1985 Monte Carlo Ss on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GMC Envoy could be returning as GM files for 'Envoy' trademark

The GMC Envoy could be on its way back, if a recent GM trademark filing is any indication of the future. To be exact, GM's trademark filing is for the name "Envoy," and is applicable to "motor vehicles, namely, sport utility vehicles, engines therefor and structural parts thereof." A victim of the recession and high gas prices, the original Envoy – related to the Blazer, and more recently the TrailBlazer and similar GM SUVs – was discontinued after the 2009 model year. In today's SUV-happy market of low gas prices, unearthing the somewhat familiar Envoy name makes a certain amount of sense. As soon as gas prices start trending in the other direction, we'll all be saying the opposite, though. What this SUV will take shape as is the big question now. With the Chevrolet Blazer well and truly on its way, there's every reason for a GMC version of Chevy's stylish new crossover sporting the Envoy name. Another, less likely, possibility is a Traverse-sized vehicle to slot between the shorter Acadia (10 inches shorter than the Chevy Traverse) and the body-on-frame Yukon. GM could come out of left field and make the Envoy a Buick too. It fits the bill with the "En" beginning, and Buick undoubtedly has crossovers in the works. We think that's even more unlikely, but it's important to remember that we're still in the speculation phase. Soon we'll drive Chevy's new Blazer, and perhaps have more news then. Check in next week for that. Related video:

NHTSA closes 4-year GM investigation, issues common sense advisory [w/video]

Since January 2011, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been investigating a possible problem with corroding brake lines in General Motors' GMT800-platform models, like the Chevrolet Silverado and Suburban and GMC Sierra, in states with salt on their roads in the winter. However, as opposed to launching a full recall of millions of vehicles, the government is issuing a common-sense safety advisory to all drivers in snowy states to keep their vehicle's undercarriage clean. It even has a video explaining things. "Older-model vehicles, often driven in harsh conditions, are subject to corrosion over long periods of time, and we need owners to be vigilant about ensuring they, their passengers, and others on the roads are safe," said NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind in the announcement of the end of the investigation. The agency was clear in its report that "brake line corrosion seen in the GM vehicles was not unique," and the government "has not identified a defect that would initiate a recall order." Instead NHTSA is advising drivers, especially those of vehicles from before 2007, to wash their vehicle's undercarriage in the winter and spring to remove salt or other de-icing chemicals. It also recommends regular checks by a mechanic to make sure everything is in proper order. According to the investigation documents, for just the GMT800 platform models, NHTSA found 3,645 complaints of brake line corrosion, which included allegations of 107 crashes and 40 injuries. The issue was found to be more common in vehicles over 10 years old. GM has released a statement (embedded below) that the company "supports the consumer advisory from NHTSA urging regular maintenance and care of brake lines on older vehicles." NHTSA Closes Investigation into Brake-Line Failures NHTSA 13-15 Thursday, April 9, 2015 Agency issues safety advisory on preventing undercarriage corrosion WASHINGTON – The Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) today issued a Safety Advisory and consumer video encouraging owners of model year 2007 and older trucks, SUVs and passenger cars to inspect brake lines and thoroughly wash the underside of their vehicles to remove corrosive salt after the long winter in order to prevent brake-line failures that increase the risk of a crash.

Chevy Volt replacement battery cost varies wildly, up to $34,000

There's a growing hubbub in the plug-in vehicle community over what looks like some ridiculously cheap replacement batteries for the Chevrolet Volt going up for sale. GM Parts Online, for example, is selling a replacement Volt battery with an MSRP of $2,994.64 but, with an online discount, the price comes down to $2,305.88. For the 16-kWh pack in the 2012 Volt, that comes to a very low $144.11 per kilowatt hour (kWH). But is it a real deal? How can it be, when a Chevy dealer may quote you a price of up to $34,000 to replace the pack? For a 16-kWh Volt pack, $2,305.88 comes to a very low $144.11 per kWh. But is it a real deal? Battery packs in alternative propulsion vehicles are usually priced by the kWh and, historically, they've been thought to be in the range of $500-per-kWh for OEM offerings. Since automakers are understandably secretive about their costs, we still don't know what the real number is today, but we do know it varies by automaker. Tesla, for example, has said it pays less than $200-per-kWH at the cell level but, of course, a constructed pack would be more. Whatever is going on, li-ion battery prices are trending downward. So, $144.11 certainly sounds great, but what's the story here? Kevin Kelly, manager of electrification technology communications for General Motors, reminded AutoblogGreen that GM Parts Online is not the official GM parts website and that, "the costs indicated on the site are not what we would charge our dealers or owners for a replacement battery. There would be no cost to the Volt owner if their battery needs replacement or repair while the battery is under the eight year/100,000 mile limited warranty coverage provided by Chevrolet." A single price tag also can't be accurate for everyone, Kelly said. "If the customer needs to have their battery repaired beyond the warranty, the cost to them would vary depending on what needs to be replaced or repaired (i.e. number of modules, which specific internal components need replacement, etc.)." he said. "So, it's hard for us to tell you exactly what the cost would be to the customer because it varies depending on what might need to be repaired/replaced. As a result, the core charge would vary." But, is the $2,300 price even accurate for anyone? Thanks to a reader comment, we see that this similar item on New GM Parts makes it look like the lithium-ion modules that Kelly mentioned – where a lot of the expensive bits are – are not included.