2007 Chevy Tahoe Ltz on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM applies for LT5, LTX trademarks... are new small block variants coming?

Recently discovered General Motors trademark applications for LT4, LT5, LT88 and LTX have observers wondering what kind of high-performance offerings could be on their way. A new LT4 would mark a return of the engine designation first used on the Corvette Grand Sport, SLP Pontiac Firehawk and SLP Chevrolet Camaro SS from 1996 and 1997. Supposition at Corvette Forum - which provided advance intel on the C7 like these leaked images - believes a new LT4 could go into the high-performance trim of the next-gen, 2015 Camaro that would be more powerful than the 580-horsepower Camaro ZL1.
Seeing an LT5 again would also be déjà vu - in its former life it was a 5.7-liter V8 for the C4 Corvette ZR-1 from 1990-1994 designed by Lotus, producing from 370 hp to 405 hp. A mix of rumor and hope is that the new LT5 will be a supercharged evolution of the 6.2-liter LT1 (pictured) placed in the new C7 Corvette, and that it will go into the C7 version of the ZR1 pumping out something like 700 hp.
The LTX trademark is, as with that last letter, a complete mystery. If the "X" isn't a generic way to denote the whole LT family, it's wondered if it LTX could refer to a crate motor offering like the LSX.

Ram 1500 bests new F-150 in MT pickup shootout

Ford's 2015 Ford F-150 is a technological tour-de-force, what with its aluminum-intensive construction and its powerful and efficient new 2.7-liter EcoBoost engine option. But now that it's hit the market, it's time to get down to brass tacks and find out how just the latest F-150 actually stands up to its rivals in the hyper-competitive fullsize segment. Motor Trend is among the first to round up the Ford (in Lariat 2.7-liter 4X4 guise here) and put it up against the Ram 1500 Outdoorsman EcoDiesel 4x4 and 5.3-liter-equipped Silverado 1500 LTZ Z71 to find out how Dearborn's new-think truck measures up. The test put the trio through over 1,000 miles of tough driving in California and Arizona in a variety of conditions from just cruising around unladen to hauling a trailer. MT found all three trucks to be competent, but the most praise got heaped on the Ram and the Ford, with the Chevrolet falling a step behind its competitors in many tests. Among the Ford's most-liked features was its 2.7-liter, twin-turbo V6 that helped make the F-150 easily the quickest of the group, with some editors saying the engine felt about the same whether driving around with cargo in the bed or not. There was some minor turbo lag during acceleration while trailering, but that issue affected the Ram, too. The Ram's powertrain was lauded, as well. The EcoDiesel was torquey around town, and the 1500's combination of an eight-speed automatic and air suspension was judged to be the best of the lot. It was the most difficult to get into the bed, though. The Ram also won the fuel economy award by netting 20-miles-per-gallon city and 28-mpg highway in the test to beat its Environmental Protection Agency ratings of 19/27. The Ford's EcoBoost managed 17/22, one mpg off each from the EPA numbers, and using a lot of throttle really depleted its efficiency. As MT notes, however, it would take time for the diesel's mileage savings to pay off at the pump for these two trucks. In the end, the Ram just barely eked out the win, with the title partially earned because of "the Ford's unknown maintenance and aluminum repair costs," according to MT. Go check out the full comparison to read all of the details, then let us know what you think in Comments.

A conversation with GM's Mark Reuss on MPG, aluminum and Corvettes

There was plenty to talk about when General Motors hosted its annual mid-December holiday media reception a few months ago. GM had just decided to pull its global Chevrolet brand out of major European markets, where Chevys have competed directly with GM Europe Opel and Vauxhall vehicles, and the US government had sold its last remaining shares of GM stock. But most important was the company's just-reshuffled leadership. Post-bankruptcy CEO Dan Akerson had announced that he would step aside and that 52-year-old Mary Barra would replace him on January 15. Not only would she be the first woman to lead a major automaker, she would also be GM's first engineer CEO since Bob Stempel in the early 1990s. "I look at 2013 and 2014, as the retooling of General Motors" - Mark Reuss Replacing her as executive VP for global product development (and purchasing and supply chain) would be 49-year-old Mark Reuss, who had served a stellar four years as North American president, and elevated to corporate president (from executive VP and CFO) would be 42-year-old Dan Amman. All three are relatively young auto enthusiasts who are liked and respected inside and outside the company, and their collective talents and experience are highly complementary. I've interviewed Barra and found her smart, personable and knowledgeable, though she carefully walks the corporate line in speaking and answering questions. I met and chatted with Ammann for the first time at that holiday reception, and he made a good first impression. But I've known Reuss for some time as a genuinely good guy and a highly capable and inspiring leader, and I believe he is exactly the right person for the global product responsibility once famously held by the outspoken, oft-controversial Bob Lutz. So I jumped at an opportunity to join a group interview of Reuss (with mostly business reporters) at the Detroit Auto Show in January. It was an interesting session of mostly good questions, which he answered with refreshing candor and humor. "I look at 2013 and 2014, as the retooling of General Motors," Reuss said. "We've taken down almost every plant in North America, converted and turned it this last year, and to do that with award-winning vehicles and pretty flawless launches is key. We have to keep the train rolling on great product, because the rest won't happen without the best product, period." A reporter asked whether GM was pushing big trucks, SUVs and Corvettes again because gas is cheap. "No," Reuss said.