1968 Chevrolet Chevelle Ss 396 M20 4-speed on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

GM recalls 8,500 Chevrolet Malibu models for rear suspension glitch

According to a letter from General Motors to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, flaws in the build process of the 2013 Chevrolet Malibu have led to the recall of 8,519 cars. Units built between December 6, 2011 and January 15, 2013 may have been assembled with rear suspension cradles that had insufficient torque applied to certain bolts. That out-of-spec assembly could lead to issues ranging from slight noises to a loss of vehicle control.
The problem was first noticed in December of last year by a GM test fleet driver and eventually tracked back to the improperly torqued bolts on the suspension cradle assembled through July 2012 by a supplier located not too far from the Malibu's Detroit/Hamtramck Assembly Plant. Since an official NHTSA recall notice has not been issued yet, it isn't clear whether or not Detroit-built Malibus were the only ones affected (the 2013 Malibu is also built at GM's Fairfax Assembly Plant in Kansas City, Kansas). Dealers will fix the problem by inspecting vehicles for proper torque specs, retightening if not within specs and, in some cases, perform a rear-wheel alignment.

2015 Chevy Volt gets larger battery, though range remains the same

The Chevrolet Volt isn't changing much for the 2015 model year. According to specifications uncovered by Inside EVs, though, the new Volt's battery does have a slightly larger capacity. According to the spec sheet, this doesn't translate to increased range. Real world driving, though, might tell a different story. The 2015 Volt's battery storage is slightly higher than the outgoing model's, up from 16.5 kilowatt-hours to 17.1 kWh. According to GM's manager of electrification technology communications, Kevin Kelly, speaking to Green Car Reports, the increased capacity is "a late change done in the cell... just another continuous improvement to surprise and delight our customers." The stated electric range, however, stays at 38 miles. Inside EVs followed up on its original report, and found that drivers could see some advantage to the battery tweak. When they spoke to Kelly, he told them, "As a result of this change, we would expect that some customers may see a slight improvement in overall EV range." It's worth noting that when battery capacity increased from 16 kWh to 16.5 kWh for the 2013 Volt, electric range increased by three miles to the current 38, while MPGe went from 94 to 98. The price of the 2015 Chevrolet Volt remains steady, at $34,995. The actual cost to the customer is considerably less with the $7,500 federal tax credit, as well as any local incentives.