2003 Monte Carlo Ss /custom Ghost Flames Over Black on 2040-cars

Auto blog

1983 Motorweek showdown pits Porsche 928S vs. Chevy Camaro Z28

Last month, Motor Trend threw the Camaro Z/28 and Porsche 911 GT3 into the bear pit and let them fight it out. Way back in 1983, MotorWeek had the same idea, comparing the Camaro Z/28 to the Porsche 928S. At the time, the Camaro was America's best selling sports coupe, the 928S was Porsche's top-of-the-line model that also had the highest top speed of any car sold here. And the price differential was even more stark then: $13,600 for the Camaro, $45,000 for the Porsche. That put the Z/28's cast-iron, 5.0-liter V8 with 190 horsepower and 240 pound-feet of torque against the all-aluminum 4.7-liter V8 with 234 hp and 263 lb-ft in the 928S. Even with that and the Camaro being 14 inches longer than the Porsche, the American was a surprising 40 pounds lighter than the German. The show took them to Summit Point Raceway in West Virginia to see how close a relative performance bargain could hang with a the German GT. Both had five-speed manual transmissions, but the high-speed corners and tight sections of Summit Point would test other handling variables, including the "bone-rattling" Camaro's solid rear axle and disc and drum brake setup vis-a-vis the four-wheel disc brakes and independent suspension on the "firm-but-smooth" Porsche. Paradoxically, the larger disparity 22 years ago resulted in a closer result. Check out the video to see how the Summit was won. News Source: MotorWeek via YouTube Chevrolet Porsche Coupe Luxury Performance Classics Videos chevy camaro z28 porsche 928 retro review

A Chevy Camaro hybrid? That's what EcoCAR3 could bring

Figuring out a way for a hybrid powertrain to co-exist with the performance expectations of a classic American muscle car is a challenge that could vex that most experienced of automotive engineers. It's a challenge, in fact, being handed to a bunch of college students. Over the next four years, students from 16 North American colleges and universities will attempt to wring fuel efficiency from a 2016 Chevy Camaro as part of EcoCAR3, an advanced-vehicle technology competition sponsored by the Department of Energy, General Motors and others. They'll be attempting to use hybrid or plug-in hybrid technology while not sacrificing the performance of the Camaro, which was selected in part because the current model achieves just 17 miles per gallon in city driving and 28 MPGs on the highway, per EPA numbers. Students will get the latest version of the vehicle to work on, one that is expected to be unveiled next month on Belle Isle in Detroit. "If we still want to produce V8 Camaros, we're going to have to look at alternative methods of propulsion," said Al Oppenheiser, the chief engineer on the Camaro. "So the ideas that these college teams come up with could very easily be adapted to a car like the Camaro." Unlike similar competitions that reward fuel efficiency in vehicles, EcoCAR seeks those gains while emphasizing cost and consumer acceptance of these vehicles. The cars shouldn't look like experiments; they should look like everyday vehicles on the road. Previous competitions have allowed the teams to use whatever powertrain they desired. This time, EcoCAR officials designed the competition to concentrate on hybrid, hybrid-electric and diesel options. Competitors won't have the option of using hydrogen fuel cells as they have in the past. Last year, a team from Colorado State built a vehicle that contained both hydrogen and electric power sources. This year's limit is a curious choice, as some automakers such as Toyota have placed heavy bets on fuel cells in recent years. General Motors also runs a fuel-cell program. With the focus on cost and practicality, however, the program officials wanted to narrow the framework of the contest. "We always have some good decisions on what to make within the scope or out of scope," said Jim Kolhoff, global director of software engineering for General Motors.

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.