Chevrolet Corvette Convertible on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2014 Chevy Silverado priced from *$24,585, V8 gets better economy than Ford EcoBoost V6

Chevrolet has thrown down the next hand in the pickup truck poker wars and revealed at least a couple of potential aces - depending on which numbers matter most to you. The 2014 2014 Silverado 1500 with its 5.3-liter EcoTec3 V8 gets 335 horsepower and 383 pound-feet of torque, is mated to a six-speed automatic, can tow 11,500 pounds with the optional Max Trailer Package and costs the same as the outgoing Silverado, $24,585 (*including $995 destination fee). Chevy says the Silverado also stands atop the fuel economy charts when comparing any competitor with a V8 engine - and some competitors with V6 engines. The two-wheel drive model returns 16 miles per gallon city, 23 mpg highway, 19 mpg combined in two-wheel drive guise and 16 mpg city, 22 mpg highway and 18 mpg combined as a four-wheel drive.
For context around those numbers, the most fuel efficient V8-powered 2013 Ford F-150 pickups lose about two mpg in every metric compared to the Silverado, the 3.5-liter V6 EcoBoost returning 16 city, 18 highway and 22 combined in two-wheel drive. However, that EcoBoost does have 365 hp and 420 lb-ft of torque. You can get a Ram 1500 with a 3.6-liter V6 that gets 25 mpg highway, but it has 305 hp and 269 lb-ft of torque. The 2013 Ram with the 5.7-liter Hemi V8 and its 395 hp and 407 lb-ft drops one mpg in every category to the Silverado. Its tow rating is 200 pounds beyond its nearest competitor, the F-150 with the Max Trailer Tow Package.
Elsewhere, the new Silverado gets a quieter cab with a redesigned interior, a new bed with improved load-management possibilities, disc brakes all around, tweaked steering and suspension, along with free standard scheduled maintenance for two years or 24,000 miles.

GM recalling 316k vehicles due to headlamp faults

General Motors has announced a recall covering 316,357 vehicles globally, due to the possibility of sporadic or permanent failure of the low-beam headlamps. 273,182 of these vehicles are in the United States, while the remaining affected units are in Canada, Mexico, and elsewhere. This recall includes the 2006-09 Buick LaCrosse (pictured above), 2006-07 Chevy TrailBlazer and TrailBlazer EXT, 2006-07 GMC Envoy and 2006 GMC Envoy XL, 2006-07 Buick Rainier, 2006-08 Saab 9-7X, and 2006-08 Isuzu Ascender. In an email sent to Autoblog, General Motors explains that if the headlamp driver modules are not functioning correctly, "the low-beam headlamps and daytime running lamps could intermittently or permanently fail to illuminate." GM states that this problem does not affect things like high-beams, turn signals, marker lamps, or foglamps. As of this writing, GM states it "has not been able to confirm whether the HDMs in these vehicles caused any vehicle accidents." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been notified, but the recall has not yet posted to the government agency's website. Scroll down to read the full details in GM's email. General Motors is recalling 273,182 Buick LaCrosse sedans and Chevrolet, GMC, Buick, Saab and Isuzu midsize SUVs in the U.S. for possible intermittent or permanent loss of low beam headlamps. Affected models are: 2006-2009 Buick LaCrosse sedans; 2006-2007 Chevrolet TrailBlazer and 2006 TrailBlazer EXT; 2006-2007 GMC Envoy and 2006 Envoy XL; 2006-2007 Buick Rainier; 2006-2008 Saab 9-7X and 2006-2008 Isuzu Ascender midsize SUVs. If the headlamp driver modules is not operating correctly, the low-beam headlamps and daytime running lamps could intermittently or permanently fail to illuminate. This condition does not affect the high-beam headlamps, marker lamps, turn signals, or fog lamps. GM has not been able to confirm whether the HDMs in these vehicles caused any vehicle accidents. The total population, including the U.S., Canada, Mexico and exports from North America is 316,357. The NHTSA was sent the Part 573 information for this recall on November 25. It has not yet posted to the NHTSA website. Featured Gallery 2008 Buick LaCrosse CXS News Source: General Motors Recalls Buick Chevrolet GM GMC Isuzu Saab SUV Sedan chevy trailblazer buick rainier isuzu ascender

GM’s Charlie Wilson was right: Stronger regulations can help U.S. automakers

Charlie Wilson had been the president and CEO of General Motors before being nominated to become secretary of defense by Dwight Eisenhower. During his Senate confirmation hearings, he controversially said, "For years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa." And he was right. While car companies aren't necessarily the most progressive when it comes to things that might have the slightest possibility of political blowback, General Motors should be credited for doing something absolutely forthright in this regard with its announcement that it wants the federal U.S. government not to squash the California Air Resources Board's emissions requirements but to actually create a 50-state "National Zero Emissions Vehicle" program that, in the words of Mark Reuss, executive vice president and president, Global Product Group and Cadillac, "will drive the scale and infrastructure investments needed to allow the U.S. to lead the way to a zero emission future." Filing comments to the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks is one thing. But a graphic the company developed for this announcement — shown above — is something else entirely, something that is absolutely credible, creative and clever. There is a photo of a Chevrolet Bolt EV driving along a highway, which seems to be in Marin County (based on the blurred San Francisco skyline in the background). Text on the photo states: "It's Time for American Leadership in Zero Emissions Vehicles." It seems to say, in effect, "If we want to make America great again, then we're going to do it by leading in technology, not by retreating behind weakened regulations." General Motors understands that the auto market is globally competitive, and if U.S.-based companies are going to be in the game, then they'd better be able to out-innovate the companies based elsewhere, where emissions and economy standards are not being weakened. What's good for our country ... Related Video: