2014 Chevrolet Ss on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Chevy Volt replacement battery cost varies wildly, up to $34,000

There's a growing hubbub in the plug-in vehicle community over what looks like some ridiculously cheap replacement batteries for the Chevrolet Volt going up for sale. GM Parts Online, for example, is selling a replacement Volt battery with an MSRP of $2,994.64 but, with an online discount, the price comes down to $2,305.88. For the 16-kWh pack in the 2012 Volt, that comes to a very low $144.11 per kilowatt hour (kWH). But is it a real deal? How can it be, when a Chevy dealer may quote you a price of up to $34,000 to replace the pack? For a 16-kWh Volt pack, $2,305.88 comes to a very low $144.11 per kWh. But is it a real deal? Battery packs in alternative propulsion vehicles are usually priced by the kWh and, historically, they've been thought to be in the range of $500-per-kWh for OEM offerings. Since automakers are understandably secretive about their costs, we still don't know what the real number is today, but we do know it varies by automaker. Tesla, for example, has said it pays less than $200-per-kWH at the cell level but, of course, a constructed pack would be more. Whatever is going on, li-ion battery prices are trending downward. So, $144.11 certainly sounds great, but what's the story here? Kevin Kelly, manager of electrification technology communications for General Motors, reminded AutoblogGreen that GM Parts Online is not the official GM parts website and that, "the costs indicated on the site are not what we would charge our dealers or owners for a replacement battery. There would be no cost to the Volt owner if their battery needs replacement or repair while the battery is under the eight year/100,000 mile limited warranty coverage provided by Chevrolet." A single price tag also can't be accurate for everyone, Kelly said. "If the customer needs to have their battery repaired beyond the warranty, the cost to them would vary depending on what needs to be replaced or repaired (i.e. number of modules, which specific internal components need replacement, etc.)." he said. "So, it's hard for us to tell you exactly what the cost would be to the customer because it varies depending on what might need to be repaired/replaced. As a result, the core charge would vary." But, is the $2,300 price even accurate for anyone? Thanks to a reader comment, we see that this similar item on New GM Parts makes it look like the lithium-ion modules that Kelly mentioned – where a lot of the expensive bits are – are not included.

Buick takes top spot in 2022 J.D. Power Initial Quality Study

People, economies, and supply chains weren't the only things continuing to get sick over the past year. The 2022 J.D. Power Initial Quality Study (IQS) is out, showing the average rate of problems per 100 vehicles (PP100) during the first 90 days of ownership increased overall. The average figure for the 32 ranked manufacturers in 2020 was about 166 problems per 100 vehicles. In the 2021 IQS, that dropped to an average of 162. This year, the average jumps to 180 problems. J.D. Power says that figure is a record high over the 36-year history of the study. Buick leapt to the top of the rankings this year with the fewest issues, at 139 problems per 100 vehicles in the first 100 days of ownership. After Dodge became the first American automaker to lead the IQS in 2020, followed by Ram in 2021, this year marks a three-peat for U.S. carmakers. Dodge took second this year at 143 PP100, Chevrolet third with 147 PP100, Genesis the first luxury maker on the chart in fourth with 156 PP100. Between February and May, this year's study gathered responses to 223 questions from more than 84,000 new 2022-model-year car owners and lessees. The questions are designed to zero in on real-world problems new owners encounter with nine categories of vehicle features: Infotainment; features, controls and displays; exterior; driving assistance; interior; powertrain; seats; driving experience; and climate. As has been the case in the past few year, infotainment has proved to be the most problematic bugbear making scores worse. Considering features individually, six of 10 of the worst problem areas dealt with infotainment, causing infotainment's score of 45 PP100 to be 19.5 PP100 worse than the second-placed feature. Consumers ranked getting Android Auto and Apple CarPlay to connect reliably as the most troublesome.  GM didn't just score with Buick, which was one of only nine of the 33 ranked brands to show improvement this year. The conglomerate earned first place with the fewest PP100 among all the automaker groups, and scored the most model-level awards with nine, ahead of BMW with eight and Hyundai Group with three.  This year's study again showed a gap between luxury and mass-market makers, thought to be down to the amount of tech in luxury vehicles that consumers aren't properly informed about or that doesn't act as expected — that latter issue exacerbated by the chip shortage.

Pure Vision Design TT Camaro has 1,400 reasons to want it

We've talked about Pure Vision Design before, a California-based company that made waves at last year's SEMA show with its Martini-liveried, Indy-car-powered Ford Mustang. That same car later starred in a Petrolicious video we showed you just a few weeks back. The company's latest creation is a menacing car it calls the Pure Vision Design TT Camaro. Based on a 1972 model, this car shares the Martini Mustang's clean styling and obsession with details.
Unlike the Mustang, which draws its power from a mid-60s Lotus-Ford Indycar engine, the "TT" in this Camaro's name implies something far more potent. The Nelson Racing Engines 427-cubic-inch V8 has been fitted with a pair of turbochargers, with a claimed output of 1,400 horsepower. That's almost 1,000 more than the Martini Mustang.
A six-speed Magnum transmission dispatches that power to the ground, while Pirelli PZero tires are tasked with (somehow) trying to grip the road. Baer brakes hide behind those HRE rims, while JRI coilovers and HyperTech springs bless the Camaro with some degree of competency in the bends.