1955 Chevrolet Two Door 150 Handyman 350/muncie 4spd/ 373 Posi/pwr Disc Video! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Junkyard Gem: 1986 Chevrolet Sprint Plus

General Motors sold second- and third-generation Suzuki Cultuses with Geo or Chevrolet Metro badging in the United States from 1989 through 2001 model years, and we've all seen plenty of those cars on the street over the years. The first-generation Cultus was sold here as well, with Chevrolet Sprint badges, and I've found a rare example of the Sprint five-door hatchback in a Northern California car graveyard. The Chevy Sprint first appeared on the West Coast as a 1985 model, then became available everywhere in the United States for the 1986 through 1988 model years (in Canada, it was sold as the Pontiac Firefly). It was available here as a hatchback with three or five doors; for 1986 only, the five-door was badged as the Sprint Plus. Soon enough, The General would be selling many more Asian-built cars with Detroit badges here. Isuzu I-Marks were sold as Chevrolet/Geo Spectrums starting in the 1986 model year, while Daewoo provided the Pontiac LeMans two years later. Under the hood, a 1.0-liter three-cylinder rated at 48 horsepower. The five-door Sprint cost $5,580 in 1986, which was $200 more than the three-door (those prices would be $15,445 and $14,891 in 2023 dollars). I've documented seven discarded Sprints prior to this one (including an extremely rare Turbo Sprint), and all of them were three-doors; we can assume that price was the most important factor for Sprint buyers. Gasoline prices were crashing hard during the middle 1980s, but memories of gas lines and odd-even-day fuel rationing from 1979 remained strong. What cars competed with the '86 Sprint on sticker price? Well, there was no way to undercut the hilariously affordable (and terrible) Yugo GV, which cost $3,990. The much bigger (but still pretty bad) Hyundai Excel listed at $4,995, while Toyota would sell you a sturdy (but zero-fun) Tercel starting at $5,448. Even the wretched Chevy Chevette — yes, it was still available in 1986 — cost $5,645. The original buyer of this car was willing to shell out an extra $395 to get an automatic instead of the base five-speed manual. That's about $1,093 in today's money. This car must have been slow. By the end, the doors were held shut with duct tape, but it still stayed alive until age 37. 53 miles per gallon on the highway! It does everything. The camels of the highway.

Ford Mustang chief engineer, mid-engine Corvette | Autoblog Podcast #488

Note: There were some technical difficulties that prevented some of you from downloading this week's podcast. The player and link below should be working now, and the file has reached iTunes and other feeds as well. Thanks to everyone who wrote in to let us know of the issues! On the podcast this week, we have some questions for Ford Chief Engineer Carl Widman. Plus, Associate Editor Reese Counts joins Mike Austin to talk about the latest news, most notably the spy photos of the upcoming mid-engine Corvette. We also chat about the Jaguar F-Type Coupe, the Nissan Armada, and why 0-60 mph is a stupid performance figure. And, of course, we get into some Spend My Money advice, telling strangers what car to buy. And new this week is a cost-no-object what-cars-would-you-buy game. The rundown is below. And don't forget to send us your questions, money-spend or otherwise, to podcast at autoblog dot com. Autoblog Podcast #488 The video meant to be presented here is no longer available. Sorry for the inconvenience. Topics and stories we mention Mid-engine Chevrolet Corvette spied Chevy Bolt EV comes with 238 miles of range Ford will sell self-driving cars by 2025 Jaguar F-Type Coupe 2017 Nissan Armada (yes, Mike knows it's not a Patrol) Ford Mustang Chief Engineer Carl Widman interview Spend My Money - we give purchase advice Why 0–60 mph is a stupid performance test Rundown Intro - 00:00 The news - 03:30 What we've been driving - 16:20 Carl Widman - 26:44 Spend my money - 37:03 New fun game - 51:48 0–60 mph is overrated - 56:50 Total Duration: 1:04:57 Get The Podcast iTunes – Subscribe to the Autoblog Podcast in iTunes RSS – Add the Autoblog Podcast feed to your RSS aggregator MP3 – Download the MP3 directly Feedback Email – Podcast at Autoblog dot com Review the show in iTunes Podcasts Chevrolet Ford Jaguar Nissan Car Buying nissan armada mid-engine corvette jaguar f-type coupe

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.