1972 Chevrollet Chevelle Ss #'s Matching Flame Orange With Black Stripes on 2040-cars

Auto blog

The Volt Dance had precedent; meet the Chevy Footlockers

Marketing in the auto industry can get weird sometimes – really quite bizarre, in fact. For example, remember the Chevy Volt dance from the 2009 Los Angles Auto Show? If not, a group boogied to a song about the electric car, and it was every bit as awkward (and hilarious) as that sounds. In fact, that innocent bit of promotion lives in infamy, as some pundits grabbed hold of it during General Motors' bailout and asked why America's tax dollars were going to such things. The Chicago Auto Show has been digging through its vault of vintage videos, and it has come up with something that might actually be worse than that Volt-themed routine. They're called the Chevy Footlockers, and they're a dance troupe somehow promoting the Cavalier at the 1988 Chicago show. The connection between the car and their routine is unclear, but it's gloriously cheesy in a Chippendales-meets-AC Slater sort of way. Also, there are props towards the end, but we aren't going to spoil them for you, because you just have to watch for yourself. As a bonus, there's another (brief) clip below showing a female dance group with the Geo Tracker at the '91 Chicago show, and they sing, too. Scroll down to watch both of these oddities. News Source: ChicagoAutoShow via YouTube [1], [2] Marketing/Advertising Chicago Auto Show Chevrolet GM Classics geo

Best car infotainment systems: From UConnect to MBUX, these are our favorites

Declaring one infotainment system the best over any other is an inherently subjective matter. You can look at quantitative testing for things like input response time and various screen load times, but ask a room full of people that have tried all car infotainment systems what their favorite is, and you’re likely to get a lot of different responses. For the most part, the various infotainment systems available all share a similar purpose. They aim to help the driver get where they're going with navigation, play their favorite tunes via all sorts of media playback options and allow folks to stay connected with others via phone connectivity. Of course, most go way beyond the basics these days and offer features like streaming services, in-car performance data and much more. Unique features are aplenty when you start diving through menus, but how they go about their most important tasks vary widely. Some of our editors prefer systems that are exclusively touch-based and chock full of boundary-pushing features. Others may prefer a back-to-basics non-touch system that is navigable via a scroll wheel. You can compare it to the phone operating system wars. Just like some prefer Android phones over iPhones, we all have our own opinions for what makes up the best infotainment interface. All that said, our combined experience tells us that a number of infotainment systems are at least better than the rest. WeÂ’ve narrowed it down to five total systems in their own subcategories that stand out to us. Read on below to see our picks, and feel free to make your own arguments in the comments. Best infotainment overall: UConnect 5, various Stellantis products Ram 1500 Uconnect Infotainment System Review If thereÂ’s one infotainment system that all of us agree is excellent, itÂ’s UConnect. It has numerous qualities that make it great, but above all else, UConnect is simple and straightforward to use. Ease of operation is one of the most (if not the single most) vital parts of any infotainment system interface. If youÂ’re expected to be able to tap away on a touchscreen while driving and still pay attention to the road, a complex infotainment system is going to remove your attention from the number one task at hand: driving. UConnect uses a simple interface that puts all of your key functions in a clearly-represented row on the bottom of the screen. Tap any of them, and it instantly pulls up that menu.

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.