1971 Chevy Pick Up K10 Short Bed Half Ton Pick Up Truck 327 Small Block Engine on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM's Oshawa plant may close after Camaro production moves

Most of the time, when vehicle production is moved from one assembly plant to another, it spells bad news for the former. While General Motors won't go so far as to say its Oshawa, Ontario factory, which is losing the Chevrolet Camaro to the Lansing Grand River plant, is in trouble, analysts seem to think the factory's days are numbered. Forecasts for the facility are far from positive. The loss of the Camaro this year, combined with GM's targeted shutdown of a single-shift assembly line responsible for the fleet-only Chevy Impala Limited and the Equinox crossover is a bad enough omen. But with AutoForecast Solutions CEO Joe McCabe telling The Detroit News that the plant's other two products, the Cadillac XTS and Buick Regal, aren't likely to stick around beyond 2017, things look decidedly grim at Oshawa. "There is a fairly strong chance that the plant could close," Jeff Schuster, senior VP of forecasting for LMC Automotive, told The Detroit News. That doesn't mean that Unifor, Canada's auto union, and the Canadian government are going to let the factory die without a fight. And with the latter chipping in $10 billion as part of GM's 2009 bailout, you might think it has a degree of leverage in the situation. A meeting between the government and the Detroit Three at the 2015 North American International Auto Show revealed that Oshawa is already a topic of conversation. "We made it very clear that we would like to see an indication on the future of Oshawa sooner, in particular because the timing is very challenging for our supply chain to be able to adjust to potentially future orders or changes, but also to know that there are going to be future opportunities at Oshawa," Ontario's Minister of Economic, Development, Employment and Infrastructure Brad Duguid told The Detroit News. "Bottom line: It's time they made a longer-term commitment here," Unifor President Jerry Dias said, echoing Duguid's statements. It's unclear if this sort of strong talk will be enough to save 3,300-plus employees, although based on the analysts' forecasts, we doubt it.

AWD turbodiesel Equinox, Terrain dropped for 2020

Citing low demand, General Motors is dropping the AWD diesel options off the Chevrolet Equinox and GMC Terrain roster. Chevrolet spokesman Kevin Kelly confirmed to CarsDirect that for 2020, the diesel versions of these SUVs will only be offered with front-wheel-drive. CarsDirect notes that with the AWD diesel Equinox and Terrain gone, the only AWD diesel option in this class is the Mazda CX-5 Skyactiv diesel, which is significantly more expensive: As the AWD diesel CX-5 is only available in a fully loaded Signature specification, the $42,045 price tag is almost $10k heftier than the cheapest comparable Equinox, the AWD 1.6-liter diesel LT which starts from $32,495. The 2019 GMC Terrain AWD SLE costs $34,795 in comparison, which works out to being around $7,200 cheaper than the Mazda. The higher trim levels for the Equinox and Terrain are Premier and SLT, respectively. Some reasoning behind the AWD diesel GM SUV's low uptake is their own price difference to base FWD gasoline models: you can get a 1.5-liter Equinox for less than §25,000 listed. While the 2.2-liter Mazda has plenty more power at 168 hp and 290 lb-ft, compared to 137hp and 240 lb-ft in the 1.6-liter GM SUVs, the Equinox and Terrain are notably more frugal – they are rated 32mpg combined, while the Mazda can manage 28 mpg. With better fuel economy and a significantly lower list price, the General Motors twins are at least more wallet-friendly when it comes to numbers, and as the vehicles will cease to be built in that configuration there's likely to be some cash on the hood on ones in stock. News Source: CarsDirectImage Credit: Chevrolet Chevrolet GM GMC confirmed gmc terrain chevrolet equinox

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.