2013 Chevrolet Camaro Ss on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Junkyard Gem: 1987 Chevrolet Turbo Sprint

Fifteen years ago, I wrote my first-ever automotive article under the name Murilee Martin, and it didn't take me long to start writing about one of my favorite automotive subjects: the junkyard. Before I'd refined my system for documenting discarded vehicles, however, I shot a lot of boneyard photos that never got used. For today's Junkyard Gem, I have four shots from early 2007 of one of the rarest turbocharged machines of the 1980s: the Chevrolet Turbo Sprint. The Chevrolet Sprint was really a rebadged Suzuki Cultus, from the pre-Geo era when General Motors sold the Isuzu Gemini as the Chevrolet Spectrum, the Daewoo LeMans as the Pontiac LeMans and the Toyota Corolla as the Chevrolet Nova (soon enough, the Spectrum became a Geo, and the Nova became the Prizm). The second-generation Cultus appeared in 1988, becoming the Geo Metro on our shores the following year. The Turbo Sprint was available for just the last two years of the Sprint's 1985-1988 American sales run, and it appears that just a couple of thousand were sold; if I'd known at the time just how rare they were, I'd have shot more photos of this one at the now-defunct Hayward Pick Your Part. The turbocharged 993cc three-cylinder produced 70 horsepower, 22 better than the naturally-aspirated version. Since the Turbo Sprint weighed just 1,620 pounds (that's about 500 pounds lighter than a barely more powerful '22 Mitsusbishi Mirage), it was plenty of fun to drive. For 1988, the regular Sprint hatchback cost $6,380 while the Turbo Sprint listed at $8,240 (that's about $15,375 and $19,855 today, respectively). Believe it or not, a Turbo Sprint actually raced in the 24 Hours of Lemons 10 years ago, though it didn't end well. This ad is for the regular Cultus, not the Cultus Turbo, but the screaming guitars sound reasonably turbocharged. For the most part, Chevy Sprint marketing was all about cheap purchase price and stingy fuel economy… at a time when gasoline prices were cratering. Related Video:

Chevy Volt replacement battery cost varies wildly, up to $34,000

There's a growing hubbub in the plug-in vehicle community over what looks like some ridiculously cheap replacement batteries for the Chevrolet Volt going up for sale. GM Parts Online, for example, is selling a replacement Volt battery with an MSRP of $2,994.64 but, with an online discount, the price comes down to $2,305.88. For the 16-kWh pack in the 2012 Volt, that comes to a very low $144.11 per kilowatt hour (kWH). But is it a real deal? How can it be, when a Chevy dealer may quote you a price of up to $34,000 to replace the pack? For a 16-kWh Volt pack, $2,305.88 comes to a very low $144.11 per kWh. But is it a real deal? Battery packs in alternative propulsion vehicles are usually priced by the kWh and, historically, they've been thought to be in the range of $500-per-kWh for OEM offerings. Since automakers are understandably secretive about their costs, we still don't know what the real number is today, but we do know it varies by automaker. Tesla, for example, has said it pays less than $200-per-kWH at the cell level but, of course, a constructed pack would be more. Whatever is going on, li-ion battery prices are trending downward. So, $144.11 certainly sounds great, but what's the story here? Kevin Kelly, manager of electrification technology communications for General Motors, reminded AutoblogGreen that GM Parts Online is not the official GM parts website and that, "the costs indicated on the site are not what we would charge our dealers or owners for a replacement battery. There would be no cost to the Volt owner if their battery needs replacement or repair while the battery is under the eight year/100,000 mile limited warranty coverage provided by Chevrolet." A single price tag also can't be accurate for everyone, Kelly said. "If the customer needs to have their battery repaired beyond the warranty, the cost to them would vary depending on what needs to be replaced or repaired (i.e. number of modules, which specific internal components need replacement, etc.)." he said. "So, it's hard for us to tell you exactly what the cost would be to the customer because it varies depending on what might need to be repaired/replaced. As a result, the core charge would vary." But, is the $2,300 price even accurate for anyone? Thanks to a reader comment, we see that this similar item on New GM Parts makes it look like the lithium-ion modules that Kelly mentioned – where a lot of the expensive bits are – are not included.

BMW, Hyundai score big in JD Power's first Tech Experience Index

While automakers are quick to brag about winning a JD Power Initial Quality Study award, the reality, as we've pointed out before, is that these ratings are somewhat misleading, since IQS doesn't necessarily distinguish genuine quality issues. JD Power's new Tech Experience Index aims to solve that problem. The new metric takes the same 90-day approach as IQS but focuses exclusively on technology – collision protection, comfort and convenience, driving assistance, entertainment and connectivity, navigation, and smartphone mirroring. It splits the industry up into just seven segments, based loosely on size, which is why the Chevrolet Camaro is in the same division (mid-size) as Kia Sorento and the Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class is in the same segment as the Hyundai Genesis (mid-size premium). It makes for some screwy bedfellows, to be sure. Still, splitting tech experience away from initial quality should allow customers to make more informed and intelligent decisions when buying new vehicles. In the inaugural study, respondents listed BMW and Hyundai as the big winners, with two segment awards – the 2 Series for small premium and the 4 Series for compact premium, and the Genesis for mid-size premium and Tucson for small segment. The Chevrolet Camaro (midsize), Kia Forte (compact), and Nissan Maxima (large) scored individual wins. Ford also had a surprising hit with the Lincoln MKC, which ranked third in the compact premium segment behind the 4 Series and Lexus IS. This is a coup for the Blue Oval, whose woeful MyFord Touch systems made the brand a victim of the IQS' flaws in the early 2010s. But Ford and other automakers might not want to celebrate just yet. According to JD Power, there's still a lot of room for improvement – navigation systems were the lowest-rated piece of tech in the study. Instead, customers repeatedly saluted collision-avoidance and safety systems, giving the category the best marks of the study and listing blind-spot monitoring and backup cameras as two must-have features – 96 percent of respondents said they wanted those two systems in their next vehicle. But this isn't really a surprise. Implementation of safety systems from brand to brand is similar, and they don't require any input from users, unlike navigation and infotainment systems which are frustratingly deep.