Absolutly Stunning Central Florida 1972 Chevrolet Corvette T-tops Matching Numb on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2016 Chevy Camaro performance figures released

If you want to make a car faster, there are two sure-fire ways to get the job done – add power and/or reduce weight. Chevy has done both for the 2016 Camaro, putting as much as 455 horsepower into its muscle coupe and shaving a few hundred pounds from every trim. That range-topping power comes courtesy of a 6.2-liter V8 engine, and it's enough grunt to push an automatic-equipped Camaro SS to 60 miles per hour in just 4.0 seconds flat (4.3 seconds with a manual) and down the quarter mile in 12.3 seconds at 116 mph (12.5 at 115 for the stick). Not coincidentally, those acceleration specs, at least on paper, put the V8-powered Camaro SS just above the Mustang GT on the muscle-car pecking order. When the road gets twisty, Chevy claims the Camaro SS can generate as much as .97 g on the skidpad. And, thanks in part to its Goodyear Eagle F1 summer tires, the SS can stop from 60 in as little as 117 feet. We look forward to finding out how nimble the new Camaro feels when compared to its primary competitors. <p>Your browser does not support iframes.</p> Moving down one notch to the 335-hp 3.6-liter V6, properly equipped 2016 Camaro coupes can hit 60 in as few as 5.1 seconds and cover the quarter in 13.5 at 103. Perhaps even more intriguingly, the 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder and its 275 horsepower (the only configuration quicker with a manual transmission, incidentally) can propel the Camaro to 60 in 5.4 seconds and through the 'ol 1320 in 14 seconds flat. That's seriously quick, but buyers comparing the Camaro to the Mustang will find that the EcoBoost 2.3-liter is a bit more powerful (310 hp and 320 lb-ft) and quicker (5.1 seconds to 60). Chevy is making lots of noise about the efforts its engineers went through to shed weight from the 2016 Camaro, going so far as to shave down suspension bolts so that no thread went unthreaded. The weight-saving obsession pays off – base Camaro models are down 390 pounds while the SS model drops 223 pounds over the 2015. The 2016 Camaro SS boasts a power-to-weight ratio of 8.1 lbs per pony, a 14-percent improvement over the last-gen. Even though weight is down, chassis stiffness is said to be up by 28 percent over the fifth-gen Camaro coupe. Also of note: The Camaro is now lighter than the Mustang across the board when comparing like-to-like configuration levels. The 2016 Chevy Camaro starts at $26,695 (including $995 for destination).

Chevy Bolt wins 2017 Green Car of the Year

We knew that a plug-in vehicle was going to win the 2017 Green Car of the Year award this year, given that all five finalists have a way to charge up. And when Ron Cogan, the editor and publisher of Green Car Journal, announced the winner – the 2017 Chevy Bolt EV – he said that the car itself represents one of those times in the auto industry when everything is about to change. Similar to the invention of the starter motor, things are about to get different. For now, though, the fact that the Bolt EV won an award sounds like the same old thing all over again. Just this week, it was named Motor Trends Car of the Year and to the Car And Driver Top 10 list. The other four finalists for Green Car of the Year included the Toyota Prius Prime, the Chrysler Pacifica, the Kia Optima (including hybrid and plug-in hybrid models) and the BMW 330e iPerformance. Last year, the winner was the 2016 Chevy Volt. Did Green Car Journal make the right selection this year? See the award ceremony below.

General Motors and EVs: No stranger to firsts, but where's the leadership?

2015 is already shaping up to be the year of "affordable, 200-mile EV" concepts. Nissan and Tesla have each been talking about them for some time, the latter promising to unveil its Model 3 at the North American International Auto Show in January before balking when the time came. Instead, Chevrolet beat them all by unveiling the Bolt concept at the same event, followed shortly thereafter with suggestions of a 2016 launch – potentially offering the first nationwide EV with anything close to that range. It was the ballsiest EV-related move General Motors has made in a quarter century. But will it remain so? Exactly 25 years before the Bolt rolled up onto the turntable, then-Chairman Roger Smith unveiled GM's last ground-up EV concept, the even-more-unfortunately-named Impact, at the Los Angeles Auto Show in January 1990. A few months later, he surprised most of his colleagues by announcing its intended production in honor of Earth Day. It was the first modern foray into electric vehicles for the US by any automaker, one that was rewarded by the State of California with what is now known as the Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate. The program not only forced other automakers into competing with Roger's pet project, but inspired all of them to fight it like small children against bedtime. Some years later, the drivers themselves weighed in, with a biting documentary about that obstinance and the leadership it cost both GM and the country. Within months, GM was first back into the fray of plug-in vehicles. Many criticized the company for starting with a PHEV rather than jump straight back into EVs. The choice wasn't totally out of the blue – even EV1 was meant to be followed by a PHEV. And especially on the heels of Who Killed the Electric Car?, some skittishness was understandable: even a successful EV would invite a "we told you so" public reaction, underscoring their mistake in ending the EV1 program. If a new EV didn't do well, they'd be convicted in the public eye as serial killers. All while seeking a federal bailout. For all the flak, the resulting Chevy Volt was and is a better car than GM has ever gotten credit for. But the company seemed to grow weary of having to overcome its varied past, and while the current owners remain happy, much of the stakeholder and community engagement that so effectively built early goodwill and sales growth faded not long after launch. Marketing has been spotty in both consistency and effectiveness.