Chevrolet S-10 Short Bed on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM learning from current Chevy Volt owners as it works on next-gen model

Details of the second-generation Chevrolet Volt extended-range plug-in hybrid are coming in at a trickle, and the latest is that the 2016 model-year Volt will be improved in all meaningful areas, including performance and all-electric range, says General Motors powertrain director Larry Nitz. 60 percent of Volt customers only charge using a standard 110 outlet. Nitz was speaking to Autoline After Hours about the current and future Volt. He said that GM has been tracking Volt driving habits and found that about two-thirds of the Volts' collective miles are driven in electric mode, and that 81 percent of all Volt trips were done in pure EV mode. Additionally, Volt drivers plug the car in 10 times each week, on average. Nitz also said 82 percent of the Volt's commuting miles are coming from the plug instead of the gas tank. Oh, and 60 percent of Volt customers only charge using a standard 110 outlet. Last month, GM released a teaser shot of the 2016 Volt (above) and said the car would make its worldwide debut at the 2015 North American International Auto Show next January. Earlier this year, the Volt was reported to be getting a new chassis for the upcoming version. The Volt could use a bit of new life. Through August, Volt sales were down 12 percent from a year earlier to 13,146 units, and sales plunged 25 percent alone. That compares unfavorably to the Nissan Leaf battery-electric vehicle, whose 2014 sales have jumped 34 percent to almost 19,000 units. You can see Nitz dish the goods in the video below (Volt comments start at around minute 15). You will also notice AutoblogGreen contributor Gary Witzenburg talk about his history with the EV1 and share his take on the Volt. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.

Impala SS vs. Marauder: Recalling Detroit’s muscle sedans 

Impala SS vs. Marauder — it was comparo that only really happened in theory. ChevyÂ’s muscle sedan ran from 1994-96, while MercuryÂ’s answer arrived in 2003 and only lasted until 2004. TheyÂ’re linked inextricably, as there were few options for powerful American sedans during that milquetoast period for enthusiasts. The debate was reignited recently among Autoblog editors when a pristine 1996 Chevy Impala SS with just 2,173 miles on the odometer hit the market on Bring a Trailer. Most of the staff favored the Impala for its sinister looks and said that it lived up to its billing as a legit muscle car. Nearly two-thirds of you agree. We ran an unscientific Twitter poll that generated 851 votes, 63.9 percent of which backed the Impala. Muscle sedans, take your pick: — Greg Migliore (@GregMigliore) April 14, 2020 Then and now enthusiasts felt the Impala was a more complete execution with guts. The Marauder, despite coming along later, felt more hacked together, according to prevailing sentiments. Why? On purpose and on paper theyÂ’re similar. The ImpalaÂ’s 5.7-liter LT1 V8 making 260 horsepower and 330 pound-feet of torque was impressive for a two-ton sedan in the mid-Â’90s. The Marauder was actually more powerful — its 4.6-liter V8 was rated at 302 hp and 318 lb-ft. The ImpalaÂ’s engine was also used in the C4 Corvette. The MarauderÂ’s mill was shared with the Mustang Mach 1. You can see why they resonated so deeply with Boomers longing for a bygone era and also captured the attention of coming-of-age Gen Xers. Car and DriverÂ’s staff gave the Marauder a lukewarm review back in ‘03, citing its solid handling and features, yet knocking the sedan for being slow off the line. In a Hemmings article appropriately called “Autopsy” from 2004, the ImpalaÂ’s stronger low-end torque and smooth shifting transmission earned praise, separating it from the more sluggish Mercury. All of this was captured in the carsÂ’ acceleration times, highlighting metrically the differences in their character. The Impala hit 60 miles per hour in 6.5 seconds, while the Marauder was a half-second slower, according to C/D testing. Other sites have them closer together, which reinforces the premise it really was the little things that separated these muscle cars. Both made the most of their genetics, riding on ancient platforms (FordÂ’s Panther and General MotorsÂ’ B-body) that preceded these cars by decades. Both had iconic names.

Surprise! GM putting aluminum in next-gen pickups

Last month, General Motors launched a series of ads touting the benefits of steel over aluminum – specifically, with regard to the Chevy Silverado versus the Ford F-150. (Kind of. We're not sure what a grizzly bear has to do with anything.) We took issue with the ads, with editor in chief Mike Austin saying they "reek of insecurity, and distract from the Silverado's strengths that could be used for positive advertising." But what bothers us more, is that yet another report surfaced claiming anti-aluminum GM will indeed use the weight-saving material in its next-generation fullsize trucks. On Tuesday, GM announced a $877-million investment for its truck plant in Flint, MI. But Reuters says that huge overhaul is because the trucks will use "substantially different equipment than the tools GM uses today." The report specifically states, "People familiar with the company's plans say GM's next-generation pickups and SUVs will make use of various materials, including aluminum and lightweight steel, to shed weight and gain fuel efficiency to meet tougher federal standards." The Silverado already uses a few aluminum components in the engine and hood, and if more widespread use will help GM build its best fullsize trucks ever, then that's great. Honestly, we have no reason to doubt that aluminum will be used in the next Silverado and GMC Sierra. We just hope GM remembers that nothing is ever truly deleted from the bowels of the Internet when it launches the subsequent "look how great aluminum is!" campaign. Related Video: News Source: Reuters Green Plants/Manufacturing Chevrolet GM GMC Truck aluminum steel