1969, Short-wide, Chevy , Chevrolet. Cst, Wood Grain, 350,327 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM looks to combat high theft rates on SUVs with added tech

The Cadillac Escalade has been at or near the top of most-stolen and insurance-loss lists for more than seven years, until it dropped to number six earlier this year. In 2011 it was fitted with a host of new security features to address its easy-to-override features and that has brought the number of thefts down, but when eight of the ten most stolen rides are large SUVs from General Motors, no one will argue that something else needs to be done.
Thus, GM has fitted this same theft-deterring tech to the 2015 Suburban, Tahoe and Yukon. The Suburban and Tahoe will get the steering lock that the Escalade and Yukon already get, plus bolted-down third-row seats to deter thefts like this, stronger door lock cylinders and shields, and side-cut keys to inhibit picking.
Additional security measures in a Theft Protection Package can be purchased for $395, consisting of sensors on the greenhouse glass and interior, an incline/tilt sensor and added "key control systems" to make it more difficult for the men in black balaclavas to steal what you bought.

GM executive chief EV engineer says reducing cost of plug-in vehicles is 'huge priority'

As we know, another major automaker investing heavily in electrified vehicles is General Motors, and it's doing things much differently than rivals BMW, Ford or Nissan. The Chevrolet Volt extended-range EV is a modest seller at its $35,000 sticker price but a huge hit with owners. The Chevy Spark BEV, still in limited availability, puts smiley faces on its owners and drivers. The just-introduced Cadillac ELR, a sharp-looking, fun-driving $76,000 luxocoupe take on the Volt's EREV mechanicals, has admittedly low sales expectations. With this interesting trio in showrooms and much more in the works, the third vehicle electrification leader I collared for an interview at Detroit's North American International Auto Show (see #1 and #2) was Pam Fletcher, GM's executive chief engineer, Electrified Vehicles. ABG: Why do your EREVs need four-cylinder power to extend their range when BMW's i3 makes do with an optional 650 cc two-banger? "We designed [the Volt and the ELR] to go anywhere, any time" - Pam Fletcher PF: I get that question all the time: why not something smaller? You don't really need that much. You use the electric to its ability, then you just need to limp. But we designed those cars to go anywhere, any time, and we don't want their performance to be compromised. If you're driving through the mountains, we don't want you to be crawling up grades, or to be limited on any terrain. So it's optimized to be able to travel literally the biggest grades and mountain roads around the globe at posted speeds. Because what if you can't? Another good reason: when the engine is on, you have to run it wide open throttle, max speed, most of the time. And while we can do a lot with acoustics, and the ELR has active noise cancelation, a small-displacement, low cylinder-count engine at high speed, high load all the time isn't something you want to live with. That's how we came up with the balance we did among the key factors of performance, NVH [noise, vibration and harshness] and range. ABG: Where you go from here? Is the range-extender engine due for an update? PF: We know and love the current Volt, and there is still a lot of acclaim about it, so we think it's a good recipe. But we are heavily in the midst of engineering the next-generation car, which I think everyone will love and be excited about.

Cruze Diesel Road Trip reveals the good and bad, but no ugly

Most of us have strong opinions on diesel-powered cars based on our perceptions of and experience with them. I used to thoroughly dislike oil burners for their noise, smoke and lackluster performance, and the fact that they ran on greasy, smelly stuff that was more expensive than gasoline, could be hard to find and was nasty to get on your hands when refueling. Those negatives, for me, trumped diesel's major positives of big torque for strong acceleration and better fuel economy. Are any of those knocks on diesel still valid today? I'm not talking semis, which continue to annoy me when their operators for some reason almost never shut them down. At any busy truck stop, the air seems always filled with the sound – and sometimes smell – of dozens of big-rig diesels idling endlessly and mindlessly. Or diesel heavy-duty pickups. Those muscular workhorses are far more refined than they once were and burn much less fuel than their gasoline counterparts. But good luck arriving home late at night, or departing early morning, without waking your housemates and neighbors with their clattery racket. No, I'm talking diesel-powered passenger cars, which account for more than half the market in Europe (diesel fuel is cheaper there) yet still barely bump the sales charts in North America. Diesel fuel remains more expensive here, too few stations carry it, and too many Americans remember when diesel cars were noisy, smelly slugs. Also, US emissions requirements make them substantially more expensive to certify, and therefore to buy. But put aside (if you can) higher vehicle purchase and fuel prices, and today's diesel cars can be delightful to drive while delivering much better fuel efficiency than gas-powered versions. So far in the US, all except Chevrolet's compact Cruze Diesel come from German brands, and all are amazingly quiet, visually clean (no smoke) and can be torquey-fun to drive. When a GM Powertrain engineering team set out to modify a tried-and-true GM of Europe turbodiesel four for North American Chevy Cruze compacts, says assistant chief engineer Mike Siegrist, it had a clear target in mind: the Volkswagen Jetta TDI 2.0-liter diesel. And they'll tell you that they beat it in nearly every way. "I believe we have a superior product," he says. "It's powerful, efficient and clean, and it will change perceptions of what a diesel car can be." The 2.0L Cruze turbodiesel pumps out 151 SAE certified horses and 264 pound-feet of torque (at just 2,000 rpm) vs.