1978 Monte Carlo 1 Owner No Reserve 29k Original Mile Heavy Documented on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM recalling 118K Colorado, Canyon pickups over missing hood latches

General Motors has announced a recall of 118,800 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon pickup trucks due to the possibility of secondary hood latches not being installed at the time of manufacture. The affected vehicles are from the 2010, 2011 and 2012 model years, all of which were built between November 9, 2009 and August 28, 2012.
According to the official National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report, these trucks fail to "comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 113, 'Hood Latch System.' The hood may be missing the secondary hood latch." In other words, owners of these trucks could find their vehicles' hoods opening unexpectedly while driving.
The official recall campaign is expected to begin on January 17, 2013. Dealers will inspect the affected pickups and if a secondary hood latch is not present, one will be installed free of charge. Scroll down to read the official NHTSA report.

Submit your questions for Autoblog Podcast #323 LIVE!

We're set to record Autoblog Podcast #323 tonight, and you can drop us your questions and comments regarding the rest of the week's news via our Q&A module below. Subscribe to the Autoblog Podcast in iTunes if you haven't already done so, and if you want to take it all in live, tune in to our UStream (audio only) channel at 10:00 PM Eastern tonight.
Discussion Topics for Autoblog Podcast Episode #323
Lamborghini Veneno

Cruze Diesel Road Trip reveals the good and bad, but no ugly

Most of us have strong opinions on diesel-powered cars based on our perceptions of and experience with them. I used to thoroughly dislike oil burners for their noise, smoke and lackluster performance, and the fact that they ran on greasy, smelly stuff that was more expensive than gasoline, could be hard to find and was nasty to get on your hands when refueling. Those negatives, for me, trumped diesel's major positives of big torque for strong acceleration and better fuel economy. Are any of those knocks on diesel still valid today? I'm not talking semis, which continue to annoy me when their operators for some reason almost never shut them down. At any busy truck stop, the air seems always filled with the sound – and sometimes smell – of dozens of big-rig diesels idling endlessly and mindlessly. Or diesel heavy-duty pickups. Those muscular workhorses are far more refined than they once were and burn much less fuel than their gasoline counterparts. But good luck arriving home late at night, or departing early morning, without waking your housemates and neighbors with their clattery racket. No, I'm talking diesel-powered passenger cars, which account for more than half the market in Europe (diesel fuel is cheaper there) yet still barely bump the sales charts in North America. Diesel fuel remains more expensive here, too few stations carry it, and too many Americans remember when diesel cars were noisy, smelly slugs. Also, US emissions requirements make them substantially more expensive to certify, and therefore to buy. But put aside (if you can) higher vehicle purchase and fuel prices, and today's diesel cars can be delightful to drive while delivering much better fuel efficiency than gas-powered versions. So far in the US, all except Chevrolet's compact Cruze Diesel come from German brands, and all are amazingly quiet, visually clean (no smoke) and can be torquey-fun to drive. When a GM Powertrain engineering team set out to modify a tried-and-true GM of Europe turbodiesel four for North American Chevy Cruze compacts, says assistant chief engineer Mike Siegrist, it had a clear target in mind: the Volkswagen Jetta TDI 2.0-liter diesel. And they'll tell you that they beat it in nearly every way. "I believe we have a superior product," he says. "It's powerful, efficient and clean, and it will change perceptions of what a diesel car can be." The 2.0L Cruze turbodiesel pumps out 151 SAE certified horses and 264 pound-feet of torque (at just 2,000 rpm) vs.