1964 Pontiac Catalina Convertible on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2020 Porsche 911 Speedster spied with an angry driver

Porsche gave us details and showed us a concept of the 911 Speedster at the Paris Motor Show. Today, we bring you spy shots of what appears to be the production version of that concept with a few changes on board. They're rather minimal modifications, but the Speedster's driver appears especially angry with our spy photographer as he extends his middle finger directly toward the camera. Sorry, not sorry, Mr. Test Driver. Public testing of pre-production cars always comes with photo risks, and Porsches tend to attract more attention than others. You'll notice what appears to be a Cayenne Coupe prototype we've previously spotted running around with the 911. The Speedster Concept we saw in Paris had epic retro mirrors and fuel cap on the front hood, but both those design touches are absent from this pre-production car. It's tougher to see, but we lost the vents in between the two humps, as well. Everything else appears to have made it to production-spec. We can't say we're surprised these concept car features probably won't show up on the production car, but it is a tad deflating. You'll notice the Speedster is based-off the 991.2 generation of 911 and not the new 992. Porsche did a similar thing when the 997 generation was coming to an end with a Speedster model paying tribute to that car's life. The chassis is said to utilize parts from the 911 GT3, and the wonderful naturally aspirated flat-six engine gets carried over from that car, too. Porsche didn't specify if power will be exactly the same as the GT3, but we'll be expecting about 500 horsepower and a 9,000 rpm redline. We were told the six-speed manual would be offered on the Speedster in Paris, too. Let's just say that we strongly approve of that combination. Production will be limited to only 1,948 cars and begin in the first half of this year. We'll expect a reveal with a full spec breakdown soon, possibly for the upcoming Geneva Motor Show. Related video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.

GM knew about fatal Chevy ignition problem decade before recall

Well, this is not good for General Motors. Following a report last week that GM was recalling 778,000 Chevrolet Cobalt and Pontiac G5 compacts over concerns that the ignition could switch out of the "run" position without warning, USA Today reports that the Detroit-based behemoth knew about the issue, which affected 2005 to 2007 Cobalts (the Cobalt shown above and in the gallery is from 2010) and 2007 Pontiac G5s, all the way back in 2004.
The information comes from a deposition in a civil lawsuit against GM, obtained by USA Today, which claims that a GM engineer experienced the issue while the then-new model was undergoing testing. The issue was "solved" when a technical service bulletin was issued in 2005, informing dealers to install a snap-on key cover on the cars of customers who complained about the issue. According to the Cobalt's program engineering manager, Gary Altman, the cover was an "improvement, it was not a fix to the issue."
The case where the depositions were made was from 2010, and involved Brooke Melton, a 29-year-old pediatric nurse in Georgia who was killed on her birthday. At the time, police claimed she was going too fast on a wet, rural road, although it later came out through the black box that her car's ignition had come out of the "run" position at least three seconds before the accident (the max amount of time a black box records before a wreck), disabling her airbags, power steering and anti-lock brakes. According to USA Today, police said Melton was "traveling too fast for the roadway conditions," although it's impossible to know if she'd have been in the wreck, which injured the occupants of another vehicle, had her 2005 Chevy not shut off. GM settled the Melton family's case, although the details remain confidential.

This or That: 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 vs. 1984 Pontiac Fiero

Welcome to another round of This or That, where two Autoblog editors pick a topic, pick a side and pull no punches. Last round pitted yours truly against Associate Editor Brandon Turkus, and my chosen VW Vanagon Syncro narrowly defeated Brandon's 1987 Land Rover. In fact, it was, by far, the closest round we've seen, with 1,907 voters seeing things my way (for 50.8 percent of the vote) versus 1,848 votes for Brandon's Rover (49.2 percent). Sweet, sweet victory! For this latest round of This or That, I've roped Editor Greg Migliore into what I think is a rather fun debate. We've each chosen our favorite terrible cars, setting a price limit of $10,000 to make sure neither of us went too crazy with our automotive atrocities. I think we've both chosen terribly... and I mean that in the best way possible. 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 Jeremy Korzeniewski: Why It's Terrible: Taken in isolation, the Chrysler Crossfire isn't necessarily a terrible car. In fact, it drives pretty darn well, and there's a lot of solid engineering under its slinky shape. Problem is, that engineering was already rather long in the tooth well before Chrysler ever got its hands on it, having come from Mercedes-Benz, which used the basic chassis and drivetrain in a previous version of its SLK coupe and roadster. Granted, the SLK was an okay car, too, but even when new, it hardly set the world on fire with sporty driving dynamics. Chrysler took these decent-but-no-more bits and pieces from the Mercedes parts bin – remember, this car was conceived in the disastrous Merger Of Equals days – and covered them with a rather attractive hard-candy shell. Unfortunately, the super sporty shape wrote checks in the minds of buyers that its well-worn mechanicals were simply unable to cash, though an injection of power courtesy of a supercharged V6 engine in the SRT6 model, as seen here, certainly helped ease some of those woes. In the end, Chrysler was left with a so-called halo car that looked the part but never quite performed the part. It was almost universally panned by critics as an overpriced parts-bin special, which, I must add, was damningly accurate. As a result, sales were very slow, and within the first few months, dealers were clearancing the car at cut-rate prices, just to keep them from taking up too much of the showroom floor. Why It's Not That Terrible, After All: I can speak from personal experience when discussing the Chrysler Crossfire. You see, I owned one. Well, sort of...