1983 Chevrolet Caprice on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Drivers buy new $300K McLaren 720S, 2019 Chevy Corvette, and wreck 'em

Two high-powered, high-priced sports cars, wrecked in their infancies. No doubt they were fun while they lasted. In Great Falls, Va., a tony suburb of Washington, D.C., that hugs the Potomac River, someone was out enjoying driving the McLaren 720S they had purchased only the day before on a leafy, two-lane road. Then, horror: In an instant, the car hit a tree, mangled and destroyed "because of speed," according to the Fairfax County Police Department. Purchased Friday. Totaled Saturday. This McLaren 720S, costing around $300,000, was destroyed today in Great Falls because of speed. The driver was taken to the hospital with thankfully only non-life threatening injuries. A reminder to slow down, or it could cost you. pic.twitter.com/XhC3LKRY1t — Fairfax County Police (@FairfaxCountyPD) July 14, 2018 Then on salvage auction site Copart, a brand-new orange 2019 Chevrolet Corvette Grand Sport lies in a warehouse in Lincoln, Neb., its front left corner crushed, wheel askew. It had just 15 miles on the odometer. We know nothing of the backstory, except for the obvious front-end damage and secondary damage to the undercarriage. The rear end and 6.2-liter V8 engine, which makes 460 horsepower and 465 pound-feet of torque, look OK. The most current bid as this was published was just north of $9,000. It's tempting in both cases to assign the blame to over-eager drivers who weren't quite yet able to corral all that power. In the case of the McLaren, the supercar makes 710 horsepower and 568 pound-feet of torque from its quad-cam, twin-turbo 4.0-liter V8. It goes from 0-62 miles per hour in 2.9 seconds and boasts a top speed of 212 mph. We're not saying the unidentified driver was a newbie, but this car is definitely not for newbies. Police write that the incident is "A reminder to slow down, or it could cost you." As in, $300,000. Or at least the depreciation for driving it off the lot. Related Video:

Consumer Reports declares most and least loved cars [w/video]

Consumer Reports is crunching the numbers from its annual owner-satisfaction survey, and part of that process is finding out how attached drivers are to their cars. CR simply asks readers of models up to three years old if they would buy the same vehicle again in light of their entire ownership experience, and tallies the results. After looking at the responses for about 350,000 vehicles, it turns out that people really love a certain California-built, electrically powered luxury sedan. That's right, this year's the overall winner was the Tesla Model S with a whopping 98 percent of owners saying they would purchase another one (the Model S also won this award last year, with 99 percent satisfaction). The Chevrolet Corvette Stingray came in a close second with 95 percent of drivers hoping to park another one in their garage. A few models weren't quite so favored, though. The Nissan Versa Sedan was the least loved model among its owners; a mere 42 percent said that they would purchase another. The aging Jeep Compass didn't do much better, with just 43 percent of drivers willing to buy the softroader again. On average, about 70 percent of owners say they would buy their car again, and only four cars ranked below 50 percent in CR's findings. Check out the video above to see some of the winners and losers in a few of CR's categories. If you're a subscriber, you can check out the full list on its website. Related Gallery Consumer Reports Most Loved Cars 2014 Related Gallery Consumer Reports Least Loved Cars 2014 News Source: Consumer Reports - sub. req., Consumer Reports via YouTube Chevrolet Ford Mazda Mercedes-Benz Porsche Subaru Tesla Ownership Videos car ownership

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.