1993 Chevy Chevrolet Astro Ext Conversion Mini Passenger Van V6 4.3l Good on 2040-cars

Auto blog

LG Chem's troubled Chevy Volt battery plant hiring once again

The Michigan battery plant known for paying its workers to do nothing has turned things around and is now hiring more workers, specifically to do something. South Korea-based LG Chem, which runs the factory to supply the Chevrolet Volt extended-range plug-in vehicle with its lithium-ion batteries, held a job fair recently to bring on 40 new employees in order to meet higher battery demand, according to WZZM, the ABC affiliate for Grand Rapids, MI. The LG Chem factory is in Holland, MI, about 30 miles west of Grand Rapids, and it made its first batteries last year. Prior to that, though, the factory gained notoriety after a US Department of Energy (DOE) probe found that workers there were getting paid to do, well, nothing. That's because demand for the battery packs was so low that it cost less for the plant to sit idle. The DOE was conducting the probe because of its financial grant to LG Chem. But that was then and today is today. LG Chem is looking to ramp up production in advance of the second-generation Volt. That 2016 model-year version is said to have a longer all-electric range and better performance and will ride on a new chassis, but few official details have surfaced. We will know more when we get our first look at the car at the Detroit Auto Show in January.

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.

GM recalls Cadillac ATS and Chevy Impala for separate issues

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration added two recalls from General Motors in the government organization's daily update of safety campaigns. Both were for failing to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards but for completely separate reasons. The larger recall covers 58,698 units of the 2013-2015 Cadillac ATS, but it doesn't really carry huge safety concerns. In vehicles produced between April 25, 2012, and February 9, 2015, the controls for the tilt and slide of the moonroof are not recessed enough, as required by federal law. According to NHTSA, it's possible that someone could inadvertently activate the auto-close for the roof panel, which the agency claims increases "the risk of personal injury." Dealers will install a new trim plate that will add the necessary clearance. The other campaign covers 1,177 examples of the 2014 Chevrolet Impala from between November 15, 2012, and May 27, 2014. However, this is actually a repeat of a previous recall on the Chevy and the Cadillac XTS from 2014. The affected Impalas here "were remedied incorrectly" under the earlier campaign, according to NHTSA. On these sedans, it's possible the electronic parking brake might not fully disengage and still remain in some contact with the rotor, which is in violation of federal rules. The fault can cause excessive heat from the brakes that could potentially lead to a fire, according to NHTSA. To fix the problem, dealers will reprogram the electronic parking brake control module. Show full PR text RECALL Subject : Inadvertent Press of Roof Panel Switch/FMVSS 118 Report Receipt Date: FEB 24, 2015 NHTSA Campaign Number: 15V106000 Component(s): VISIBILITY Potential Number of Units Affected: 58,698 All Products Associated with this Recall Vehicle Make Model Model Year(s) CADILLAC ATS 2013-2015 Details Manufacturer: General Motors LLC SUMMARY: General Motors LLC (GM) is recalling certain model year 2013-2015 Cadillac ATS vehicles manufactured April 25, 2012, to February 9, 2015. In the affected vehicles, the power-operated roof panels auto-close when the non-recessed "Slide" or "Tilt" switches are pressed. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No.