1972 Chevy Nova Super Sport 350 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Chevy up to old EVs-equal-range-anxiety tricks in new Volt Olympics ad

General Motors is at it again with a new Chevrolet Volt TV commercial. Viewers of the Winter Olymics (at least in some markets) recently saw a TV ad in between the skating and the skiing that made no mention of the environmental benefits or freedom from the power of Big Oil that electric vehicles provide. No, this one was based on pure survival instinct. In the video, a father is driving down a highway, perhaps through the Mojave Desert. His young son is sitting in the Volt's backseat and asks what happens when the EV's battery runs out. "We'll have to cross that burning desert with snakes and cactus until we make it back to civilization," the dad tells his son as they pass the skeleton of a fallen bull. The fine print makes it clear that the actual maximum range is 342 miles. But there is hope. The father tells his son, with a beaming smile on his face, that the gas generator has kicked in and they're going to make it through the desert. As they wend their way to the horizon, a voice over says that Volt drivers who charge up regularly are making it 900 miles between fill ups. The fine print makes it clear that the actual official maximum range before you need to either plug in or fill up is 342 miles. This theme that emphasized range anxiety has been utilized by GM since the extended range Volt was launched in late 2010, despite the fact that Chevrolet now offers an all-electric vehicle in the Spark EV. Volt fans are praising the commercial, called The New Freedom, on the GM-Volt forum and you can see for yourself below. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. News Source: Cheverolet via CleanTechnica, YouTube Green Chevrolet GM Fuel Efficiency Green Culture Electric range anxiety extended range

Consumer Reports criticizes small turbo engines for misleading performance, fuel economy claims [w/video]

Consumer Reports has taken aim at at small-displacement, forced-induction engines, saying the powerplants don't manage to deliver on automaker fuel economy claims. Manufacturers have long held that smaller, turbocharged engines pack all power of their larger displacement cousins with significantly better fuel economy, but the research organization says that despite scoring high EPA economy numbers, the engines are no better than conventional drivetrains in both categories. Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports, says the forced induction options "are often slower and less fuel efficient than larger four and six-cylinder engines."
Specifically, CR calls out the new Ford Fusion equipped with the automaker's Ecoboost 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine. The institute's researchers found the engine, which is a $795 option over the base 2.5-liter four-cylinder, fails to match competitors in acceleration and served up 25 miles per gallon in testing, putting the sedan dead last among other midsize options.
The Chevrolet Cruze, Hyundai Sonata Turbo and Ford Escape 2.0T all got dinged for the same troubles, though Consumer Reports has found the turbo 2.0-liter four-cylinder in the BMW 328i does deliver on its promises. You can check out the full press release below. You can also read the full study on the Consumer Reports site, or scroll down for a short video recap.

Here are a few of our automotive guilty pleasures

It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. The world is full of cars, and just about as many of them are bad as are good. It's pretty easy to pick which fall into each category after giving them a thorough walkaround and, more important, driving them. But every once in a while, an automobile straddles the line somehow between good and bad — it may be hideously overpriced and therefore a marketplace failure, it may be stupid quick in a straight line but handles like a drunken noodle, or it may have an interior that looks like it was made of a mess of injection-molded Legos. Heck, maybe all three. Yet there's something special about some bad cars that actually makes them likable. The idea for this list came to me while I was browsing classified ads for cars within a few hundred miles of my house. I ran across a few oddballs and shared them with the rest of the team in our online chat room. It turns out several of us have a few automotive guilty pleasures that we're willing to admit to. We'll call a few of 'em out here. Feel free to share some of your own in the comments below. Dodge Neon SRT4 and Caliber SRT4: The Neon was a passably good and plucky little city car when it debuted for the 1995 model year. The Caliber, which replaced the aging Neon and sought to replace its friendly marketing campaign with something more sinister, was panned from the very outset for its cheap interior furnishings, but at least offered some decent utility with its hatchback shape. What the two little front-wheel-drive Dodge models have in common are their rip-roarin' SRT variants, each powered by turbocharged 2.4-liter four-cylinder engines. Known for their propensity to light up their front tires under hard acceleration, the duo were legitimately quick and fun to drive with a fantastic turbo whoosh that called to mind the early days of turbo technology. — Consumer Editor Jeremy Korzeniewski  Chevrolet HHR SS: Chevy's HHR SS came out early in my automotive journalism career, and I have fond memories of the press launch (and having dinner with Bob Lutz) that included plenty of tire-smoking hard launches and demonstrations of the manual transmission's no-lift shift feature. The 260-horsepower turbocharged four-cylinder was and still is a spunky little engine that makes the retro-inspired HHR a fun little hot rod that works quite well as a fun little daily driver.