Chevrolet Tahoe Lt on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

1983 Motorweek showdown pits Porsche 928S vs. Chevy Camaro Z28

Last month, Motor Trend threw the Camaro Z/28 and Porsche 911 GT3 into the bear pit and let them fight it out. Way back in 1983, MotorWeek had the same idea, comparing the Camaro Z/28 to the Porsche 928S. At the time, the Camaro was America's best selling sports coupe, the 928S was Porsche's top-of-the-line model that also had the highest top speed of any car sold here. And the price differential was even more stark then: $13,600 for the Camaro, $45,000 for the Porsche. That put the Z/28's cast-iron, 5.0-liter V8 with 190 horsepower and 240 pound-feet of torque against the all-aluminum 4.7-liter V8 with 234 hp and 263 lb-ft in the 928S. Even with that and the Camaro being 14 inches longer than the Porsche, the American was a surprising 40 pounds lighter than the German. The show took them to Summit Point Raceway in West Virginia to see how close a relative performance bargain could hang with a the German GT. Both had five-speed manual transmissions, but the high-speed corners and tight sections of Summit Point would test other handling variables, including the "bone-rattling" Camaro's solid rear axle and disc and drum brake setup vis-a-vis the four-wheel disc brakes and independent suspension on the "firm-but-smooth" Porsche. Paradoxically, the larger disparity 22 years ago resulted in a closer result. Check out the video to see how the Summit was won. News Source: MotorWeek via YouTube Chevrolet Porsche Coupe Luxury Performance Classics Videos chevy camaro z28 porsche 928 retro review

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.