2012 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Lt on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM Recalls 218,000 Chevy Aveo Models Over Fire-Prone Lighting

The recall train keeps on rolling for General Motors. Hot on the heels of its recent 2.4 million-vehicle recall of various models, it's now calling in 218,000 Chevrolet Aveo units from the 2004-2008 model years because they could catch fire. The problem concerns the daytime running light module in the instrument panel. It could overheat, melt and cause a fire. According to GM spokesperson Alan Adler, "We are aware of some fires," and the company "is still investigating." Adler wouldn't comment about how many fires were reported or when the automaker was first aware of this issue because of the ongoing analysis. However, he said the issue has not caused any injuries or fatalities. GM also doesn't have a fix for the problem with the DRL module yet. The company says in its recall statement to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the remedy "is still under development." Adler wasn't sure when it would be ready, but he said Aveo owners would receive notification in the mail "relatively soon." They will receive a second letter later to schedule the repair. In a separate letter about the Aveo's problem to NHTSA (viewable here as a PDF), GM said its Executive Field Action Decision Committee decided to conduct the recall on May 16. Scroll down for the recall report. RECALL Subject : Daytime Running Light Module Overheating Report Receipt Date: MAY 19, 2014 NHTSA Campaign Number: 14V261000 Component(s): Potential Number of Units Affected: 218,000 Manufacturer: General Motors LLC SUMMARY: General Motors is recalling certain model year 2004-2008 Chevrolet Aveo vehicles equipped with daytime running lights (DRL). In the affected vehicles, there may be heat generated within the DRL module located in the center console in the instrument panel, which could melt the DRL module. CONSEQUENCE: If the DRL module melts due to the heat generation, it could cause a vehicle fire. REMEDY: The remedy for this recall campaign is still under development. The manufacturer has not yet provided a notification schedule. Owners may contact General Motors customer service at 1-800-222-1020 (Chevrolet). General Motors recall number for this campaign is 14236. NOTES: Owners may also contact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY 1-800-424-9153), or go to www.safercar.gov.

Chevrolet considering midsize crossover to slot between Traverse and Equinox

Crossovers are the new hotness, and automakers are looking to cash in by offering a size and shape for every customer. With Chevrolet's debut of the new 2018 Traverse in Detroit, which grew ever so slightly compared to the first-generation model, there is now a midsize-crossover-sized hole between the three-row Traverse and the compact Equinox. When asked about that obvious space, a Chevrolet spokesperson told us the company is looking into the possibility of expanding its crossover lineup. It should be a relatively simple thing to do, since all it would take is reskinning and rechristening the GMC Acadia with a bow tie, and we all know how much GM loves platform sharing. Although they're now different sizes, the new Acadia and Traverse still use the same platform; the Acadia is now on a short-wheelbase version of the C1XX while the Traverse uses long-wheelbase C1XX parts. A short-wheelbase Chevy built on the C1XX likely would be differentiated visually from both the Acadia and the larger Traverse. It may seem like flooding the lineup with more and more models would cannibalize sales of existing ones, but Chevrolet said it would rather have customers stay within the brand rather than going to another automaker. There have been whispers that some form of the Blazer name (possibly TrailBlazer) may make a return on a midsizer, but if it does don't expect an old-school body-on-frame SUV like the old one. In the end, if Chevy builds it, customers will come. Related Video:

BMW, Hyundai score big in JD Power's first Tech Experience Index

While automakers are quick to brag about winning a JD Power Initial Quality Study award, the reality, as we've pointed out before, is that these ratings are somewhat misleading, since IQS doesn't necessarily distinguish genuine quality issues. JD Power's new Tech Experience Index aims to solve that problem. The new metric takes the same 90-day approach as IQS but focuses exclusively on technology – collision protection, comfort and convenience, driving assistance, entertainment and connectivity, navigation, and smartphone mirroring. It splits the industry up into just seven segments, based loosely on size, which is why the Chevrolet Camaro is in the same division (mid-size) as Kia Sorento and the Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class is in the same segment as the Hyundai Genesis (mid-size premium). It makes for some screwy bedfellows, to be sure. Still, splitting tech experience away from initial quality should allow customers to make more informed and intelligent decisions when buying new vehicles. In the inaugural study, respondents listed BMW and Hyundai as the big winners, with two segment awards – the 2 Series for small premium and the 4 Series for compact premium, and the Genesis for mid-size premium and Tucson for small segment. The Chevrolet Camaro (midsize), Kia Forte (compact), and Nissan Maxima (large) scored individual wins. Ford also had a surprising hit with the Lincoln MKC, which ranked third in the compact premium segment behind the 4 Series and Lexus IS. This is a coup for the Blue Oval, whose woeful MyFord Touch systems made the brand a victim of the IQS' flaws in the early 2010s. But Ford and other automakers might not want to celebrate just yet. According to JD Power, there's still a lot of room for improvement – navigation systems were the lowest-rated piece of tech in the study. Instead, customers repeatedly saluted collision-avoidance and safety systems, giving the category the best marks of the study and listing blind-spot monitoring and backup cameras as two must-have features – 96 percent of respondents said they wanted those two systems in their next vehicle. But this isn't really a surprise. Implementation of safety systems from brand to brand is similar, and they don't require any input from users, unlike navigation and infotainment systems which are frustratingly deep.