1970 Chevy C10 Short Bed on 2040-cars

Auto blog

How GM engineers are using diaper 'snow' to keep you warm

Testing how snow affects General Motors' vehicles isn't really a problem right now for the company's engineers, but in the dog days of summer the process isn't exactly easy. The only real option is for them to book time at the automaker's climatic wind tunnel. However, a flash of brilliance from an engineer allows snow to be simulated regardless of the temperature outside, and the discovery is all because of his daughter's wet diaper. The realization came to GM Thermal Systems engineer Nicholas Jahn while he was swimming with his daughter and noticed how her diaper ballooned in size in the water. He found out the substance that makes this possible is called sodium polyacrylate. When the material gets wet it grows and forms fluffy flakes that are a close imitation of snow. Best of all, the stuff can be prepared easily any time of the year, and it's reusable. The engineering team uses the material to test the effectiveness of the heating systems of GM's vehicles. They spread the sodium polyacrylate over the inlets at the base of the windshield to obstruct the airflow and then crank the heater. After some time, they can see how much is being sucked into the system and design more efficient systems in the future. See how the process works in the video above and read about the diaper discovery in GM's press release below. Diapers Change Chevy Cruze Winter Warm-up Time GM validation engineer uses diaper material "snow" to reduce frigid drives 2015-01-06 DETROIT – An item commonly found on an infant's changing table is helping General Motors' engineers simulate snow year round, ensuring heating systems in cars like the 2015 Chevrolet Cruze can quickly and efficiently warm its interior. Packed snow can prevent air from entering the inlet panel at the bottom of the windshield, obstructing the flow of air into the heating system and reducing the amount of air it can push out. This can lead to less efficient warming of the car's interior and windshield defrosting. "The last thing anyone wants to do when it's freezing cold out is scrape their windshield," said Nicholas Jahn, GM Vehicle Thermal Systems engineer. "The testing we perform on the Chevrolet Cruze with the diaper material allows us to maximize the car's heating capabilities." Ironically, Jahn stumbled upon his diaper-based testing method in the middle of summer. During a swim with his daughter, he noticed her diaper multiplied in size when it came into contact with water.

Race Recap: Rolex 24 at Daytona was fast and feisty

Let the record show that victory at the 2015 Rolex 24 at Daytona went to the No. 02 Chip Ganassi Racing with Felix Sabates Target/Ford EcoBoost Riley DP driven by Verizon IndyCar drivers Scott Dixon and Tony Kanaan and NASCAR drivers Jamie McMurray and Kyle Larson. The winner did 740 laps to cover 2,634.3 miles in 24 hours and 57.667 seconds. That's a statement to this year's pace in spite of 18 cautions, two more than last year: the Michael Shank Racing Ligier got pole with a time of 1:39.194, slower than last year's pole time of 1:38.270; however, the winning car last year only did 695 laps. The fight for top honors was shaved to a four-car battle over the first third of the event. The No. 02 Ganassi car took the lead on the first lap, swapping it well into the night with the No. 01 Ganassi car, the No. 10 Wayne Taylor Racing Corvette DP, and the defending champion No. 5 Action Express Corvette DP, all of them staying within about 20 seconds of one another. The Action Express car had a fuel connector come loose and lost three laps getting towed back to the pits to have it reattached, but was back in the lead 18 hours in. The No. 01 Ganassi car dropped out with recurring clutch problems 22 hours in, retiring not long after. A race-within-the-race is where the concluding action happened, a seven minute, 30-second dash from the end of the last caution to the checkered flag. During the penultimate pit stops with an hour to go, Dixon was in second place followed Jordan Taylor in the Wayne Taylor Racing DP into the pits but beat him out, taking the lead. The Action Express car was in third. In the last pit stops of the race, Dixon gained even more time, getting a four-second advantage over Taylor. Then a full-course caution came out twenty minutes before the finish when a Prototype Challenge car hit the wall and caught fire, bunching up the field. That closed the pits, but the Wayne Taylor Racing car had to pit during that yellow because of a miscalculation of driver time. No driver can be behind the wheel for more than four hours in a six-hour period but Jordan Taylor was going to go over, so he came in to swap out for brother Ricky. That cost the team any chance of second place, since they took an additional drive-through penalty for entering closed pits. When the track went green again, Sebastien Bourdais in the Action Express car stayed all over Dixon for the final five laps but couldn't get around him.

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.