2000 Chrysler Sebring Jxi Convertible 2-door 2.5l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Chrysler's Hurricane engine detailed ahead of 2016 launch

We've been hearing distant rumblings about Chrysler's new Hurricane engine for some time now, but details have been hard to come by. Now, Automotive News is adding some specifics to the scuttlebutt, citing Chrysler documents. According to the industry publication, the Hurricane will blow onto the scene in 2016, but it's not an all-new engine. Rather, it will be rooted in the company's existing 2.0-liter four-cylinder Tigershark powerplant (shown above), albeit with "many new technologies to achieve excellent fuel economy."
It's not clear what sort of technologies Chrysler is referring to, but the Hurricane is expected to continue to use an aluminum block, and the finished product is expected to generate even better figures than the existing 2.0-liter's 160 horsepower and 148 pound-feet of torque (as found in the Dodge Dart). Automotive News notes that the updated 2.4-liter Tigershark debuting in the entry-level 2014 Jeep Cherokee has its basis in the 2.0-liter lump, but unlike the smaller engine, it's been fitted with MultiAir2 electrohydraulic variable valve timing to realize 184 hp and 171 lb-ft and greater efficiency.
Perhaps the Hurricane will incorporate the latter in its bag of tricks? Either way, we're hoping for a more generous torque curve than the what's in the current 2.0-liter Tigershark, which is something of a slug in the Dart - even for a base economy compact.

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.

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.