2014 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 1lt on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM trucks get hybrid versions, but you'll probably never see one

A few years ago, General Motors sold hybrid versions of its Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra pickups. They weren't very good, using GM's old two-mode hybrid system that resulted in only negligible fuel economy gains. But GM's trying again, launching eAssist models of the 2016 Silverado and Sierra that are said to offer 2-mpg improvements in city, highway, and combined fuel economy ratings. Problem is, you probably won't be able to get one. Only 700 eAssist trucks will be made for the 2016 model year – 500 Silverados and 200 Sierras. When you consider that GM moved 824,683 examples of its light-duty pickups in 2015, this small run represents 0.08-percent of all Silverado/Sierra production, and GM says it "will monitor the market closely ... and adjust as appropriate moving forward." But that's not the only limitation. The eAssist trucks will only be sold through California dealers. For the Silverado, eAssist can only be optioned on the 1500 Crew Cab 1LT 2WD model, and for the Sierra, the fuel-saving technology is solely available on the 1500 SLT Crew Cab 2WD model with the SLT Premium Plus package. Granted, in terms of the Sierra, that means you get niceties like LED headlights and taillights, Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, Bose premium audio, heated seats and steering wheel, lane keep assist, and more. In the trucks, eAssist combines a small electric motor and 0.45-kWh battery pack with the pickups' 5.3-liter V8. GM estimates total output of 355 horsepower and 383 pound-feet of torque – no more horsepower than the non-eAssist trucks, but three more pound-feet of torque. GM says the eAssist trucks can tow up to 9,400 pounds, and the battery only adds 100 pounds to the trucks' weight. The electric motor provides 13 hp and 44 lb-ft of torque for a boost of acceleration off the line, or during passing. It also allows the engine to run in four-cylinder mode for longer periods of time. eAssist uses regenerative braking to help power onboard electrical systems, and adds start/stop to the powertrain. Finally, the so-equipped trucks have a six-percent improvement in aerodynamics, thanks to a soft tonneau cover and active grille shutters in the front fascia. Great news is, the eAssist option is relatively inexpensive, only costing $500. But good luck getting your hands on one.

Impala SS vs. Marauder: Recalling Detroit’s muscle sedans 

Impala SS vs. Marauder — it was comparo that only really happened in theory. ChevyÂ’s muscle sedan ran from 1994-96, while MercuryÂ’s answer arrived in 2003 and only lasted until 2004. TheyÂ’re linked inextricably, as there were few options for powerful American sedans during that milquetoast period for enthusiasts. The debate was reignited recently among Autoblog editors when a pristine 1996 Chevy Impala SS with just 2,173 miles on the odometer hit the market on Bring a Trailer. Most of the staff favored the Impala for its sinister looks and said that it lived up to its billing as a legit muscle car. Nearly two-thirds of you agree. We ran an unscientific Twitter poll that generated 851 votes, 63.9 percent of which backed the Impala. Muscle sedans, take your pick: — Greg Migliore (@GregMigliore) April 14, 2020 Then and now enthusiasts felt the Impala was a more complete execution with guts. The Marauder, despite coming along later, felt more hacked together, according to prevailing sentiments. Why? On purpose and on paper theyÂ’re similar. The ImpalaÂ’s 5.7-liter LT1 V8 making 260 horsepower and 330 pound-feet of torque was impressive for a two-ton sedan in the mid-Â’90s. The Marauder was actually more powerful — its 4.6-liter V8 was rated at 302 hp and 318 lb-ft. The ImpalaÂ’s engine was also used in the C4 Corvette. The MarauderÂ’s mill was shared with the Mustang Mach 1. You can see why they resonated so deeply with Boomers longing for a bygone era and also captured the attention of coming-of-age Gen Xers. Car and DriverÂ’s staff gave the Marauder a lukewarm review back in ‘03, citing its solid handling and features, yet knocking the sedan for being slow off the line. In a Hemmings article appropriately called “Autopsy” from 2004, the ImpalaÂ’s stronger low-end torque and smooth shifting transmission earned praise, separating it from the more sluggish Mercury. All of this was captured in the carsÂ’ acceleration times, highlighting metrically the differences in their character. The Impala hit 60 miles per hour in 6.5 seconds, while the Marauder was a half-second slower, according to C/D testing. Other sites have them closer together, which reinforces the premise it really was the little things that separated these muscle cars. Both made the most of their genetics, riding on ancient platforms (FordÂ’s Panther and General MotorsÂ’ B-body) that preceded these cars by decades. Both had iconic names.

What if the mid-engine Corvette is really a Cadillac?

Call me crazy, but I'm not convinced the mid-engine Corvette is the next Corvette. The rumor is strong, yes. And, contrary to some of the comments on our site, Car and Driver - leader of the mid-engine Corvette speculation brigade - has a pretty good record predicting future models. But it's another comment that got me thinking: or maybe it's a Cadillac. There is clearly something mid-engine going on at GM, and I think it makes sense for the car to be a Cadillac. First off, check out how sweet the 2002 Cadillac Cien concept car still looks in the photo above. Second, there are too many holes in the mid-engine Corvette theory. There are too many holes in the mid-engine Corvette theory. The C7 is relatively young in Corvette years, starting production almost three years ago as a 2014 model. Showing a 2019 model at the 2018 North American International Auto Show would kill sales of a strong-selling car before its time. Not to mention it would only mean a short run for the Grand Sport, which was the best-selling version of the previous generation. More stuff doesn't add up. Mid-engine cars are, in general, more expensive. Moving the Vette upmarket leaves a void that the Camaro does not fill. There's not much overlap between Camaro and Corvette customers. Corvette owners are older and enjoy features like a big trunk that holds golf clubs. Mid-engine means less trunk space and alienating a happy, loyal buyer. Also, more than 60 years of history. The Corvette is an icon along the likes of the Porsche 911 and Ford Mustang. I'm not sure the car-buying public wants a Corvette that abandons all previous conventions. And big changes bring uncertainty - I don't think GM would make such a risky bet. Chevrolet could build a mid-engine ZR1, you might say, and keep the other Corvettes front-engine. Yes they could, and it would cost a ton of money. And they still need to fund development of that front-engine car. I highly doubt the corporate accountants would go for that. But a Cadillac? Totally. Cadillac is in the middle of a brand repositioning. GM is throwing money at this effort. A mid-engine halo car is the just the splash the brand needs to shake off the ghosts of Fleetwoods past. And it's already in Cadillac President Johan De Nysschen's playbook. He was in charge of Audi's North America arm when the R8 came out. A Caddy sports car priced above $100,000 isn't that unreasonable when you can already price a CTS-V in that range.