Suburban Executive Limousine, Limousine, Ceo Limo, Mobile Office on 2040-cars

Auto blog

What we know, and think we know, about the 2016 Chevy Volt

With the next-gen Chevy Volt due to make an appearance at the Detroit Auto Show early next year, bits and pieces about the new car are making their way into the press. Perhaps most importantly, the new Volt is going to have better "fuel economy and efficiency," according to GM executive vice president Mark Reuss. The current Volt gets 98 MPGe and 37 miles per gallon on premium fuel. It also has a 38-mile electric-only range. We don't know how GM will improve the efficiency or to what degree, but the logical options include making the car lighter, giving it better aerodynamics and/or improving the powertrain. To that end, one of the big things we don't know for sure includes information on the new gas-powered engine. Forbes says it will be a downsized 1.0-liter, three-cylinder mill instead of the 1.4-liter, four-cylinder used in the current model, which could certainly help the car be more efficient. The new Volt is also going to have more technology, which shouldn't surprise anyone. GM is now openly talking about how it will change the way it markets the Volt, shifting away from the mass-market mentality to focus on the regions where the car is already popular. "There's a Northeast and West Coast market for Volt, and there's nothing wrong with that," Chevy chief marketing officer Tim Mahoney told Forbes. There are rumors that the new Volt will have seating for five by adding a seat in the back. This is something a lot of current Volt owners would love, but we've heard nothing official hinting that this would be the case. We expect the battery to be the new 17.1-kWh version, or maybe even have a capacity increase, so GM would have to seriously repackage the pack to eliminate the ridge that runs from between the front seats and then back to the rear two seats. If you've heard anything official, do let us know.

'84 MotorWeek Cherokee, Bronco and Blazer comparison indulges your SUV nostalgia

These days, truck-based, full-frame SUVs are somewhat of a rarity on the auto landscape due to the rapid rise in popularity of easier-driving, car-based crossovers. Although, without the gradually building popularity of these chunky, high-riding vehicles decades ago, it's unlikely that America's roads would be filled with so many CUVs today. In its latest dig into the archives, MotorWeek has found a 1984 comparison test of a trio of these early Sport Utility Wagons, as long-time host John Davis called them, that helped get acceptance of this segment going. This is a red, white and blue test of the SUVs from American automakers at the time and pits the Chevrolet Blazer, Ford Bronco and Jeep Cherokee (specifically in Wagoneer guise) against each other. Driving manners and interior usability are considered in the evaluation, but Motorweek actually takes these vehicles off road, too. Among the bigger revelations is the improvement in on-road ability in the past 30 years. While specific 0-60 times aren't given, all three models take around 10 seconds just to get to around 50 miles per hour in the 500-feet on-ramp acceleration test. Check out this clip to see just how far this segment has progressed in the past three decades or just get a blast of nostalgia from these now vintage models. News Source: MotorWeek via YouTube Chevrolet Ford Jeep SUV Off-Road Vehicles Classics Videos Ford Bronco chevy blazer

Smaller Cars Endure Big Problems On Crash Test

In a crash test of 11 of the smallest cars on the market, only one vehicle received an acceptable rating. The rest received marginal or poor ratings in the study, providing evidence that supports a widely held notion that smaller cars are among the least safe on the road. No other vehicle group has performed as poorly on a new crash test than these mini cars, says the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the nonprofit group that conducted the testing. The latest results of which were released Wednesday. The Chevrolet Spark was the only car earning an overall "acceptable" rating on the small-front overlap test, and even that vehicle had its shortcomings, IIHS said. "Small lightweight vehicles have an inherent safety disadvantage," said Joe Nolan, the senior vice president for vehicle research at IIHS. "That's why it's even more important to choose one with the best occupant protection. Unfortunately, as a group, minicars aren't performing as well as other vehicle categories." The Mazda2, Kia Rio, Toyota Yaris and certain Ford Fiesta models all received "marginal" overall grades on the test, while the Mitsubishi Mirage, Nissan Versa, Toyota Prius C, Hyundai Accent, Fiat 500 and Honda Fit all earned "poor" ratings. Results from these sub-compact cars fare much worse than vehicles sized just a little bit bigger, IIHS said. Among 17 cars evaluated in the small category, five earned "good" ratings and five more earned "acceptable." Only introduced a year ago, the small-front overlap test has quickly become a key indicator of differences in automotive safety. IIHS introduced it as a way to replicate what happens when the front corner of a vehicle collides with a tree or utility pole at 40 miles per hour. In the real world, these sorts of accidents are more dangerous than others, in part because they bypass the front-end crush zones on most cars. TOP 5Most Researched Sedans 2013 Honda Accord MSRP : $21,680 2013 Hyundai Sonata MSRP : $20,895 2013 Nissan Altima MSRP : $21,760 2014 Honda Accord MSRP : $21,955 2013 Toyota Corolla MSRP : $16,230 Automakers have been rushing to make design changes to the front ends of their cars. Without a grade of acceptable or better, they cannot qualify for the IIHS' overall Top Safety Pick+ honor, given annually to the safest models on the market.