1970 Camaro Rs Restored California Car on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Our favorite mid-engine Corvette theories and rumors

The mid-engine Corvette! We just saw blurry photos through the foliage, and are hearts are all aflutter because it means that this car is real. And it's the most " never before" Corvette since 1984. Which leads us to all kinds of wacky theories and speculation. Everybody knows something or heard from a guy. None of those guys (or gals) from GM are talking to Autoblog, to be clear. But that won't stop us from stirring the pot. Let's go over a few point-by-point. The pushrod engine will be replaced by an overhead-cam V8 Car and Driver has repeatedly reported that an overhead-cam engine will come after the mid-engine Corvette's debut with an old-school pushrod. We've heard the same thing firsthand, albeit from a source with no connection to the development of the Corvette or powertrain. "At some point two valves can't pass future emissions regulations," said the guy we know. While the pushrod engine is compact, the design makes it difficult - if not impossible - for sophisticated variable valve timing (and lift) systems that control combustion with more precision. Hasty conclusion: The pushrod engine has a finite life in front of it. This one's a lock, it's a just a matter of when. Bowling Green's new paint shop is really the mid-engine assembly line Credit to Reddit for this one. Like we said, everybody knows a guy. But let's look deeper. The new paint facility costs $439 million dollars and adds 450,000 square feet, almost half the size of the existing plant. Plus GM announced another $290 million in upgrades at Bowling Green Assembly. That sure sounds like a lot of money, but you can actually spend that much on a paint booth. Porsche spent 500 million Euros (about $561 million dollars) to add the Macan assembly to its Leipzig, Germany plant in 2014. Chrysler shelled out $850 million for a paint shop in Sterling Heights, Michigan. GM spent $600 million for a new paint shop at the Fairfax (Kansas City) plant. Honda, on the other hand, is working on a thrifty $210 million project in Marysville, Ohio that includes a 300,000 square foot expansion, and the low-volume Acura NSX facility only cost $70 million. Hasty conclusion: The square footage and cost could easily mean a new assembly line instead of (or in addition to) a paint line. And if the NSX plant was really that cheap, GM could have hidden a similar sum in its existing announcements.

GM's MPG overstatement could affect 2 million vehicles

Late last week, GM admitted that three of its large SUVs fuel economy window stickers did not match their actual efficiency ratings, and so the vehicles couldn't be sold. The stickers on the 2016 Chevy Traverse, GMC Acadia, and Buick Enclave said their ratings were one to two miles per gallon better than they should have been. Officially, the number of affected vehicles sits at about 60,000. But Consumer Reports makes a good point: what's up with all of the previous model year SUVs that are basically the same vehicle? To wit: the 2016 model year vehicles are not substantially different than the 2015 or the 2014, or even going all the way back to 2007. On the EPA's fuel economy website, all of these older models will "have better stated fuel economy numbers than the new vehicles in GM's dealerships," Consumer Reports noted. CR's best point, and the one that makes the 60,000 number potentially grow to 2 million if all of the vehicles built on this platform are affected, is that "[i]t seems unlikely that the company would change the powertrain on these carryover models so late in their model cycles in a way that would cause a dramatic, negative impact on fuel economy." GM says that earlier model year SUVs are not affected and the EPA did not respond to CR's question about the potential for more discrepancies. We've seen automakers reverse course before, so if GM has to come out with a mea culpa soon, don't be surprised. GM is rushing corrected stickers to dealers so that the SUVs can be sold again, but a fix for the already-sold vehicles could be trickier to solve. Related Video: Related Gallery 2013 GMC Acadia View 16 Photos News Source: Consumer Reports Government/Legal Green Buick Chevrolet GMC Fuel Efficiency mpg gmc acadia chevy traverse

Jaguar I-Pace vs. Tesla Model 3 and other EVs: How they compare on paper

The 200-mile club of electric vehicles is really growing. The most recent member is the Jaguar I-Pace, the company's first pure EV. It promises luxury, performance, style, and most important, good range. Nearly as recent is the Hyundai Kona EV, and while it doesn't promise luxury or performance like the Jaguar (it's also smaller), it does pack impressive range. With the introduction of both of these electric cars, we thought we would see how they compare against each other, and the other two big names in high-capacity electric cars: the Chevy Bolt EV and the Tesla Model 3. This isn't intended to be a direct, apples-to-apples comparison, as the four are quite different. If anything, they break into two groups: bigger and more luxurious, and smaller and less expensive. Then again, the number of vehicles with this electric range is small and comparisons to EV's with less range wouldn't be too kind to the other guys. If you want to learn more about these EVs, and compare them with other cars, be sure to check out our Car Finder and comparison tools. Horsepower and torque There is one clear winner here, and that's the Jaguar I-Pace. It packs a whopping 394 horsepower and 512 pound-feet of torque. That comes through a pair of electric motors (one at the front, another at the rear) that provide the Jag with all-wheel drive, the only one of these vehicles to offer it (at the moment). Altogether, it allows the I-Pace to have the best 0-60 mph time of 4.5 seconds. At the other end of the spectrum is the Hyundai Kona EV. It's front-drive, like the Bolt EV, and has effectively the same amount of horsepower as the Chevy at 201 horsepower, but its 0-60-mph time is almost a second slower. And the low-range version of the Kona, excluded because it doesn't go more than 200 miles between charges, is slower still. The Tesla Model 3 is the only vehicle with rear-wheel drive, and with a 0-60 mph of 5.1 seconds for the Long Range model, it is still very quick. Range and energy use Frequently, the all-consuming question with electric cars is, "How far can I go on a charge?" And to go the farthest, you need the long-range Tesla Model 3. It can go 310 miles. It has the added advantage of being able to use the network of Tesla Supercharger stations, though they are pay-per-use with the Model 3. Even the lower capacity Model 3, with just 220 miles of range, can use these stations.