1999 Chevrolet Express 1500 Conversion Van on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM recalls trucks and SUVs for brake pedal problem

The Basics: General Motors will recall over 473,000 North American examples of the 2015-2016 Chevrolet Silverado HD, GMC Sierra HD, and police pursuit versions of the Chevy Tahoe. These include 426,573 vehicles in the US and 46,837 in Canada, according to Reuters. The Problem: The brake pivot nut can loosen over time, which can render the pedal inoperative. This would be a danger to drivers trying to stop the vehicles. In some cases, the "Service Engine Soon" light might come on. Injuries/Deaths: None reported. The Fix: Dealers will inspect the pivot bolt, and if necessary they will apply adhesive to it and reinstall the part with increased torque. If You Own One: "We expect to start customer notifications shortly," GM spokesperson Tom Wilkinson told Autoblog. Related Video: Transport Canada Recall # 2016053 Recall Date 2016/02/04 Notification Type Safety Mfr System Brakes Manufacturer Recall Number 20760 Units Affected The number of vehicles or components affected by the recall. 46,837 Category Light Truck & Van, SUV Recall Details On certain Heavy Duty and Police Pursuit vehicles, the brake pedal pivot nut may become loose, causing the brake pedal to be loose or inoperative. If the brake pedal becomes loose or inoperative, it could interfere with the accelerator pedal, and/or the driver may be unable to safely stop the vehicle through application of the brake pedal, potentially affecting stopping distances and increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect the pivot bolt installation to determine whether the vehicle has already received the production remedy. If not, the dealer will add adhesive to the nut, and reinstall the nut at an increased torque. Note: This condition may result in the "Service Engine Soon" light illuminating, and brake lights may stay on longer than expected. Make Model Model Year(s) Affected CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2015 2016 CHEVROLET TAHOE POLICE PURSUIT VEHICLE 2015 2016 GMC SIERRA 2015 2016

GM reintroduces Tripower name in the worst way possible

The story of General Motors' use of the Tripower moniker begins way back in 1957, when Semon E. "Bunkie" Knudsen, then General Manager of GM's Pontiac division, directed his engineers to inject more performance into his brand's line of V8-powered automobiles. Fuel injection was an option, but hot rodders flocked instead to Tri-Power (marketed way back when with a hyphen), which grafted a trio of two-barrel Rochester carburetors onto a single intake manifold. A legend was born. And that legend was born of performance. At idle and when full power wasn't required, Pontiac's Tri-Power system used just the middle carburetor, which helped make the setup easier to tune. Depending on the year and model, either a vacuum system or a mechanical linkage opened up the two outer carbs, thereby switching from two barrels to six, and allowing the engine to take in more fuel and air. And it was an easy marketing win – six barrels is better than four barrels, right? Because performance! So, when news filtered in that GM has resurrected the Tripower name, those of us who grew up attending classic car shows and wrenching on old Pontiacs did a double-take. And then we all collectively sighed. Turns out that today's Tripower refers to a trio of fuel-saving measures that include cylinder deactivation, active thermal management, and intake valve lift control, according to Automotive News. And, at least for now, it applies to GM's line of fullsize trucks powered by a 2.7-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine. We're all for saving fuel whenever possible. And we have zero say in how any automaker chooses to market its products and technologies. But, we'll offer our two cents anyway: Relaunching a storied name from the past is fine. Relaunching a storied name from the past while completely overlooking the reasons the name got famous in the first place is only going to irritate the people who remember the name in the first place. Couldn't they just call this new technology package something else? Related Video: News Source: Automotive NewsImage Credit: Getty Green Marketing/Advertising Chevrolet GM Pontiac Automotive History Truck chevrolet silverado

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.