Chevrolet Tahoe Ls 4x4 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2016 Chevy Colorado Duramax gets 31 mpg highway

The 2016 Chevrolet Colorado Duramax and its similarly diesel-powered GMC Canyon sibling are the most fuel-efficient new trucks on the market in America. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates 31 miles per gallon highway, 22 mpg city, and 25 mpg combined for two-wheel-drive Colorado and Canyon diesels. That's just good enough to take the pickup fuel-economy title from the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel HFE, which carries EPA estimates of 29 mpg highway, 21 mpg city, and 24 mpg combined. Four-wheel-drive models offer slightly lower economy figures of 29/20/23, respectively. Drivers can cover quite some distance, too – the GM twins' 21-gallon tanks mean a maximum range of 651 miles. <p>Your browser does not support iframes.</p> Diesel's reputation may be somewhat tarnished in the US after Volkswagen's emissions scandal, but Chevy wants to assure potential customers that there are no tricks with the Colorado's figures. The pickup's engine features NOx-reducing tech like exhaust gas recirculation, and the EPA and California Air Resources Board recently chose the truck to take the additional step of real-world emissions tests. The 2.8-liter Duramax four-cylinder with 181 horsepower and 369 pound-feet of torque had no problems with the more stringent evaluation, and "the agency expressed no issues or concerns," according to the company's statement. The diesel Colorado goes on sale this fall, and the Duramax costs $3,730 over a similarly equipped V6 model. We've gone ahead and included dueling press releases from both Chevy and GMC below for your reading pleasure. Related Video: CHEVROLET COLORADO DIESEL: AMERICA'S MOST FUEL EFFICIENT PICKUP 2015-11-09 2016 Colorado two-wheel drive model offers EPA-estimated 31 mpg highway Up to 7,700 pounds of trailering when properly equipped DETROIT – Chevrolet today confirmed that the 2016 Colorado two-wheel drive with the Duramax turbo-diesel will be the most fuel efficient pickup in America, offering an Environmental Protection Agency-estimated 31 mpg highway fuel economy. The EPA-estimated highway fuel economy for 2016 Colorado four-wheel drive diesel is 29 mpg. The EPA has issued a Certificate of Conformity for the Chevrolet Colorado Duramax diesel. The agency expressed no issues or concerns following its recent extensive testing and evaluation of the emission control system on the Colorado Duramax diesel.

Chevy Cruze CNG available from Crazy Diamond Performance

Anyone out there who can somehow find a second way to link Pink Floyd to natural gas vehicles gets a prize. Because so far, we have one Michigan-based company called Crazy Diamond Performance (Shine On You Crazy Diamond being a longtime Floyd fave) that's setting out to convert Chevrolet Cruze vehicles to run on compressed natural gas (CNG). All in the name of cheaper fuel and domestic security, of course. Crazy Diamond says it can offer a converted CNG-powered Chevy Cruze for a price as low as $26,000. That four-cylinder version has 130 horsepower and an 8.5-gasoline-gallon-equivalent capacity that provides a full-tank range of as many as 250 miles. Pony up another $2,000 or so and the peppier, turbocharged CNG Cruze can be yours. The company says it will provide a 100,000-mile powertrain warranty and is trying to get EPA certification for its conversions. The selling points are cheaper fuel (CNG is about half the cost of regular gasoline in some parts of the country) and homeland security (CNG reduces dependence on foreign oil). The only production passenger vehicle CNG in the US is the Honda Civic CNG, which sells in very limited numbers. Check out Crazy Diamond's flyer here. Featured Gallery 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LTZ: New York 2014 View 13 Photos News Source: Crazy Diamond Performance via Hybrid Cars, Green Fleet Magazine Green Chevrolet Natural Gas Vehicles CNG

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.