2012 Chevrolet Tahoe Lt on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM follows up Lambda CUV stop-sale with tire recall

In late January, General Motors announced a stop-sale for about 6,281 examples of the 2015 Chevrolet Traverse, GMC Acadia and Buick Enclave because of the possibility for the treads cracking on their 18-inch Goodyear Fortera HL tires. At the time, GM said that this would also eventually lead to a safety campaign to repair the problem, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has just published those details. GM's recall covers 5,876 of the three Lambda platform crossovers to replace their tires. According to NHTSA, if the treads crack, there could be a loss of pressure and possible failure. Goodyear already announced its own recall of the tires after internal testing found small tread cracks. The company did not believe this was safety issue, but the problem did put the rubber out of compliance with federal laws. The business's safety campaign covered an estimated 48,512 tires. Of those, around 32,000 were reportedly made for GM to either be fitted to vehicles or sold as replacements. The remainder went to the aftermarket. Goodyear's portion of the recall is expected to begin around February 20. RECALL Subject : Tire Tread Cracking/FMVSS 110 Report Receipt Date: JAN 28, 2015 NHTSA Campaign Number: 15V044000 Component(s): TIRES Potential Number of Units Affected: 5,876 All Products Associated with this Recall Vehicle Make Model Model Year(s) BUICK ENCLAVE 2015 CHEVROLET TRAVERSE 2015 GMC ACADIA 2015 Details Manufacturer: General Motors LLC SUMMARY: General Motors LLC (GM) is recalling certain model year 2015 Buick Enclave vehicles manufactured December 9, 2014, to January 14, 2015, 2015 Chevrolet Traverse vehicles manufactured December 9, 2014, to January 20, 2015, and 2015 GMC Acadia vehicles manufactured December 9, 2014, to January 16, 2015, and all equipped with Goodyear P255/65R18 Fortera HL tires. These vehicles are equipped with tires that may experience tread cracking. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, "Tire Selection and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less." CONSEQUENCE: If the tire treads crack, a loss of tire pressure and possible tire failure may result, increasing the risk of a crash. REMEDY: GM will notify owners, and dealers will replace the tires that were manufactured within a specific date range, free of charge.

Europeans ask Chevy to bring Volt back to Europe

A group of French fans is asking for a jolt of support from General Motors to get the 2016 Chevrolet Volt across the pond. The Association Amperistes et Amis des Vehicules Rechargeables is running a Change.org petition that currently has 383 signatures out of a goal of 500. While the attempt is admirable, it's probably going to take a lot more than several hundred people for the model to make a return to the continent after the poor showing of the Opel Ampera – first-gen Volt's European cousin. The group's major argument for bringing a version of the second-gen Volt to Europe is that consumers need "an intermediate choice between expensive or range-limited pure electric cars and plug-in hybrids with a miserable electric range." Furthermore, such a vehicle would prod the competition to produce similarly efficient electrified models. They also lavish praise on the abilities of the Ampera for its long EV driving range. The supporters aren't entirely kind to GM in the petition, though, and claim the company excluded the original car from marketing efforts there. The Ampera actually enjoyed a strong European launch with more orders than initially expected and briefly topped the best-sellers list among EVs there. It was even named 2012 European Car of the Year. Those halcyon days didn't last long, and by 2014 sales fell off to a trickle. The waning reception caused GM's decision not to introduce a version of the new 2016 Volt there or in Australia. Related Video:

IIHS: High numbers of drivers treat partially automated cars as fully self-driving

WASHINGTON — Drivers using advanced driver assistance systems like Tesla Autopilot or General Motors Super Cruise often treat their vehicles as fully self-driving despite warnings, a new study has found. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), an industry funded group that prods automakers to make safer vehicles, said on Tuesday a survey found regular users of Super Cruise, Nissan/Infiniti ProPILOT Assist and Tesla Autopilot "said they were more likely to perform non-driving-related activities like eating or texting while using their partial automation systems than while driving unassisted." The IIHS study of 600 active users found 53% of Super Cruise, 42% of Autopilot and 12% of ProPILOT Assist owners "said that they were comfortable treating their vehicles as fully self-driving." About 40% of users of Autopilot and Super Cruise — two systems with lockout features for failing to pay attention — reported systems had at some point switched off while they were driving and would not reactivate. "The big-picture message here is that the early adopters of these systems still have a poor understanding of the technologyÂ’s limits," said IIHS President David Harkey. The study comes as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is scrutinizing Autopilot crashes. Since 2016, the NHTSA has opened 37 special investigations involving 18 deaths in crashes involving Tesla vehicles and where systems like Autopilot were suspected of use. Tesla did not respond to requests for comment. Tesla says Autopilot does not make vehicles autonomous and is intended for use with a fully attentive driver who is prepared to take over. GM, which in August said owners could use Super Cruise on 400,000 miles (643,740 km) of North American roads and plans to offer Super Cruise on 22 models by the end of 2023, did not immediately comment. IIHS said advertisements for Super Cruise focus on hands-free capabilities while Autopilot evokes the name used in passenger airplanes and "implies TeslaÂ’s system is more capable than it really is." IIHS in contrast noted ProPILOT Assist "suggests that itÂ’s an assistance feature, rather than a replacement for the driver." NHTSA and automakers say none of the systems make vehicles autonomous. Nissan said its name "is clearly communicating ProPILOT Assist as a system to aid the driver, and it requires hands-on operation.