Custom Two-tone Painted Chevrolet Hhr 2lt Automatic Sunroof Only 54,625 Miles! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Want a V8 on the cheap? Buy a work truck

In case you didn't notice, V8 cars have gotten pretty expensive. If you want a modern muscle car like the Dodge Challenger R/T, Ford Mustang GT, or Chevy Camaro SS, you'll need between $34,000 and $38,000 for a stripped out example of one. The cheapest of those is the Challenger, and the priciest is the Camaro. These are also the cheapest V8 cars the companies offer. But if you absolutely have to have a V8 for less, there is an option, work trucks. As it turns out, all of the Big Three offer their most basic work trucks with V8s. And because they're so basic, they're pretty affordable, especially when sticking with the standard two-wheel drive. A Ram 1500 Tradesman with a V8 can be had for as little as $29,840, which is a little more than $4,000 less than a Challenger R/T. For a bit more at $30,275, you can have a Chevy Silverado W/T, almost $8,000 less than a Camaro SS. The most expensive is the V8 Ford F-150 starts at a starting price of $30,670, which is a bit over $5,000 less than the Mustang. Of course you'll be in an ultra bare bones vehicle with few comforts, and the price will go up if you add stuff, but we're bargain hunting here, and sacrifices are sometimes necessary. Besides, what you lose in comfort, you gain in loads of cargo space and towing (try to look at the bright side). Also, as a side note, all three trucks are available with optional electronic locking rear differentials. At the discounted price of these trucks, you still get a heaping helping of power. The most potent of the trio is the Ram 1500 Tradesman with 395 horsepower and 410 pound-feet of torque generated by a 5.7-liter V8. Compared with the Challenger R/T, the Ram is up by 20 horsepower and they're tied for torque. The value proposition is even more stark between the two vehicles when looking at the price per horsepower. Each pony in the Ram costs $75.54, while the Challenger charges you $90.91. The Challenger is also more expensive per horsepower than its close competitors. The F-150's 5.0-liter V8 is just barely behind the Ram with 395 horsepower and 400 pound-feet of torque. That's still more power than the Challenger, and it matches the torque of the 2017 Mustang GT. On the down side, it still would be down 20 horsepower on that same 2017 Mustang, and it's behind by 60 horsepower and 20 pound-feet on the new 2018 Mustang GT. The F-150 also just edges out the Mustang in the dollar per horsepower measure.

Conquest and controversy conclude the 2014 Rolex 24 at Daytona [spoilers]

If you don't wish to know who won the 2014 Rolex 24 at Daytona, you should avert your eyes right now. We'll even give you a double-space to skedaddle...
For those of you still with us, the first race in the United SportsCar Championship (USCC) is done, but the discussions about it certainly won't end for a while. Daytona Prototypes claimed the first four overall places, the top spot taken by the No. 5 Action Express Coyote-Chevrolet Corvette DP driven by Joao Barbosa, Christian Fittipaldi, Sebastien Bourdain and Burt Friselle. The 16th and final caution of the race bunched the field up for an eight-minute sprint to the flag, so the first place getter finished just 1.4 seconds ahead of the No. 10 Wayne Taylor Racing Dallara-Chevrolet Corvette DP driven by Max Angelelli. Third place went to Brian Friselle in the No. 9 Action Express Chevrolet Corvette DP, 20 seconds down. Chevrolet power hasn't taken the overall win since 2003, eleven years later it scores a one-two-three-four. The No. 6 Muscle Milk/Pickett Racing ORECA-Nissan 03 scored fifth place, the top LMP2 finisher.
The Prototype Challenge class win went to the No. 54 CORE Autosport team of Colin Braun, Jon Bennett, Mark Wilkins and James Gue.

BMW, Hyundai score big in JD Power's first Tech Experience Index

While automakers are quick to brag about winning a JD Power Initial Quality Study award, the reality, as we've pointed out before, is that these ratings are somewhat misleading, since IQS doesn't necessarily distinguish genuine quality issues. JD Power's new Tech Experience Index aims to solve that problem. The new metric takes the same 90-day approach as IQS but focuses exclusively on technology – collision protection, comfort and convenience, driving assistance, entertainment and connectivity, navigation, and smartphone mirroring. It splits the industry up into just seven segments, based loosely on size, which is why the Chevrolet Camaro is in the same division (mid-size) as Kia Sorento and the Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class is in the same segment as the Hyundai Genesis (mid-size premium). It makes for some screwy bedfellows, to be sure. Still, splitting tech experience away from initial quality should allow customers to make more informed and intelligent decisions when buying new vehicles. In the inaugural study, respondents listed BMW and Hyundai as the big winners, with two segment awards – the 2 Series for small premium and the 4 Series for compact premium, and the Genesis for mid-size premium and Tucson for small segment. The Chevrolet Camaro (midsize), Kia Forte (compact), and Nissan Maxima (large) scored individual wins. Ford also had a surprising hit with the Lincoln MKC, which ranked third in the compact premium segment behind the 4 Series and Lexus IS. This is a coup for the Blue Oval, whose woeful MyFord Touch systems made the brand a victim of the IQS' flaws in the early 2010s. But Ford and other automakers might not want to celebrate just yet. According to JD Power, there's still a lot of room for improvement – navigation systems were the lowest-rated piece of tech in the study. Instead, customers repeatedly saluted collision-avoidance and safety systems, giving the category the best marks of the study and listing blind-spot monitoring and backup cameras as two must-have features – 96 percent of respondents said they wanted those two systems in their next vehicle. But this isn't really a surprise. Implementation of safety systems from brand to brand is similar, and they don't require any input from users, unlike navigation and infotainment systems which are frustratingly deep.