2005 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Hd Lt 6.0 V8, Crew Cab, 4 Door, 4x4, White on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Detroit 3 to implement delayed unified towing standards for 2015

Car buyers have a responsibility to be well-informed consumers. That's not always a very simple task, but some guidelines are self-evident. If you live in a very snowy climate, you generally know a Ford Mustang or Chevrolet Camaro might not be as viable a vehicle choice as an all-wheel drive Explorer or Traverse, for example. If you want a fuel-efficient car, it's generally a good idea to know the difference between a diesel and a hybrid. But what if it's kind of tough to be an informed consumer? What if the information you need is more difficult to come by, or worse, based on different standards for each vehicle? Well, in that case, you might be a truck shopper. For years, customers of light-duty pickups have had to suffer through different ratings of towing capacities for each brand. For 2015 model year trucks, though, that will no longer be a problem. According to Automotive News, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler Group have announced that starting with next year's models, a common standard will be used to measure towing capacity. The Detroit Three will join Toyota, which adopted the Society of Automotive Engineers' so-called SAE J2807 standards way back in 2011. The standard was originally supposed to be in place for MY2013, but concerns that it would lower the overall stated capacity for trucks led Detroit automakers to pass. Ford originally passed, claiming it'd wait until its new F-150 was launched to adopt the new standards, leading GM and Ram to follow suit. Nissan, meanwhile, has said it will adopt the new standards as its vehicles are updated, meaning the company's next-generation Titan should adhere to the same tow ratings as its competitors. While the adoption of SAE J2807 will be helpful for light-duty customers, those interested in bigger trucks will still be left with differing standards. There is no sign of the new tow standards being adopted for the heavy-duty market.

GM recalls Colorado, Canyon, and Malibu for airbag problem

The Basics: General Motors will recall and issue a stop sale on 1,740 total examples of the 2016 Chevrolet Colorado, Malibu, and GMC Canyon. This includes 1,579 units in the US and 161 in Canada. The Problem: The second stage of the driver front airbag inflator might not be present. If this happens, the airbag won't fill as quickly as it should in a high-speed crash, which could increase the risk of injury, according to Reuters. This is not related in any way to Takata's inflator problems, and these parts come from a different supplier. Injuries/Deaths: None reported. The Fix: GM will replace the vehicles' airbag assemblies. If You Own One: GM spokesperson Tom Wilkinson told Autoblog he wasn't specifically sure when recall repairs would begin but said it would be "shortly." He expects the fixes to happen "quickly" because of the small number of affected vehicles, and many of them are either in transport or already in dealer stock. More Information: GM recalled the 2015 Canyon and Colorado in 2014 for a completely separate airbag issue. In that case, a manufacturing error improperly wired the connectors. Related Video: GM Statement GM is recalling 1,579 MY 2016 Chevrolet Colorado, GMC Canyon and Chevrolet Malibu vehicles in the United States and 161 in Canada to replace driver-side front airbags. The second stage of the airbag may not deploy properly in certain high-speed crashes. During a routine quality inspection, it was determined that a component required for a second-stage/high-output deployment was not loaded during the inflator build. Dealers will replace the driver-side front airbag assembly. There have been no reports of crashes or injuries related to this issue. This issue is unrelated to the ongoing Takata recalls.

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.