Chevrolet: Camaro Rs/ss on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Mark Reuss: GM can't afford product 'misses,' has 'thought about' CT6 V-Series

Mark Reuss is a busy man. He oversees General Motors' global product portfolio, an all-encompassing task for a company that sold more than 9.9 million cars and trucks last year. When GM launches a well-received product, like the road-going rocket ship that is the Chevrolet Corvette Z06 – he gets credit. When the company stumbles with the slow-selling Chevy Malibu or grapples with fallout from the decade-old Saturn Ion and its flawed ignition switch, he gets blamed. GM owners, the press and sometimes the federal government, demand answers. Bob Lutz famously held the job before Reuss. So did Mary Barra, who's now GM's chief executive. There's a New GM, but the lineage is connected to a long history. When he's not thinking product, Reuss, an executive vice president, also runs the purchasing and supply chain for the company, which is still one of the largest industrial empires in the world. We caught up with Reuss on the floor of the New York Auto Show, where GM had just rolled out two crucial new products: the 2016 Cadillac CT6 and the 2016 Chevrolet Malibu. Speaking with a small group of reporters, Reuss delved into a variety of subjects, including the new Malibu, Cadillac's future (he thinks the ATS-V is going to "flame the M3 and M4"), and other topics. On fixing the Malibu: "We can't miss. We can't have those kinds of misses [like the previous generation] on our cars and crossovers and trucks. We can't do that. If we do that, we give a reason for someone to go buy something else. It's that simple. "On a car like the Malibu we have a chance to really fix all of that, which we have, and then lead. Then you've got a real opportunity there. So that's what we've really been focused on here – to fix those things." He later added: "We need that car here to transform Chevrolet desperately because it's the heart of the market. And when you think of Chevrolet, people will come back and think about what we did with the [new] Malibu and the Cruze... It's hugely important to us." On Cadillac: "If we go out and try and out-German the Germans, it's probably not going to work. We've got an opportunity here generationally where there's a lot of people younger than me that have parents that drove BMWs and Mercedes, and I think there's an opportunity there for those people to drive something different than what their parents did, and I think that's always been an opportunity in the auto industry if you look at the history of it.

Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat vs. Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 in latest Head 2 Head

"Olympian" is one of the terms we use to signify the greatest height, the seat of the gods. Yet Mt. Olympus is the second-highest peak in the Balkans ranges, overshadowed by the crest at Musala in Bulgaria's Rila mountains. Both great heights, but one is a little higher. That's how we get the Olympian Chevy Camaro ZL1 pitched at the Musalic Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat in Motor Trend's latest episode of Head 2 Head. The side-by-side spec sheet is filled with farcical numbers. For the ZL1, that's a 6.2-liter V8 with 580 horsepower, 556 pound-feet of torque, a 4,051-pound curb weight, 0-to-60 miles per hour in 3.9 seconds, a quarter-mile time of 12.2 seconds and a base price of just $57,800. Opposing that, the Hellcat wrings out its 6.2-liter V8 for 707 hp, 650 lb-ft of torque, weighs 4,449 pounds, does the quarter in 11.7 seconds and has a base price of just $60,990. Except in the case of the Hellcat, when Motor Trend put it on the dyno the machine spit out a reading of 672 hp and 606 lb-ft at the wheels. If there's a 10-percent driveline loss through those beefed-up internals and heavy-duty eight-speed transmission, that means the Hellcat is actually rated at about 750 horsepower and 700 lb-ft. But once they get put on a closed-off strip of coast road in Northern California, there are only a few strands of hair between their respective performances. That's not the case for they sensations provide; host Jonny Lieberman calls one of them, "One of the most incredible cars ever made," and says, "It changes everything." Watch the video above to see who got the verdict and how. Related Video:

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.