1966 Chevrolet El Camino - Custom Pro Touring Hot Rod on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2016 Chevy Volt will have more EV range, bigger battery

Meet the new Volt, not the same as the old Volt. That appears to be the story when General Motors introduces the 2016 Chevy Volt at the Detroit Auto Show in January. Today we're getting some more details on the guts of the new plug-in hybrid, and it turns out they're going to be much improved from the current Volt, which first went on sale at the end of 2010. Sure, the first-gen Volt did get some improvements along the way (a slightly larger battery pack, lane departure warnings) but the new Volt – which will go on sale in the second half of 2015 – marks the first time GM has been able to return to the drawing board and really make the improvements that its customers want. That's how Larry Nitz, GM's executive director of vehicle electrification explained it to AutoblogGreen today when explaining the all-new Voltec extended range electric vehicle (EREV) powertrain. "In the Gen 2 is we gave the engine a little more power, a little more torque, a little more displacement, more capability." – Larry Nitz Nitz said that the new Volt will be better in almost every sense: a bigger battery, longer EV-only range, 20 percent better acceleration in the low speed range and higher overall efficiency. This is due, in part, to the Volt's two motors being able to both act as generators and power the car. As we noted this morning, the 2016 Volt will use a larger, 1.5-liter four-cylinder engine, a version of which is already used in the Chinese-market Cruze. Nitz said that this has a number of benefits, including more power and quieter operation. "Some people would say, why did you make [the first-gen engine] so big. I would say, why did you make it so small?" he said. "It works good, our customers love it, but the reality is that if you go a little bit off and use the car a little harder, you can get the engine to need to operate at a higher speed. In an EV, that's quite noticeable. So, what we did in the Gen 2 is we gave the engine a little more power, a little more torque, a little more displacement, more capability and what it has marginally enabled is not only is it more efficient but it's also quieter." Nitz wouldn't talk about how the new powertrain might affect the two other products that use the Volt's underpinnings – the Cadillac ELR and the Opel Ampera – but if you've got a quieter option, we assume that's something ELR drivers would enjoy. But that's a story for another day.

GM issues stop-sale for 3 SUVs over incorrect MPG rating

This week, GM sent a memo to Chevy, GMC, and Buick dealers to tell them to stop selling three SUVS. The 2016 Chevy Traverse, the GMC Acadia, and the Buick Enclave all have EPA window stickers that show higher fuel economy ratings than the vehicles actually have. Unlike other recent – and very public – fuel economy ratings problems from VW and Mitsubishi, it doesn't seem like GM did anything wrong with the testing for these vehicles, it just misprinted the labels. New labels are being printed and should arrive at dealerships this weekend and early next week. After that, the SUVs will be able to be sold and delivered again. The official fuel economy rating for the three SUVs are all the same. The correct numbers for the all-wheel drive versions are 17 miles per gallon combined, 15 city, and 22 highway. The stickers say the SUVs get 17/24/19. The front-wheel driver models were also incorrectly labeled, and the total number of affected vehicles is 59,823. In the memo, GM said the problem was caused by an "inadvertent error," Automotive News says. GM is working with the EPA to solve the issue. We have asked GM for a comment on the mistake and will update this post if we hear back. Related Gallery 2013 GMC Acadia View 16 Photos News Source: Automotive News – sub. req. Government/Legal Green Buick Chevrolet GM GMC Fuel Efficiency mpg gmc acadia chevy traverse

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.