Low Miles Dually Leather Onstar Heated Power Seats Siriusxm Bed Looks Great! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Some 2012-13 Chevy Volts may not have enough battery coolant

The 2012 and 2013 model year Chevrolet Volt extended-range plug-in vehicle may have a battery glitch caused by low coolant levels. No recall has been issued and General Motors is taking care of the issue at no cost to drivers. Some of the affected Volts may have lower-than-advisable coolant levels because of some pesky air pockets in the car's cooling circuit. When the coolant levels get too low, the charging system for the battery powering the car's onboard generator (i.e. the Rechargeable Energy Storage System, or the RESS) may be shut down, turning one's Volt into a run-of-the-mill gas-powered car, and a pricey one at that. The Car Connection says GM is advising owners of the '12 and '13 Volts to contact their local Chevy dealer for a free fix. GM representatives didn't immediately respond to a request for comment from AutoblogGreen for more details. We believe this is a separate issue than the one that brought 8,000 Volts back to the dealers for a battery coolant fix, what GM called a "voluntary customer satisfaction effort," a few years ago. General Motors sold 23,094 Chevy Volts last year after selling 23,461 Volts in 2012, so that fix-it list may get fairly lengthy. Check out a GM-Volt.com user thread related to this issue here. *UPDATE: Chevrolet spokesman Randy Fox confirmed in an e-mail to AutoblogGreen that the company issued a service bulletin to dealers that they may need to top off coolant levels on certain Volts because of the issue, and that the vehicle will "return to normal charging operation" once that's done.

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.

GM delays 3.0-liter Duramax diesel in Silverado and Sierra pickups

Stricter testing protocols around the world are making it harder for automakers to predict launch timelines. GM is the latest to get caught in emissions nettles, the Detroit carmaker forced to delay the launch of its new Duramax 3.0-liter inline-six diesel for the Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and GMC Sierra 1500. That's what company reps told dealers in a memo seen by Automotive News this week. Dealers and buyers had been promised the Flint, Mich.-built oil-burner in early 2019, but AN wrote that the EPA certification hiccup has turned into a "slight delay." A GM spokesman told Motor1, "[We] did not attribute [the delay] to a single entity, as the truth is this is a collaborative effort between GM and several government entities. We will make the 2020MY Duramax available for dealers orders soon, and expect to deliver the first trucks to customers soon after emissions testing is complete." We know the new 3.0-liter Duramax diesel has 277 horsepower and 460 pound-feet of torque, outdoing Ford's 3.0-liter PowerStroke diesel by 27 hp and 20 lb-ft. But without final EPA paperwork, GM can't release the numbers that will show how the two engines stack up when considering fuel economy and tow ratings. The certification process has been sticky for a few other makers of late, especially since the Volkswagen Group situation in 2015. BMW had to delay the launch of four diesel models in 2016 over EPA testing. The new Ram 1500 dribbled out in a trickle last year for reasons thought to deal with EPA testing, coming as it did a year after the EPA investigated Ram's EcoDiesel engines in 2017 and 2018. More recently, WLTP testing in Europe caught out just about every automaker over there. Since we're almost halfway through 2019, the delay until the 2020 model year is only a few months. Still, GM told dealers to cancel any orders for the engine for this model year. Dealers will need to resubmit the orders once opening begins, but GM hasn't said when production will begin other than "soon." The company said that it will offer 2020-model-year replacement vehicles to customers and dealers. If prices hold into the next model year, the 2020 Silverado 1500 and Sierra 1500 with the inline-six diesel will come at a $3,890 premium over the 2.7-liter turbo four-cylinder, and a $2,495 premium over the 5.3-liter V8.