1994 Gmc C1500, No Reserve on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM warning 800,000 owners that their cars may need oil changes more frequently than they say

The days of changing your engine oil every 3,000 miles are long gone thanks to most cars having automatic oil monitoring systems, but about 800,000 General Motors vehicles apparently have incorrect monitoring software that is leading to premature engine component wear. According to Autoweek, certain 2010-2012 Buick LaCrosse, Regal, Chevrolet Equinox and GMC Terrain models equipped with 2.4-liter four-cylinder engines could be going too long in between oil changes resulting in a higher-than-normal number of warranty claims for the engine's balance chain. The balance chain links the balance shaft to the crankshaft, and a worn one can produce higher noise levels.
As a fix, GM dealers will be reprogramming the software for the monitors in an effort to reduce the interval between oil changes, which varies based on driving habits and conditions. Through February 2015, the software update will be done at no cost to vehicle owners, but since this is not a recall, after that point, it will be up to the discretion of dealers as to whether or not they will charge for the service. What isn't immediately clear is whether GM plans on giving assistance to out-of-warranty customers who are experiencing engine issues from the worn chain.

2016 Chevy Volt arrives with 50-mile EV range, 41 mpg [w/ video]

Let's start with the numbers. The 2016 Chevy Volt will have an all-electric range of 50 miles from a new, 18.4-kWh lithium battery. It will get 41 miles per gallon (combined) once the battery runs dry and have 102 MPGe. Oh, and it has five seats, sort of. To compare, today's four-seat 2015 Volt has a 38-mile range from a 17.1-kWh battery in a powertrain that offers 37 mpg and 98 MPGe. So, across the board, there are notable improvements. Now that that's out of the way, let's talk story. General Motors will unveil the new Volt at the Detroit Auto Show later today, but it's been talking about how this new version – the first major plug-in hybrid vehicle to get a serious redo in the modern era – was crafted with reams and reams of data from first-gen Volt customers. At a preview event for journalists last week, GM executive chief engineer Pam Fletcher told Autoblog that these owners "gave us the recipe" to make the second-gen model. At the top of the request list was more range (check), more "fun-to-drive" behavior (check?) and a smoother and quieter experience (we'll assume a check here, given that the new 1.5-liter four-cylinder – the first North American application of this new engine family – should offer more power with less noise than the previous 1.4-liter, four-cylinder powerplant). Other customer-driven changes in the new Volt include a different place to store the charging cable (in the side of the trunk instead of under the load floor) and a new brake system with improved blended regenerative braking feel as well as driver-selectable regen levels. The requested 50-mile range comes from a new, lighter battery that has increased capacity from fewer cells (192 vs. 288) and a simplified control architecture. Along with the new battery, the electric drive unit is a two-motor deal that is up to 12 percent more efficient and 100 pounds lighter, while also being "tremendously smaller," notes Fletcher. It offers 294 pound-feet of torque and a maximum 149 horsepower of "motoring power" delivered to the wheels. GM says it has worked hard to reduced the amount of rare earth materials in these motors, and one of them doesn't use any at all. The new powertrain offers improved acceleration times, as well. The 2016 Volt can go from 0 to 60 miles per hour in 8.4 seconds, a seven-percent improvement, while the 0-30 mph time has been improved by 19 percent, down to 2.6 seconds. The new Volt is more conventional looking, but certainly not completely ordinary.

BMW, Hyundai score big in JD Power's first Tech Experience Index

While automakers are quick to brag about winning a JD Power Initial Quality Study award, the reality, as we've pointed out before, is that these ratings are somewhat misleading, since IQS doesn't necessarily distinguish genuine quality issues. JD Power's new Tech Experience Index aims to solve that problem. The new metric takes the same 90-day approach as IQS but focuses exclusively on technology – collision protection, comfort and convenience, driving assistance, entertainment and connectivity, navigation, and smartphone mirroring. It splits the industry up into just seven segments, based loosely on size, which is why the Chevrolet Camaro is in the same division (mid-size) as Kia Sorento and the Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class is in the same segment as the Hyundai Genesis (mid-size premium). It makes for some screwy bedfellows, to be sure. Still, splitting tech experience away from initial quality should allow customers to make more informed and intelligent decisions when buying new vehicles. In the inaugural study, respondents listed BMW and Hyundai as the big winners, with two segment awards – the 2 Series for small premium and the 4 Series for compact premium, and the Genesis for mid-size premium and Tucson for small segment. The Chevrolet Camaro (midsize), Kia Forte (compact), and Nissan Maxima (large) scored individual wins. Ford also had a surprising hit with the Lincoln MKC, which ranked third in the compact premium segment behind the 4 Series and Lexus IS. This is a coup for the Blue Oval, whose woeful MyFord Touch systems made the brand a victim of the IQS' flaws in the early 2010s. But Ford and other automakers might not want to celebrate just yet. According to JD Power, there's still a lot of room for improvement – navigation systems were the lowest-rated piece of tech in the study. Instead, customers repeatedly saluted collision-avoidance and safety systems, giving the category the best marks of the study and listing blind-spot monitoring and backup cameras as two must-have features – 96 percent of respondents said they wanted those two systems in their next vehicle. But this isn't really a surprise. Implementation of safety systems from brand to brand is similar, and they don't require any input from users, unlike navigation and infotainment systems which are frustratingly deep.