1971 Chevrolet Chevelle Base Hardtop 2-door 5.7l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

LG Chem's troubled Chevy Volt battery plant hiring once again

The Michigan battery plant known for paying its workers to do nothing has turned things around and is now hiring more workers, specifically to do something. South Korea-based LG Chem, which runs the factory to supply the Chevrolet Volt extended-range plug-in vehicle with its lithium-ion batteries, held a job fair recently to bring on 40 new employees in order to meet higher battery demand, according to WZZM, the ABC affiliate for Grand Rapids, MI. The LG Chem factory is in Holland, MI, about 30 miles west of Grand Rapids, and it made its first batteries last year. Prior to that, though, the factory gained notoriety after a US Department of Energy (DOE) probe found that workers there were getting paid to do, well, nothing. That's because demand for the battery packs was so low that it cost less for the plant to sit idle. The DOE was conducting the probe because of its financial grant to LG Chem. But that was then and today is today. LG Chem is looking to ramp up production in advance of the second-generation Volt. That 2016 model-year version is said to have a longer all-electric range and better performance and will ride on a new chassis, but few official details have surfaced. We will know more when we get our first look at the car at the Detroit Auto Show in January.

GM profit dips on truck changeover, but beats estimates

DETROIT — General Motors on Thursday reported a higher-than-expected quarterly profit despite a drop in production of high-margin pickup trucks, as it gears up for new models that are expected to boost profits next year. Like rivals Ford and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, GM is banking on highly-profitable Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra pickup trucks to lift profits, as consumers shift away from traditional passenger cars in favor of these larger, more comfortable trucks, SUVs and crossovers. During the first quarter, the process of changing over to GM's new pickups resulted in a drop in production of 47,000 units. GM Chief Financial Officer Chuck Stevens said the production drop had resulted in a drop in pre-tax profit of up to $800 million. Earlier this year, GM said its 2018 profits would be flat compared with 2017, but expected its all-new pickup trucks would boost margins starting in 2019. On Thursday, GM reiterated its full-year 2018 forecast for adjusted earnings in a range from $6.30 to $6.60 per share. The automaker said capital expenditures were more than $500 million higher in the quarter because of investments its new pickup trucks and a family of low-cost vehicles under development with Chinese partner SAIC Motor Corp. On Wednesday, rival Ford said it would stop investing in most traditional passenger sedans in North America. CFO Stevens told reporters on Thursday that GM has "already indicated that we will make significantly lower investments on a go-forward basis" in sedans. 2019 GMC Sierra View 21 Photos GM benefited from a lower effective tax rate in the quarter, but adjusted pre-tax margin fell to 7.2 percent from 9.5 percent a year earlier. Stevens said the company's profit margin should hit 10 percent or higher in the second quarter and for the full year. GM said material costs were $700 million higher in the first quarter, and it expects those costs to continue rising. The automaker said it would counter those increases with cost cutting measures. "It is a more difficult environment than it was three or four months ago," Stevens said when asked about rising commodity prices from potential steel and aluminum tariffs announced by the Trump administration. "But we are confident we can continue to offset that." The company reported quarterly net income of $1.05 billion or $1.43 per share, a drop of nearly 60 percent from $2.61 billion or $1.75 per share a year earlier. Analysts had on average expected earnings per share of $1.24.

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.