57 Chevrolet Bel Air Coupe Rebuilt 283 V8 Three Speed On The Tree Manual on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM won't pay owners of recalled cars for lost value

Kenneth Feinberg, the man in charge of the General Motors compensation fund dealing with the its widespread ignition switch woes, has issued an informal, two-letter response to the plaintiffs in more than 70 lawsuits seeking redress for lost resale value of their Cobalts: "No." The cases were recently combined into one, but Feinberg told The Detroit News that the fund will deal "only with death and physical injury claims," and that "perceived diminished value" will get no consideration.
ALG, the firm specializing in establishing residual values, determined that Cobalt owners had lost $300 compared to the segment competition and doesn't envision any long-term effects from the recall situation. Feinberg's statement comes in advance of public details on how the compensation fund will work and adheres to GM's long-held position on the matter. The company has already asked a judge to throw out such suits using the pre-bankruptcy defense, even as it stopped using that defense in cases of injury and death.
With plenty of potential gain from the GM suit, however, don't expect the plaintiffs to give up yet. When Toyota was sued for the same reason during the unintended acceleration debacle, it eventually settled the case for between $1 billion and $1.4 billion just to get it over with. Since the 85 law firms involved in the Toyota litigation took home more than $250 million of that total, we shouldn't expect the attorneys to give up on a GM payout, either.

Impala SS vs. Marauder: Recalling Detroit’s muscle sedans 

Impala SS vs. Marauder — it was comparo that only really happened in theory. ChevyÂ’s muscle sedan ran from 1994-96, while MercuryÂ’s answer arrived in 2003 and only lasted until 2004. TheyÂ’re linked inextricably, as there were few options for powerful American sedans during that milquetoast period for enthusiasts. The debate was reignited recently among Autoblog editors when a pristine 1996 Chevy Impala SS with just 2,173 miles on the odometer hit the market on Bring a Trailer. Most of the staff favored the Impala for its sinister looks and said that it lived up to its billing as a legit muscle car. Nearly two-thirds of you agree. We ran an unscientific Twitter poll that generated 851 votes, 63.9 percent of which backed the Impala. Muscle sedans, take your pick: — Greg Migliore (@GregMigliore) April 14, 2020 Then and now enthusiasts felt the Impala was a more complete execution with guts. The Marauder, despite coming along later, felt more hacked together, according to prevailing sentiments. Why? On purpose and on paper theyÂ’re similar. The ImpalaÂ’s 5.7-liter LT1 V8 making 260 horsepower and 330 pound-feet of torque was impressive for a two-ton sedan in the mid-Â’90s. The Marauder was actually more powerful — its 4.6-liter V8 was rated at 302 hp and 318 lb-ft. The ImpalaÂ’s engine was also used in the C4 Corvette. The MarauderÂ’s mill was shared with the Mustang Mach 1. You can see why they resonated so deeply with Boomers longing for a bygone era and also captured the attention of coming-of-age Gen Xers. Car and DriverÂ’s staff gave the Marauder a lukewarm review back in ‘03, citing its solid handling and features, yet knocking the sedan for being slow off the line. In a Hemmings article appropriately called “Autopsy” from 2004, the ImpalaÂ’s stronger low-end torque and smooth shifting transmission earned praise, separating it from the more sluggish Mercury. All of this was captured in the carsÂ’ acceleration times, highlighting metrically the differences in their character. The Impala hit 60 miles per hour in 6.5 seconds, while the Marauder was a half-second slower, according to C/D testing. Other sites have them closer together, which reinforces the premise it really was the little things that separated these muscle cars. Both made the most of their genetics, riding on ancient platforms (FordÂ’s Panther and General MotorsÂ’ B-body) that preceded these cars by decades. Both had iconic names.

This is how GM is hiding new Chevy Volt in public

General Motors is letting the public know that, well, it's not about to let the public know anything else about the next-generation Chevrolet Volt. But the automaker is willing to talk about its camouflaging process for upcoming versions of the extended-range plug-in. So it's a half-hearted secret, at best. GM actually has a "camouflage engineer" charged with creating ways to disguise the styling of new vehicles. In the Volt's case, the company is applying black and white swirly color patterns on top of the materials, such as plastics, vinyl and foam, that are used liberally across the body. It's all part of a teaser campaign that started last month with pictures of part the 2016 Volt. Earlier this month, GM said it was keeping track of Volt drivers' habits as it works on the next-gen model. The company noted that more than four out of five trips are being made in all-electric driving mode, and that 60 percent of Volt owners use a plain-old 100-volt outlet to recharge their cars. The car is slated to make its global debut at Detroit's North American International Auto Show next January, and the early word is that performance and all-electric range will be improved (we should hope so). The car will also be sleeker. By how much, we can't tell yet, because of those darn swirly patterns. GM's got more non-details in its press release below. Engineers charged with hiding styling while vehicle testing proceeds in public DETROIT – The styling of the next-generation Chevrolet Volt is one of the automotive world's best-kept secrets. Keeping customers and media eager to see the successor to the groundbreaking original at bay until the new Volt debuts at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit in January is tricky business. First, it is engineers, not designers, who are charged with creating camouflage that balances styling secrecy with the need to validate the Volt and its systems in public. "If it were up to me it would be a shoebox driving down the road," said Lionel Perkins, GM camouflage engineer. "The design team wants us to cover more of the vehicle and the engineering team needs to have enough of the vehicle's weight and aero exposed so that the tests in the development process are consistent with the product that will come to market." The engineers responsible for the "cool" designs covering the car might deserve style points but their efforts are intended strictly to hide the metal beneath.