2014 Chevrolet Equinox Ltz on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM diesel pickups first to undergo extra EPA, CARB testing

The effects of Volkswagen's long-running diesel emissions evasion are starting to spill over to other automakers, but General Motors is taking things in stride. The 2.8-liter, four-cylinder Duramax in the 2016 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon is the first engine to get extra scrutiny by the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board, Automotive News reports. Rather than just the usual in-lab test, it's also being checked on the road. However, the extra evaluation shouldn't have any impact on when the trucks with his mill hit dealers later this fall. "We're in our final stages of the EPA certification, and our launch is on track," Chevy spokesperson Otie McKinley tells Autoblog. The four-cylinder diesel in the trucks makes 181 horsepower and 369 pound-feet of torque, and the automaker is touting low NOx production. In the announcement for the Colorado's specs, the company calls it "the cleanest diesel truck engine ever produced by General Motors." The tech includes exhaust gas recirculation to lower combustion temperatures and improve emissions. There's also a urea tank like on the bigger diesels for full-size trucks, and it gets refilled in time with oil changes. An indication on the instrument panel lets drivers know when that's needed, too. Even with the more demanding testing, the company doesn't seem too worried about the four-cylinder passing. "Part of our development process is on-road and off-road [laboratory] testing," Scott Yackley, Chevy Trucks assistant chief engineer, said to Automotive News. In the wake of the VW scandal, the EPA has pledged more rigorous testing. Before, on-road emissions evaluations were largely limited to heavy-duty vehicles, but the agency has decided to apply the checks more often to other models. There's also now greater cooperation with Canadian authorities.

'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

Dodge vs. Chevy tug-of-war taken to the extreme

They say "idle hands are the devil's playground," but said playgrounds grow to Disney-sized proportions when a pair of jacked-up trucks, two egos, a chain and an empty mall parking lot are involved. Proof of this is the video below, which shows a Cummins-powered Dodge Ram circa 2006 to 2008 chained tail-to-tail with what looks to be a gasoline-powered Chevrolet Silverado from the late 1990s or early 2000s.
We don't necessarily have to tell you who wins this battle, but we'll let you see for yourself the lengths the "winning" driver goes to prove his point. There's plenty of foul language in the video below, so beware that this might be Not Safe For Work, and not that we should have to tell you, but please, do not try this at home.