1967 Camaro on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 Chevy Volt gets larger battery, though range remains the same

The Chevrolet Volt isn't changing much for the 2015 model year. According to specifications uncovered by Inside EVs, though, the new Volt's battery does have a slightly larger capacity. According to the spec sheet, this doesn't translate to increased range. Real world driving, though, might tell a different story. The 2015 Volt's battery storage is slightly higher than the outgoing model's, up from 16.5 kilowatt-hours to 17.1 kWh. According to GM's manager of electrification technology communications, Kevin Kelly, speaking to Green Car Reports, the increased capacity is "a late change done in the cell... just another continuous improvement to surprise and delight our customers." The stated electric range, however, stays at 38 miles. Inside EVs followed up on its original report, and found that drivers could see some advantage to the battery tweak. When they spoke to Kelly, he told them, "As a result of this change, we would expect that some customers may see a slight improvement in overall EV range." It's worth noting that when battery capacity increased from 16 kWh to 16.5 kWh for the 2013 Volt, electric range increased by three miles to the current 38, while MPGe went from 94 to 98. The price of the 2015 Chevrolet Volt remains steady, at $34,995. The actual cost to the customer is considerably less with the $7,500 federal tax credit, as well as any local incentives.

Recharge Wrap-up: Chevy Volt's new, improved powertrain; Inabikari wants to build Tesla Model X fighter

We knew the 2016 Chevrolet Volt's new powertrain would provide more range, but we didn't know how much. According to GM's Executive Director Larry Nitz, it is about 12 percent more, overall. "I can't think of a powertrain we've re-engineered more extensively within a five-year period than this one," he said. The battery, electric drive system and gasoline generator have all been reworked to allow for an overall driving range of up to 425 miles, with electric range speculated to reach 42 miles or more. The new Volt will also benefit from 20 percent quicker low-end acceleration, weight reductions and improvements in NVH. Read more at Hybrid Cars and at the SAE website. Hyundai's FCEV research and development boss, Dr. Sae-Hoon Kim, is optimistic about the future of hydrogen mobility in Japan. With the Tucson Fuel Cell already in production ahead of Toyota's FCV, Hyundai has a foothold in the hydrogen car scene. Kim believes that since the Fukushima disaster, Japan's attitudes toward energy make it friendly to a growing hydrogen economy. He also says that hydrogen won't be limited to Hyundai, with Kia getting all the battery EVs. "Both types are for both companies," Kim says. "For the moment, volumes are small and it is not wise to have Hyundai and Kia competing." Read more at Just Auto. The Latvian/German startup Inabikari is using crowdfunding to build an electric crossover for Europe. The Rev.01 EV hopes to compete with Tesla's upcoming Model X with a range of over 400 miles and a five-second 0-60 time. The group currently is trying to raise initial funds through an Indiegogo campaign, with hopes of more investment in the future and sales beginning in 2017. See the video below, and read more at Hybrid Cars and at the Inabikari website. Fuel economy and emissions regulations could lead to some interesting design changes to automobiles. The World Light Duty Test Procedure, set to replace the New European Driving Cycle in 2017, will push automakers to find new ways to reduce drag on their vehicles. For better aerodynamics, we could see traditional side-view mirrors replaced by cameras that display what they see on screens inside the vehicle. Another likely change will be the introduction of smaller, narrower wheels. Improving the average drag coefficient from 0.32 to 0.20 could reduce CO2 emissions by as much as 20 percent. Read more at Automotive News Europe.

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.