2014 Chevrolet Cruze Eco on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 Chevy Spark will have lighter, smaller battery

As General Motors gets ready to release the 2015 Chevy Spark EV, it is retooling the Brownstown Battery Assembly to build a new battery system for the chirpy little electric car. The new Spark will lose a few pounds and kWh from its lithium-ion pack, but it will keep all of it's performance specs. The current Spark EV uses a 21-kWh lithium-ion battery pack with bits made by A123 Systems (known as B456 Systems during bankruptcy). For the 2015 model, GM is going to build a 19-kWh battery system in-house that will use 192 LG Chem cells. Losing a bit of energy capacity means that the battery system for the 2015 Spark EV will be 86 pounds lighter but it will keep the EPA-rated 82-mile range and 119 MPGe. The 2015 Spark EV also keeps its $26,685 (plus destination) starting price from the 2014 model. The car will once again qualify for a federal tax credit of up to $7,500. LG Chem also supplies the cells for GM's other plug-in vehicles from its facility in Western Michigan. The Brownstown production line currently builds the battery packs for the Chevy Volt, the Opel Ampera and the Cadillac ELR. You can read our first drive of the 2014 Chevy Spark here. Brownstown Battery Assembly Expands Capabilities Will build battery system for 2015 Chevrolet Spark EV 2014-05-14 DETROIT – General Motors will bring all its electric vehicle battery building capabilities in-house with production of battery systems for the 2015 Chevrolet Spark EV at its battery assembly plant in Brownstown, Mich. "Using our in-house engineering and manufacturing expertise enabled us to deliver a battery system that is more efficient and lighter than the 2014 Spark EV without sacrificing range," said Larry Nitz, executive director of GM global transmission and electrification engineering. "Our successful working relationship with LG Chem has allowed us to deliver a new battery system for the Spark EV that helps us to better leverage our economies of scale." A newly designed battery system features an overall storage capacity of 19 kWh and uses 192 lithium ion cells. The cells are produced at LG Chem's plant in Holland, Mich. The battery system weight of 474 lbs. is 86 pounds lighter than the system in the 2014 Spark EV. The Spark EV battery is built on a dedicated production line at Brownstown, which also manufactures complete battery packs for the Chevrolet Volt, Opel Ampera and Cadillac ELR.

These are the 'Greenest' and 'Meanest' cars in 2015

As has become tradition, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) has come up with a ranking of what it refers to as the "greenest" cars of 2015, and, by way of contrast, a list of the so-called "meanest" cars, so those who value eco-friendliness over all else can choose which vehicles they should or should not consider buying. As you may expect, electric cars make up the majority of the greenest cars on the list, but, perhaps surprisingly to many, the Tesla Model S didn't make the cut. It's worth noting, too, that where the electricity an owner uses to charge their electric vehicle has a big impact on its overall environmental impact. "A car that is charged using electricity generated from natural gas or renewables is going to have significantly less impact on the environment than one charged on a coal-heavy grid," says ACEEE lead vehicle analyst Shruti Vaidyanathan. The ACEEE's list for 2015 looks very different than it did in 2014. It's an interesting collection, though – and we're sure this goes without saying, really – we'd recommend doing a bit more research into each vehicle and how it might fit into your daily life before making any purchase decisions. Click here to see the ACEEE's list of the Greenest and Meanest vehicles sold in the United States in 2015. Green Bugatti Chevrolet Fiat GM GMC Mercedes-Benz Nissan RAM smart Toyota greenest greenest cars

Impala SS vs. Marauder: Recalling Detroit’s muscle sedans 

Impala SS vs. Marauder — it was comparo that only really happened in theory. ChevyÂ’s muscle sedan ran from 1994-96, while MercuryÂ’s answer arrived in 2003 and only lasted until 2004. TheyÂ’re linked inextricably, as there were few options for powerful American sedans during that milquetoast period for enthusiasts. The debate was reignited recently among Autoblog editors when a pristine 1996 Chevy Impala SS with just 2,173 miles on the odometer hit the market on Bring a Trailer. Most of the staff favored the Impala for its sinister looks and said that it lived up to its billing as a legit muscle car. Nearly two-thirds of you agree. We ran an unscientific Twitter poll that generated 851 votes, 63.9 percent of which backed the Impala. Muscle sedans, take your pick: — Greg Migliore (@GregMigliore) April 14, 2020 Then and now enthusiasts felt the Impala was a more complete execution with guts. The Marauder, despite coming along later, felt more hacked together, according to prevailing sentiments. Why? On purpose and on paper theyÂ’re similar. The ImpalaÂ’s 5.7-liter LT1 V8 making 260 horsepower and 330 pound-feet of torque was impressive for a two-ton sedan in the mid-Â’90s. The Marauder was actually more powerful — its 4.6-liter V8 was rated at 302 hp and 318 lb-ft. The ImpalaÂ’s engine was also used in the C4 Corvette. The MarauderÂ’s mill was shared with the Mustang Mach 1. You can see why they resonated so deeply with Boomers longing for a bygone era and also captured the attention of coming-of-age Gen Xers. Car and DriverÂ’s staff gave the Marauder a lukewarm review back in ‘03, citing its solid handling and features, yet knocking the sedan for being slow off the line. In a Hemmings article appropriately called “Autopsy” from 2004, the ImpalaÂ’s stronger low-end torque and smooth shifting transmission earned praise, separating it from the more sluggish Mercury. All of this was captured in the carsÂ’ acceleration times, highlighting metrically the differences in their character. The Impala hit 60 miles per hour in 6.5 seconds, while the Marauder was a half-second slower, according to C/D testing. Other sites have them closer together, which reinforces the premise it really was the little things that separated these muscle cars. Both made the most of their genetics, riding on ancient platforms (FordÂ’s Panther and General MotorsÂ’ B-body) that preceded these cars by decades. Both had iconic names.