2008 Chevrolet Express G2500 Cargo Van 36800miles No Reserve Quick Sale on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Surprise! GM putting aluminum in next-gen pickups

Last month, General Motors launched a series of ads touting the benefits of steel over aluminum – specifically, with regard to the Chevy Silverado versus the Ford F-150. (Kind of. We're not sure what a grizzly bear has to do with anything.) We took issue with the ads, with editor in chief Mike Austin saying they "reek of insecurity, and distract from the Silverado's strengths that could be used for positive advertising." But what bothers us more, is that yet another report surfaced claiming anti-aluminum GM will indeed use the weight-saving material in its next-generation fullsize trucks. On Tuesday, GM announced a $877-million investment for its truck plant in Flint, MI. But Reuters says that huge overhaul is because the trucks will use "substantially different equipment than the tools GM uses today." The report specifically states, "People familiar with the company's plans say GM's next-generation pickups and SUVs will make use of various materials, including aluminum and lightweight steel, to shed weight and gain fuel efficiency to meet tougher federal standards." The Silverado already uses a few aluminum components in the engine and hood, and if more widespread use will help GM build its best fullsize trucks ever, then that's great. Honestly, we have no reason to doubt that aluminum will be used in the next Silverado and GMC Sierra. We just hope GM remembers that nothing is ever truly deleted from the bowels of the Internet when it launches the subsequent "look how great aluminum is!" campaign. Related Video: News Source: Reuters Green Plants/Manufacturing Chevrolet GM GMC Truck aluminum steel

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.

Consumer Reports criticizes small turbo engines for misleading performance, fuel economy claims [w/video]

Consumer Reports has taken aim at at small-displacement, forced-induction engines, saying the powerplants don't manage to deliver on automaker fuel economy claims. Manufacturers have long held that smaller, turbocharged engines pack all power of their larger displacement cousins with significantly better fuel economy, but the research organization says that despite scoring high EPA economy numbers, the engines are no better than conventional drivetrains in both categories. Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports, says the forced induction options "are often slower and less fuel efficient than larger four and six-cylinder engines."
Specifically, CR calls out the new Ford Fusion equipped with the automaker's Ecoboost 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine. The institute's researchers found the engine, which is a $795 option over the base 2.5-liter four-cylinder, fails to match competitors in acceleration and served up 25 miles per gallon in testing, putting the sedan dead last among other midsize options.
The Chevrolet Cruze, Hyundai Sonata Turbo and Ford Escape 2.0T all got dinged for the same troubles, though Consumer Reports has found the turbo 2.0-liter four-cylinder in the BMW 328i does deliver on its promises. You can check out the full press release below. You can also read the full study on the Consumer Reports site, or scroll down for a short video recap.