1955 Chevy Bel Air on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Jaguar I-Pace vs. Tesla Model 3 and other EVs: How they compare on paper

The 200-mile club of electric vehicles is really growing. The most recent member is the Jaguar I-Pace, the company's first pure EV. It promises luxury, performance, style, and most important, good range. Nearly as recent is the Hyundai Kona EV, and while it doesn't promise luxury or performance like the Jaguar (it's also smaller), it does pack impressive range. With the introduction of both of these electric cars, we thought we would see how they compare against each other, and the other two big names in high-capacity electric cars: the Chevy Bolt EV and the Tesla Model 3. This isn't intended to be a direct, apples-to-apples comparison, as the four are quite different. If anything, they break into two groups: bigger and more luxurious, and smaller and less expensive. Then again, the number of vehicles with this electric range is small and comparisons to EV's with less range wouldn't be too kind to the other guys. If you want to learn more about these EVs, and compare them with other cars, be sure to check out our Car Finder and comparison tools. Horsepower and torque There is one clear winner here, and that's the Jaguar I-Pace. It packs a whopping 394 horsepower and 512 pound-feet of torque. That comes through a pair of electric motors (one at the front, another at the rear) that provide the Jag with all-wheel drive, the only one of these vehicles to offer it (at the moment). Altogether, it allows the I-Pace to have the best 0-60 mph time of 4.5 seconds. At the other end of the spectrum is the Hyundai Kona EV. It's front-drive, like the Bolt EV, and has effectively the same amount of horsepower as the Chevy at 201 horsepower, but its 0-60-mph time is almost a second slower. And the low-range version of the Kona, excluded because it doesn't go more than 200 miles between charges, is slower still. The Tesla Model 3 is the only vehicle with rear-wheel drive, and with a 0-60 mph of 5.1 seconds for the Long Range model, it is still very quick. Range and energy use Frequently, the all-consuming question with electric cars is, "How far can I go on a charge?" And to go the farthest, you need the long-range Tesla Model 3. It can go 310 miles. It has the added advantage of being able to use the network of Tesla Supercharger stations, though they are pay-per-use with the Model 3. Even the lower capacity Model 3, with just 220 miles of range, can use these stations.

Consumer Reports criticizes small turbo engines for misleading performance, fuel economy claims [w/video]

Consumer Reports has taken aim at at small-displacement, forced-induction engines, saying the powerplants don't manage to deliver on automaker fuel economy claims. Manufacturers have long held that smaller, turbocharged engines pack all power of their larger displacement cousins with significantly better fuel economy, but the research organization says that despite scoring high EPA economy numbers, the engines are no better than conventional drivetrains in both categories. Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports, says the forced induction options "are often slower and less fuel efficient than larger four and six-cylinder engines."
Specifically, CR calls out the new Ford Fusion equipped with the automaker's Ecoboost 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine. The institute's researchers found the engine, which is a $795 option over the base 2.5-liter four-cylinder, fails to match competitors in acceleration and served up 25 miles per gallon in testing, putting the sedan dead last among other midsize options.
The Chevrolet Cruze, Hyundai Sonata Turbo and Ford Escape 2.0T all got dinged for the same troubles, though Consumer Reports has found the turbo 2.0-liter four-cylinder in the BMW 328i does deliver on its promises. You can check out the full press release below. You can also read the full study on the Consumer Reports site, or scroll down for a short video recap.

GM won't really kill off the Chevy Volt and Cadillac CT6, will it?

General Motors is apparently considering killing off six slow-selling models by 2020, according to Reuters. But is that really likely? The news is mentioned in a story where UAW president Dennis Williams notes that slumping US car sales could threaten jobs at low-volume factories. Still, we're skeptical that GM is really serious about killing those cars. Reuters specifically calls out the Buick LaCrosse, Cadillac CT6, Cadillac XTS, Chevrolet Impala, Chevrolet Sonic, and the Chevrolet Volt. Most of these have been redesigned or refreshed within the past few model years. Four - the LaCrosse, Impala, CT6, and Volt - are built in the Hamtramck factory in Detroit. That plant has made only 35,000 cars this year - down 32 percent from 2016. A typical GM plant builds 200,000-300,000 vehicles a year. Of all the cars Williams listed, killing the XTS, Impala, and Sonic make the most sense. They're older and don't sell particularly well. On the other hand, axing the other three seems like an odd move. It would leave Buick and Cadillac without flagship sedans, at least until the rumored Cadillac CT8 arrives. The CT6 was a big investment for GM and backing out after just a few years would be a huge loss. It also uses GM's latest and best materials and technology, making us even more skeptical. The Volt is a hugely important car for Chevrolet, and supplementing it with a crossover makes more sense than replacing it with one. Offering one model with a range of powertrain variants like the Hyundai Ioniq and Toyota Prius might be another route GM could take. All six of these vehicles are sedans, Yes, crossover sales are booming, but there's still a huge market for cars. Backing away from these would be essentially giving up sales to competitors from around the globe. The UAW might simply be publicly pushing GM to move crossover production to Hamtramck to avoid closing the plant and laying off workers. Sales of passenger cars are down across both GM and the industry. Consolidating production in other plants and closing Hamtramck rather than having a single facility focus on sedans might make more sense from a business perspective. GM is also trying to reduce its unsold inventory, meaning current production may be slowed or halted while current cars move into customer hands. There's a lot of politics that goes into building a car. GM wants to do what makes the most sense from a business perspective, while the UAW doesn't workers to lose their jobs when a factory closes.