2009 Chevrolet Cobalt Ss Coupe 2-door 2.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM alerting truck and sedan owners to a do-over on brake recall

A recall campaign intended to address issues with braking systems on certain 2019 General Motors trucks and sedans may have introduced a new issue, the automaker has acknowledged, and thousands of owners driving repaired vehicles may need to return to their service departments for another update.  The update addresses a fix that was pushed out to owners of more than half a million brand-new GM trucks and sedans that could potentially lose partial braking function, according to the Detroit Free Press. The original software fix helped address situations where the vehicles' anti-lock braking systems would become disabled, which in turn would prevent electronic stability control from activating. Vehicles subject to the recall would often experience software glitches that prevented them from properly communicating the operational state of these systems, meaning drivers would have no idea that their brakes may not behave as expected in an emergency. The 2019 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, Cadillac CT6, and GMC Sierra 1500 were all recalled in the original campaign.  Unfortunately, the early version of this fix appears to have introduced yet another software glitch, indicating that the original fix did not do the trick. Those who have not yet had their cars serviced can rest easy; they will only receive the most up-to-date version of the software fix.  Related video    

'Killing a Duramax' Gale Banks YouTube series methodically tunes a diesel to death

Learning or perfecting a skill by watching YouTube videos is known as attending YouTube University. GM Authority picked up on one of the video site's more fascinating courses, hosted by Gale Banks; in a fair world, he should be referred to as Professor Banks when it comes to diesel engines and truck tuning. A few months after GM introduced the updated L5P 6.6-liter Duramax diesel V8 in the 2020 Chevrolet Silverado HD and GMC Sierra HD that ships with 454 horsepower and 910 pound-feet of torque, Banks decided he wanted to methodically tune the engine to death. The purpose of the resulting series, called "Killing a Duramax," is to push more power out of the engine in order to discover which parts break and when — or, as Banks puts it, force-feed the Duramax "until the crank hits the street and the heads hit the hood." With that knowledge, Banks can figure out all the weak points on his way to building what he calls a "Superturbo," that being a supercharged, twin-turbo race engine with more than 1,000 hp. What makes the series fascinating is Banks' knowledge, paired with the company's comprehensive iDash engine monitoring system that keeps tabs on a glut of parameters every step of the way. So for instance, you get Banks explaining the differences between inches of mercury and barometric pressure, how those are different from the water content of the air measured in grains, then showing those readouts on the iDash, then explaining in detail how they affect the air density in the Duramax system. The stock Borg-Warner variable turbo gets a lot of airtime — Banks accuses it of being "out to lunch" because he feels it's the weakest link on the engine. That turns into a turbo teardown and a deep explanation of performance pitfalls, such as when air pressure on the turbine begins to diverge from the boost pressure coming from the compressor. Banks says he can keep close tabs on where power's coming from, because the iDash monitors the horsepower contribution provided by the ambient air, the turbo, and the intercooler separately. The major changes so far are a stouter Precision 7675 turbo and TurboSmart wastegate (episode 5), a twin intake (episode 6), a custom liquid-cooled intercooler from a marine engine, a new GM oil cooler and synthetic oil (episode 10), and new injectors (episode 11).

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.