2010 Chevy Suburban Lt Nav Rear Cam Dual Dvd 8-pass 47k Texas Direct Auto on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Chevy Volt, Nissan Leaf go nearly the same all-electric miles a year

Range anxiety? What range anxiety? The concept is a foreign one to those driving Chevrolet Volt extended-range plug-ins, and as a result, that vehicle's all-electric driving miles are actually pretty close to that of the all-electric Nissan Leaf. Such were the findings of a study conducted by the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), which tracked about 8,700 cars during a three-year period, including a bunch of Volts, Leafs and Smart ED electric vehicles. In short, even though the Volt's all-electric range of about 38 miles is less than half that of the Leaf's, the Volts' collective all-electric driving was just six percent lower than the Leaf's (the next-generation Volt will be even more electro-generous, with a 50-mile range). The logic makes sense considering typical US driving habits, in which a vast majority of people commute less than 35 miles a day. Additionally, Volt drivers obviously have no fear of running out of electricity, so they were far more likely to max out on that range than some Leaf drivers. Overall, the average Leaf is driven about 15 percent less than the national average of about 11,300 miles a year for all vehicles, while Volts are driven about eight percent more. Of all those Volt miles, about 81 percent were in all-electric mode. Additionally, Volt drivers recharged about 1.5 times a day, while Leaf drivers recharged about once a day, and about 85 percent of that charging was at home. As for non-home charging, about 20 percent of the vehicles accounted for 75 percent of the station use, so folks are definitely creatures of habit. Check out the INL's 22-page report here for more interesting details. Related Video: Featured Gallery 2016 Chevrolet Volt: First Drive View 24 Photos Related Gallery 2016 Nissan Leaf View 30 Photos News Source: Idaho National Laboratory via Hybrid Cars Green Chevrolet Nissan Electric Hybrid extended-range plug-in

Race Recap: Rolex 24 at Daytona was fast and feisty

Let the record show that victory at the 2015 Rolex 24 at Daytona went to the No. 02 Chip Ganassi Racing with Felix Sabates Target/Ford EcoBoost Riley DP driven by Verizon IndyCar drivers Scott Dixon and Tony Kanaan and NASCAR drivers Jamie McMurray and Kyle Larson. The winner did 740 laps to cover 2,634.3 miles in 24 hours and 57.667 seconds. That's a statement to this year's pace in spite of 18 cautions, two more than last year: the Michael Shank Racing Ligier got pole with a time of 1:39.194, slower than last year's pole time of 1:38.270; however, the winning car last year only did 695 laps. The fight for top honors was shaved to a four-car battle over the first third of the event. The No. 02 Ganassi car took the lead on the first lap, swapping it well into the night with the No. 01 Ganassi car, the No. 10 Wayne Taylor Racing Corvette DP, and the defending champion No. 5 Action Express Corvette DP, all of them staying within about 20 seconds of one another. The Action Express car had a fuel connector come loose and lost three laps getting towed back to the pits to have it reattached, but was back in the lead 18 hours in. The No. 01 Ganassi car dropped out with recurring clutch problems 22 hours in, retiring not long after. A race-within-the-race is where the concluding action happened, a seven minute, 30-second dash from the end of the last caution to the checkered flag. During the penultimate pit stops with an hour to go, Dixon was in second place followed Jordan Taylor in the Wayne Taylor Racing DP into the pits but beat him out, taking the lead. The Action Express car was in third. In the last pit stops of the race, Dixon gained even more time, getting a four-second advantage over Taylor. Then a full-course caution came out twenty minutes before the finish when a Prototype Challenge car hit the wall and caught fire, bunching up the field. That closed the pits, but the Wayne Taylor Racing car had to pit during that yellow because of a miscalculation of driver time. No driver can be behind the wheel for more than four hours in a six-hour period but Jordan Taylor was going to go over, so he came in to swap out for brother Ricky. That cost the team any chance of second place, since they took an additional drive-through penalty for entering closed pits. When the track went green again, Sebastien Bourdais in the Action Express car stayed all over Dixon for the final five laps but couldn't get around him.

Consumer Reports criticizes small turbo engines for misleading performance, fuel economy claims [w/video]

Consumer Reports has taken aim at at small-displacement, forced-induction engines, saying the powerplants don't manage to deliver on automaker fuel economy claims. Manufacturers have long held that smaller, turbocharged engines pack all power of their larger displacement cousins with significantly better fuel economy, but the research organization says that despite scoring high EPA economy numbers, the engines are no better than conventional drivetrains in both categories. Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports, says the forced induction options "are often slower and less fuel efficient than larger four and six-cylinder engines."
Specifically, CR calls out the new Ford Fusion equipped with the automaker's Ecoboost 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine. The institute's researchers found the engine, which is a $795 option over the base 2.5-liter four-cylinder, fails to match competitors in acceleration and served up 25 miles per gallon in testing, putting the sedan dead last among other midsize options.
The Chevrolet Cruze, Hyundai Sonata Turbo and Ford Escape 2.0T all got dinged for the same troubles, though Consumer Reports has found the turbo 2.0-liter four-cylinder in the BMW 328i does deliver on its promises. You can check out the full press release below. You can also read the full study on the Consumer Reports site, or scroll down for a short video recap.