2013 Chevy Silverado Lt Crew Texas Ed 22" Wheels 23k Mi Texas Direct Auto on 2040-cars

Auto blog

The story of the 2014 Chevrolet SS: "Luxury, power, refinement, handling"

Not including the women and men who built it, the 2014 Chevrolet SS has only been seen in person by a piddling number of people - fewer humans than would fill the gymnasium at a high school volleyball game. Not including the men and women who built it, no one has driven it. Even so, it is already saddled with two controversies: the way it looks and the way it shifts.
First to that shifting. Did we love the last Americanized Holden, the awesomely sportsome Pontiac G8 GXP, and its six-speed manual? Of course. Do we wish the SS came with a six-speed manual? Of course. But we'd like a toboggan to come with a manual transmission. We'd put a manual transmission on a weasel if we could because we're just wired that way; if it moves, it should come with a stick and a clutch. Or at least the option.
Let's climb down off the ledge, though. We haven't driven the SS and we have no idea how good (or not) the automatic is. And the Hobson's Choice in transmissions when it comes to sport sedans like the BMW M5, Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG and Jaguar XFR-S and, oh yeah, cars-that-really-should-have-manuals like the Audi R8 and Nissan GT-R and Porsche 918 and every single Lamborghini and Ferrari, for instance, hasn't stopped us from enjoying what is clearly the gruesome, dual-clutched demise of Western automotive civilization. Because in spite of our ululations at the dying of the six-speed light, we understand.

Chevy's low-cost pedestrian avoidance to debut on 2016 Malibu

The mainstreaming of safety technologies that began on luxury vehicles will get a big boost from General Motors later this year. The General says it plans to offer 22 driver assistance systems across its product portfolio of 2016 models, starting with the redesigned Chevrolet Malibu - the one that we know will keep tabs on teenagers for the benefit of parents. Pedestrian avoidance will be another of its available options. Instead of kitting the sedan out with numerous and expensive radar arrays, the GM system uses the camera mounted next to the rearview mirror that is already used for the lane-keeping function. New software lets it detect pedestrians, and when it detects a potential collision with one, it can alert the driver and brake autonomously if the driver doesn't react. Eventually, engineers want to give it the ability to do the same with cyclists. Because it uses existing hardware updated with new code, GM says the application costs "a few hundred dollars." GM demonstrated the Front Pedestrian Braking preventing a crash with a dummy pedestrian at speeds up to 15 miles per hour. Automotive News reports that it will reduce the severity of impact up to 40 miles per hour, but "may not be of much use in collisions at higher speeds." That feature will also join the options list of the Cadillac CT6. The press release below has more on GM's driver tech soon on the way. Related Video: GM Paving Way to Smarter and Safer Driving at All-New Active Safety Test Area 22 crash-avoidance technologies offered on 2016 Chevrolet, Buick, GMC and Cadillac models MILFORD, Mich. 2015-07-24 – Chevrolet, Buick, GMC and Cadillac will offer 22 different active safety technologies across their 2016 model year U.S. lineups, ranging from driver alerts to those that automatically intervene and assist the driver in critical situations. Safety engineers will develop and test these and other safety technologies for products around the world at GM's new, 52-acre Active Safety Test Area at its Milford Proving Ground near Detroit. The $14 million facility officially opened Friday. "Our comprehensive safety strategy of helping customers before, during and after a crash continues," said Jeff Boyer, vice president of GM Global Vehicle Safety.

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.