1968 Chevrolet Camaro on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Chevy preparing new Camaro ZL1 Convertible?

It's a given that when an automaker introduces a new performance model, it's only a matter of time before an even hotter variant arrives. The Ford Mustang begets the Shelby GT350 and the Dodge Challenger R/T spawns the SRT 392 and Hellcat. And for Chevrolet, that progression sees the Camaro SS evolve into the ZL1. That's probably what our spies have captured here. The convertible variant of GM's most powerful Camaro is betrayed not by its big, black wheels or quad exhaust tips – both of those items have been fitted to the far tamer 1LE in the past – but by its brakes. To put it simply, they're enormous. The old ZL1 had 14.6-inch rotors in front and 14.4-inchers in the back, with Brembo-branded six-piston calipers up front and four-piston binders at the rear. While the overall size of the calipers doesn't appear to have changed much, it looks like the rotors – especially in front – seem to take up a larger space inside the front wheels than in last year's model. Perhaps Chevy moved to a straight 15-inch rotor? It's difficult to discern any more from these images, though. Chevy did a fine job with the camouflage, making it difficult to pick out ZL1-specific body parts. From the rear spoiler to the front fascia to the side sills, each body piece looks like it's the same as the standard Camaro or is just completely obscured. If this is a Camaro ZL1, it seems like Chevy may have just stuffed the vital organs inside the body of more pedestrian droptop. According to our spies, it's unlikely that Chevy will mix things up under the hood. Expect the 6.2-liter, supercharged V8 from the Corvette Z06 and Cadillac CTS-V to move the ZL1 from 550 horsepower to around 640 ponies when it debuts for model year 2017. A six-speed manual transmission will be standard, while the Camaro's big brother will probably donate its eight-speed automatic. Related Video: Image Credit: Brian Williams / SpiedBilde Spy Photos Chevrolet Convertible Performance chevy camaro zl1

Ford Police Interceptors dominate Michigan State Police testing

Once again, Ford Motor Company builds the fastest police vehicles. The Blue Oval touted the news in an official release following Michigan State Police and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department testing. Ford did very well. Except for one acceleration metric – zero to 10 miles per hour – the Blue Oval's Taurus and Explorer-based cop cars were the quickest, with particular praise coming for the EcoBoost-powered models, which bested Chevrolet and Dodge's V8-powered variants. Dearborn's products also posted the fastest average times around MSP's vehicle dynamics course. But it wasn't all positive for Ford. The only four-cylinder in the contest, the 2.0-liter, EcoBoost Ford SSP Sedan, had both the lowest top speed, 120 mph, and the slowest acceleration figures. It was also the slowest in track testing. Ford's products also failed to match the braking and top speeds of its rivals from Detroit and Auburn Hills – the rear-drive Charger Pursuit posted the best braking stats of the entire test, while the V8-powered Chevrolet Caprice hit the highest top speed, at 155 mph. Ford did score a top speed award, among SUVs, but at 132 mph, the naturally aspirated Police Interceptor Utility had to share its award with the equally fast, rear-drive Chevrolet Tahoe. The LA County Sheriff's timing isn't publicly available, but according to Ford, the EcoBoost-powered police cars put on a similarly impressive show for cops on the West Coast. We've assembled a spreadsheet on Google Docs that offers an easy to browse comparison of the different stats assembled by the Michigan State Police, and divided the vehicles between standard V6-powered sedans, high-performance sedans (EcoBoost and V8 models), and SUVs. You can check it out here. Related Video:

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.