2005 Chevrolet Equinox Lt Sport Utility 4-door 3.4l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM's MPG overstatement could affect 2 million vehicles

Late last week, GM admitted that three of its large SUVs fuel economy window stickers did not match their actual efficiency ratings, and so the vehicles couldn't be sold. The stickers on the 2016 Chevy Traverse, GMC Acadia, and Buick Enclave said their ratings were one to two miles per gallon better than they should have been. Officially, the number of affected vehicles sits at about 60,000. But Consumer Reports makes a good point: what's up with all of the previous model year SUVs that are basically the same vehicle? To wit: the 2016 model year vehicles are not substantially different than the 2015 or the 2014, or even going all the way back to 2007. On the EPA's fuel economy website, all of these older models will "have better stated fuel economy numbers than the new vehicles in GM's dealerships," Consumer Reports noted. CR's best point, and the one that makes the 60,000 number potentially grow to 2 million if all of the vehicles built on this platform are affected, is that "[i]t seems unlikely that the company would change the powertrain on these carryover models so late in their model cycles in a way that would cause a dramatic, negative impact on fuel economy." GM says that earlier model year SUVs are not affected and the EPA did not respond to CR's question about the potential for more discrepancies. We've seen automakers reverse course before, so if GM has to come out with a mea culpa soon, don't be surprised. GM is rushing corrected stickers to dealers so that the SUVs can be sold again, but a fix for the already-sold vehicles could be trickier to solve. Related Video: Related Gallery 2013 GMC Acadia View 16 Photos News Source: Consumer Reports Government/Legal Green Buick Chevrolet GMC Fuel Efficiency mpg gmc acadia chevy traverse

2016 Chevrolet Camaro First Drive [w/video]

The Autoblog gang was downright stoked to learn the 2016 Chevy Camaro was next on our test-car docket. Then we found out it was the V6 model. Buzzkill. We were hoping for the snorting V8, or at least the spunky new turbo four-cylinder. The V6? Meh. We've been driving V6 Camaros for, like, six years. It's what you buy if you can't afford anything better, or so say horsepower snobs as they wrinkle their noses and cut their coffee with 93 octane. But after a week with the six-pot Camaro, we'll admit it: we were wrong. The all-new 3.6-liter V6 is strong, sounds good, and is damn fun to drive. Its 335 horsepower and 284 pound-feet of torque appear modest by modern standards, but they power the Camaro to 60 miles per hour in 5.1 seconds with the automatic, or in the case of our manual-equipped test car, 5.2 seconds. That's almost half a second quicker than the new turbo four-cylinder model. Yes, it has the same displacement as the old V6. No, it's not the same engine. Upon closer inspection, the V6's potency shouldn't come as a surprise. This engine is from General Motors' newest family of dual-overhead cam powerplants that launched in the Cadillac CTS and ATS. Yes, it has the same displacement as the old V6. No, it's not the same engine. Don't be fooled, and don't underestimate it at stoplights. The strapping V6 is unsuspectingly good, but it's just one of many improvements for the sixth-generation Camaro. Chevy's coupe is lighter, faster, and more modern looking inside and out. It starts with a rear-wheel-drive chassis donated from the Cadillac ATS, though about 70 percent of the components are unique to the Camaro. The 2016 model is about two inches shorter in length (thanks to a shorter wheelbase) and about an inch has been removed from height and width compared to the 2015 model. These lighter underpinnings jumpstarted the Camaro's weight-loss plan, and thanks to extensive use of aluminum, the V6 with the new eight-speed automatic transmission weighs 3,435 pounds – 294 less than its predecessor (the manual-transmission V6 Camaro weighs 3,448 pounds). The V8, meanwhile, sheds 223 pounds. One by one, these elements would merely enhance how the Camaro drives, but taken collectively, they invigorate the new model. It feels much more confident and agile in all circumstances. Put simply, it's a sportier car. View 32 Photos Grab second, let the revs build, and the dual-mode exhaust changes its tune from a low buzz to a rumble, then a growl.

We really want to use an eCrate to restomod an old GM car. Here's what we'd build

You hopefully saw the news today of GM's introduction of its Connect and Cruise eCrate motor and battery package, which effectively makes the Bolt's electric motor, battery pack and myriad other elements available to, ah, bolt into a different vehicle. It's the same concept as installing a gasoline-powered crate motor into a classic car, but with electricity and stuff.  This, of course, got us thinking about what we'd stuff the eCrate into. Before we got too ahead of ourselves, however, we discovered that the eCrate battery pack is literally the Bolt EV pack in not only capacity but size and shape. In other words, you need to have enough space in the vehicle to place and/or stuff roughly 60% of a Chevy Bolt's length. It's not a big car, but that's still an awful lot of real estate. There's a reason GM chose to simply plop the pack into the bed and cargo area of old full-size SUVs. Well that, and having a rear suspension beefy enough to handle about 1,000 pounds of batteries.  So after that buzz kill, we still wanted to peruse the GM back catalog for classics we'd love to see transformed into an electric restomod that might be able to swallow all that battery ... maybe ... possibly ... whatever, saws and blow torches exist for a reason.  1971 Buick Riviera Consumer Editor Jeremy Korzeniewski: If you’re going to build an electric conversion, why not do it with style? ThatÂ’s why IÂ’m choosing a 1971-1973 Buick Riviera. You know, the one with the big glass boat-tail rear end that ends in a pointy V. Being a rather large vehicle with a big sloping fastback shape, IÂ’m hoping thereÂ’s enough room in the trunk and back seat to pack in the requisite battery pack. That would likely require cutting away some of the metal bulkhead that supports the rear seatback, but not so much that a wee bit of structural bracing couldnÂ’t shore things up. The big 455-cubic-inch Buick V8 up front will obviously have to go. Remember, this was the 1970s, so despite all that displacement, the Riviera only had around 250 horsepower (depending on the year and the trim level). So the electric motorÂ’s 200 horsepower and 266 pound-feet of torque ought to work as an acceptable replacement.   1982 Chevrolet S10 Associate Editor Byron Hurd: OK, so the name "E-10" is already taken by a completely different truck, but let's not let labels get in the way of a fun idea.