1972 Monte Carlo on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Best cars for snow and ice in 2023 and 2024

What's the best car for snow? The real answer is "the one with winter tires." What do we mean by that? You could have the finest, most advanced all-wheel-drive system or four-wheel drive in the world, but if you're running all-seasons (the spork of tires), your fancy four-wheeler won't matter much. The odds are, any vehicle on the road running good winter tires will probably perform adequately in slippery, slushy and/or snowy road conditions. (Here's a more complete explanation of why winter tires are totally worth it). In other words, you don't really need any of the cars on this list. With a set of winter tires, countless others will do the job, and even these will be at their best with proper rubber. You can find a variety of winter tires for your car here at Tire Rack. Keep in mind that you will need a full set of four snow tires for safety and performance, no matter what you're driving. The days of your dad putting just two snows on the family truckster to get it moving in a straight line are long gone. Don't get us wrong, getting a car that performs well in snow and ice is still a worthy criteria for car buyers. According to the U.S. Transportation Department, 70% of Americans live in places that get snow and ice. And much of the country has been blasted with arctic air for much of the new year. So let's look at the cars. First, we're highlighting choices for a variety of buyers and price points. Second, we're not just considering snow; we're considering general wintery conditions people will experience driving to work or school. As such, these are all choices with advanced all-wheel-drive systems, usually with "torque-vectoring" systems that not only automatically shunt power front and back, but side to side between the rear axles. Most have extra ground clearance for getting through deep snow, and we prefer those vehicles with more responsive steering, throttles and transmissions that provide a greater sense of vehicle control in slippery conditions.    Acura RDX Read our Acura RDX Review Acura's Super-Handling All-Wheel Drive system was one of the first to offer torque-vectoring, and besides often being touted for its ability to greatly enhanced dry-road handling, its benefits in the slick stuff can be profound. It's actually surprising that Acura hasn't leaned into this capability further by offering more rugged versions of its vehicles.

2014 Chevy Cruze Diesel arrives with 42 mpg for $25,695*

The last time General Motors had a diesel passenger car in the US, it was the 1.8-liter 1986 Chevette. At the 2013 Chicago Auto Show today, GM is unveiling the much-anticipated 2014 Chevrolet Cruze Diesel. The compact bows with a 2.0-liter turbo-diesel four-cylinder engine that boasts 148 horsepower and 258 pound-feet of torque, with full twist coming on at just 2,000 rpm. What's more, the common-rail, direct-injection diesel features an overboost function that allows the engine to deliver up to 280 lb-ft of torque for 10 seconds at a time. Even with 10 more horsepower and 110 more pound-feet of torque than the available turbocharged 1.4-liter four-cylinder in the Cruze, the 2.0-liter diesel engine can return up to 42 mpg (highway) bolted to its six-speed automatic transmission.
If you're counting, that figure meets the less powerful Cruze Eco with a six-speed manual transmission. More importantly, the auto transmission Cruze Diesel matches its main competition, the Volkswagen Jetta TDI, in highway fuel economy. The Cruze 2.0 TD (as it will be badged) can also handle up to 20 percent biodiesel (B20), whereas the Jetta is rated only for B5. General Motors has not released city fuel economy for its newest diesel, but we do know how much it will cost you to jump behind the driver's seat.
GM will kindly ask for $25,695, plus an $810 destination fee. That marks a $2,115 premium over a loaded Cruze LTZ Auto and $2,640 more than the Jetta TDI, though the MSRP will net you a leather interior, 17-inch alloy wheels and an Aero Performance Package, as well as a two-year maintenance plan and five-year, 100,000-mile powertrain warranty. Compared to the gas-powered Cruze, you also lose a couple cubic feet of rear cargo space thanks to a 17-liter diesel emission fluid tank. That urea fluid, which helps put the clean in clean diesel, will need to be refilled at least every 10,000 miles.

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.