1990 Chevrolet Corvette Base Convertible 2-door 5.7l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

This is how GM is hiding new Chevy Volt in public

General Motors is letting the public know that, well, it's not about to let the public know anything else about the next-generation Chevrolet Volt. But the automaker is willing to talk about its camouflaging process for upcoming versions of the extended-range plug-in. So it's a half-hearted secret, at best. GM actually has a "camouflage engineer" charged with creating ways to disguise the styling of new vehicles. In the Volt's case, the company is applying black and white swirly color patterns on top of the materials, such as plastics, vinyl and foam, that are used liberally across the body. It's all part of a teaser campaign that started last month with pictures of part the 2016 Volt. Earlier this month, GM said it was keeping track of Volt drivers' habits as it works on the next-gen model. The company noted that more than four out of five trips are being made in all-electric driving mode, and that 60 percent of Volt owners use a plain-old 100-volt outlet to recharge their cars. The car is slated to make its global debut at Detroit's North American International Auto Show next January, and the early word is that performance and all-electric range will be improved (we should hope so). The car will also be sleeker. By how much, we can't tell yet, because of those darn swirly patterns. GM's got more non-details in its press release below. Engineers charged with hiding styling while vehicle testing proceeds in public DETROIT – The styling of the next-generation Chevrolet Volt is one of the automotive world's best-kept secrets. Keeping customers and media eager to see the successor to the groundbreaking original at bay until the new Volt debuts at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit in January is tricky business. First, it is engineers, not designers, who are charged with creating camouflage that balances styling secrecy with the need to validate the Volt and its systems in public. "If it were up to me it would be a shoebox driving down the road," said Lionel Perkins, GM camouflage engineer. "The design team wants us to cover more of the vehicle and the engineering team needs to have enough of the vehicle's weight and aero exposed so that the tests in the development process are consistent with the product that will come to market." The engineers responsible for the "cool" designs covering the car might deserve style points but their efforts are intended strictly to hide the metal beneath.

Smaller Cars Endure Big Problems On Crash Test

In a crash test of 11 of the smallest cars on the market, only one vehicle received an acceptable rating. The rest received marginal or poor ratings in the study, providing evidence that supports a widely held notion that smaller cars are among the least safe on the road. No other vehicle group has performed as poorly on a new crash test than these mini cars, says the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the nonprofit group that conducted the testing. The latest results of which were released Wednesday. The Chevrolet Spark was the only car earning an overall "acceptable" rating on the small-front overlap test, and even that vehicle had its shortcomings, IIHS said. "Small lightweight vehicles have an inherent safety disadvantage," said Joe Nolan, the senior vice president for vehicle research at IIHS. "That's why it's even more important to choose one with the best occupant protection. Unfortunately, as a group, minicars aren't performing as well as other vehicle categories." The Mazda2, Kia Rio, Toyota Yaris and certain Ford Fiesta models all received "marginal" overall grades on the test, while the Mitsubishi Mirage, Nissan Versa, Toyota Prius C, Hyundai Accent, Fiat 500 and Honda Fit all earned "poor" ratings. Results from these sub-compact cars fare much worse than vehicles sized just a little bit bigger, IIHS said. Among 17 cars evaluated in the small category, five earned "good" ratings and five more earned "acceptable." Only introduced a year ago, the small-front overlap test has quickly become a key indicator of differences in automotive safety. IIHS introduced it as a way to replicate what happens when the front corner of a vehicle collides with a tree or utility pole at 40 miles per hour. In the real world, these sorts of accidents are more dangerous than others, in part because they bypass the front-end crush zones on most cars. TOP 5Most Researched Sedans 2013 Honda Accord MSRP : $21,680 2013 Hyundai Sonata MSRP : $20,895 2013 Nissan Altima MSRP : $21,760 2014 Honda Accord MSRP : $21,955 2013 Toyota Corolla MSRP : $16,230 Automakers have been rushing to make design changes to the front ends of their cars. Without a grade of acceptable or better, they cannot qualify for the IIHS' overall Top Safety Pick+ honor, given annually to the safest models on the market.

IIHS: High numbers of drivers treat partially automated cars as fully self-driving

WASHINGTON — Drivers using advanced driver assistance systems like Tesla Autopilot or General Motors Super Cruise often treat their vehicles as fully self-driving despite warnings, a new study has found. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), an industry funded group that prods automakers to make safer vehicles, said on Tuesday a survey found regular users of Super Cruise, Nissan/Infiniti ProPILOT Assist and Tesla Autopilot "said they were more likely to perform non-driving-related activities like eating or texting while using their partial automation systems than while driving unassisted." The IIHS study of 600 active users found 53% of Super Cruise, 42% of Autopilot and 12% of ProPILOT Assist owners "said that they were comfortable treating their vehicles as fully self-driving." About 40% of users of Autopilot and Super Cruise — two systems with lockout features for failing to pay attention — reported systems had at some point switched off while they were driving and would not reactivate. "The big-picture message here is that the early adopters of these systems still have a poor understanding of the technologyÂ’s limits," said IIHS President David Harkey. The study comes as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is scrutinizing Autopilot crashes. Since 2016, the NHTSA has opened 37 special investigations involving 18 deaths in crashes involving Tesla vehicles and where systems like Autopilot were suspected of use. Tesla did not respond to requests for comment. Tesla says Autopilot does not make vehicles autonomous and is intended for use with a fully attentive driver who is prepared to take over. GM, which in August said owners could use Super Cruise on 400,000 miles (643,740 km) of North American roads and plans to offer Super Cruise on 22 models by the end of 2023, did not immediately comment. IIHS said advertisements for Super Cruise focus on hands-free capabilities while Autopilot evokes the name used in passenger airplanes and "implies TeslaÂ’s system is more capable than it really is." IIHS in contrast noted ProPILOT Assist "suggests that itÂ’s an assistance feature, rather than a replacement for the driver." NHTSA and automakers say none of the systems make vehicles autonomous. Nissan said its name "is clearly communicating ProPILOT Assist as a system to aid the driver, and it requires hands-on operation.