• 38
Now here's a partnership we didn't see coming: Chrysler and NASA have jumped into bed to share research on things like radar, materials and robotics. While we can't imagine Chrysler has too much to add to that discussion, the partnership could have a wide-ranging impact on the company's future products. Neither NASA nor Chrysler is exactly willing to say how the government agency will benefit from joining up with the smallest of the Big Three, but the mind reels...

It's also worth noting that NASA will be sharing some of its battery tech with the Penastar people, including "other energy storage mediums." That's good news for a company that just put its ENVI electric-vehicle program out to pasture. While hybrids still make up a small portion of the total vehicle sales here in the US of A, any manufacturer without a decent hybrid showing would seem to be at a serious disadvantage going forward.

If nothing else, we may see more Velcro, memory foam and freeze-dried ice cream in our Chrysler products of the future, although there's no word on sending a Sebring into space.

[Source: Chrysler]

PRESS RELEASE
Chrysler Group LLC and NASA to Share Knowledge on Advanced Technologies

- Chrysler Group LLC and NASA launch collaboration that facilitates technology and resource sharing - Newly formed alliance will focus on new and emerging technologies for Chrysler Group and NASA - Alliance proudly builds upon past successes

AUBURN HILLS, Mich., April 13 /PRNewswire/ -- Chrysler Group LLC and NASA today announced a three year alliance to share information related to advanced technologies in several areas of mutual interest. The alliance allows Chrysler Group and NASA to tap into existing and emerging space exploration and automotive technologies. The shared knowledge will be used in their respective activities.

"This is a great opportunity to share knowledge and data in areas where both Chrysler Group and NASA have a vested interest," said Scott Kunselman, Senior Vice President, Chrysler Engineering. "We value the opportunity to work with NASA and will implement what is learned to further improve our Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep® and Ram Truck products."

Several advanced technology topics are being investigated for synergies and shared interest, including: materials engineering, robotics, radar, battery systems and other energy storage mediums.

Project teams have been assigned to different technologies, and each team includes a Chrysler Group and a NASA technical specialist. Chrysler has already benefited from the alliance from shared research on reliable surface navigation sensors.

Chrysler Group has a history of working with NASA on America's space efforts. In 1961, Chrysler built Redstone rockets for the Mercury Project which put the first American in space. Also, Chrysler built boosters to power the first two Apollo spacecraft into earth orbit, including the program's first manned mission in 1968. This new alliance will continue Chrysler Group's relationship with NASA and cutting edge technology
.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 38 Comments
      • 4 Years Ago
      Wow, all you want is pretty pictures.

      Your claim that they only sent monochrome cameras is wrong. Which mission are you referring to? It's true that the cameras they sent were not optimal for human perceived colors, because human perceived colors are quite frankly for scientific purposes useless. What a scientist is concerned with is the composition of what they are looking at, for Mars that is only possible by looking at spectra that the human eye isn't optimal for. If they sent a regular camera there I'd be pissed off.

      A home digital color camera is good for taking pictures of the kittens or the Eiffel tower. It's stupid for scientific stuff. For one thing it's better to send a camera that is optimal for the spectra of what it's most likely to take pictures of .. martian surface.

      Your cheap home camera is a monochrome camera too .. it just has a grid of red, blue, and green filter dots all over the sensor. Do you know what the filters do? They reduce the overall amount of a particular wavelength of light (exclude everything except a certain color) hitting the sensor.

      Also, can your home camera function in negative 80 degrees?

      Now the claim that the Mars rovers moved 100x slower than a snail .. which rover are you talking about? Also, I don't know if you know this .. but the mission cost is something like $500 million dollars .. there is a 20 minute Earth to Mars communications delay .. do you really think it's wise to be racing the rover around? Again, you don't think like a scientist .. since you aren't one. There is plenty of science to be had without having to travel all over the place. You realize they haven't a proper map of the place? Many cars in the DARPA autonomous vehicle contest failed in the Nevada desert .. in KNOWN terrain. I see plenty of people on Earth can't control there remote control car for 5 minutes without crashing into something .. and this is on paved terrain without a 20 minute delay between action-reaction.

      And you made an asinine comment that building in redundancy is like adding multiple engines to a car. Again, you probably have never built any system that has to function in space and experienced all kinds of failures. You aren't an engineer ..you've never had to build reliable systems or studied failure modes, and you aren't a scientist. So I don't know what it is your expertise is in .. it's certainly not engineering or science .. so before you criticize scientific and engineering decisions I suggest you read a book or two minimally.

      As for the nuclear reactor .. those are heavy and there was a chance they would be damaged if the landing on Mars was hard.. still, they considered sending one but there were protests about launching it .. if the launch failed people were afraid it would contaminate the vicinity of the launch area.

      The military launched 100 Hubble space telescope equivalents into space? That's a plain lie .. a spy satellite just the size of Hubble would easily be tracked .. even with cloaking technology you can track something that big (even the darkest black paint reflects sunlight, and even in darkness it blocks out different faint background stars as it moves as u look at it from different locations in the ground). in fact a lot of the military's spy satellites are tracked by amateurs .. maybe u can google it. There is no way they launched a 100 Hubbles. They may have a few, but not hundreds.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Don't worry, Dan is just deluded.

        As for the "nuclear batteries" thing, I'm sure he was referring to RTGs, not actual fission reactors.
        Which is of course silly because they don't deliver anything near enough power for a rover (or be too heavy if they did), they're expensive, a security risk as well as totally unnecessary on Mars that receives plenty of sunlight.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Let's hope that in his talk tomorrow at the Kennedy Space Center Obama changes course and ditches the already notorious Feb, 2 plan, dubbed "Going Nowhere" by the public, which calls for destroying the Constellation program and farting around for the next ten years and $100 billion doing nothing.

      Instead he should issue a Kennedy-esque call: Mars in ten years or less. We are far more ready to send men to Mars now then we were to send men to the Moon in 1961, and the Mars Society's practical, no-frills "Mars Direct" plan (praised by Buzz Aldrin, Carl Sagan, and Arthur C. Clarke) costs only $5 billion a year, well within NASA's $19 billion annual budget.
        • 4 Years Ago
        http://mkjaunich.typepad.com/files/nasa-and-car-and-driver.pdf

        Great article about the decline of the US Space Program.

        Noz - I dont dispute the need to do more earth science; however, cant we do both? Why is it NASA's mission?

        Cant the Noble Peace Prize winner reduce the bloated military budget and fund two science groups?

        Do we really want China to return to the Moon or go to Mars before the US? Not out of fear, but out of national pride, scientific exploration, traditional American institutions.

        The value of the space program is more than just touching down on the moon. For a measly $20B (less than 1/2 of 1% of the entire fed budget) we can do extraordinary things, motivate children, and lead the world in space exploration. The nation needs to continue to press forward, not retreat.

        He is not your boyfriend, you don't have to agree with everything Obama does. I generally approve of his politics but I think he is dead wrong on this issue.
        • 4 Years Ago
        noz, I'm not talking about "futuristic crap" or "teleportation" - just using chemical rockets, so we can go to Mars within a decade. It's Obama that decided to detour the trip to Mars beyond 2030 in a lengthy pursuit of unneeded exotic propulsion. It's his usual vacuous empty speech making with no substance, no physical reality.

        Overall, your opposition to manned spaceflight and making humans a multi-planet species, make you an undermining, negative, internally hostile presence within NASA, the job of the which is supposed to be make us a spacefaring civilization. You should be fired summarily, and if (and I strongly suspect otherwise) you represent a widely held opinion there, others like you fired as well.

        Get a job at NOAA or the FCC if what you care about is weather readings and radar, or other stuff NO KID ANYWHERE ON EARTH grows up dreaming about.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Epyx,

        I never said both can't be done at the same time.

        However my point is that I and many other JPL'ers AND NASA people aren't shedding a tear about Constellation.

        We know about the in's and out's of the project (and how bad of a proposed project it was) as well as manned Mars missions and believe you me when I say we are cheering for the fact that it's cancelled and earth sciences are taking its place.

        People like Carney have no clue about what's going on here at ground zero and he's farting in the wind with his stupid opinions about how things are stagnating because we're not exploring outer space with futuristic crap.

        Our priority and talents are now to be hopefully focused on earth science and data gathering and cutting edge radar/telecommunication systems rather than grandiose ideas of Carney's teleportation future.

        There's so much more going on at JPL (in terms of research of materials, science development, etc) that when I hear ignorant fools like Carney mouth off, I can't help but not stay silent about it.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Epyx,

        By the way, i don't know why you think I love Obama...I didn't even vote for him. But as far as this decision goes, he did the right thing.

        He SHOULD drastically cut the military budget...it's a complete waste of resources, money, and a complete piss-away of our future.
        • 4 Years Ago
        noz, Constellation is not ideal, but it is better than nothing, which is what the new "plan" consists of. It IS going nowhere. It's returning to the post-Apollo era of stagnation and drift, pursuing random technology projects with no overall goal, no deadline, and no destination.

        Enough of 40 years of spending fortunes and risking lives so men can travel no more than a whopping 300 miles in order to take each other's urine samples. (The Moon is 250,000 miles away). Enough of squandering fortunes on will-o-wisp exotic propulsion or other pet projects that various NASA factions or aerospace contractors speciously claim are mission-critical in order to feather their nests.

        We can get to the Moon, and Mars, on boring, plain old Apollo and Shuttle style chemical rockets. We are far more ready to go to Mars now than we were to go to the Moon in 1961. And since it had a warm and wet environment for 5 times longer than it took for life to emerge on Earth, Mars is the Rosetta Stone that can tell us whether life is a general phenomenon in the Universe or whether we are alone. What more profound question can science answer? More than that, Mars is beckoning as a second homeworld for humanity. It has an atmosphere, a 24 hour day, plenty of water, and all the essential elements for agriculture and industry, so it can support large scale human settlement.

        In 1421, the Chinese had seven masted sailing ships that dwarfed anything Europe could build.

        http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2254/2044542747_9aa63f3760.jpg?v=0

        They had sailed all around the Indian Ocean to Madagascar, and were on their way to rounding Africa and "discovering" and overawing Europe. But a new Emperor came to power who opposed this exploration and discovery, and he recalled the fleet, burned the ships. China turned inward and stagnated, eventually becoming dominated and humiliated by Europe.

        History doesn't repeat itself exactly, but it often rhymes.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Carney,

        You're an idiot....not sure what else to say.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Good article, Epyx. Apollo doubled our science students and graduates at all levels - high school, college, Ph.D. The space-dazzled boys of the 50s and 60s became the engineers, the tech wizards, of the 70s, 80s, and 90s that created our cyber era. Nozferat says that navel-gazing "Earth studies", an sour, inward-looking, eat-your-vegetables, finger-wagging pursuit of data to justify more enforced austerity will be an equally effective substitute for adventure, discovery, and opening new worlds when it comes to inspiring young people to hit the books and join in a great journey. Yeah, about that...
        • 4 Years Ago
        Also, the tired meme that we should destroy our space program, burn the ships and turn inward, because America and Earth are not yet Utopias is asinine. It's a formula for never going anywhere.

        Spain had not solved all its problems in 1492. England had not solved all its problems in 1607. Both understood the enormous value in opening up a new world.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Carney -

        Less than 1% of our oceans has been discovered/mapped/dived down to you nitwit.

        Our discoveries and new worlds are right under our noses yet you want to spend billions and travel ludicrous distances so it can satisfy your ill placed curiosity?

        So you're saying that there's not enough to do, learn about, and fix on this planet we now have?

        I'm sorry...but sound like a complete idiot.
        • 4 Years Ago
        The moon and Mars programs right now are a complete waste of money and resources. The Constellation program is thwart with issues and dumb ideas that you don't know about.

        Since you have no clue, it's no wonder you think it's a "going nowhere" issue...a lot of what is planned hasn't has even been announced yet to outsiders.

        The new direction that Obama and many others are trying to push is more earth science and studies which is absolutely needed and right now FAR more important than putting a base on the moon so that people like you can feel more secure from the delusional communist and OPEC invasions that you constantly fart hot air about.
      • 4 Years Ago
      nasa put 2 rovers on mars in early 2000s, each with 7 or 8 cameras. not one of those cameras were color cameras. not one. this was a time when private individuals began to get digital still cameras and private color video cameras had been around for decades yet all powerful nasa couldn't manage color.
      in the first month of the first rover's time on mars it moved at an average speed of 100x slower than a garden snail. this is not an exaggeration. actually 100 times slower.
      and they could have brought a nuclear battery so the rovers could drive all the time and have contact with earth and shoot video at night but no they chose faint solar panels so it was at the point of shut down all the time. and the radio bandwidth design was equally pathetic.
      nasa isn't an advanced tech organization. it's a status quo maintainer of cultured visionless people to maintain the illusion of due dilligence so as to not overtake the military space efforts that run in parallel in secret. if you think that's crazy conspiracy talk then you haven't thought about it. take the hubble space telescope. state of the art excellence right? wrong. when hubble came up the military already had 100 such scopes or better. you all know they have spy satellites but you wont want to realize what that makes nasa with only 1. and only 1024x1024pixel monochrome resolution.
      nasa is pathetic. think people
        • 4 Years Ago
        Did you maybe consider that it might take a lower bandwidth to transfer images/videos without color, and that the pictures and images may come through clearer after traveling that distance?

        As far as a nuclear battery is concerned, did you take into consideration that from an engineering perspective, solar panels may have made more sense. Take this into consideration: A nuclear reactor will run out at some point and stop working all together. Yes it can be made to be larger and last longer, but that could cause weight distribution problems and even overall weight problems. If you use solar cells, the weight is distributed more evenly, and they never really "run out". Yeah, they'll die, but you have years for that to happen.

        Also consider that the only time that they may have had the chance to broadcast toward earth was when mars was facing the sun anyways. Otherwise, mars would be facing outwards broadcasting to Saturn or Jupiter.

        I think you are a little to critical, considering that the US has the most advanced space program in the world. If it were easy, other countries would be doing it...
        • 4 Years Ago
        Nozferat, maybe if you could spell my name and dinosaur right you might be in better condition to call me ignorant.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Cognitive dissonance is a bitch
        • 4 Years Ago
        Wow, all you want is pretty pictures.

        Your claim that they only sent monochrome cameras is wrong. Which mission are you referring to? It's true that the cameras they sent were not optimal for human perceived colors, because human perceived colors are quite frankly for scientific purposes useless. What a scientist is concerned with is the composition of what they are looking at, for Mars that is only possible by looking at spectra that the human eye isn't optimal for. If they sent a regular camera there I'd be pissed off.

        A home digital color camera is good for taking pictures of the kittens or the Eiffel tower. It's stupid for scientific stuff. For one thing it's better to send a camera that is optimal for the spectra of what it's most likely to take pictures of .. martian surface.

        Your cheap home camera is a monochrome camera too .. it just has a grid of red, blue, and green filter dots all over the sensor. Do you know what the filters do? They reduce the overall amount of a particular wavelength of light (exclude everything except a certain color) hitting the sensor.

        Also, can your home camera function in negative 80 degrees?

        Now the claim that the Mars rovers moved 100x slower than a snail .. which rover are you talking about? Also, I don't know if you know this .. but the mission cost is something like $500 million dollars .. there is a 20 minute Earth to Mars communications delay .. do you really think it's wise to be racing the rover around? Again, you don't think like a scientist .. since you aren't one. There is plenty of science to be had without having to travel all over the place. You realize they haven't a proper map of the place? Many cars in the DARPA autonomous vehicle contest failed in the Nevada desert .. in KNOWN terrain. I see plenty of people on Earth can't control there remote control car for 5 minutes without crashing into something .. and this is on paved terrain without a 20 minute delay between action-reaction.

        And you made an asinine comment that building in redundancy is like adding multiple engines to a car. Again, you probably have never built any system that has to function in space and experienced all kinds of failures. You aren't an engineer ..you've never had to build reliable systems or studied failure modes, and you aren't a scientist. So I don't know what it is your expertise is in .. it's certainly not engineering or science .. so before you criticize scientific and engineering decisions I suggest you read a book or two minimally.

        As for the nuclear reactor .. those are heavy and there was a chance they would be damaged if the landing on Mars was hard.. still, they considered sending one but there were protests about launching it .. if the launch failed people were afraid it would contaminate the vicinity of the launch area.

        The military launched 100 Hubble space telescope equivalents into space? That's a plain lie .. a spy satellite just the size of Hubble would easily be tracked .. even with cloaking technology you can track something that big (even the darkest black paint reflects sunlight, and even in darkness it blocks out different faint background stars as it moves as u look at it from different locations in the ground). in fact a lot of the military's spy satellites are tracked by amateurs .. maybe u can google it. There is no way they launched a 100 Hubbles. They may have a few, but not hundreds.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Honestly Fredrickson,

        You don't have a clue about what you're talking about....you're just an armchair whiner who thinks he has all the answers through his computer and INTERNET connection.

        Like I said before, dinasours like you need to learn what's being done other than MER and MSL before you mouth off like an ignorant old fart.
        • 4 Years Ago
        I just wrote above that I would bring proper science instruments and that color camera is just the bare minimum requirement. in your haste to be an idiot you succeeded. I suggest a new strategy.
        • 4 Years Ago
        maybe try to realize that none of what you said contradicts me.
        and while I know there are people at nasa able and willing to do better than they are allowed to, there is an upper limit on their minds in that they accept being part of the lie.

        I talked to a guy who made some interesting proposals for aircraft and made press releases and the leadership of nasa wasn't happy with him for doing that because nasa isn't allowed to do anything. innovation in nasa is purposefully stifled. I suggested that he should grow some stones and fight against the evil culture at nasa but there was no fighting spirit in him. he just wants to keep his job until he retires. and that's how the betrayal of mankind works.

        as for budget, while the military has much much more, nasa still has plenty of money and they could be 100x more effective for the same money than they have been. they intentionally choose to waste money on amazingly bad design like the space shuttle and things like the MER missions are faint token efforts to maintain the illusion of due dilligence.

        you, need to get a clue.
        • 4 Years Ago
        The only pathetic thing around here is you Fredrickson....

        I'm not sure who's got the bigger ego at this point...you or Carney...but one things for sure, you're both the same sized jacka$$es that's for sure.

        It's not worth trying to educate you...since you apparently know it all already.
        • 4 Years Ago
        How's if feel riding that high horse, Dan?

        You have repeatedly demonstrated utter ignorance for basic principles of engineering, and this latest post shows that you know nothing about space exploration as well, neither its purpose nor the methods that are required.

        It's easily illustrated by the fact that you seem to think that the sole purpose of the mars rovers or the HST is to take pretty pictures in the human visible spectrum, which is of course completely wrong. As far as the mars rovers go, the cameras are probably the least important instruments (though of course still mission critical), and I'd like you to show me a single military satellite that can take pictures of galaxies 13 billion light years away at the HST's resolution. And of course not just at visible wavelengths, but in infrared and ultraviolet. And precisely measure their spectra.

        Can you believe that NASA has even put satellites into space that can't make any pictures AT ALL? What a waste!

        The fact that the mars rovers are still functioning and doing science well beyond their expected lifetime, after enduring a journey that would kill a human and surviving in an environment more hostile than anything on earth, is a true testimony to how well engineered they are. And it's a big "F*CK YOU!" to people like you.

        /nerdrage
        • 4 Years Ago
        you made a mistake. it's not the end of the world. but if you hold on to that mistake as if it was part of you to avoid admitting to yourself that you made a mistake then it will taint you. it will paint your mind black. don't be a slave to pride
        • 4 Years Ago
        TheTom, redundancy sounds good on paper but just that much more to go wrong. imagine a car with extra engines and gearbox and fuel tank and..
        keep it simple..
        • 4 Years Ago
        JS, I'm a computer scientist and a brilliant one at that, I've studied physics at uni and I know plenty of engineering. I also know how color imagers work, even programmed a neural net based bayer color reconstruction algorithm. and I don't just want pretty pictures. but I do insist on at least one true color imager instead of the super amateur false color color wheel crap the MER rovers had. I would bring science instruments but proper ones. full spectrum imagers, not a handful of narrow filters based on assumption of what they will see. you don't assume what you will find. "you" bring capability to find the unknown.
        and electronics have no problem with dry cold environments. at all. nor bullshit like space hardening. I've heard all the mindless groupie excuses many times before.

        you don't think, you just assume nasa is perfect and then make up excuses to support that erroneous conclusion. do try to think

        and of course mil has many spy satellites. and yes they can be tracked. no doubt any nation with space watch knows pretty well what's upthere. you can google the NRO. they manage the spy sats.

        nasa is pathetic. an insult to any intelligent person. even some people from nasa say they are pathetic.
        • 4 Years Ago
        nuclear batteries can last a long time. and it's not a weight distribution issue. you reach for excuses rather than think.
        and of course it takes more data to include color. same as it takes more data to include higher resolution. but you can choose when you want to send color and when to send greyscale if you have a 5$ color camera on board. when you only have monochrome you cant. please do think. don't hang your hat on authority because they are lying sons of bitches
        • 4 Years Ago
        Nasa's failure to have backup systems in all their unmanned craft is also a problem. How many Mars landers did we lose in the 2000s?

        They haven't moved on from 1960s chemical rocket technology. Actually, I mean that they fully developed them for the moon program, then kept them all out in a field for decades, and now are REINVENTING the same stuff all over again. How forward thinking!

        Whenever they hire an outside company to do anything it costs 10x more than it should. And then the contractor screws it all up (Hubble). Yet Nasa keeps buying from that contactor. There are no repercussions for incompetence, fraud or waste.

        Let's face it, Nasa is just a jobs program. There are more managers than workers. That should tell you something.
        • 4 Years Ago
        NASA has a lot of issues but none of which you have a clue about.

        Do you realize the enormous difference between the military and NASA budgets? The military budget could fund NASA, the entire health-care system, school system, transportation and maintenance system, and have money left over to keep stupid baby boomers like you still alive.

        I work at JPL...I know EXACTLY how NASA functions and what issues it has and the ability to make excellent products isn't one of them. The amount of bureaucratic waste is huge...and most of the time it's the engineers and scientists who get stiffed.

        Get a freaking clue.

        • 4 Years Ago
        Nozferat, what is it that you do at JPL? if I were to guess, I'd say in charge of something entirely guaranteed to not make a difference ever. something narrow and well defined to keep you from thinking. just like all the others. why nothing ever happens.
      • 4 Years Ago
      This sounds like a bizarre bailout to me - lending our best engineers' time to an auto company that is so far behind in technology it's funny. What does Chrysler have to offer? 0% financing and deep discounts?

      Please for the love of god, don't shoot a rocket called a 'charger' or 'pt cruiser' into space. That would be the final straw for me :P
        • 4 Years Ago
        It's an episode of 'Lost in Space' starring the Chrysler management, co-starring Nasa, and with a special guest appearance by 'Spock' Obama - hey, he's got the ears!
        • 4 Years Ago
        lol
      • 4 Years Ago
      chrysler is the wrong partner, they should partner up with UPS and the major airline carriers to transport cargo through space...
      • 4 Years Ago
      Chrysler and nasa??? OH NO! That means spaceships will soon break down real easily! lol
      http://www.electroniccigarettesinc.com
      • 4 Years Ago
      Ground control to Major Tom?
      • 4 Years Ago
      Sorry Carney, but you really are an idiot.

      Constellation was a fucking mess. It would have cost billions without producing anything worth the effort in technological advances or scientific discoveries. It was really "going nowhere".

      Obama's proposal will return NASA to what they are supposed to do: SCIENCE. Basic materials and propulsion research so that we can hopefully go beyond using 1950s technology at 2010 costs for space travel, and taking weeks or months to get anywhere instead of years and decades. Better understanding of the space environment and what it does to equipment, living things and people by extending the space station program instead of throwing it away after a few years. More remote exploration so we have learned everything we can from here before we go to other worlds. More earth science which is important because we desperately need it to not die.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Chrysler and NASA? That's just great. Chrysler already murdered the Mercedes brand — and has been narrowly escaping bankruptcy for decades.

      So, what the heck. Let's just go ahead and give the the keys to one of our nation's most trusted institutions.

      Nothing good will come of this. The next thing you know. The astronauts will be donning jumpsuits w/ UAW emblazoned on the back.
    • Load More Comments
    Advertisement
    2014 Jeep Cherokee
    MSRP: $22,995 - $30,095
    2015 Mercedes-Benz E-Class
    MSRP: $51,800 - $103,200
    2014 Chevrolet Cruze
    MSRP: $17,520 - $24,985