2002 Chevrolet Express 2500 Base Extended Cargo Van 3-door 4.3l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

'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

BMW, Hyundai score big in JD Power's first Tech Experience Index

While automakers are quick to brag about winning a JD Power Initial Quality Study award, the reality, as we've pointed out before, is that these ratings are somewhat misleading, since IQS doesn't necessarily distinguish genuine quality issues. JD Power's new Tech Experience Index aims to solve that problem. The new metric takes the same 90-day approach as IQS but focuses exclusively on technology – collision protection, comfort and convenience, driving assistance, entertainment and connectivity, navigation, and smartphone mirroring. It splits the industry up into just seven segments, based loosely on size, which is why the Chevrolet Camaro is in the same division (mid-size) as Kia Sorento and the Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class is in the same segment as the Hyundai Genesis (mid-size premium). It makes for some screwy bedfellows, to be sure. Still, splitting tech experience away from initial quality should allow customers to make more informed and intelligent decisions when buying new vehicles. In the inaugural study, respondents listed BMW and Hyundai as the big winners, with two segment awards – the 2 Series for small premium and the 4 Series for compact premium, and the Genesis for mid-size premium and Tucson for small segment. The Chevrolet Camaro (midsize), Kia Forte (compact), and Nissan Maxima (large) scored individual wins. Ford also had a surprising hit with the Lincoln MKC, which ranked third in the compact premium segment behind the 4 Series and Lexus IS. This is a coup for the Blue Oval, whose woeful MyFord Touch systems made the brand a victim of the IQS' flaws in the early 2010s. But Ford and other automakers might not want to celebrate just yet. According to JD Power, there's still a lot of room for improvement – navigation systems were the lowest-rated piece of tech in the study. Instead, customers repeatedly saluted collision-avoidance and safety systems, giving the category the best marks of the study and listing blind-spot monitoring and backup cameras as two must-have features – 96 percent of respondents said they wanted those two systems in their next vehicle. But this isn't really a surprise. Implementation of safety systems from brand to brand is similar, and they don't require any input from users, unlike navigation and infotainment systems which are frustratingly deep.

General Motors CEO Provides Few Details In Appearance Before Congress

It was only two months ago that Mary Barra, freshly crowned as the new General Motors chief executive officer, visited Washington DC as an esteemed guest of First Lady Michelle Obama for the State of the Union address. On Tuesday, Barra returned to the Capitol under more strained circumstances. For more than two contentious hours, she took questions from members of a House of Representatives subcommittee investigating General Motors years-long delay in initiating a recall of millions of vehicles that contained a defect that has killed at least 13 people. Why did GM accept faulty ignition switches that were below the company's set specfications? Why did GM learn about the problem in 2001 yet take no action until 2014? Will GM compensate victims' families even though the company's bankruptcy may limit its liability? Those were a few of the questions members of the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee asked. Few concrete answers were forthcoming. For her part, Barra sidestepped most of the questions, saying she wouldn't have information needed to answer them until an internal review is completed. David Friedman, the administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, testified after Barra. The biggest news that emerged from the hearing was that General Motors has retained attorney Kenneth Feinberg to advise the company on its civil and legal responsibilities. He has made a career of resolving disputes and serving in a 'fixer' role, serving as the chief of the federal government's September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, as an administrator of compensation fund for victims of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster and a similar fund for victims of the Boston Marathon bombing. Barra, who has been GM's CEO since January but been with the company since 1980, expects to meet with Feinberg on Friday, and have a concrete plan within the next 30-60 days. Yet Barra would not say for certain Tuesday that GM would compensate the victims at all. Despite repeated questions from Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Barra did not outline the company's intentions. "I assume GM is hiring (Feinberg) to help identify the size of claims and then compensate the victims? Is that right," DeGette asked. "Is GM willing to put together some kind of a compensation fund for these victims that Mr. Feinberg will then administer?" "We've hired him to help assess the situation," Barra replied. "So really, there's no money involved at this point," DeGette asked.