1969 Chevrolet Chevelle Matching Numbers on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM reintroduces Tripower name in the worst way possible

The story of General Motors' use of the Tripower moniker begins way back in 1957, when Semon E. "Bunkie" Knudsen, then General Manager of GM's Pontiac division, directed his engineers to inject more performance into his brand's line of V8-powered automobiles. Fuel injection was an option, but hot rodders flocked instead to Tri-Power (marketed way back when with a hyphen), which grafted a trio of two-barrel Rochester carburetors onto a single intake manifold. A legend was born. And that legend was born of performance. At idle and when full power wasn't required, Pontiac's Tri-Power system used just the middle carburetor, which helped make the setup easier to tune. Depending on the year and model, either a vacuum system or a mechanical linkage opened up the two outer carbs, thereby switching from two barrels to six, and allowing the engine to take in more fuel and air. And it was an easy marketing win – six barrels is better than four barrels, right? Because performance! So, when news filtered in that GM has resurrected the Tripower name, those of us who grew up attending classic car shows and wrenching on old Pontiacs did a double-take. And then we all collectively sighed. Turns out that today's Tripower refers to a trio of fuel-saving measures that include cylinder deactivation, active thermal management, and intake valve lift control, according to Automotive News. And, at least for now, it applies to GM's line of fullsize trucks powered by a 2.7-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine. We're all for saving fuel whenever possible. And we have zero say in how any automaker chooses to market its products and technologies. But, we'll offer our two cents anyway: Relaunching a storied name from the past is fine. Relaunching a storied name from the past while completely overlooking the reasons the name got famous in the first place is only going to irritate the people who remember the name in the first place. Couldn't they just call this new technology package something else? Related Video: News Source: Automotive NewsImage Credit: Getty Green Marketing/Advertising Chevrolet GM Pontiac Automotive History Truck chevrolet silverado

Recharge Wrap-up: EVs poll well in Portland, Tesla seeks office space

In a poll of drivers in Portland, more than 80 percent said they would be driving an EV in the next 10 years if they weren't already. The poll was small and not scientific, with just 218 votes cast, but it does reflect a slice of a certain population with changing attitudes toward electric mobility, and 80 percent is an impressive figure. Additionally, 43 percent of respondents planned to have an EV in the next five years, and only 18 percent said they prefer gasoline-powered vehicles. With EVs in many ways repeating the adoption process that hybrids went through a decade ago, the five- or ten-year timeframe for more widespread use seems only natural. Read more at the Portland Business Journal. San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee parks like an idiot, or rather, his security detail does. His Chevrolet Volt has been ticketed for parking six times since he took office. Granted, those street-sweeping signs are tough to keep track of, but his car has been photographed blocking at a bus stop while grabbing a burrito (who hasn't sinned in the name of a delicious burrito?), and was even caught parked in a crosswalk. The tickets were all dismissed. Read more from the SF Gate. Tesla is looking for office space in Silicon Valley. As the electric car company continues to search for a place to build its $4- to $5-billion battery Gigafactory, it also needs some real estate to expand its operations near its Palo Alto home. Tesla has expanded from 3,000 to 6,000 California-based employees since the end of 2012, and plans to add 500 more by the end of the year. It is currently looking for 200,000 to 300,000 square feet of office space close to its Fremont factory, according to sources in the real estate industry. Read more at the Silicon Valley Business Journal. Related Gallery 2014 Chevrolet Volt View 11 Photos News Source: Portland Business Journal, SF Gate, Silicon Valley Business JournalImage Credit: Paul Sakuma / AP Green Chevrolet Tesla Electric recharge wrapup portland silicon valley parking ticket

GM won't really kill off the Chevy Volt and Cadillac CT6, will it?

General Motors is apparently considering killing off six slow-selling models by 2020, according to Reuters. But is that really likely? The news is mentioned in a story where UAW president Dennis Williams notes that slumping US car sales could threaten jobs at low-volume factories. Still, we're skeptical that GM is really serious about killing those cars. Reuters specifically calls out the Buick LaCrosse, Cadillac CT6, Cadillac XTS, Chevrolet Impala, Chevrolet Sonic, and the Chevrolet Volt. Most of these have been redesigned or refreshed within the past few model years. Four - the LaCrosse, Impala, CT6, and Volt - are built in the Hamtramck factory in Detroit. That plant has made only 35,000 cars this year - down 32 percent from 2016. A typical GM plant builds 200,000-300,000 vehicles a year. Of all the cars Williams listed, killing the XTS, Impala, and Sonic make the most sense. They're older and don't sell particularly well. On the other hand, axing the other three seems like an odd move. It would leave Buick and Cadillac without flagship sedans, at least until the rumored Cadillac CT8 arrives. The CT6 was a big investment for GM and backing out after just a few years would be a huge loss. It also uses GM's latest and best materials and technology, making us even more skeptical. The Volt is a hugely important car for Chevrolet, and supplementing it with a crossover makes more sense than replacing it with one. Offering one model with a range of powertrain variants like the Hyundai Ioniq and Toyota Prius might be another route GM could take. All six of these vehicles are sedans, Yes, crossover sales are booming, but there's still a huge market for cars. Backing away from these would be essentially giving up sales to competitors from around the globe. The UAW might simply be publicly pushing GM to move crossover production to Hamtramck to avoid closing the plant and laying off workers. Sales of passenger cars are down across both GM and the industry. Consolidating production in other plants and closing Hamtramck rather than having a single facility focus on sedans might make more sense from a business perspective. GM is also trying to reduce its unsold inventory, meaning current production may be slowed or halted while current cars move into customer hands. There's a lot of politics that goes into building a car. GM wants to do what makes the most sense from a business perspective, while the UAW doesn't workers to lose their jobs when a factory closes.