1988 Chevrolet Pro Street Astro Van on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM delays 3.0-liter Duramax diesel in Silverado and Sierra pickups

Stricter testing protocols around the world are making it harder for automakers to predict launch timelines. GM is the latest to get caught in emissions nettles, the Detroit carmaker forced to delay the launch of its new Duramax 3.0-liter inline-six diesel for the Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and GMC Sierra 1500. That's what company reps told dealers in a memo seen by Automotive News this week. Dealers and buyers had been promised the Flint, Mich.-built oil-burner in early 2019, but AN wrote that the EPA certification hiccup has turned into a "slight delay." A GM spokesman told Motor1, "[We] did not attribute [the delay] to a single entity, as the truth is this is a collaborative effort between GM and several government entities. We will make the 2020MY Duramax available for dealers orders soon, and expect to deliver the first trucks to customers soon after emissions testing is complete." We know the new 3.0-liter Duramax diesel has 277 horsepower and 460 pound-feet of torque, outdoing Ford's 3.0-liter PowerStroke diesel by 27 hp and 20 lb-ft. But without final EPA paperwork, GM can't release the numbers that will show how the two engines stack up when considering fuel economy and tow ratings. The certification process has been sticky for a few other makers of late, especially since the Volkswagen Group situation in 2015. BMW had to delay the launch of four diesel models in 2016 over EPA testing. The new Ram 1500 dribbled out in a trickle last year for reasons thought to deal with EPA testing, coming as it did a year after the EPA investigated Ram's EcoDiesel engines in 2017 and 2018. More recently, WLTP testing in Europe caught out just about every automaker over there. Since we're almost halfway through 2019, the delay until the 2020 model year is only a few months. Still, GM told dealers to cancel any orders for the engine for this model year. Dealers will need to resubmit the orders once opening begins, but GM hasn't said when production will begin other than "soon." The company said that it will offer 2020-model-year replacement vehicles to customers and dealers. If prices hold into the next model year, the 2020 Silverado 1500 and Sierra 1500 with the inline-six diesel will come at a $3,890 premium over the 2.7-liter turbo four-cylinder, and a $2,495 premium over the 5.3-liter V8.

Chevy admits there's confusion over Bolt and Volt names

Offering the possibility of 200 miles of driving range and the potential for a price of about $30,000, the Chevrolet Bolt is an incredibly enticing vehicle, and it has an opportunity to be a big player in the EV world. However, the hatchback has been plagued by one problem since the moment it debuted – the name. Bolt sounds very similar to Volt, Chevy's extended-range plug-in, and they can be easy to confuse in a conversation. That's not the best quality to have when trying to get a new vehicle's name out there among customers, and General Motors North America president Alan Batey told the Detroit Free Press that the company is aware of the problem. While the EV is definitely going into production, the model might be wearing a different moniker when it hits showrooms. "We're still in the decision phase. It could go either way," Batey said to the Free Press. He indicated the automaker still has about a year before a final decision is necessary. The Bolt will be built at GM's Orion Assembly plant in Michigan and will likely go on sale around 2017. That will put the Chevy on the market at roughly the same time as the 200-mile Tesla Model 3. Batey didn't seem too concerned, though. "Unlike Tesla, we can spread the cost over a whole lineup," he said to the Free Press. The future doesn't look quite so bright for the Spark EV, though. Batey suggested that it might not last once the longer-range Bolt fills that niche in the lineup. Related Video:

BMW, Hyundai score big in JD Power's first Tech Experience Index

While automakers are quick to brag about winning a JD Power Initial Quality Study award, the reality, as we've pointed out before, is that these ratings are somewhat misleading, since IQS doesn't necessarily distinguish genuine quality issues. JD Power's new Tech Experience Index aims to solve that problem. The new metric takes the same 90-day approach as IQS but focuses exclusively on technology – collision protection, comfort and convenience, driving assistance, entertainment and connectivity, navigation, and smartphone mirroring. It splits the industry up into just seven segments, based loosely on size, which is why the Chevrolet Camaro is in the same division (mid-size) as Kia Sorento and the Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class is in the same segment as the Hyundai Genesis (mid-size premium). It makes for some screwy bedfellows, to be sure. Still, splitting tech experience away from initial quality should allow customers to make more informed and intelligent decisions when buying new vehicles. In the inaugural study, respondents listed BMW and Hyundai as the big winners, with two segment awards – the 2 Series for small premium and the 4 Series for compact premium, and the Genesis for mid-size premium and Tucson for small segment. The Chevrolet Camaro (midsize), Kia Forte (compact), and Nissan Maxima (large) scored individual wins. Ford also had a surprising hit with the Lincoln MKC, which ranked third in the compact premium segment behind the 4 Series and Lexus IS. This is a coup for the Blue Oval, whose woeful MyFord Touch systems made the brand a victim of the IQS' flaws in the early 2010s. But Ford and other automakers might not want to celebrate just yet. According to JD Power, there's still a lot of room for improvement – navigation systems were the lowest-rated piece of tech in the study. Instead, customers repeatedly saluted collision-avoidance and safety systems, giving the category the best marks of the study and listing blind-spot monitoring and backup cameras as two must-have features – 96 percent of respondents said they wanted those two systems in their next vehicle. But this isn't really a surprise. Implementation of safety systems from brand to brand is similar, and they don't require any input from users, unlike navigation and infotainment systems which are frustratingly deep.