1966 Chevrolet Nova Ss Clone 327 Automatic Buckets Console 10 Bolt Rally's Nice on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM recalls 3.6 million vehicles for airbag-software problems

The Basics: General Motors is recalling 3.64 million vehicles across its lineup for an airbag-related issue. The recall covers the 2014-2015 Buick LaCrosse, Chevrolet SS, and Spark EV; 2014-2017 Chevrolet Corvette, Trax, Caprice PPV, Silverado 1500, Buick Encore, and GMC Sierra 1500; and 2015-2017 Chevrolet Tahoe, Suburban, Silverado HD, GMC Yukon, Yukon XL, Sierra HD, Cadillac Escalade, and Escalade ESV. The Problem: Affected vehicles have a sensing and diagnostic module that controls the airbags and seat-belt pretensioners. The software it uses has a defect that can prompt the module to run a diagnostic test under specific driving conditions, which will also deactivate the front airbags and pretensioners. This means that it would be possible for those safety systems to not activate in a crash, potentially leading to injury or death. Injuries/Deaths: General Motors began an investigation that led to the recall after a 2014 Silverado was involved in a crash in which the airbags did not deploy. No information was given as to injuries or deaths. The Fix: Owners can bring their vehicles to a local General Motors dealer where a software update will be installed to fix the issue. The fix will be free of charge. If you own one: General Motors will contact owners of affected cars, and owners can check whether their vehicles are affected by visiting entering their vehicle identification numbers at either the GM Owner Center website or the NHTSA website. Owners can then schedule a time to have the update installed. Related Video:

Can DARPA hack into a Chevy Impala through OnStar?

An ex-video game wizard named Dan Kaufman tracked a circuitous route to becoming the head of the Software Innovation Division at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. DARPA normally makes these pages because of its work with autonomous vehicles and automobile technology that overlaps with military applications, but for the past five years Kaufman and his multiple research teams have been working on creating unhackable software code that could be used in military drones. Part of that work has involved hacking into just about everything else, and as a segment on 60 Minutes reveals, that includes cars. The masterminds discovered a way to hack into OnStar, the General Motors telematics system. After figuring out how to hook into OnStar's emergency communication system, they overwhelmed it with data. While the computer was busy trying to manage the overrun of data, the research team inserted code that took control of the sedan's other computers, giving it control. So while reporter Leslie Stahl tooled around in a parking lot, a DARPA researcher with a laptop would occasionally take control of the car, like by applying its brakes or, conversely, removing the ability for Stahl to use the brakes. Hacking into vehicles has been in the news for years: Car and Driver ran a feature on the various ways cars could be hacked in 2011, two hackers released a car-hacking code at the hacker-fest Defcon in 2013 and demonstrated how it worked on a Toyota Prius and Ford Escape, and German researchers demonstrated how they could hack into BMW's Connected Drive remote-services system last week via an attack on the cars' telematics units. This isn't about GM or Onstar or the future; hacking into cars of all kinds isn't coming, it's here, and it doesn't take the half-billion-dollar annual budget of a small DARPA division to do it. Check out the 60 Minutes video on the CBS site (you can watch the entire video from a mobile device without logging in). The OnStar hacking starts at 6:45, but it's worth watching what leads up to that. News Source: Jalopnik Chevrolet Safety Technology Infotainment Autonomous Vehicles Videos Sedan hacking 60 minutes

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.