2006 2x4 Chevrolet Silverado Extended Cab-lt-handicapped Wheelchair Accessible on 2040-cars

Auto blog

These are the 'Greenest' and 'Meanest' cars in 2015

As has become tradition, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) has come up with a ranking of what it refers to as the "greenest" cars of 2015, and, by way of contrast, a list of the so-called "meanest" cars, so those who value eco-friendliness over all else can choose which vehicles they should or should not consider buying. As you may expect, electric cars make up the majority of the greenest cars on the list, but, perhaps surprisingly to many, the Tesla Model S didn't make the cut. It's worth noting, too, that where the electricity an owner uses to charge their electric vehicle has a big impact on its overall environmental impact. "A car that is charged using electricity generated from natural gas or renewables is going to have significantly less impact on the environment than one charged on a coal-heavy grid," says ACEEE lead vehicle analyst Shruti Vaidyanathan. The ACEEE's list for 2015 looks very different than it did in 2014. It's an interesting collection, though – and we're sure this goes without saying, really – we'd recommend doing a bit more research into each vehicle and how it might fit into your daily life before making any purchase decisions. Click here to see the ACEEE's list of the Greenest and Meanest vehicles sold in the United States in 2015. Green Bugatti Chevrolet Fiat GM GMC Mercedes-Benz Nissan RAM smart Toyota greenest greenest cars

2016 Chevy Colorado Duramax gets 31 mpg highway

The 2016 Chevrolet Colorado Duramax and its similarly diesel-powered GMC Canyon sibling are the most fuel-efficient new trucks on the market in America. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates 31 miles per gallon highway, 22 mpg city, and 25 mpg combined for two-wheel-drive Colorado and Canyon diesels. That's just good enough to take the pickup fuel-economy title from the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel HFE, which carries EPA estimates of 29 mpg highway, 21 mpg city, and 24 mpg combined. Four-wheel-drive models offer slightly lower economy figures of 29/20/23, respectively. Drivers can cover quite some distance, too – the GM twins' 21-gallon tanks mean a maximum range of 651 miles. <p>Your browser does not support iframes.</p> Diesel's reputation may be somewhat tarnished in the US after Volkswagen's emissions scandal, but Chevy wants to assure potential customers that there are no tricks with the Colorado's figures. The pickup's engine features NOx-reducing tech like exhaust gas recirculation, and the EPA and California Air Resources Board recently chose the truck to take the additional step of real-world emissions tests. The 2.8-liter Duramax four-cylinder with 181 horsepower and 369 pound-feet of torque had no problems with the more stringent evaluation, and "the agency expressed no issues or concerns," according to the company's statement. The diesel Colorado goes on sale this fall, and the Duramax costs $3,730 over a similarly equipped V6 model. We've gone ahead and included dueling press releases from both Chevy and GMC below for your reading pleasure. Related Video: CHEVROLET COLORADO DIESEL: AMERICA'S MOST FUEL EFFICIENT PICKUP 2015-11-09 2016 Colorado two-wheel drive model offers EPA-estimated 31 mpg highway Up to 7,700 pounds of trailering when properly equipped DETROIT – Chevrolet today confirmed that the 2016 Colorado two-wheel drive with the Duramax turbo-diesel will be the most fuel efficient pickup in America, offering an Environmental Protection Agency-estimated 31 mpg highway fuel economy. The EPA-estimated highway fuel economy for 2016 Colorado four-wheel drive diesel is 29 mpg. The EPA has issued a Certificate of Conformity for the Chevrolet Colorado Duramax diesel. The agency expressed no issues or concerns following its recent extensive testing and evaluation of the emission control system on the Colorado Duramax diesel.

GM won't really kill off the Chevy Volt and Cadillac CT6, will it?

General Motors is apparently considering killing off six slow-selling models by 2020, according to Reuters. But is that really likely? The news is mentioned in a story where UAW president Dennis Williams notes that slumping US car sales could threaten jobs at low-volume factories. Still, we're skeptical that GM is really serious about killing those cars. Reuters specifically calls out the Buick LaCrosse, Cadillac CT6, Cadillac XTS, Chevrolet Impala, Chevrolet Sonic, and the Chevrolet Volt. Most of these have been redesigned or refreshed within the past few model years. Four - the LaCrosse, Impala, CT6, and Volt - are built in the Hamtramck factory in Detroit. That plant has made only 35,000 cars this year - down 32 percent from 2016. A typical GM plant builds 200,000-300,000 vehicles a year. Of all the cars Williams listed, killing the XTS, Impala, and Sonic make the most sense. They're older and don't sell particularly well. On the other hand, axing the other three seems like an odd move. It would leave Buick and Cadillac without flagship sedans, at least until the rumored Cadillac CT8 arrives. The CT6 was a big investment for GM and backing out after just a few years would be a huge loss. It also uses GM's latest and best materials and technology, making us even more skeptical. The Volt is a hugely important car for Chevrolet, and supplementing it with a crossover makes more sense than replacing it with one. Offering one model with a range of powertrain variants like the Hyundai Ioniq and Toyota Prius might be another route GM could take. All six of these vehicles are sedans, Yes, crossover sales are booming, but there's still a huge market for cars. Backing away from these would be essentially giving up sales to competitors from around the globe. The UAW might simply be publicly pushing GM to move crossover production to Hamtramck to avoid closing the plant and laying off workers. Sales of passenger cars are down across both GM and the industry. Consolidating production in other plants and closing Hamtramck rather than having a single facility focus on sedans might make more sense from a business perspective. GM is also trying to reduce its unsold inventory, meaning current production may be slowed or halted while current cars move into customer hands. There's a lot of politics that goes into building a car. GM wants to do what makes the most sense from a business perspective, while the UAW doesn't workers to lose their jobs when a factory closes.