Slt Ethanol - Ffv Suv 5.3l Cd 4x4 Locking/limited Slip Differential Tow Hitch on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2016 GMC Canyon Diesel Quick Spin [w/video]

The 2016 GMC Canyon Diesel and the 2016 Chevrolet Colorado Diesel are basically the same truck. This isn't really news – the two midsize pickups have been discussed side by side since their inception. If you stop reading right now, go to our First Drive story from last week, and replace "Colorado" with "Canyon," you won't miss a beat. Samesies. Looks-wise, the Canyon is a bit more polished overall than the Colorado on which its based. The front fascia has a more upscale, yet tough aura, the squared-off headlamps mimic those of the Sierra, and the alloy wheels – especially those on this SLT tester – are a premium touch. Inside the cabin, it's all carryover stuff from the Chevy truck, just with different badges and some unique color/trim combos. So it's a Colorado Diesel with a Canyon treatment. It's the typical GMC updo. But that's fine by me; this thing's a real sweetheart. Driving Notes Talk about smooth operator. This is one of the least harsh diesel engines I've ever tested, with low levels of vibration. Credit for that goes to the fancy German torque converter, as our own David Gluckman detailed in the Colorado First Drive. There's there's also very little in the way of turbo lag in this truck, aiding the silky character. I kind of miss the "turbo moment" woosh of power, but I'll happily trade that for total overall refinement. GMC hasn't released official fuel economy figures just yet, and my drive route wasn't exactly great for testing the ol' miles per gallon rating. I spent about 45 minutes slogging through traffic in Manhattan (perfect place for a diesel pickup, right?), before getting out onto the highway for another 45 or so. The combined trip returned numbers in the mid-20s, but I have to believe this truck can do better. The steering is vague, the body rolls – it drives like a pickup. That said, even though it's on the larger side of midsize, the Canyon is easy to maneuver, sight lines are great, and it's a generally pleasant-handling truck. The 2.8-liter Duramax diesel engine adds about 200 pounds to the Canyon's overall curb weight, but you don't notice from behind the wheel. Braking feel is smooth and solid, and the truck doesn't feel especially nose-heavy. Despite the anti-aero shape, the Canyon delivers a quiet ride with very little wind or road noise. Credit this to all the sound deadening material added to keep unpleasant diesel chugga-chugga-chugga noises out of the cabin.

GM to sell rebranded Peugeot vans in US?

According to a report by France's La Tribune cited by Reuters, General Motors and Peugeot are discussing the possibility of selling PSA Peugeot-Citroën commercial vans in the US through The General's dealership network. While specific models and what brand they may sell under stateside are not immediately clear, the move isn't entirely out of the blue, particularly since GM owns seven percent of the French automaker.
Peugeot and GM already have a joint-venture agreement to ease costs associated with vehicle development and procuring parts, and while the progress of the arrangement has been inhibited some by Europe's difficult economy, the two automakers are looking to expand the relationship. With sales in the dumpster, Peugeot's long-term prospects have looked particularly shaky as of late, and GM could use a modern commercial van lineup to better compete with North America's suddenly modern and Euro-fied competition. Mercedes-Benz kicked off the high-roof trend with its Sprinter, and for 2014, Ford is following with its Transit van (joining its smaller Transit Connect sibling), while Chrysler is leveraging its relationship with Fiat to rebrand the Ducato range of vans as Ram Promaster models.
Peugeot already has a full line of commercial van solutions in its stable, from its compact Partner and Bipper models to the larger Expert and Boxer models, which are available in a variety of cargo and people-carrying configurations.

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.