Extended Cab Ls Lt 4x4 5.3 Vortec Shortbed V8 Z71 Low Miles Clean Truck Auto on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM's Oshawa plant may close after Camaro production moves

Most of the time, when vehicle production is moved from one assembly plant to another, it spells bad news for the former. While General Motors won't go so far as to say its Oshawa, Ontario factory, which is losing the Chevrolet Camaro to the Lansing Grand River plant, is in trouble, analysts seem to think the factory's days are numbered. Forecasts for the facility are far from positive. The loss of the Camaro this year, combined with GM's targeted shutdown of a single-shift assembly line responsible for the fleet-only Chevy Impala Limited and the Equinox crossover is a bad enough omen. But with AutoForecast Solutions CEO Joe McCabe telling The Detroit News that the plant's other two products, the Cadillac XTS and Buick Regal, aren't likely to stick around beyond 2017, things look decidedly grim at Oshawa. "There is a fairly strong chance that the plant could close," Jeff Schuster, senior VP of forecasting for LMC Automotive, told The Detroit News. That doesn't mean that Unifor, Canada's auto union, and the Canadian government are going to let the factory die without a fight. And with the latter chipping in $10 billion as part of GM's 2009 bailout, you might think it has a degree of leverage in the situation. A meeting between the government and the Detroit Three at the 2015 North American International Auto Show revealed that Oshawa is already a topic of conversation. "We made it very clear that we would like to see an indication on the future of Oshawa sooner, in particular because the timing is very challenging for our supply chain to be able to adjust to potentially future orders or changes, but also to know that there are going to be future opportunities at Oshawa," Ontario's Minister of Economic, Development, Employment and Infrastructure Brad Duguid told The Detroit News. "Bottom line: It's time they made a longer-term commitment here," Unifor President Jerry Dias said, echoing Duguid's statements. It's unclear if this sort of strong talk will be enough to save 3,300-plus employees, although based on the analysts' forecasts, we doubt it.

GM's MPG overstatement could affect 2 million vehicles

Late last week, GM admitted that three of its large SUVs fuel economy window stickers did not match their actual efficiency ratings, and so the vehicles couldn't be sold. The stickers on the 2016 Chevy Traverse, GMC Acadia, and Buick Enclave said their ratings were one to two miles per gallon better than they should have been. Officially, the number of affected vehicles sits at about 60,000. But Consumer Reports makes a good point: what's up with all of the previous model year SUVs that are basically the same vehicle? To wit: the 2016 model year vehicles are not substantially different than the 2015 or the 2014, or even going all the way back to 2007. On the EPA's fuel economy website, all of these older models will "have better stated fuel economy numbers than the new vehicles in GM's dealerships," Consumer Reports noted. CR's best point, and the one that makes the 60,000 number potentially grow to 2 million if all of the vehicles built on this platform are affected, is that "[i]t seems unlikely that the company would change the powertrain on these carryover models so late in their model cycles in a way that would cause a dramatic, negative impact on fuel economy." GM says that earlier model year SUVs are not affected and the EPA did not respond to CR's question about the potential for more discrepancies. We've seen automakers reverse course before, so if GM has to come out with a mea culpa soon, don't be surprised. GM is rushing corrected stickers to dealers so that the SUVs can be sold again, but a fix for the already-sold vehicles could be trickier to solve. Related Video: Related Gallery 2013 GMC Acadia View 16 Photos News Source: Consumer Reports Government/Legal Green Buick Chevrolet GMC Fuel Efficiency mpg gmc acadia chevy traverse

Ram 1500 bests new F-150 in MT pickup shootout

Ford's 2015 Ford F-150 is a technological tour-de-force, what with its aluminum-intensive construction and its powerful and efficient new 2.7-liter EcoBoost engine option. But now that it's hit the market, it's time to get down to brass tacks and find out how just the latest F-150 actually stands up to its rivals in the hyper-competitive fullsize segment. Motor Trend is among the first to round up the Ford (in Lariat 2.7-liter 4X4 guise here) and put it up against the Ram 1500 Outdoorsman EcoDiesel 4x4 and 5.3-liter-equipped Silverado 1500 LTZ Z71 to find out how Dearborn's new-think truck measures up. The test put the trio through over 1,000 miles of tough driving in California and Arizona in a variety of conditions from just cruising around unladen to hauling a trailer. MT found all three trucks to be competent, but the most praise got heaped on the Ram and the Ford, with the Chevrolet falling a step behind its competitors in many tests. Among the Ford's most-liked features was its 2.7-liter, twin-turbo V6 that helped make the F-150 easily the quickest of the group, with some editors saying the engine felt about the same whether driving around with cargo in the bed or not. There was some minor turbo lag during acceleration while trailering, but that issue affected the Ram, too. The Ram's powertrain was lauded, as well. The EcoDiesel was torquey around town, and the 1500's combination of an eight-speed automatic and air suspension was judged to be the best of the lot. It was the most difficult to get into the bed, though. The Ram also won the fuel economy award by netting 20-miles-per-gallon city and 28-mpg highway in the test to beat its Environmental Protection Agency ratings of 19/27. The Ford's EcoBoost managed 17/22, one mpg off each from the EPA numbers, and using a lot of throttle really depleted its efficiency. As MT notes, however, it would take time for the diesel's mileage savings to pay off at the pump for these two trucks. In the end, the Ram just barely eked out the win, with the title partially earned because of "the Ford's unknown maintenance and aluminum repair costs," according to MT. Go check out the full comparison to read all of the details, then let us know what you think in Comments.