Chevrolet : Bel Air/150/210 Project Car on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Consumer Reports criticizes small turbo engines for misleading performance, fuel economy claims [w/video]

Consumer Reports has taken aim at at small-displacement, forced-induction engines, saying the powerplants don't manage to deliver on automaker fuel economy claims. Manufacturers have long held that smaller, turbocharged engines pack all power of their larger displacement cousins with significantly better fuel economy, but the research organization says that despite scoring high EPA economy numbers, the engines are no better than conventional drivetrains in both categories. Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports, says the forced induction options "are often slower and less fuel efficient than larger four and six-cylinder engines."
Specifically, CR calls out the new Ford Fusion equipped with the automaker's Ecoboost 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine. The institute's researchers found the engine, which is a $795 option over the base 2.5-liter four-cylinder, fails to match competitors in acceleration and served up 25 miles per gallon in testing, putting the sedan dead last among other midsize options.
The Chevrolet Cruze, Hyundai Sonata Turbo and Ford Escape 2.0T all got dinged for the same troubles, though Consumer Reports has found the turbo 2.0-liter four-cylinder in the BMW 328i does deliver on its promises. You can check out the full press release below. You can also read the full study on the Consumer Reports site, or scroll down for a short video recap.

Smaller Cars Endure Big Problems On Crash Test

In a crash test of 11 of the smallest cars on the market, only one vehicle received an acceptable rating. The rest received marginal or poor ratings in the study, providing evidence that supports a widely held notion that smaller cars are among the least safe on the road. No other vehicle group has performed as poorly on a new crash test than these mini cars, says the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the nonprofit group that conducted the testing. The latest results of which were released Wednesday. The Chevrolet Spark was the only car earning an overall "acceptable" rating on the small-front overlap test, and even that vehicle had its shortcomings, IIHS said. "Small lightweight vehicles have an inherent safety disadvantage," said Joe Nolan, the senior vice president for vehicle research at IIHS. "That's why it's even more important to choose one with the best occupant protection. Unfortunately, as a group, minicars aren't performing as well as other vehicle categories." The Mazda2, Kia Rio, Toyota Yaris and certain Ford Fiesta models all received "marginal" overall grades on the test, while the Mitsubishi Mirage, Nissan Versa, Toyota Prius C, Hyundai Accent, Fiat 500 and Honda Fit all earned "poor" ratings. Results from these sub-compact cars fare much worse than vehicles sized just a little bit bigger, IIHS said. Among 17 cars evaluated in the small category, five earned "good" ratings and five more earned "acceptable." Only introduced a year ago, the small-front overlap test has quickly become a key indicator of differences in automotive safety. IIHS introduced it as a way to replicate what happens when the front corner of a vehicle collides with a tree or utility pole at 40 miles per hour. In the real world, these sorts of accidents are more dangerous than others, in part because they bypass the front-end crush zones on most cars. TOP 5Most Researched Sedans 2013 Honda Accord MSRP : $21,680 2013 Hyundai Sonata MSRP : $20,895 2013 Nissan Altima MSRP : $21,760 2014 Honda Accord MSRP : $21,955 2013 Toyota Corolla MSRP : $16,230 Automakers have been rushing to make design changes to the front ends of their cars. Without a grade of acceptable or better, they cannot qualify for the IIHS' overall Top Safety Pick+ honor, given annually to the safest models on the market.

GM recalls Cadillac ATS and Chevy Impala for separate issues

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration added two recalls from General Motors in the government organization's daily update of safety campaigns. Both were for failing to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards but for completely separate reasons. The larger recall covers 58,698 units of the 2013-2015 Cadillac ATS, but it doesn't really carry huge safety concerns. In vehicles produced between April 25, 2012, and February 9, 2015, the controls for the tilt and slide of the moonroof are not recessed enough, as required by federal law. According to NHTSA, it's possible that someone could inadvertently activate the auto-close for the roof panel, which the agency claims increases "the risk of personal injury." Dealers will install a new trim plate that will add the necessary clearance. The other campaign covers 1,177 examples of the 2014 Chevrolet Impala from between November 15, 2012, and May 27, 2014. However, this is actually a repeat of a previous recall on the Chevy and the Cadillac XTS from 2014. The affected Impalas here "were remedied incorrectly" under the earlier campaign, according to NHTSA. On these sedans, it's possible the electronic parking brake might not fully disengage and still remain in some contact with the rotor, which is in violation of federal rules. The fault can cause excessive heat from the brakes that could potentially lead to a fire, according to NHTSA. To fix the problem, dealers will reprogram the electronic parking brake control module. Show full PR text RECALL Subject : Inadvertent Press of Roof Panel Switch/FMVSS 118 Report Receipt Date: FEB 24, 2015 NHTSA Campaign Number: 15V106000 Component(s): VISIBILITY Potential Number of Units Affected: 58,698 All Products Associated with this Recall Vehicle Make Model Model Year(s) CADILLAC ATS 2013-2015 Details Manufacturer: General Motors LLC SUMMARY: General Motors LLC (GM) is recalling certain model year 2013-2015 Cadillac ATS vehicles manufactured April 25, 2012, to February 9, 2015. In the affected vehicles, the power-operated roof panels auto-close when the non-recessed "Slide" or "Tilt" switches are pressed. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No.