1984 Chevy Camaro Z28 350 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Race Recap: 2013 Twelve Hours of Sebring, cakewalk up front, grindfest out back [w/spoilers]

This year's 12 Hours of Sebring wasn't exactly a foregone conclusion because we're still talking about racing, and anything can happen when the speeds are as high as the adrenaline and the desire. But we're still talking about Audi bringing it's two top-spec racers - and its huge budget and its nearly neurotic attention to detail - to a race that it uses as a test bed for The 24 Hours of Le Mans and as a way to open the endurance racing season with a victory.
Besides, 12 hours is a long time, especially at Sebring, and things didn't go all Audi's way. On top of that, although it was a pretty quiet race, behind the Audis things got even grimier, with plenty of battles, plenty of mechanical issues, and the new BMW Z4 GTE and Viper GTS-R being race tested. Oh, and that brand new chromed-out DeltaWing...

800k car names trademarked globally, suddenly alphanumerics seem reasonable

What's in a name? This cliched phrase probably gets tossed out at every marketing meeting that happens when a new car gets its nomenclature. We know the answer, though: everything. The name of a car has all the potential to make or break it with fickle customers that are more conscious than ever about what their purchases say about them.
That's giving headaches to marketing folks across the automotive industry. "It's tough. In 1985 there were about 75,000 names trademarked in the automotive space. Today there are 800,000," Chevrolet's head of marketing, Russ Clark, told Automotive News. Infiniti's president, Johan de Nysschen, echoed Clark's sentiment, saying, "The truth of the matter is, across the world, there is hardly a name or a letter that hasn't already been claimed by one car manufacturer or another. You can go through the alphabet - A, B, C and so forth - and you will quickly see that almost all available letters are taken."
What has that left automakers to do? Get creative. In the case of Infiniti, it made the controversial move to bring all of its cars' names into a new scheme, classifying them as Q#0 for cars and QX#0 for SUVs and crossovers. So the Infiniti G, which was available as the G25 and G37, is now the Q50. The FX37 and FX50 are now the QX70.

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.