Chevrolet Suburban Lt Low Miles 4 Dr Suv Automatic 5.3l Vortec V8 Black on 2040-cars

Auto blog

'84 MotorWeek Cherokee, Bronco and Blazer comparison indulges your SUV nostalgia

These days, truck-based, full-frame SUVs are somewhat of a rarity on the auto landscape due to the rapid rise in popularity of easier-driving, car-based crossovers. Although, without the gradually building popularity of these chunky, high-riding vehicles decades ago, it's unlikely that America's roads would be filled with so many CUVs today. In its latest dig into the archives, MotorWeek has found a 1984 comparison test of a trio of these early Sport Utility Wagons, as long-time host John Davis called them, that helped get acceptance of this segment going. This is a red, white and blue test of the SUVs from American automakers at the time and pits the Chevrolet Blazer, Ford Bronco and Jeep Cherokee (specifically in Wagoneer guise) against each other. Driving manners and interior usability are considered in the evaluation, but Motorweek actually takes these vehicles off road, too. Among the bigger revelations is the improvement in on-road ability in the past 30 years. While specific 0-60 times aren't given, all three models take around 10 seconds just to get to around 50 miles per hour in the 500-feet on-ramp acceleration test. Check out this clip to see just how far this segment has progressed in the past three decades or just get a blast of nostalgia from these now vintage models. News Source: MotorWeek via YouTube Chevrolet Ford Jeep SUV Off-Road Vehicles Classics Videos Ford Bronco chevy blazer

IIHS gives good ratings to 4 of 8 midsize pickups in crash test

Versions of the Toyota Tacoma, Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon Crew Cab earned top ratings in a new crash test of midsize pickup trucks from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, while two versions of the Nissan Frontier earned marginal ratings. But the organization gave poor marks to all eight pickups tested for their dim headlights. Overall, four of the eight pickups evaluated earned good ratings for protecting occupants in all five crash test categories — the Tacoma double cab along with crew cab versions of the Colorado, Canyon and Tacoma. But the poor headlights and lack of an automatic emergency braking system blocked any of the pickups from qualifying for the IIHS's Top Safety Pick awards. The study looked at two pickup body styles using 2017 models: crew cabs, which have four full doors and two full rows of seating, and extended cabs, which have two full front doors, two smaller rear doors and compact second-row seats. It subjected each to five tests, and it evaluated the performance of front crash prevention systems and headlights. The Toyota Tacoma crew cab was the only pickup in that class that earned a good rating for structure in the small overlap test, which replicates what happens when a vehicle clips a tree, pole or another vehicle that has crossed the center line. The model's Access Cab extended-cab version was rated similarly, though its structure was rated acceptable. "This group of small pickups performed better in the small overlap front test than many of their larger pickup cousins," says David Zuby, the Institute's executive vice president and chief research officer. "The exception was the Nissan Frontier, which hasn't had a structural redesign since the 2005 model year." The extended-cab versions of the Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon earned acceptable ratings, while both the Nissan Frontier king-cab and crew-cab models were rated marginal. Toyota says its 2018 Tacoma will feature upgraded headlights and a standard autobraking system that can detect pedestrians. "Headlights are basic but vital safety equipment. Drivers shouldn't have to give up the ability to see the road at night when they choose a small pickup," Zuby said. Related Video: Auto News Chevrolet GMC Nissan Toyota Safety Truck Videos gmc canyon nissan frontier chevrolet colorado

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.