1998 Chevrolet K1500 Suburban Ls Sport Utility 4-door 5.7l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Take a close look at the guts of the Chevy Volt battery, powertrain

Just how intimate would you like to get with the powertrain in a Chevy Volt? If you're anything like YouTube user d55guy, then spending a half hour filming yourself taking apart the battery pack, motor, inverter and more for a look inside sounds like your idea of fun. After all, this way you get to see the cooling system, the heavy safety kill switch and count up the individual cells in the battery modules. Fun! Turns out, we also enjoy languidly paced Volt dissection video goodness, and we think you might want to see it as well. So, we've embedded two videos below and if you don't have a better understanding of how the Volt is put together after watching them, well, at least you can't say we never tried to show you anything. Given that what's really happening here is the organized 'destruction' of an expensive and potentially dangerous object, let's talk safety. There's a serious disclaimer at the beginning of the videos and on the YouTube description page, but we feel the need to repeat the gist of it here: do not try this at home. The creator of the video says he is a trained engineer and has been doing things like this "for the better part of a decade," so he apparently knows what he's doing. With that in mind, watch it all below. When you're done seeing the insides of a Volt powertrain up close, if you need more filmed EV dissection/destruction, check out this video designed for first responders approaching a damaged Tesla Model S. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.

GM Design shows what could have been and what might be

We periodically like to check in with GM Design's Instagram account to see what they're cooking up. Even better is when we catch a glimpse of an alternate history of what legendary designers from The General's past were thinking, though those ideas may not have made it into production. This week, for example, the account posted some illustrations from George Camp, whose career at GM spanned nearly four decades, from 1963 to 2001. One of the renderings is of what appears to be a 1971-72 Pontiac GTO Judge, but with two headlights instead of the production unit's quad beams. The rear departs from the canonical version most dramatically, with a massive integrated wing. Other bits that didn't make the production cut include large side vents, a gill-like side marker and rectangular intakes below the headlights that wouldn't be out of place on a modern design today. Amazingly, from what we can make out of the date, it appears that the drawing was done sometime in 1965, which makes it quite prescient.           View this post on Instagram                       A post shared by GM Design (@generalmotorsdesign) There's also a very aerodynamic interpretation of a Corvette ZR-1. To our eyes it splits the difference between the 1986 Corvette Indy concept and a fourth-generation F-body Pontiac Firebird, so perhaps parts of Camp's work on this sketch did make it into physical form. There's also a radical sports car concept from May 1970 that resembles the Mazda RX-500 concept from the same year, a Syd Mead-looking Cadillac coupe, and an Oldsmobile with a cool take on the company's trademark waterfall grille and elements of the Colonnade Cutlass at the rear. Other recent posts include a FJ Cruiser-like off-road EV, a sleek coupe with the Chevy corporate grille, and a rendering of a Silverado-esque pickup that looks far better than the current production version.           View this post on Instagram                       A post shared by GM Design (@generalmotorsdesign) It's pretty easy to lose hours in the account, but it's always fascinating to see GM's visions of what could have been and what might be. 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.