2 Year Frame Off Restoration on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM won't pay owners of recalled cars for lost value

Kenneth Feinberg, the man in charge of the General Motors compensation fund dealing with the its widespread ignition switch woes, has issued an informal, two-letter response to the plaintiffs in more than 70 lawsuits seeking redress for lost resale value of their Cobalts: "No." The cases were recently combined into one, but Feinberg told The Detroit News that the fund will deal "only with death and physical injury claims," and that "perceived diminished value" will get no consideration.
ALG, the firm specializing in establishing residual values, determined that Cobalt owners had lost $300 compared to the segment competition and doesn't envision any long-term effects from the recall situation. Feinberg's statement comes in advance of public details on how the compensation fund will work and adheres to GM's long-held position on the matter. The company has already asked a judge to throw out such suits using the pre-bankruptcy defense, even as it stopped using that defense in cases of injury and death.
With plenty of potential gain from the GM suit, however, don't expect the plaintiffs to give up yet. When Toyota was sued for the same reason during the unintended acceleration debacle, it eventually settled the case for between $1 billion and $1.4 billion just to get it over with. Since the 85 law firms involved in the Toyota litigation took home more than $250 million of that total, we shouldn't expect the attorneys to give up on a GM payout, either.

GM veteran Bryan Nesbitt tapped to head Buick design

General Motors styling veteran Bryan Nesbitt (pictured above) took over a new role on Monday as executive director of global Buick design and global architectures. Andrew Smith, who previously did that job and also coordinated the look for Cadillac, has remained in charge of the pen at Caddy with this shift. Nesbitt rose to prominence when he designed the Chrysler PT Cruiser, according to Automotive News. He joined GM in 2001 and has been there ever since in multiple high-level roles. In 2007, he was appointed vice president of design for North America and was later briefly general manager of Cadillac in 2009-2010. Nesbitt took over as the vice president of GM's international operations design in China in 2011. This shuffle also moves Ken Parkinson, currently styling boss for Chevrolet trucks, to China as design vice president there. In addition, John Cafaro becomes the person in charge of the look for Chevy globally, rather than previously splitting that role between cars and trucks with Parkinson. GM Global Design Leadership Changes – effective June 1, 2015. Bryan Nesbitt, Design Vice President, GM China will repatriate to North America and assume the position of Executive Director, Global Buick and Global Architectures. He will be located in Warren, MI. Bryan will be the design Champion for Buick in the US and China. Ken Parkinson, Executive Director, Global Chevrolet Trucks and Global Architecture will assume the position of Design Vice President, GM China. He will be based in Shanghai, China. Andrew Smith, Executive Director, Global Cadillac and Buick Design will assume the position of Executive Director, Global Cadillac. He will continue to be the design Champion for the Cadillac brand. In addition, he will continue to lead the Global Color & Trim team. He will be based in Warren, Michigan. John Cafaro, Executive Director, Global Chevrolet Cars will assume the position of Executive Director, Global Chevrolet. He will be the design Champion for Chevrolet. In addition, John will lead the exterior components and accessories team. He will continue to be based in Warren, MI. The roles and responsibilities of Helen Emsley, Mark Adams, Carlos Barba, Clay Dean, Michael Simcoe, and Teckla Rhoades remain the same. Related Video: The video meant to be presented here is no longer available. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Impala SS vs. Marauder: Recalling Detroit’s muscle sedans 

Impala SS vs. Marauder — it was comparo that only really happened in theory. ChevyÂ’s muscle sedan ran from 1994-96, while MercuryÂ’s answer arrived in 2003 and only lasted until 2004. TheyÂ’re linked inextricably, as there were few options for powerful American sedans during that milquetoast period for enthusiasts. The debate was reignited recently among Autoblog editors when a pristine 1996 Chevy Impala SS with just 2,173 miles on the odometer hit the market on Bring a Trailer. Most of the staff favored the Impala for its sinister looks and said that it lived up to its billing as a legit muscle car. Nearly two-thirds of you agree. We ran an unscientific Twitter poll that generated 851 votes, 63.9 percent of which backed the Impala. Muscle sedans, take your pick: — Greg Migliore (@GregMigliore) April 14, 2020 Then and now enthusiasts felt the Impala was a more complete execution with guts. The Marauder, despite coming along later, felt more hacked together, according to prevailing sentiments. Why? On purpose and on paper theyÂ’re similar. The ImpalaÂ’s 5.7-liter LT1 V8 making 260 horsepower and 330 pound-feet of torque was impressive for a two-ton sedan in the mid-Â’90s. The Marauder was actually more powerful — its 4.6-liter V8 was rated at 302 hp and 318 lb-ft. The ImpalaÂ’s engine was also used in the C4 Corvette. The MarauderÂ’s mill was shared with the Mustang Mach 1. You can see why they resonated so deeply with Boomers longing for a bygone era and also captured the attention of coming-of-age Gen Xers. Car and DriverÂ’s staff gave the Marauder a lukewarm review back in ‘03, citing its solid handling and features, yet knocking the sedan for being slow off the line. In a Hemmings article appropriately called “Autopsy” from 2004, the ImpalaÂ’s stronger low-end torque and smooth shifting transmission earned praise, separating it from the more sluggish Mercury. All of this was captured in the carsÂ’ acceleration times, highlighting metrically the differences in their character. The Impala hit 60 miles per hour in 6.5 seconds, while the Marauder was a half-second slower, according to C/D testing. Other sites have them closer together, which reinforces the premise it really was the little things that separated these muscle cars. Both made the most of their genetics, riding on ancient platforms (FordÂ’s Panther and General MotorsÂ’ B-body) that preceded these cars by decades. Both had iconic names.