1989 Nissan 240sx Base Coupe 2-door 2.4l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Where the 2023 GMC Sierra AT4X fits into the hierarchy of off-road trucks

The world of off-road pickups sure seems like it's getting crowded, but the reality is that half-ton trucks were always pretty capable, even with what seemed like fairly basic 4x4 packages. It wasn't until recently that manufacturers really started to carve out different off-road niches for their mainstream pickup offerings. With the introduction of the 2022 GMC Sierra 1500 AT4X (alongside its mechanical twin, the Chevy Silverado ZR2), the crowd has grown even thicker. Even we have trouble keeping up with the increased segmentation of off-road pickup trucks, so we threw together this handy guide to help you understand just where these various packages fit into the broader pickup hierarchy. Let's dive in.  Your basics If we say "Z71" or "FX4" to you, both will probably ring a bell. That's because they've been around a few days short of forever and their respective customers have grown so used to these package codes that OEMs got into the habit of just plastering them on the side of so-equipped truck beds. Anybody who sells a pickup truck offers some sort of basic off-road prep package like this one. Z71 is found on GM vehicles; FX4 is Ford's. Ram just calls it "Off Road Group," but no matter what you call them, they're all pretty similar.  Typical upgrades for this category include some additional ground clearance, a basic all-terrain tire, heavy-duty suspension upgrades and likely either a limited-slip or locking rear differential. These are pretty handy for anything beyond a rutted dirt road. On newer trucks — especially on higher trim levels — you'll probably also get some dedicated off-road drive modes.  Mid-range This is where things start to get interesting. To qualify for this category, a locking rear differential is a must. Most of the names in this segment are well-established too, though some (Nissan Titan Pro-4X, anyone?) may not necessarily be on your radar. The Toyota Tundra TRD Pro checks in here, as does the Ram Rebel, Chevy Silverado Trail Boss and GMC Sierra AT4 (no X!).  Realistically, if there's somewhere you need to go and one of these trucks won't do it, you might want to consider a helicopter. But it's 2021, and our thirst for capability is strong, so of course, there's a way to spend more of your money on this type of thing. Onward! Entry-hardcore Here we are, the home of the new 2022 GMC Sierra AT4X and Chevrolet Silverado ZR2. This is a tiny niche, otherwise occupied only by the Ford F-150 Tremor.

Carmakers ask Trump to revisit fuel efficiency rules

Car companies operating in the US are required to meet stringent fuel efficiency standards (a fleet average of 54.5MPG) through 2025, but they're hoping to loosen things now that President Trump is in town. Leaders from Fiat Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, Toyota and VW have sent a letter to Trump asking him to rethink the Obama administration's choice to lock in efficiency guidelines for the next several years. The car makers want to revisit the midterm review for the 2025 commitment in hopes of loosening the demands. They claim that the tougher requirements raise costs, don't match public buying habits and will supposedly put "as many a million" jobs up in the air. The Trump administration hasn't specifically responded to the letter, although Environmental Protection Agency nominee Scott Pruitt had said he would return to the Obama-era decision. The automakers' argument doesn't entirely hold up. While the EPA did estimate that the US would fall short of efficiency goals due to a shift toward SUVs and trucks, the job claims are questionable. Why would making more fuel efficient vehicles necessarily cost jobs instead of pushing companies to do better? As it is, even a successful attempt to loosen guidelines may only have a limited effect. All of the brands mentioned here are pushing for greater mainstream adoption of electric vehicles within the next few years -- they may meet the Obama administration's expectations just by shifting more drivers away from gas power. This article by Jon Fingas originally appeared on Engadget, your guide to this connected life. Related Video: News Source: ReutersImage Credit: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg via Getty Images Government/Legal Green Chrysler Fiat GM Honda Hyundai Nissan Toyota Volkswagen Fuel Efficiency CAFE standards Trump

DC fast charging not as damaging to EV batteries as expected

As convenient as DC fast charging is, there have been lots of warnings that repeated dumping of so many electrons into an electric vehicle's battery pack in such a short time would reduce the battery's life. While everyone agrees that DC fast charging does have some effect on battery life, it may not be as bad as previously expected. Over on SimanaitisSays, Dennis Simanaitis, writes about a recent presentation by Matt Shirk of the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) called DC Fast, Wireless, And Conductive Charging Evaluation Projects (PDF) that describes an ongoing test of four 2012 Nissan Leaf EVs that are being charged in two pairs of two. One pair only recharges from 50-kW DC fast chargers, which the other two sip from 3.3-kW Level 2 chargers exclusively. Otherwise, the cars are operated pretty much the same: climate is automatically set to 72 degrees, are driven on public roads around Phoenix, AZ and have the same set of dedicated drivers is rotated through the four cars. "Degradation depends more on the miles traveled than on the nature of recharging." What's most interesting are the charts on page seven of Shirk's presentation (click the image above to enlarge), which show the energy capacity of each of the four vehicles. When they were new, the four batteries were each tested to measure their energy capacity and given a 0 capacity loss baseline. They were then tested at 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 and 40,000 miles, and at each point, the DC-only EVs had roughly the same amount of battery loss as the Level 2 test subjects. The DC cars did lose a bit more at each test, but only around a 25-percent overall loss after 40k, compared to 23 percent for the Level 2 cars. Simanaitis' takeaway is that, "INL data suggest that the amount of degradation depends more on the miles traveled than on the nature of recharging." The tests are part of the INLs' Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity work and a final report is forthcoming. These initial numbers from IPL do mesh with other research into DC fast charging, though. Mitsubishi said daily fast charging wouldn't really hurt the battery in the i-MiEV and MIT tests of a Fisker Karma battery showed just 10-percent loss over 1,500 rapid charge-discharge cycles.