1966 Chevelle Malibu, 283 Ci With Muncie 4 Speed, Orange, Very Solid Car on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM recalls Colorado, Canyon, and Malibu for airbag problem

The Basics: General Motors will recall and issue a stop sale on 1,740 total examples of the 2016 Chevrolet Colorado, Malibu, and GMC Canyon. This includes 1,579 units in the US and 161 in Canada. The Problem: The second stage of the driver front airbag inflator might not be present. If this happens, the airbag won't fill as quickly as it should in a high-speed crash, which could increase the risk of injury, according to Reuters. This is not related in any way to Takata's inflator problems, and these parts come from a different supplier. Injuries/Deaths: None reported. The Fix: GM will replace the vehicles' airbag assemblies. If You Own One: GM spokesperson Tom Wilkinson told Autoblog he wasn't specifically sure when recall repairs would begin but said it would be "shortly." He expects the fixes to happen "quickly" because of the small number of affected vehicles, and many of them are either in transport or already in dealer stock. More Information: GM recalled the 2015 Canyon and Colorado in 2014 for a completely separate airbag issue. In that case, a manufacturing error improperly wired the connectors. Related Video: GM Statement GM is recalling 1,579 MY 2016 Chevrolet Colorado, GMC Canyon and Chevrolet Malibu vehicles in the United States and 161 in Canada to replace driver-side front airbags. The second stage of the airbag may not deploy properly in certain high-speed crashes. During a routine quality inspection, it was determined that a component required for a second-stage/high-output deployment was not loaded during the inflator build. Dealers will replace the driver-side front airbag assembly. There have been no reports of crashes or injuries related to this issue. This issue is unrelated to the ongoing Takata recalls.

Impala SS vs. Marauder: Recalling Detroit’s muscle sedans 

Impala SS vs. Marauder — it was comparo that only really happened in theory. ChevyÂ’s muscle sedan ran from 1994-96, while MercuryÂ’s answer arrived in 2003 and only lasted until 2004. TheyÂ’re linked inextricably, as there were few options for powerful American sedans during that milquetoast period for enthusiasts. The debate was reignited recently among Autoblog editors when a pristine 1996 Chevy Impala SS with just 2,173 miles on the odometer hit the market on Bring a Trailer. Most of the staff favored the Impala for its sinister looks and said that it lived up to its billing as a legit muscle car. Nearly two-thirds of you agree. We ran an unscientific Twitter poll that generated 851 votes, 63.9 percent of which backed the Impala. Muscle sedans, take your pick: — Greg Migliore (@GregMigliore) April 14, 2020 Then and now enthusiasts felt the Impala was a more complete execution with guts. The Marauder, despite coming along later, felt more hacked together, according to prevailing sentiments. Why? On purpose and on paper theyÂ’re similar. The ImpalaÂ’s 5.7-liter LT1 V8 making 260 horsepower and 330 pound-feet of torque was impressive for a two-ton sedan in the mid-Â’90s. The Marauder was actually more powerful — its 4.6-liter V8 was rated at 302 hp and 318 lb-ft. The ImpalaÂ’s engine was also used in the C4 Corvette. The MarauderÂ’s mill was shared with the Mustang Mach 1. You can see why they resonated so deeply with Boomers longing for a bygone era and also captured the attention of coming-of-age Gen Xers. Car and DriverÂ’s staff gave the Marauder a lukewarm review back in ‘03, citing its solid handling and features, yet knocking the sedan for being slow off the line. In a Hemmings article appropriately called “Autopsy” from 2004, the ImpalaÂ’s stronger low-end torque and smooth shifting transmission earned praise, separating it from the more sluggish Mercury. All of this was captured in the carsÂ’ acceleration times, highlighting metrically the differences in their character. The Impala hit 60 miles per hour in 6.5 seconds, while the Marauder was a half-second slower, according to C/D testing. Other sites have them closer together, which reinforces the premise it really was the little things that separated these muscle cars. Both made the most of their genetics, riding on ancient platforms (FordÂ’s Panther and General MotorsÂ’ B-body) that preceded these cars by decades. Both had iconic names.

General Motors CEO Provides Few Details In Appearance Before Congress

It was only two months ago that Mary Barra, freshly crowned as the new General Motors chief executive officer, visited Washington DC as an esteemed guest of First Lady Michelle Obama for the State of the Union address. On Tuesday, Barra returned to the Capitol under more strained circumstances. For more than two contentious hours, she took questions from members of a House of Representatives subcommittee investigating General Motors years-long delay in initiating a recall of millions of vehicles that contained a defect that has killed at least 13 people. Why did GM accept faulty ignition switches that were below the company's set specfications? Why did GM learn about the problem in 2001 yet take no action until 2014? Will GM compensate victims' families even though the company's bankruptcy may limit its liability? Those were a few of the questions members of the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee asked. Few concrete answers were forthcoming. For her part, Barra sidestepped most of the questions, saying she wouldn't have information needed to answer them until an internal review is completed. David Friedman, the administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, testified after Barra. The biggest news that emerged from the hearing was that General Motors has retained attorney Kenneth Feinberg to advise the company on its civil and legal responsibilities. He has made a career of resolving disputes and serving in a 'fixer' role, serving as the chief of the federal government's September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, as an administrator of compensation fund for victims of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster and a similar fund for victims of the Boston Marathon bombing. Barra, who has been GM's CEO since January but been with the company since 1980, expects to meet with Feinberg on Friday, and have a concrete plan within the next 30-60 days. Yet Barra would not say for certain Tuesday that GM would compensate the victims at all. Despite repeated questions from Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Barra did not outline the company's intentions. "I assume GM is hiring (Feinberg) to help identify the size of claims and then compensate the victims? Is that right," DeGette asked. "Is GM willing to put together some kind of a compensation fund for these victims that Mr. Feinberg will then administer?" "We've hired him to help assess the situation," Barra replied. "So really, there's no money involved at this point," DeGette asked.