1992 Chevrolet Corvette Base Hatchback 2-door 5.7l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Which electric cars can charge at a Tesla Supercharger?

The difference between Tesla charging and non-Tesla charging. Electrify America; Tesla Tesla's advantage has long been its charging technology and Supercharger network. Now, more and more automakers are switching to Tesla's charging tech. But there are a few things non-Tesla drivers need to know about charging at a Tesla station. A lot has hit the news cycle in recent months with regard to electric car drivers and where they can and can't plug in. The key factor in all of that? Whether automakers switched to Tesla's charging standard. More car companies are shifting to Tesla's charging tech in the hopes of boosting their customers' confidence in going electric.  Here's what it boils down to: If you currently drive a Tesla, you can keep charging at Tesla charging locations, which use the company's North American Charging Standard (NACS), which has long served it well. The chargers are thinner, more lightweight and easier to wrangle than other brands.  If you currently drive a non-Tesla EV, you have to charge at a non-Tesla charging station like that of Electrify America or EVgo — which use the Combined Charging System (CCS) — unless you stumble upon a Tesla charger already equipped with the Magic Dock adapter. For years, CCS tech dominated EVs from everyone but Tesla.  Starting next year, if you drive a non-Tesla EV (from the automakers that have announced they'll make the switch), you'll be able to charge at all Supercharger locations with an adapter. And by 2025, EVs from some automakers won't even need an adaptor.  Here's how to charge up, depending on which EV you have:  Ford 2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E. Tim Levin/Insider Ford was the earliest traditional automaker to team up with Tesla for its charging tech. Current Ford EV owners — those driving a Ford electric vehicle already fitted with a CCS port — will be able to use a Tesla-developed adapter to access Tesla Superchargers starting in the spring. That means that, if you own a Mustang Mach-E or Ford F-150 Lightning, you will need the adapter in order to use a Tesla station come 2024. But Ford will equip its future EVs with the NACS port starting in 2025 — eliminating the need for any adapter. Owners of new Ford EVs will be able to pull into a Supercharger station and juice up, no problem. General Motors Cadillac Lyriq. Cadillac GM will also allow its EV drivers to plug into Tesla stations.

The USPS needs 180,000 new delivery vehicles, automakers gearing up to bid

Winning the New York City Taxi of Tomorrow tender was a huge prize for Nissan, even though the company is still working through the process of claiming its prize. The United States Postal Service has begun the process to take bids for a new delivery vehicle to replace the all-too-familiar Grumman Long Life Vehicle, and that will be a much larger plum for the automaker who wins it, perhaps worth more than six billion dollars. The Grumman LLV is an aluminum body covering a Chevrolet S-10 pickup chassis and General Motors' Iron Duke four-cylinder engine. The USPS bought them from 1987 to 1994, and the 163,000 of them still in service are a monumental drain on postal resources: they get roughly ten miles to the gallon instead of the quoted 16 mpg, drink up more than $530 million in fuel each year, and their constant repair needs like the balky sliding door and leaky windshields have led the service to increase the annual maintenance budget from $100 million to $500 million. A seat belt is about as modern as it gets for safety technology, and the USPS says that assuming things stay the same, it can't afford to run them beyond 2017. Last year it put out two triage requests for proposals seeking 10,000 new chassis and drivetrains for the Grumman and 10,000 new vehicles. The LLV is also too small for the modern mail system in which package delivery is growing and letter delivery is declining. The service says it doesn't have a fixed idea of the ideal "next-generation delivery vehicles," but it listed a number of requirements in its initial request and is open to any proposal. Carriers have some suggestions, though, saying they want better cupholders, sun visors that they can stuff letters behind, a driver's compartment free of slits that can swallow mail, and a backup camera. The request for information sent to automakers pegs the tender at 180,000 vehicles that would cost between $25,000 and $35,000 apiece, and it will hold a conference on February 18 to answer questions about the contract. GM is the only domestic maker to avow an interest, while Ford and Fiat-Chrysler have remained cagey. Yet with a possible $6.3 billion up for grabs and some new vans for sale that would be advertised on every block in the country, we have a feeling everyone will be listening closely come February 18. We also have a feeling the LeMons series is going to be flooded with Grummans come 2017. News Source: Wall Street Journal, Automotive News - sub.

Here are a few of our automotive guilty pleasures

It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. The world is full of cars, and just about as many of them are bad as are good. It's pretty easy to pick which fall into each category after giving them a thorough walkaround and, more important, driving them. But every once in a while, an automobile straddles the line somehow between good and bad — it may be hideously overpriced and therefore a marketplace failure, it may be stupid quick in a straight line but handles like a drunken noodle, or it may have an interior that looks like it was made of a mess of injection-molded Legos. Heck, maybe all three. Yet there's something special about some bad cars that actually makes them likable. The idea for this list came to me while I was browsing classified ads for cars within a few hundred miles of my house. I ran across a few oddballs and shared them with the rest of the team in our online chat room. It turns out several of us have a few automotive guilty pleasures that we're willing to admit to. We'll call a few of 'em out here. Feel free to share some of your own in the comments below. Dodge Neon SRT4 and Caliber SRT4: The Neon was a passably good and plucky little city car when it debuted for the 1995 model year. The Caliber, which replaced the aging Neon and sought to replace its friendly marketing campaign with something more sinister, was panned from the very outset for its cheap interior furnishings, but at least offered some decent utility with its hatchback shape. What the two little front-wheel-drive Dodge models have in common are their rip-roarin' SRT variants, each powered by turbocharged 2.4-liter four-cylinder engines. Known for their propensity to light up their front tires under hard acceleration, the duo were legitimately quick and fun to drive with a fantastic turbo whoosh that called to mind the early days of turbo technology. — Consumer Editor Jeremy Korzeniewski  Chevrolet HHR SS: Chevy's HHR SS came out early in my automotive journalism career, and I have fond memories of the press launch (and having dinner with Bob Lutz) that included plenty of tire-smoking hard launches and demonstrations of the manual transmission's no-lift shift feature. The 260-horsepower turbocharged four-cylinder was and still is a spunky little engine that makes the retro-inspired HHR a fun little hot rod that works quite well as a fun little daily driver.