1983 Chevrolet C-10 Pickup 2wd Solid Nc Truck Custom Deluxe Factory Ac Truck on 2040-cars

Auto blog

800k car names trademarked globally, suddenly alphanumerics seem reasonable

What's in a name? This cliched phrase probably gets tossed out at every marketing meeting that happens when a new car gets its nomenclature. We know the answer, though: everything. The name of a car has all the potential to make or break it with fickle customers that are more conscious than ever about what their purchases say about them.
That's giving headaches to marketing folks across the automotive industry. "It's tough. In 1985 there were about 75,000 names trademarked in the automotive space. Today there are 800,000," Chevrolet's head of marketing, Russ Clark, told Automotive News. Infiniti's president, Johan de Nysschen, echoed Clark's sentiment, saying, "The truth of the matter is, across the world, there is hardly a name or a letter that hasn't already been claimed by one car manufacturer or another. You can go through the alphabet - A, B, C and so forth - and you will quickly see that almost all available letters are taken."
What has that left automakers to do? Get creative. In the case of Infiniti, it made the controversial move to bring all of its cars' names into a new scheme, classifying them as Q#0 for cars and QX#0 for SUVs and crossovers. So the Infiniti G, which was available as the G25 and G37, is now the Q50. The FX37 and FX50 are now the QX70.

'Killing a Duramax' Gale Banks YouTube series methodically tunes a diesel to death

Learning or perfecting a skill by watching YouTube videos is known as attending YouTube University. GM Authority picked up on one of the video site's more fascinating courses, hosted by Gale Banks; in a fair world, he should be referred to as Professor Banks when it comes to diesel engines and truck tuning. A few months after GM introduced the updated L5P 6.6-liter Duramax diesel V8 in the 2020 Chevrolet Silverado HD and GMC Sierra HD that ships with 454 horsepower and 910 pound-feet of torque, Banks decided he wanted to methodically tune the engine to death. The purpose of the resulting series, called "Killing a Duramax," is to push more power out of the engine in order to discover which parts break and when — or, as Banks puts it, force-feed the Duramax "until the crank hits the street and the heads hit the hood." With that knowledge, Banks can figure out all the weak points on his way to building what he calls a "Superturbo," that being a supercharged, twin-turbo race engine with more than 1,000 hp. What makes the series fascinating is Banks' knowledge, paired with the company's comprehensive iDash engine monitoring system that keeps tabs on a glut of parameters every step of the way. So for instance, you get Banks explaining the differences between inches of mercury and barometric pressure, how those are different from the water content of the air measured in grains, then showing those readouts on the iDash, then explaining in detail how they affect the air density in the Duramax system. The stock Borg-Warner variable turbo gets a lot of airtime — Banks accuses it of being "out to lunch" because he feels it's the weakest link on the engine. That turns into a turbo teardown and a deep explanation of performance pitfalls, such as when air pressure on the turbine begins to diverge from the boost pressure coming from the compressor. Banks says he can keep close tabs on where power's coming from, because the iDash monitors the horsepower contribution provided by the ambient air, the turbo, and the intercooler separately. The major changes so far are a stouter Precision 7675 turbo and TurboSmart wastegate (episode 5), a twin intake (episode 6), a custom liquid-cooled intercooler from a marine engine, a new GM oil cooler and synthetic oil (episode 10), and new injectors (episode 11).

GM says safety is a reason it's dropping Apple CarPlay, Android Auto

Update: GM sent us a statement as a follow-up to its original comments seen in this post: "We wanted to reach out to clarify that comments about GM's position on phone projection were misrepresented in previous articles and to reinforce our valued partnerships with Apple and Google and each company’s commitment to driver safety. GM's embedded infotainment strategy is driven by the benefits of having a system that allows for greater integration with the larger GM ecosystem and vehicles." The original story can be read in its entirety below.   General Motors announced its intention to remove Apple CarPlay and Android Auto functionality from its upcoming EVs earlier this year, and internet comments sections haven't been kind since. As the first of many EVs to follow – the 2024 Chevrolet Blazer EV – hits the market, GM is expanding on its initial explanations for dropping the tech. Motor Trend spoke with Tim Babbit, GMÂ’s head of product for infotainment, to learn more. Attributed to Babbit, from the story: “They have stability issues that manifest themselves as bad connections, poor rendering, slow responses, and dropped connections. And when CarPlay and Android Auto have issues, drivers pick up their phones again, taking their eyes off the road and totally defeating the purpose of these phone-mirroring programs. Solving those issues can sometimes be beyond the control of the automaker.” Babbit suggests that a world without Apple CarPlay or Android Auto will be a safer one, as folks wonÂ’t be looking to control their infotainment systems via their phones. However, Babbit also tells MT that this theory hasnÂ’t been tested in either the lab or the real world yet. Instead of using a navigation or music-playing app powered through your phone, upcoming GM EVs will use a Google-based infotainment system called “Ultifi” that runs a ton of integrated Google apps. Google Maps will be the native navigation app in the system; youÂ’ll be able to log in to Spotify or other apps to load your music up, and so on. The idea here is that youÂ’ll have all the same apps that were on your phone available but integrated within the infotainment system instead, and you'll be able to use voice controls to control every last bit of it with no need to reach for a phone. That sounds amenable in theory, but how consumers react to the removal of a feature that they know and love now is a risky gamble.