***1998 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Extended Cab 4x4*** on 2040-cars

Auto blog

A conversation with GM's Mark Reuss on MPG, aluminum and Corvettes

There was plenty to talk about when General Motors hosted its annual mid-December holiday media reception a few months ago. GM had just decided to pull its global Chevrolet brand out of major European markets, where Chevys have competed directly with GM Europe Opel and Vauxhall vehicles, and the US government had sold its last remaining shares of GM stock. But most important was the company's just-reshuffled leadership. Post-bankruptcy CEO Dan Akerson had announced that he would step aside and that 52-year-old Mary Barra would replace him on January 15. Not only would she be the first woman to lead a major automaker, she would also be GM's first engineer CEO since Bob Stempel in the early 1990s. "I look at 2013 and 2014, as the retooling of General Motors" - Mark Reuss Replacing her as executive VP for global product development (and purchasing and supply chain) would be 49-year-old Mark Reuss, who had served a stellar four years as North American president, and elevated to corporate president (from executive VP and CFO) would be 42-year-old Dan Amman. All three are relatively young auto enthusiasts who are liked and respected inside and outside the company, and their collective talents and experience are highly complementary. I've interviewed Barra and found her smart, personable and knowledgeable, though she carefully walks the corporate line in speaking and answering questions. I met and chatted with Ammann for the first time at that holiday reception, and he made a good first impression. But I've known Reuss for some time as a genuinely good guy and a highly capable and inspiring leader, and I believe he is exactly the right person for the global product responsibility once famously held by the outspoken, oft-controversial Bob Lutz. So I jumped at an opportunity to join a group interview of Reuss (with mostly business reporters) at the Detroit Auto Show in January. It was an interesting session of mostly good questions, which he answered with refreshing candor and humor. "I look at 2013 and 2014, as the retooling of General Motors," Reuss said. "We've taken down almost every plant in North America, converted and turned it this last year, and to do that with award-winning vehicles and pretty flawless launches is key. We have to keep the train rolling on great product, because the rest won't happen without the best product, period." A reporter asked whether GM was pushing big trucks, SUVs and Corvettes again because gas is cheap. "No," Reuss said.

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.

IIHS: High numbers of drivers treat partially automated cars as fully self-driving

WASHINGTON — Drivers using advanced driver assistance systems like Tesla Autopilot or General Motors Super Cruise often treat their vehicles as fully self-driving despite warnings, a new study has found. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), an industry funded group that prods automakers to make safer vehicles, said on Tuesday a survey found regular users of Super Cruise, Nissan/Infiniti ProPILOT Assist and Tesla Autopilot "said they were more likely to perform non-driving-related activities like eating or texting while using their partial automation systems than while driving unassisted." The IIHS study of 600 active users found 53% of Super Cruise, 42% of Autopilot and 12% of ProPILOT Assist owners "said that they were comfortable treating their vehicles as fully self-driving." About 40% of users of Autopilot and Super Cruise — two systems with lockout features for failing to pay attention — reported systems had at some point switched off while they were driving and would not reactivate. "The big-picture message here is that the early adopters of these systems still have a poor understanding of the technologyÂ’s limits," said IIHS President David Harkey. The study comes as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is scrutinizing Autopilot crashes. Since 2016, the NHTSA has opened 37 special investigations involving 18 deaths in crashes involving Tesla vehicles and where systems like Autopilot were suspected of use. Tesla did not respond to requests for comment. Tesla says Autopilot does not make vehicles autonomous and is intended for use with a fully attentive driver who is prepared to take over. GM, which in August said owners could use Super Cruise on 400,000 miles (643,740 km) of North American roads and plans to offer Super Cruise on 22 models by the end of 2023, did not immediately comment. IIHS said advertisements for Super Cruise focus on hands-free capabilities while Autopilot evokes the name used in passenger airplanes and "implies TeslaÂ’s system is more capable than it really is." IIHS in contrast noted ProPILOT Assist "suggests that itÂ’s an assistance feature, rather than a replacement for the driver." NHTSA and automakers say none of the systems make vehicles autonomous. Nissan said its name "is clearly communicating ProPILOT Assist as a system to aid the driver, and it requires hands-on operation.