1968 Impala Convertible 1 Owner 327 Powerglide 40,608 Original Miles! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Junkyard Gem: 1985 Chevrolet Sprint

For in the 1985 model year, General Motors began selling Chevrolet-badged Suzuki Cultus hatchbacks in California. Sales of the cheap three-cylinder econobox in the rest of North America followed soon after (with the Canadian version known as the Pontiac Firefly), and did pretty well considering the crash in gasoline prices during the middle 1980s. Starting in 1988, the facelifted Sprint became the Geo (and, later on, Chevrolet) Metro. Here's one of the very first Cultuses sold on our shores, found in a San Francisco Bay Area car graveyard. Amazingly, the primitive rear-wheel-drive Chevrolet Chevette remained available all the way through 1987, competing with the thriftier front-wheel-drive Sprint in the same showrooms. For 1988, Pontiac started selling a rebadged Daewoo LeMans, so the Sprint/Metro never lacked for intra-corporate competition. Inside, you'll find the same stuff most mid-1980s Japanese econoboxes got: tough cloth upholstery and long-wearing hard plastics. Suzuki quality in 1985 wasn't quite up to Honda or Toyota levels, but you weren't paying Honda or Toyota prices for the Sprint. MSRP on this car started at $4,949, or about $12,000 in 2020 dollars. The cheapest possible 1985 Chevette cost $5,340, while a new no-frills Ford Escort would set you back $5,620. Subaru, however, could have put you in a punitively unappointed base-model Leone hatchback for just 40 bucks more than the Sprint that year. I think I'd have sprung the extra for a $5,348 Toyota Tercel, a $5,195 Mazda GLC, or— best cheap-commuter deal of all that year— the $5,399 Honda Civic 1300 hatchback. I was 19 years old and driving a Competition Orange 1968 Mercury Cyclone that year, and I recall feeling pity for Chevy Sprint drivers, new-car smell or not. Still, these weren't bad cars for the price, though a Sprint with an automatic transmission was a real character-builder. Got three cylinders and uses 'em all! 48 horsepower from this hemi-headed SOHC 1-liter. The Turbo Sprint — yes, such a car existed — had a howling 70 horsepower. The hood-latch release is a rectangular button that resembles a badge. 1985 Chevy Sprint Commercial The highest-mileage, lowest-priced car you can buy. 1985 holden barina commercial The Australian-market version was the Holden Barina, and the TV ads featured the Road Runner. 1983 SUZUKI CULTUS Ad In its homeland, this car got screaming guitars and a drive through New York City for its TV commercials.

Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat vs. Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 in latest Head 2 Head

"Olympian" is one of the terms we use to signify the greatest height, the seat of the gods. Yet Mt. Olympus is the second-highest peak in the Balkans ranges, overshadowed by the crest at Musala in Bulgaria's Rila mountains. Both great heights, but one is a little higher. That's how we get the Olympian Chevy Camaro ZL1 pitched at the Musalic Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat in Motor Trend's latest episode of Head 2 Head. The side-by-side spec sheet is filled with farcical numbers. For the ZL1, that's a 6.2-liter V8 with 580 horsepower, 556 pound-feet of torque, a 4,051-pound curb weight, 0-to-60 miles per hour in 3.9 seconds, a quarter-mile time of 12.2 seconds and a base price of just $57,800. Opposing that, the Hellcat wrings out its 6.2-liter V8 for 707 hp, 650 lb-ft of torque, weighs 4,449 pounds, does the quarter in 11.7 seconds and has a base price of just $60,990. Except in the case of the Hellcat, when Motor Trend put it on the dyno the machine spit out a reading of 672 hp and 606 lb-ft at the wheels. If there's a 10-percent driveline loss through those beefed-up internals and heavy-duty eight-speed transmission, that means the Hellcat is actually rated at about 750 horsepower and 700 lb-ft. But once they get put on a closed-off strip of coast road in Northern California, there are only a few strands of hair between their respective performances. That's not the case for they sensations provide; host Jonny Lieberman calls one of them, "One of the most incredible cars ever made," and says, "It changes everything." Watch the video above to see who got the verdict and how. Related Video:

Detroit 3 to implement delayed unified towing standards for 2015

Car buyers have a responsibility to be well-informed consumers. That's not always a very simple task, but some guidelines are self-evident. If you live in a very snowy climate, you generally know a Ford Mustang or Chevrolet Camaro might not be as viable a vehicle choice as an all-wheel drive Explorer or Traverse, for example. If you want a fuel-efficient car, it's generally a good idea to know the difference between a diesel and a hybrid. But what if it's kind of tough to be an informed consumer? What if the information you need is more difficult to come by, or worse, based on different standards for each vehicle? Well, in that case, you might be a truck shopper. For years, customers of light-duty pickups have had to suffer through different ratings of towing capacities for each brand. For 2015 model year trucks, though, that will no longer be a problem. According to Automotive News, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler Group have announced that starting with next year's models, a common standard will be used to measure towing capacity. The Detroit Three will join Toyota, which adopted the Society of Automotive Engineers' so-called SAE J2807 standards way back in 2011. The standard was originally supposed to be in place for MY2013, but concerns that it would lower the overall stated capacity for trucks led Detroit automakers to pass. Ford originally passed, claiming it'd wait until its new F-150 was launched to adopt the new standards, leading GM and Ram to follow suit. Nissan, meanwhile, has said it will adopt the new standards as its vehicles are updated, meaning the company's next-generation Titan should adhere to the same tow ratings as its competitors. While the adoption of SAE J2807 will be helpful for light-duty customers, those interested in bigger trucks will still be left with differing standards. There is no sign of the new tow standards being adopted for the heavy-duty market.