No Reserve 2003 Chevrolet G3500 Extended Cargo W/ Seating, 1 Gov. Owner on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM cutting back on powertrain warranty citing lack of interest

Generally, when a manufacturer offers a long, high-mileage warranty, it's a sign that it stands behind its products. On top of that, it's generally a selling point for consumers, who can rest easy knowing that any catastrophic failures will be picked up by the manufacturer. Considering those facts, it does seem rather strange that General Motors is slashing the mileage warranty on model year 2016 vehicles from Chevrolet and GMC. Instead of offering consumers a 100,000-mile warranty, GM will now only offer a powertrain warranty up to 60,000 miles. The five-year warranty period, though, remains unchanged. GM will also cut the number of free services being offered to Chevy and GMC owners, as well as Buick drivers, from four to two. "Through research, we have determined that when purchasing a new vehicle, included maintenance and warranty rank low on the list of reasons why consumers consider a particular brand over another," explained a memo sent to dealers by Chevrolet VP Brian Sweeney and his GMC counterpart, Duncan Aldred, and obtained by Automotive News. "As a result, we have benchmarked our competitors, reviewed our current offerings and have concluded the following modifications to align closely with our customers' needs and expectations." While the move might seem odd, Sweeney and Aldred are right – according to Automotive News, Ford, Honda and Toyota each offer a five-year, 60,000-mile powertrain warranty. As for what the money saved by trimming the powertrain warranty will go towards, a GM spokesperson simply told AN that the company will "reinvest the savings we will realize into other retail programs," some of which have been requested by consumers. What are your thoughts? Would a 40,000-mile reduction in a new vehicle's powertrain really turn you off from buying one? Even if it matched its competitors? Is GM better off spending its money elsewhere? Have your say in Comments. Featured Gallery 2016 Chevrolet Equinox View 10 Photos News Source: Automotive News - sub. req.Image Credit: Chevrolet Chevrolet GM GMC Auto Repair Maintenance Ownership warranty

The U-2 spy plane needs high-performance cars to help land

Typically, aircraft deploy their landing gear from three main points. Most military aircraft, for example, deploy two gears at the back and one forward, like a tricycle. Some civilian aircraft flip the layout, with two in front and one in back - tail-draggers. The U-2 Dragon Lady is wildly different than any of these. With a 103-foot wingspan but a body that's just 63-feet long, the layout of the U-2 makes a traditional landing setup infeasible. Instead, the U-2 utilizes a pair of wheels, one up front and one in back. With such a bizarre layout, landings are so tough that since the U-2's earliest flights at Area 51, the US Air Force has used high-performance chase cars to guide the pilot down safely. The landing process isn't over there, though. As this video from Sploid shows, balancing out the aircraft to fit the detachable "pogos" – think training wheels for spy planes – is a comical procedure requiring a number of airman using their full body weight to even out the U-2. This video also recaps some of the great vehicles that have served as chase vehicles for this legendary spy plane. They include Chevrolet El Caminos, and the Fox-body Ford Mustangs so favored by the California Highway Patrol. For the last several years, the USAF has utilized products from General Motors, using fourth-generation Chevy Camaros, before switching over to the Pontiac GTO and most recently, the awesome Pontiac G8. It's fair to say that if you're a gearhead in the Air Force, this is the job you want. Check out the video, embedded up top. News Source: Sploid via YouTubeImage Credit: Sploid Chevrolet Ford GM Pontiac Military Performance Videos

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.