2012 Chevrolet Equinox Ls on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Our favorite mid-engine Corvette theories and rumors

The mid-engine Corvette! We just saw blurry photos through the foliage, and are hearts are all aflutter because it means that this car is real. And it's the most " never before" Corvette since 1984. Which leads us to all kinds of wacky theories and speculation. Everybody knows something or heard from a guy. None of those guys (or gals) from GM are talking to Autoblog, to be clear. But that won't stop us from stirring the pot. Let's go over a few point-by-point. The pushrod engine will be replaced by an overhead-cam V8 Car and Driver has repeatedly reported that an overhead-cam engine will come after the mid-engine Corvette's debut with an old-school pushrod. We've heard the same thing firsthand, albeit from a source with no connection to the development of the Corvette or powertrain. "At some point two valves can't pass future emissions regulations," said the guy we know. While the pushrod engine is compact, the design makes it difficult - if not impossible - for sophisticated variable valve timing (and lift) systems that control combustion with more precision. Hasty conclusion: The pushrod engine has a finite life in front of it. This one's a lock, it's a just a matter of when. Bowling Green's new paint shop is really the mid-engine assembly line Credit to Reddit for this one. Like we said, everybody knows a guy. But let's look deeper. The new paint facility costs $439 million dollars and adds 450,000 square feet, almost half the size of the existing plant. Plus GM announced another $290 million in upgrades at Bowling Green Assembly. That sure sounds like a lot of money, but you can actually spend that much on a paint booth. Porsche spent 500 million Euros (about $561 million dollars) to add the Macan assembly to its Leipzig, Germany plant in 2014. Chrysler shelled out $850 million for a paint shop in Sterling Heights, Michigan. GM spent $600 million for a new paint shop at the Fairfax (Kansas City) plant. Honda, on the other hand, is working on a thrifty $210 million project in Marysville, Ohio that includes a 300,000 square foot expansion, and the low-volume Acura NSX facility only cost $70 million. Hasty conclusion: The square footage and cost could easily mean a new assembly line instead of (or in addition to) a paint line. And if the NSX plant was really that cheap, GM could have hidden a similar sum in its existing announcements.

2014 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray Convertible is a Swiss hit

We've just received an early peek at the 2014 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray Convertible here at the Geneva Motor Show. General Motors was kind enough to let us attend the final dress-rehearsal for its press conference scheduled for tomorrow's opening media day, and we've come away with a good look at the droptop C7 in person.
In the metal, the new Corvette Convertible seems somehow less avant-garde than the Coupe, even in Z51 Performance Package guise. That's not necessarily a bad thing - more of an observation. That initial impression may be because the C7's new greenhouse is one of its most prominent departures from Corvettes past. While we didn't get to see the top erected, there's no rear side window in the stock images that Chevy has already released, suggesting the C7 convertible's profile will look a lot like its C6 predecessor. And with the new power tonneau cover in place, there are also no rear ducts that come as part of the Z51 package (they've been moved under the car).
As with its predecessor, the tonneau is a handsome double-bubble piece, and the body-color "waterfall" element into the cabin between the seats has made it to the new model as well. Thus, the overall look with the top down should be a bit more familiar to prior-gen C6 owners - if you're one of those put off by the C7's new shape, you'll probably appreciate the convertible bodystyle more than the coupe.

GM recalls Cadillac ATS and Chevy Impala for separate issues

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration added two recalls from General Motors in the government organization's daily update of safety campaigns. Both were for failing to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards but for completely separate reasons. The larger recall covers 58,698 units of the 2013-2015 Cadillac ATS, but it doesn't really carry huge safety concerns. In vehicles produced between April 25, 2012, and February 9, 2015, the controls for the tilt and slide of the moonroof are not recessed enough, as required by federal law. According to NHTSA, it's possible that someone could inadvertently activate the auto-close for the roof panel, which the agency claims increases "the risk of personal injury." Dealers will install a new trim plate that will add the necessary clearance. The other campaign covers 1,177 examples of the 2014 Chevrolet Impala from between November 15, 2012, and May 27, 2014. However, this is actually a repeat of a previous recall on the Chevy and the Cadillac XTS from 2014. The affected Impalas here "were remedied incorrectly" under the earlier campaign, according to NHTSA. On these sedans, it's possible the electronic parking brake might not fully disengage and still remain in some contact with the rotor, which is in violation of federal rules. The fault can cause excessive heat from the brakes that could potentially lead to a fire, according to NHTSA. To fix the problem, dealers will reprogram the electronic parking brake control module. Show full PR text RECALL Subject : Inadvertent Press of Roof Panel Switch/FMVSS 118 Report Receipt Date: FEB 24, 2015 NHTSA Campaign Number: 15V106000 Component(s): VISIBILITY Potential Number of Units Affected: 58,698 All Products Associated with this Recall Vehicle Make Model Model Year(s) CADILLAC ATS 2013-2015 Details Manufacturer: General Motors LLC SUMMARY: General Motors LLC (GM) is recalling certain model year 2013-2015 Cadillac ATS vehicles manufactured April 25, 2012, to February 9, 2015. In the affected vehicles, the power-operated roof panels auto-close when the non-recessed "Slide" or "Tilt" switches are pressed. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No.