a 1999 Chrysler Town & Country Limited that they still own. Excluding several transmission problems with the '94, the vans have served them well. And now as empty nesters, they still enjoy sitting up high in the comfy T&C.

But when I bought a minivan to support my weekend whitewater kayaking exploits, a Chrysler didn't make my list. Why not? After years of smaller minivans, Honda and Toyota finally figured out full-sized models with their Odyssey and Sienna, respectively. These vans offered modern, powerful, more-fuel-efficient drivetrains, well-finished interiors, modern safety equipment, and better reliability.

Meanwhile, Chrysler's minivans fell behind the curve: the last Grand Caravan we tested in 2005 lacked a smooth, modern multi-valve V6 and retained an antiquated four-speed automatic transmission. Interior fit and finish and seat comfort were so-so. Stability control was obvious by its absence, and reliability waxed and waned. Sure, the Stow 'n Go seats are slick (I'm stuck with the Odyssey's second-row seat permanently parked in my basement) and there were usually big incentives on all domestic models, but that wasn't quite enough.

Chrysler is trying to retain its sales lead and be more competitive to ensure it stays on top with their 2008 versions. Minivans are a big deal to Chrysler. Despite the overt shortcomings of the old vans, the company still sells around 400,000 a year. (Toyota sells about 160,000 Siennas.) But at the same time, the minivan market is contracting. Unlike my parents, many minivan owners moved onto SUVs (which look more rugged and less suburban even though the streets of suburbia are full of them) or back to sedans.

Look inside the sliding doors
With the 2008 redesign, all Caravans are now "Grand." The short-wheelbase model is gone, leaving Kia/Hyundai alone in that segment. The AWD option disappeared in 2005 due to floor pan modifications to accommodate Stow 'n Go and low take rates; only the Sienna currently offers AWD.

Beyond these fringe omissions, the new Chrysler vans cover the mechanical basics needed to play next to the Sienna and Odyssey:

• An available modern, overhead-cam 4.0-liter V6 (which considerably improved the freshened Pacifica we tested) along with the carryover 3.3-liter and 3.8-liter V6s.
• The segment's first six-speed automatic (with both the 4.0-liter and the 3.8-liter engines).
• A full slate of air bags and standard stability control. (Among competitors, only the Nissan Quest lacks standard ESC.)

But to further lure buyers back, the Chrysler products offer lots and lots of interior features, many of which are unique in the minivan segment:

• "Swivel 'n Go" second-row seats that rotate around to face the back row in a club seating arrangement, complete with a removable table in between
• A hard drive in the sound system that can store music or pictures. (You load it through a USB port, so you don't need to play a CD to record music.)
• A backup camera that doesn't require purchasing a navigation system.
• Nifty interior lighting that, among other things, surrounds the overhead console in a soft glow.
• Lots and lots of storage, including a clever multi-level center console that slides back to the second-row seats, under-floor storage compartments, and a molded door-side bin for an umbrella.

We bought two 2008 Chrysler vans to test: a Dodge Grand Caravan SXT with the 3.8-liter V6 and a Chrysler Town & Country Limited with the 4.0-liter. While they compete strongly on the specification sheet, we'll see how they stack up against the quietness, power, and ride of the Sienna, the spry handling of the Odyssey, and the value of the Kia Sedona/Hyundai Entourage.

A First Look is scheduled for October, offering our initial impressions as these minivans undergo testing for a future report.

--Tom Mutchler

UAW GM strike ends with agreement

General Motors and the United Auto Workers (UAW) reached a tentative agreement on a new national labor contract at 3:05 a.m. today, ending the much publicized strike.

More than 70,000 UAW members nationwide walked off their posts at General Motors on Monday morning, after negotiations between the two organizations failed to reach a labor agreement. The UAW contract had expired on September 14th.

The tentative agreement includes provisions for creating an independent retiree health care trust that would assume a reported $50 billion in obligations, according to the Detroit News. With initial funding from GM, the voluntary employees' beneficiary association (VEBA) would reportedly be able to provide retiree health benefits for an estimated 80 years. In the process, it would remove the significant financial burden from GM.

GM agreed to hire 4,100 currently temporary workers, though at their lower wage and with a different benefits package than previous permanent workers.

There are other aspects, such as sign-on bonuses for new hires and scheduled pay increases, that have been variously reported, though there is no official release at this time.

Ultimately, the agreement is not final until it is ratified, approved by the courts, and reviewed by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The UAW expects the terms negotiated with GM to set the tone for discussions with Chrysler Group and Ford Motor Company, according to Automotive News.

The national UAW contract with both Chrysler and Ford also expired mid September.

We expect that the short strike will have a very limited impact on consumers. It's unclear, though, whether or not GM will benefit from this agreement. Time will tell if both sides made the right decisions.

--Jeff Bartlett

Chrysler's New Warranty: Maybe not in your lifetime

As noted in Jeff Bartlett's previous warranty blog, Chrysler is offering lifetime powertrain coverage on most of their models. Like almost everything in life (including taxes but excluding death), there are exceptions. In this case, they are SRT high-performance models and fleet vehicles. One particular exception seems glaring--diesels (and the Dodge Sprinter van) are excluded. Although gasoline engines can last a very long time, diesels still have a reputation for further longevity. So why doesn't Chrysler include them in this plan?

It's a guess, but a recent road trip to upstate New York gives me a hint. On that trip into farm country, I was surprised to see the number of well-patinaed Dodge Ram trucks on the highway. (Several of them were the pre-baby-Kenworth-styled version, making them at least 16 years old.) The common thread: they had the Cummins turbodiesel engine.

Buyers who made the initial investment in a diesel Ram or Sprinter, especially business owners, might be just those folks who would drive their trucks until the wheels fell off. They're the ones who would really benefit from lifetime powertrain coverage--even beyond the 7 years/100k coverage you get on a Ram diesel. John Ibbotson, our chief mechanic and expert in John's Tool Box (available to ConsumerReports.org subscribers only), tells me the replacement cost of those Cummins diesels, or the Mercedes diesels in the Sprinter and Jeep Grand Cherokee, are pretty high. Parts like injector pumps are expensive, too.

So, keep this in mind if you're considering a Jeep Grand Cherokee diesel or another Chrysler product with a diesel. Even though you might just use the vehicle to haul around your family, rather than racking up lots of miles running between various job sites or customer locations, you'll miss out on the extended warranty coverage trumpeted in Chrysler's ads.

--Tom Mutchler

Chrysler offers lifetime powertrain warranty

Chrysler Group has announced a lifetime powertrain warranty on most new Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep vehicles purchased from dealer inventory and delivered on or after July 26, 2007. The warranty program covers 88 percent of the retail models sold, excluding fleet sales, SRT variants, Dodge Sprinters, and other vehicles with diesel engines.

This bold warranty announcement follows the trend that has seen many automakers extend their warranty protection as a means to shore up brand image and customer confidence. Clearly, it will be hard for another manufacturer to one-up the length of Chrysler's warranty, though other makes do shine in other areas of protection, such as Chevrolet with its 100,000-mile roadside assistance (5 years) and rust warranty (6 years).

Chrysler’s warranty initiative was motivated by multiple factors, according to a company spokesperson, including dealers reporting that the latest Chrysler Group products were the highest quality they had seen and customers stating that vehicle warranty, specifically powertrain, is a chief purchase consideration. This program precedes involvement from Cerberus, the investment group that is acquiring Chrysler Group from DaimlerChrysler.

The new warranty is available only to the new-vehicle buyers; it is non-transferable. That caveat alone significantly decreases the how many years will actually be covered within the vehicle’s “lifespan.” With the previous 7-year/70,000-mile powertrain warranty, there was a low instance of warranty transfer from the first to second owner, according to a company spokesperson, despite the process being a simple paperwork sign off. Because of this, Chrysler expects costs associated with the change in the warranty coverage to be less dramatic than the marketing-friendly name may suggest.

And with all seemingly good news, there’s always the “fine print.” For example, while the lifetime warranty does not require owners have the car serviced at a dealer, it does demand that maintenance adhere to recommended intervals and be documented. To continue the warranty coverage, the owner must have the powertrain inspected (for free) within 60-days of each five-year purchase anniversary.

We suspect that once the total eligible vehicle pool is filtered out by those who sell their vehicle within five years, lose their paperwork, and/or forget to have this inspection performed, there will be a very modest original-owner group come year six. And those leasing will not reap the benefits at all, as most contracts are for just two to three years. However, for those drivers who like to hold on to their vehicles, such as those in the unofficial 200,000-mile club, there could be real financial benefit from this program. Of course, that only matters if you truly want a Chrysler, Dodge, or Jeep model for the long haul.

For such a broad product portfolio, there are precious few Chrysler Group models that meet the stringent standards of a Consumer Reports Recommendation:

Chrysler 300 (V6)
Chrysler PT Cruiser
Dodge Durango
Dodge Ram 1500
Jeep Liberty

Several models are too new for us to have any reliability data and/or haven’t been tested.

Looking closer at the Recommended models, those vehicles don’t shine in their respective classes. The Durango, for instance, did earn a Good overall score, though it is the lowest-rated model in the full-sized SUV class and has just average predicted reliability. Likewise, the Liberty qualifies as Good, though it ranks near the bottom of the class. The Dodge Nitro and Jeep Wrangler score even lower.

In a brand comparison, Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep each rank below average in predicted reliability, based on analysis of the 2006 Consumer Reports car reliability survey. Jeep ranks 32nd among 36 tracked brands.

These numbers show that the Chrysler Group vehicles could use the type of image enhancement that such a well-promoted warranty can offer. After all, the 10-year warranty has worked wonders for Hyundai--once the punch line for reliability.

Either way, more protection can only aid the customer and motivate the manufacturer to focus on quality. In the end, consumers should focus on buying the best vehicles for their needs, weighing reliability more heavily than warranty protection. After all, the best deal is not having to visit the dealer for unscheduled maintenance, rather than have it performed for free. Clearly, Chrysler needs to get people into its showrooms, but it’s too early to tell whether this warranty announcement will do the trick.

--Jeff Bartlett

Can Cerberus teach Chrysler new tricks?

The forced separation of Chrysler from Daimler A.G., Mercedes’ parent, is bound to shake up Detroit as all eyes focus on Cerberus Capital Management, the private-equity company that that just bought Chrysler for the fire-sale price of about $7.5 billion. Although the United Auto Workers have signed off on the deal, it’s hard to imagine that they will be happy with the new owners, who are known for ruthless cost-cutting in pursuit of profits. Recall that in Greek mythology Cerberus is the snarling, three-headed dog that guards the gates of hell. Plainly, Cerberus Capital Management didn’t pick up Chrysler out of philanthropy. One way or another they will turn it into a cash machine.

The woes of the domestic auto industry are largely self-inflicted. Chrysler, Ford, and GM are all hobbled by “legacy costs”--pension and medical coverage for untold thousands of former employees. Foreign competitors, based in countries with nationalized health care and other government benefits, don’t have the same financial ball and chain. But the real problem has been the products. Too often, domestics come late to the party with technical innovations and too rarely produce cars with world-class quality and reliability.

The fact is, Honda and Toyota have proved successful because the cars are good, not because they’re cheap. The American consumer has been quite logically migrating to Japanese cars for more than 20 years for precisely that reason.

In recent years Chrysler has made a name for itself in just one area, styling. The PT Cruiser and the 300 sedan have been hits because they look different from everything else and because they offer the spaciousness and/or utility that American consumers want. But you can’t cruise on looks alone. Even though Chrysler has broadened its product portfolio in the last few years, its newest offerings, such as the Chrysler Sebring and the Dodge Avenger, Caliber, Charger, and Nitro, and the Jeep Commander, Compass, and Patriot are all mediocre performers lacking in refinement based on Consumer Reports testing.

About ten years ago I asked Bob Eaton, then Chrysler’s chairman, why the company had so many product-quality problems. He replied, “Well, unfortunately, in our last reorganization we fired everybody who knew how to make a car.” If Cerberus repeats that mistake, Chrysler could finally come to the end of its long, sad road. Let’s hope this new owner can teach the old dog a few tricks.

--Gordon Hard

Sirius 'toon time for tiny travelers