1988 Camaro Convertible on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM wants to have 10 plug-in models in China in five years

Last we checked, General Motors was selling all of three plug-in vehicle models in its home country of the US, and is prepared to make the Chevrolet Bolt EV available on these shores later this year. So it's notable that the automaker is hatching plans to have at least 10 plug-in variants for sale in China within the next five years, according to Hybrid Cars. Which plug-ins are coming remains a mystery. GM started selling a hybrid version of the Buick LaCrosse in China this month. The strategy makes sense, as China is now the world's largest car market, and accounts for about a third of GM's annual revenue. The automaker, which operates in China under the SAIC-GM and SAIC-GM-Wuling joint ventures, sells cars there under the Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, and Boujun badges, and has been doing so for the better part of two decades. Most recently, GM started selling a hybrid version of the Buick LaCrosse in China this month. What we do know is that GM is building its Cadillac CT6 Plug-in Hybrid in China, with distribution to be split between China and the US. That model, which is scheduled to start sales by the end of the year, is being built overseas because of a combination of Chinese government support for new-energy vehicle technology through incentives and the fact that battery-pack maker LG Chem makes most of its cells in nearby South Korea. The plug-ins are part of a broader plan by General Motors to either introduce or substantially tweak about 60 models by the end of the decade. With such new models, GM looks to boost unit sales by as much as five percent a year for the next few years. As for the other nine plug-in models slated for China by 2021, the company is mum. GM spokesman Dan Flores declined to comment to AutoblogGreen. Related Video: Featured Gallery 2016 Cadillac CT6: First Drive View 32 Photos News Source: Hybrid Cars Green Cadillac Chevrolet GM Electric Hybrid PHEV

GM reintroduces Tripower name in the worst way possible

The story of General Motors' use of the Tripower moniker begins way back in 1957, when Semon E. "Bunkie" Knudsen, then General Manager of GM's Pontiac division, directed his engineers to inject more performance into his brand's line of V8-powered automobiles. Fuel injection was an option, but hot rodders flocked instead to Tri-Power (marketed way back when with a hyphen), which grafted a trio of two-barrel Rochester carburetors onto a single intake manifold. A legend was born. And that legend was born of performance. At idle and when full power wasn't required, Pontiac's Tri-Power system used just the middle carburetor, which helped make the setup easier to tune. Depending on the year and model, either a vacuum system or a mechanical linkage opened up the two outer carbs, thereby switching from two barrels to six, and allowing the engine to take in more fuel and air. And it was an easy marketing win – six barrels is better than four barrels, right? Because performance! So, when news filtered in that GM has resurrected the Tripower name, those of us who grew up attending classic car shows and wrenching on old Pontiacs did a double-take. And then we all collectively sighed. Turns out that today's Tripower refers to a trio of fuel-saving measures that include cylinder deactivation, active thermal management, and intake valve lift control, according to Automotive News. And, at least for now, it applies to GM's line of fullsize trucks powered by a 2.7-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine. We're all for saving fuel whenever possible. And we have zero say in how any automaker chooses to market its products and technologies. But, we'll offer our two cents anyway: Relaunching a storied name from the past is fine. Relaunching a storied name from the past while completely overlooking the reasons the name got famous in the first place is only going to irritate the people who remember the name in the first place. Couldn't they just call this new technology package something else? Related Video: News Source: Automotive NewsImage Credit: Getty Green Marketing/Advertising Chevrolet GM Pontiac Automotive History Truck chevrolet silverado

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.