1968 Chevelle on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM cutting back on powertrain warranty citing lack of interest

Generally, when a manufacturer offers a long, high-mileage warranty, it's a sign that it stands behind its products. On top of that, it's generally a selling point for consumers, who can rest easy knowing that any catastrophic failures will be picked up by the manufacturer. Considering those facts, it does seem rather strange that General Motors is slashing the mileage warranty on model year 2016 vehicles from Chevrolet and GMC. Instead of offering consumers a 100,000-mile warranty, GM will now only offer a powertrain warranty up to 60,000 miles. The five-year warranty period, though, remains unchanged. GM will also cut the number of free services being offered to Chevy and GMC owners, as well as Buick drivers, from four to two. "Through research, we have determined that when purchasing a new vehicle, included maintenance and warranty rank low on the list of reasons why consumers consider a particular brand over another," explained a memo sent to dealers by Chevrolet VP Brian Sweeney and his GMC counterpart, Duncan Aldred, and obtained by Automotive News. "As a result, we have benchmarked our competitors, reviewed our current offerings and have concluded the following modifications to align closely with our customers' needs and expectations." While the move might seem odd, Sweeney and Aldred are right – according to Automotive News, Ford, Honda and Toyota each offer a five-year, 60,000-mile powertrain warranty. As for what the money saved by trimming the powertrain warranty will go towards, a GM spokesperson simply told AN that the company will "reinvest the savings we will realize into other retail programs," some of which have been requested by consumers. What are your thoughts? Would a 40,000-mile reduction in a new vehicle's powertrain really turn you off from buying one? Even if it matched its competitors? Is GM better off spending its money elsewhere? Have your say in Comments. Featured Gallery 2016 Chevrolet Equinox View 10 Photos News Source: Automotive News - sub. req.Image Credit: Chevrolet Chevrolet GM GMC Auto Repair Maintenance Ownership warranty

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

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: