1957 Chevy 4 Door Original 210 Chevrolet *nice* With 350 Engine & Tranny 57 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2014 Chevy Cruze Diesel arrives with 42 mpg for $25,695*

The last time General Motors had a diesel passenger car in the US, it was the 1.8-liter 1986 Chevette. At the 2013 Chicago Auto Show today, GM is unveiling the much-anticipated 2014 Chevrolet Cruze Diesel. The compact bows with a 2.0-liter turbo-diesel four-cylinder engine that boasts 148 horsepower and 258 pound-feet of torque, with full twist coming on at just 2,000 rpm. What's more, the common-rail, direct-injection diesel features an overboost function that allows the engine to deliver up to 280 lb-ft of torque for 10 seconds at a time. Even with 10 more horsepower and 110 more pound-feet of torque than the available turbocharged 1.4-liter four-cylinder in the Cruze, the 2.0-liter diesel engine can return up to 42 mpg (highway) bolted to its six-speed automatic transmission.
If you're counting, that figure meets the less powerful Cruze Eco with a six-speed manual transmission. More importantly, the auto transmission Cruze Diesel matches its main competition, the Volkswagen Jetta TDI, in highway fuel economy. The Cruze 2.0 TD (as it will be badged) can also handle up to 20 percent biodiesel (B20), whereas the Jetta is rated only for B5. General Motors has not released city fuel economy for its newest diesel, but we do know how much it will cost you to jump behind the driver's seat.
GM will kindly ask for $25,695, plus an $810 destination fee. That marks a $2,115 premium over a loaded Cruze LTZ Auto and $2,640 more than the Jetta TDI, though the MSRP will net you a leather interior, 17-inch alloy wheels and an Aero Performance Package, as well as a two-year maintenance plan and five-year, 100,000-mile powertrain warranty. Compared to the gas-powered Cruze, you also lose a couple cubic feet of rear cargo space thanks to a 17-liter diesel emission fluid tank. That urea fluid, which helps put the clean in clean diesel, will need to be refilled at least every 10,000 miles.

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.

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.