1991 Ss 454 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM’s Charlie Wilson was right: Stronger regulations can help U.S. automakers

Charlie Wilson had been the president and CEO of General Motors before being nominated to become secretary of defense by Dwight Eisenhower. During his Senate confirmation hearings, he controversially said, "For years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa." And he was right. While car companies aren't necessarily the most progressive when it comes to things that might have the slightest possibility of political blowback, General Motors should be credited for doing something absolutely forthright in this regard with its announcement that it wants the federal U.S. government not to squash the California Air Resources Board's emissions requirements but to actually create a 50-state "National Zero Emissions Vehicle" program that, in the words of Mark Reuss, executive vice president and president, Global Product Group and Cadillac, "will drive the scale and infrastructure investments needed to allow the U.S. to lead the way to a zero emission future." Filing comments to the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks is one thing. But a graphic the company developed for this announcement — shown above — is something else entirely, something that is absolutely credible, creative and clever. There is a photo of a Chevrolet Bolt EV driving along a highway, which seems to be in Marin County (based on the blurred San Francisco skyline in the background). Text on the photo states: "It's Time for American Leadership in Zero Emissions Vehicles." It seems to say, in effect, "If we want to make America great again, then we're going to do it by leading in technology, not by retreating behind weakened regulations." General Motors understands that the auto market is globally competitive, and if U.S.-based companies are going to be in the game, then they'd better be able to out-innovate the companies based elsewhere, where emissions and economy standards are not being weakened. What's good for our country ... Related Video:

Question of the Day: What's the most irritating car name?

You hear a lot about how the Chevrolet Nova was a sales flop in Mexico because "No va" means "it doesn't go" in Spanish; in fact, the Nova sold pretty well south of the border, and in any case most Spanish-speakers know that "Nova" means "new" in Latin and Portuguese. However, General Motors doesn't deserve to be let off the hook for bad car names, because the Oldsmobile Achieva— no doubt inspired by the excruciating "coffee achievers" ads of the 1980s— scrapes the biggest fingernails down the screechiest chalkboard in the US-market car-name world. That is, unless you think Daihatsu's incomprehensible choice of Charade was worse. Meanwhile, Japanese car buyers could get machines with cool names like Mazda Bongo Friendee or Honda Life Dunk. It's just not fair! So, what car name drives you the craziest? Related Video: Auto News Design/Style Chevrolet Honda Mazda Daihatsu Automotive History questions car names

Cruze Diesel Road Trip reveals the good and bad, but no ugly

Most of us have strong opinions on diesel-powered cars based on our perceptions of and experience with them. I used to thoroughly dislike oil burners for their noise, smoke and lackluster performance, and the fact that they ran on greasy, smelly stuff that was more expensive than gasoline, could be hard to find and was nasty to get on your hands when refueling. Those negatives, for me, trumped diesel's major positives of big torque for strong acceleration and better fuel economy. Are any of those knocks on diesel still valid today? I'm not talking semis, which continue to annoy me when their operators for some reason almost never shut them down. At any busy truck stop, the air seems always filled with the sound – and sometimes smell – of dozens of big-rig diesels idling endlessly and mindlessly. Or diesel heavy-duty pickups. Those muscular workhorses are far more refined than they once were and burn much less fuel than their gasoline counterparts. But good luck arriving home late at night, or departing early morning, without waking your housemates and neighbors with their clattery racket. No, I'm talking diesel-powered passenger cars, which account for more than half the market in Europe (diesel fuel is cheaper there) yet still barely bump the sales charts in North America. Diesel fuel remains more expensive here, too few stations carry it, and too many Americans remember when diesel cars were noisy, smelly slugs. Also, US emissions requirements make them substantially more expensive to certify, and therefore to buy. But put aside (if you can) higher vehicle purchase and fuel prices, and today's diesel cars can be delightful to drive while delivering much better fuel efficiency than gas-powered versions. So far in the US, all except Chevrolet's compact Cruze Diesel come from German brands, and all are amazingly quiet, visually clean (no smoke) and can be torquey-fun to drive. When a GM Powertrain engineering team set out to modify a tried-and-true GM of Europe turbodiesel four for North American Chevy Cruze compacts, says assistant chief engineer Mike Siegrist, it had a clear target in mind: the Volkswagen Jetta TDI 2.0-liter diesel. And they'll tell you that they beat it in nearly every way. "I believe we have a superior product," he says. "It's powerful, efficient and clean, and it will change perceptions of what a diesel car can be." The 2.0L Cruze turbodiesel pumps out 151 SAE certified horses and 264 pound-feet of torque (at just 2,000 rpm) vs.