2005 Chevy Silverado 2500hd 6.6 Duramax Diesel 4x4 Lt Leather Sunroof Crew on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM veteran Bryan Nesbitt tapped to head Buick design

General Motors styling veteran Bryan Nesbitt (pictured above) took over a new role on Monday as executive director of global Buick design and global architectures. Andrew Smith, who previously did that job and also coordinated the look for Cadillac, has remained in charge of the pen at Caddy with this shift. Nesbitt rose to prominence when he designed the Chrysler PT Cruiser, according to Automotive News. He joined GM in 2001 and has been there ever since in multiple high-level roles. In 2007, he was appointed vice president of design for North America and was later briefly general manager of Cadillac in 2009-2010. Nesbitt took over as the vice president of GM's international operations design in China in 2011. This shuffle also moves Ken Parkinson, currently styling boss for Chevrolet trucks, to China as design vice president there. In addition, John Cafaro becomes the person in charge of the look for Chevy globally, rather than previously splitting that role between cars and trucks with Parkinson. GM Global Design Leadership Changes – effective June 1, 2015. Bryan Nesbitt, Design Vice President, GM China will repatriate to North America and assume the position of Executive Director, Global Buick and Global Architectures. He will be located in Warren, MI. Bryan will be the design Champion for Buick in the US and China. Ken Parkinson, Executive Director, Global Chevrolet Trucks and Global Architecture will assume the position of Design Vice President, GM China. He will be based in Shanghai, China. Andrew Smith, Executive Director, Global Cadillac and Buick Design will assume the position of Executive Director, Global Cadillac. He will continue to be the design Champion for the Cadillac brand. In addition, he will continue to lead the Global Color & Trim team. He will be based in Warren, Michigan. John Cafaro, Executive Director, Global Chevrolet Cars will assume the position of Executive Director, Global Chevrolet. He will be the design Champion for Chevrolet. In addition, John will lead the exterior components and accessories team. He will continue to be based in Warren, MI. The roles and responsibilities of Helen Emsley, Mark Adams, Carlos Barba, Clay Dean, Michael Simcoe, and Teckla Rhoades remain the same. Related Video: The video meant to be presented here is no longer available. Sorry for the inconvenience.

GM reintroduces Tripower name in the worst way possible

The story of General Motors' use of the Tripower moniker begins way back in 1957, when Semon E. "Bunkie" Knudsen, then General Manager of GM's Pontiac division, directed his engineers to inject more performance into his brand's line of V8-powered automobiles. Fuel injection was an option, but hot rodders flocked instead to Tri-Power (marketed way back when with a hyphen), which grafted a trio of two-barrel Rochester carburetors onto a single intake manifold. A legend was born. And that legend was born of performance. At idle and when full power wasn't required, Pontiac's Tri-Power system used just the middle carburetor, which helped make the setup easier to tune. Depending on the year and model, either a vacuum system or a mechanical linkage opened up the two outer carbs, thereby switching from two barrels to six, and allowing the engine to take in more fuel and air. And it was an easy marketing win – six barrels is better than four barrels, right? Because performance! So, when news filtered in that GM has resurrected the Tripower name, those of us who grew up attending classic car shows and wrenching on old Pontiacs did a double-take. And then we all collectively sighed. Turns out that today's Tripower refers to a trio of fuel-saving measures that include cylinder deactivation, active thermal management, and intake valve lift control, according to Automotive News. And, at least for now, it applies to GM's line of fullsize trucks powered by a 2.7-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine. We're all for saving fuel whenever possible. And we have zero say in how any automaker chooses to market its products and technologies. But, we'll offer our two cents anyway: Relaunching a storied name from the past is fine. Relaunching a storied name from the past while completely overlooking the reasons the name got famous in the first place is only going to irritate the people who remember the name in the first place. Couldn't they just call this new technology package something else? Related Video: News Source: Automotive NewsImage Credit: Getty Green Marketing/Advertising Chevrolet GM Pontiac Automotive History Truck chevrolet silverado

Here’s how 20 popular EVs fared in cold-weather testing in Norway

Electric vehicles are known to suffer diminished performance in cold weather, but some do a better job than others hanging onto their range capacity while cabin heaters and frigid outdoor temperatures sap power from their batteries. Recently, the Norwegian Automobile Federation put the 20 of the best-selling battery-electric vehicles in the country to the test, to see not only how winter weather affected their range but also their charging times. The major findings: On average, electric vehicles lost 18.5% of their official driving range as determined by the European WLTP cycle. Electric vehicles also charge more slowly in cold temperatures. And interestingly, the researchers learned that EVs don’t simply shut down when they lose power but instead deliver a series of warnings to the driver, with driving comfort and speed levels maintained until the very last few miles. Because itÂ’s Norway, the worldÂ’s top market for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles by market share, the test included many EVs that arenÂ’t available here in the U.S. But there are many familiar faces, among them the Nissan Leaf, Tesla Models S, 3 and X, Hyundai Kona (known here as the Kona Electric) and Ioniq, and Audi E-Tron. In terms of range, the top-performing EV was the Hyundai Kona, which lost only 9% of its official range, which the WTLP rated at 449 kilometers, or 279 miles, compared to its EPA-rated range of 258 miles on a full charge. It delivered 405 km, just enough to nudge it ahead of the Tesla Model 3, which returned 404 km. Other top performers included the Audi E-Tron, in both its 50 Quattro (13% lower range) and higher-powered 55 Quattro (14% lower) guises; the Hyundai Ioniq (10% lower); and Volkswagen e-Golf (11% lower). At 610 km (379 miles) the Tesla Model S has the longest WLTP range of all models tested and went the furthest, but still lost 23% of its range, though it also encountered energy-sapping heavy snow at the end of its test, when many cars had dropped out. The Model 3 lost 28% of its range. The worst performer? That goes to the Opel Ampera-e, better known stateside as the Chevrolet Bolt. It traveled 297 km (about 184 miles) in the test, which was nearly 30% lower than its stated WLTP range. We should also note that Opel, now owned by Groupe PSA, is phasing the car out in Europe and that Chevy recently upgraded the Bolt here in the U.S.