2014 Chevrolet Sonic Ls on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM executive chief EV engineer says reducing cost of plug-in vehicles is 'huge priority'

As we know, another major automaker investing heavily in electrified vehicles is General Motors, and it's doing things much differently than rivals BMW, Ford or Nissan. The Chevrolet Volt extended-range EV is a modest seller at its $35,000 sticker price but a huge hit with owners. The Chevy Spark BEV, still in limited availability, puts smiley faces on its owners and drivers. The just-introduced Cadillac ELR, a sharp-looking, fun-driving $76,000 luxocoupe take on the Volt's EREV mechanicals, has admittedly low sales expectations. With this interesting trio in showrooms and much more in the works, the third vehicle electrification leader I collared for an interview at Detroit's North American International Auto Show (see #1 and #2) was Pam Fletcher, GM's executive chief engineer, Electrified Vehicles. ABG: Why do your EREVs need four-cylinder power to extend their range when BMW's i3 makes do with an optional 650 cc two-banger? "We designed [the Volt and the ELR] to go anywhere, any time" - Pam Fletcher PF: I get that question all the time: why not something smaller? You don't really need that much. You use the electric to its ability, then you just need to limp. But we designed those cars to go anywhere, any time, and we don't want their performance to be compromised. If you're driving through the mountains, we don't want you to be crawling up grades, or to be limited on any terrain. So it's optimized to be able to travel literally the biggest grades and mountain roads around the globe at posted speeds. Because what if you can't? Another good reason: when the engine is on, you have to run it wide open throttle, max speed, most of the time. And while we can do a lot with acoustics, and the ELR has active noise cancelation, a small-displacement, low cylinder-count engine at high speed, high load all the time isn't something you want to live with. That's how we came up with the balance we did among the key factors of performance, NVH [noise, vibration and harshness] and range. ABG: Where you go from here? Is the range-extender engine due for an update? PF: We know and love the current Volt, and there is still a lot of acclaim about it, so we think it's a good recipe. But we are heavily in the midst of engineering the next-generation car, which I think everyone will love and be excited about.

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.

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.