1962 Chevrolet Impala Base Hardtop 2-door 4.6l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

China's rise, global restructuring wither GM's Korea division

An article in the Daily Kanban suggests the sun is setting on GM Korea, and it could already be well into dusk. GM Korea came about when General Motors, along with co-investors SAIC and Suzuki, bought Daewoo Motors from parent company Daewoo Group in 2001; it had a previous tie-up with GM, a joint venture that ended in 1992, although Daewoo cars were based on GM cars until 1996. Over the decade following the purchase, it became such an important part of operations that it was renamed GM Korea in 2011, "to reflect its heightened status in [the] global operations of GM." Just two years later, the printed rumors were that the subsidiary responsible for a fifth of Chevrolet's global production could be shutting down. The division's sales were down almost 21 percent through November of last year, counting domestic South Korean sales, exports, and CKD – Complete Knock Down – products. That makes the labor strife, already an issue for four years, even more acute, reports say the subsidiary will lose $36 million a year if it can't get the job and wage cuts it wants, and government concessions can't make up for the losses. And it gets worse, so head over to Daily Kanban to read the rest of the story.

GM recalling 316k vehicles due to headlamp faults

General Motors has announced a recall covering 316,357 vehicles globally, due to the possibility of sporadic or permanent failure of the low-beam headlamps. 273,182 of these vehicles are in the United States, while the remaining affected units are in Canada, Mexico, and elsewhere. This recall includes the 2006-09 Buick LaCrosse (pictured above), 2006-07 Chevy TrailBlazer and TrailBlazer EXT, 2006-07 GMC Envoy and 2006 GMC Envoy XL, 2006-07 Buick Rainier, 2006-08 Saab 9-7X, and 2006-08 Isuzu Ascender. In an email sent to Autoblog, General Motors explains that if the headlamp driver modules are not functioning correctly, "the low-beam headlamps and daytime running lamps could intermittently or permanently fail to illuminate." GM states that this problem does not affect things like high-beams, turn signals, marker lamps, or foglamps. As of this writing, GM states it "has not been able to confirm whether the HDMs in these vehicles caused any vehicle accidents." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been notified, but the recall has not yet posted to the government agency's website. Scroll down to read the full details in GM's email. General Motors is recalling 273,182 Buick LaCrosse sedans and Chevrolet, GMC, Buick, Saab and Isuzu midsize SUVs in the U.S. for possible intermittent or permanent loss of low beam headlamps. Affected models are: 2006-2009 Buick LaCrosse sedans; 2006-2007 Chevrolet TrailBlazer and 2006 TrailBlazer EXT; 2006-2007 GMC Envoy and 2006 Envoy XL; 2006-2007 Buick Rainier; 2006-2008 Saab 9-7X and 2006-2008 Isuzu Ascender midsize SUVs. If the headlamp driver modules is not operating correctly, the low-beam headlamps and daytime running lamps could intermittently or permanently fail to illuminate. This condition does not affect the high-beam headlamps, marker lamps, turn signals, or fog lamps. GM has not been able to confirm whether the HDMs in these vehicles caused any vehicle accidents. The total population, including the U.S., Canada, Mexico and exports from North America is 316,357. The NHTSA was sent the Part 573 information for this recall on November 25. It has not yet posted to the NHTSA website. Featured Gallery 2008 Buick LaCrosse CXS News Source: General Motors Recalls Buick Chevrolet GM GMC Isuzu Saab SUV Sedan chevy trailblazer buick rainier isuzu ascender

2016 Chevy Volt ads strike frustrating, yet familiar, chord

Sometimes, it's hard to let go. In the six years that GM has been advertising and selling the Chevy Volt, one dominant message is that the car is an EV without any range anxiety. On the one hand, this is a positive thing: our car does something that other electric vehicles don't. Of course, there's another, more reasonable take on the message that EVs only equal limited range: don't promote this viewpoint if you ever plan on selling a pure EV. But, of course, this is exactly what GM is doing with a new ad for the 2016 Chevy Volt. Called Elevator, the spot (watch it above) compares driving an all-electric car with riding in an elevator getting stuck. Your Nissan Leaf might run out of electricity, the ad says, and that would be as uncomfortable as being trapped between floors. The main problem, of course, is that Chevy also offers the Spark EV and is getting ready to sell the Bolt EV. Does the company think that everyone will forget these anti-EV commercials when it come time to shop for a Bolt? Even worse, does GM think we've forgotten the Anthem ad for the Volt back in 2010? Apparently, so. Elevator isn't the only ad for the 2016 Volt that GM debuted today. The other, called Time Capsule (below), takes a swipe at the Toyota Prius. Trouble is, there are two easy ways to dismiss this ad as well. First, and most obviously, if GM is against using old technology, then why does it continue to shove a 100-year-old fossil fuel engine into almost every car it builds? Second, attacking the Prius for using 15-year-old tech – when said tech is still able to mop the floor with any hybrid from GM in the fuel economy race - is more like an admission of defeat than anything to be proud of. "Hey look, the Prius uses technology from the '90s," GM says. To which the observant viewer will ask, "Well, then why can't you build a 50-mile-per-gallon hybrid, GM?" It's also worth noting that Chevy has been on a misguided advertising streak as of late. We bashed their ads that suggested its Silverado is better than the F-150 because it uses steel instead of aluminum, too, especially since those commercials used shark cages and stupid superhero costumes in an attempt to make a point. Chevy, stop assuming we're all idiots. Please. Now, the 2016 Volt is a great car and I know that GM can make a darn good Volt ad (like this one), so seeing the company shoot solid fuel-efficient technologies in the back (again and again) is just frustrating.