2007 Chrysler Pt Cruiser Touring Wagon 4-door 2.4l 1 Owner 85k Mint Chrome on 2040-cars

Auto blog

What the Chrysler 200 will probably look like in convertible form

Since 1996, Chrysler has offered a convertible version of its Sebring and 200. As this seems very unlikely to change, it's safe to assume that a new 200 Convertible is in the works following the unveiling of the radically redesigned sedan. What it will look like, though, remains an open question.
Traditionally, the only major styling differences between the Sebring/200 Convertible and the sedan were found above the beltline. It's likely a 2016 200 Convertible would follow a similar philosophy, especially considering the dashing good looks of the redesigned sedan.
Artist Theophilus Chin has a similar idea, as shown in a pair of renderings he's released. Using a few of the stock photos from the 200 Sedan's reveal, Chin has given us our first glimpse of what a 200 Convertible could looks like. It's sharp, retaining the good looks of the sedan. The windshield looks like it's been swept back further, and obviously, there are a pair of doors missing. Other than that, it's the same attractive car that debuted at Detroit.

Move over Audi, now Chrysler has a beef with Tesla's claims

In the same week that Audi said "not so fast" to some claims from Tesla, Chrysler has responded to a new press release from the California-based EV-maker by saying "not exactly, Tesla." The statement, released through the company's blog, comes in response to Tesla claiming it was "the only American car company to have fully repaid the government." Chrysler notes that it, too, recently paid back Uncle Sam from its 2008 bailout. Similar to Audi's recent press release, which was eventually and mysteriously deleted from the German automaker's site, Chrysler is both right and wrong in its statement.
Tesla specifically said that it had paid back the Department of Energy loans that many automakers received - including Fisker and VPG Autos - while Chrysler's retort argues Tesla is "unmistakably incorrect" since it repaid the government in 2011 a full six years early. Technically, the statements from both automakers are correct, but Tesla's startup loan originated from the DoE, while Chrysler's loan came in bailout form from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Further, as The Detroit News notes, Chrysler's loan still cost taxpayers well over a billion dollars after all was said and done - those negative assets tied to "old Chrysler" in the bankruptcy did not require repayment.

Chrysler dealers terminated in bankruptcy still stuck in court

Part of the deal for the federal bailouts of Chrysler and General Motors was that both organizations were required to trim their vast array of dealerships. This move did not sit well with the people that would be losing out on franchises, though, and in Chrysler's case, 148 of the shuttered dealers have fought for money they feel they are entitled to.
These dealers believe that they should be compensated by the federal government, as Chrysler wouldn't have trimmed its sales centers had it not been ordered to by Uncle Sam. Now, thanks to the ruling of three judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the dealers will get a chance to argue their point.
According to Automotive News, the dealers argue that the mandatory shuttering of dealers was unconstitutional, because the federal government was taking property without compensation. If the dealers are victorious, not only would the government be out millions of dollars, but a precedent could be set that would allow similarly closed GM dealerships to cash in.