Used Chevrolet Colorado Extra Cab 4x2 Chevy Trucks Automatic We Finance Autos on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Chevrolet considering midsize crossover to slot between Traverse and Equinox

Crossovers are the new hotness, and automakers are looking to cash in by offering a size and shape for every customer. With Chevrolet's debut of the new 2018 Traverse in Detroit, which grew ever so slightly compared to the first-generation model, there is now a midsize-crossover-sized hole between the three-row Traverse and the compact Equinox. When asked about that obvious space, a Chevrolet spokesperson told us the company is looking into the possibility of expanding its crossover lineup. It should be a relatively simple thing to do, since all it would take is reskinning and rechristening the GMC Acadia with a bow tie, and we all know how much GM loves platform sharing. Although they're now different sizes, the new Acadia and Traverse still use the same platform; the Acadia is now on a short-wheelbase version of the C1XX while the Traverse uses long-wheelbase C1XX parts. A short-wheelbase Chevy built on the C1XX likely would be differentiated visually from both the Acadia and the larger Traverse. It may seem like flooding the lineup with more and more models would cannibalize sales of existing ones, but Chevrolet said it would rather have customers stay within the brand rather than going to another automaker. There have been whispers that some form of the Blazer name (possibly TrailBlazer) may make a return on a midsizer, but if it does don't expect an old-school body-on-frame SUV like the old one. In the end, if Chevy builds it, customers will come. Related Video:

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.

Consumer Reports criticizes small turbo engines for misleading performance, fuel economy claims [w/video]

Consumer Reports has taken aim at at small-displacement, forced-induction engines, saying the powerplants don't manage to deliver on automaker fuel economy claims. Manufacturers have long held that smaller, turbocharged engines pack all power of their larger displacement cousins with significantly better fuel economy, but the research organization says that despite scoring high EPA economy numbers, the engines are no better than conventional drivetrains in both categories. Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports, says the forced induction options "are often slower and less fuel efficient than larger four and six-cylinder engines."
Specifically, CR calls out the new Ford Fusion equipped with the automaker's Ecoboost 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine. The institute's researchers found the engine, which is a $795 option over the base 2.5-liter four-cylinder, fails to match competitors in acceleration and served up 25 miles per gallon in testing, putting the sedan dead last among other midsize options.
The Chevrolet Cruze, Hyundai Sonata Turbo and Ford Escape 2.0T all got dinged for the same troubles, though Consumer Reports has found the turbo 2.0-liter four-cylinder in the BMW 328i does deliver on its promises. You can check out the full press release below. You can also read the full study on the Consumer Reports site, or scroll down for a short video recap.