Gmc Suburban Sierra Custom on 2040-cars

Auto blog

These are the cars with the best and worst depreciation after 5 years

The average new vehicle sold in America loses nearly half of its initial value after five years of ownership. No surprise there; we all expect that shiny new car to start depreciating as soon as we drive it off the lot. But some vehicles lose value a lot faster than others. According to data provided by iSeeCars.com, trucks and truck-based sport utility vehicles generally hold their value better than other vehicle types, with the Jeep Wrangler — in both four-door Unlimited and standard two-door styles — and Toyota Tacoma sitting at the head of the pack. The Jeep Wrangler Unlimited's average five-year depreciation of 30.9% equals a loss in value of $12,168. That makes Jeep's four-door off-roader the best overall pick for buyers looking to minimize depreciation. The Toyota Tacoma's 32.4% loss in initial value means it loses just $10,496. The smaller dollar amount — the least amount of money lost after five years — indicates that Tacoma buyers pay less than Wrangler Unlimited buyers, on average, when they initially buy the vehicle. The standard two-door Jeep Wrangler is third on the list, depreciating 32.8% after five years and losing $10,824. Click here for a full list of the top 10 vehicles with the least depreciation over five years. On the other side of the depreciation coin, luxury sedans tend to plummet in value at a much faster rate than other vehicle types. The BMW 7 Series leads the losers with a 72.6% drop in value after five years, which equals an alarming $73,686. BMW's slightly smaller 5 Series is next, depreciating 70.1%, or $47,038, over the same period. Number three on the biggest losers list is the Nissan Leaf, the only electric vehicle to appear in the bottom 10. The electric hatchback matches the 5 Series with a 70.1% drop in value, but since it's a much cheaper vehicle, that percentage equals a much smaller $23,470 loss. Click here for a full list of the top 10 vehicles with the most depreciation over five years.

GM recalls Colorado, Canyon, and Malibu for airbag problem

The Basics: General Motors will recall and issue a stop sale on 1,740 total examples of the 2016 Chevrolet Colorado, Malibu, and GMC Canyon. This includes 1,579 units in the US and 161 in Canada. The Problem: The second stage of the driver front airbag inflator might not be present. If this happens, the airbag won't fill as quickly as it should in a high-speed crash, which could increase the risk of injury, according to Reuters. This is not related in any way to Takata's inflator problems, and these parts come from a different supplier. Injuries/Deaths: None reported. The Fix: GM will replace the vehicles' airbag assemblies. If You Own One: GM spokesperson Tom Wilkinson told Autoblog he wasn't specifically sure when recall repairs would begin but said it would be "shortly." He expects the fixes to happen "quickly" because of the small number of affected vehicles, and many of them are either in transport or already in dealer stock. More Information: GM recalled the 2015 Canyon and Colorado in 2014 for a completely separate airbag issue. In that case, a manufacturing error improperly wired the connectors. Related Video: GM Statement GM is recalling 1,579 MY 2016 Chevrolet Colorado, GMC Canyon and Chevrolet Malibu vehicles in the United States and 161 in Canada to replace driver-side front airbags. The second stage of the airbag may not deploy properly in certain high-speed crashes. During a routine quality inspection, it was determined that a component required for a second-stage/high-output deployment was not loaded during the inflator build. Dealers will replace the driver-side front airbag assembly. There have been no reports of crashes or injuries related to this issue. This issue is unrelated to the ongoing Takata recalls.

2019 GMC Sierra Denali Drivers' Notes Review | Half measures

Associate Editor Reese Counts: This truck feels a full generation behind the competition. It's a half measure that feels more like a mid-cycle refresh than a whole new truck. There are a few high points: the 6.2-liter V8 is great (if thirsty) and the bed is wider than anything else in the class. The tailgate, too, is nifty, though some might write it off as a novelty. I also dig the tech, particularly the infotainment system and heads-up display. Ram might brag about its giant touchscreen, but I think I actually prefer the GMC's user interface. The rest can be summed up with a series of shoulder shrugs. The Sierra finally looks different than a Silverado, but I wouldn't call it handsome. The interior is spacious, but I'd knock the design and materials in a $45,000 truck, much less one approaching $70,000. It's not Toyota Tundra levels of terrible, it's just plain, cheap, and not nearly as space efficient as the Ram. It feels like GM's not even trying to move the needle with this truck. The more time I spend behind the wheel, the less I like it. Assistant Editor Zac Palmer: I got to spend a lot of seat time in this 2019 GMC Sierra Denali, and I came away generally unenthused by GM's most luxurious truck. We harp a lot about how expensive pickup trucks are these days, and this one's near $70,000 price tag is just the same. When you step inside a similarly-specced Ram, it feels like it's worth its price. When I step out of a Silverado and into a more expensive Sierra, I want to feel like it's money well spent. This Sierra Denali does not. Beyond the leather seats and a few small pieces of wood trim, it's hard, black plastic galore. What makes it all the more frustrating is that GM has most of the tech and features it needs (solid infotainment, 360-degree camera, wireless phone charging and the rear camera mirror is genuinely awesome). The presentation just comes off as dated from the start. It's a shame, because I have a strange affinity for how this truck looks from the curb. The sharp angles, brash styling and "tough truck" attitude is appealing to me. I like stomping on the gas and letting the 6.2-liter torque monster under the hood loose. But man do you pay the price for using that engine. Over a few hundred miles of driving I ended at a dismal 15 mpg reading on the trip computer — the saddest part of this was knowing these were mostly highway miles.