2000 Chevrolet G3500 Shuttle Bus 28 Passenger 6.5l Diesel V8 Express Florida on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Junkyard Gem: 1985 Chevrolet Sprint

For in the 1985 model year, General Motors began selling Chevrolet-badged Suzuki Cultus hatchbacks in California. Sales of the cheap three-cylinder econobox in the rest of North America followed soon after (with the Canadian version known as the Pontiac Firefly), and did pretty well considering the crash in gasoline prices during the middle 1980s. Starting in 1988, the facelifted Sprint became the Geo (and, later on, Chevrolet) Metro. Here's one of the very first Cultuses sold on our shores, found in a San Francisco Bay Area car graveyard. Amazingly, the primitive rear-wheel-drive Chevrolet Chevette remained available all the way through 1987, competing with the thriftier front-wheel-drive Sprint in the same showrooms. For 1988, Pontiac started selling a rebadged Daewoo LeMans, so the Sprint/Metro never lacked for intra-corporate competition. Inside, you'll find the same stuff most mid-1980s Japanese econoboxes got: tough cloth upholstery and long-wearing hard plastics. Suzuki quality in 1985 wasn't quite up to Honda or Toyota levels, but you weren't paying Honda or Toyota prices for the Sprint. MSRP on this car started at $4,949, or about $12,000 in 2020 dollars. The cheapest possible 1985 Chevette cost $5,340, while a new no-frills Ford Escort would set you back $5,620. Subaru, however, could have put you in a punitively unappointed base-model Leone hatchback for just 40 bucks more than the Sprint that year. I think I'd have sprung the extra for a $5,348 Toyota Tercel, a $5,195 Mazda GLC, or— best cheap-commuter deal of all that year— the $5,399 Honda Civic 1300 hatchback. I was 19 years old and driving a Competition Orange 1968 Mercury Cyclone that year, and I recall feeling pity for Chevy Sprint drivers, new-car smell or not. Still, these weren't bad cars for the price, though a Sprint with an automatic transmission was a real character-builder. Got three cylinders and uses 'em all! 48 horsepower from this hemi-headed SOHC 1-liter. The Turbo Sprint — yes, such a car existed — had a howling 70 horsepower. The hood-latch release is a rectangular button that resembles a badge. 1985 Chevy Sprint Commercial The highest-mileage, lowest-priced car you can buy. 1985 holden barina commercial The Australian-market version was the Holden Barina, and the TV ads featured the Road Runner. 1983 SUZUKI CULTUS Ad In its homeland, this car got screaming guitars and a drive through New York City for its TV commercials.

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.

Ram 1500 bests new F-150 in MT pickup shootout

Ford's 2015 Ford F-150 is a technological tour-de-force, what with its aluminum-intensive construction and its powerful and efficient new 2.7-liter EcoBoost engine option. But now that it's hit the market, it's time to get down to brass tacks and find out how just the latest F-150 actually stands up to its rivals in the hyper-competitive fullsize segment. Motor Trend is among the first to round up the Ford (in Lariat 2.7-liter 4X4 guise here) and put it up against the Ram 1500 Outdoorsman EcoDiesel 4x4 and 5.3-liter-equipped Silverado 1500 LTZ Z71 to find out how Dearborn's new-think truck measures up. The test put the trio through over 1,000 miles of tough driving in California and Arizona in a variety of conditions from just cruising around unladen to hauling a trailer. MT found all three trucks to be competent, but the most praise got heaped on the Ram and the Ford, with the Chevrolet falling a step behind its competitors in many tests. Among the Ford's most-liked features was its 2.7-liter, twin-turbo V6 that helped make the F-150 easily the quickest of the group, with some editors saying the engine felt about the same whether driving around with cargo in the bed or not. There was some minor turbo lag during acceleration while trailering, but that issue affected the Ram, too. The Ram's powertrain was lauded, as well. The EcoDiesel was torquey around town, and the 1500's combination of an eight-speed automatic and air suspension was judged to be the best of the lot. It was the most difficult to get into the bed, though. The Ram also won the fuel economy award by netting 20-miles-per-gallon city and 28-mpg highway in the test to beat its Environmental Protection Agency ratings of 19/27. The Ford's EcoBoost managed 17/22, one mpg off each from the EPA numbers, and using a lot of throttle really depleted its efficiency. As MT notes, however, it would take time for the diesel's mileage savings to pay off at the pump for these two trucks. In the end, the Ram just barely eked out the win, with the title partially earned because of "the Ford's unknown maintenance and aluminum repair costs," according to MT. Go check out the full comparison to read all of the details, then let us know what you think in Comments.