1961 Chevrolet Corvette Convertible on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM won't pay owners of recalled cars for lost value

Kenneth Feinberg, the man in charge of the General Motors compensation fund dealing with the its widespread ignition switch woes, has issued an informal, two-letter response to the plaintiffs in more than 70 lawsuits seeking redress for lost resale value of their Cobalts: "No." The cases were recently combined into one, but Feinberg told The Detroit News that the fund will deal "only with death and physical injury claims," and that "perceived diminished value" will get no consideration.
ALG, the firm specializing in establishing residual values, determined that Cobalt owners had lost $300 compared to the segment competition and doesn't envision any long-term effects from the recall situation. Feinberg's statement comes in advance of public details on how the compensation fund will work and adheres to GM's long-held position on the matter. The company has already asked a judge to throw out such suits using the pre-bankruptcy defense, even as it stopped using that defense in cases of injury and death.
With plenty of potential gain from the GM suit, however, don't expect the plaintiffs to give up yet. When Toyota was sued for the same reason during the unintended acceleration debacle, it eventually settled the case for between $1 billion and $1.4 billion just to get it over with. Since the 85 law firms involved in the Toyota litigation took home more than $250 million of that total, we shouldn't expect the attorneys to give up on a GM payout, either.

2016 Chevy Volt powertrain technical details

The last time General Motors launched a Chevy Volt, it was operating without really knowing how people would use the plug-in hybrid. Sure, it had experience with the EV1, but the Volt was a new kind of car, and you can see in the archives just how much time GM spent explaining this fresh, new powertrain to potential customers. Then, once the vehicle was released, the company collected voluntary data from a large number of owners to learn about their driving and charging habits. The company also asked them what they wanted most in the new version. There's got to be an algorithm buried somewhere in GM headquarters that was used to take all of the numbers GM collected and spat out the headline figures for the 2016 Volt: 50 miles of EV range and 41 miles per gallon. Another important number – price – is something GM isn't talking about yet (expect it in April or May), but the company is sharing some powertrain details about the upcoming car. At a preview lunch in Detroit last week for the SAE 2015 Hybrid & Electric Vehicles Technologies Symposium that's happening now in California, GM engineers Peter Savagian (who is presenting a paper on the new inverter used in the updated Volt) and Tim Grewe (talking about the entire second-generation powertrain) sat down with AutoblogGreen to tell us about the Volt's all-new propulsion system: The overall gist is that the new Voltec 5ET50 drive unit is lighter, smaller and more powerful thanks to a redesigned two-motor traction drive. As previously reported, the new engine is a 1.5-liter DOHC four-cylinder that offers 101-horsepower (at 5,600 RPM). Grewe said it's "great for range extension." The electric motor side of the powertrain offers 149 motoring horsepower from a two-motor, continuously variable transaxle. Initially, the new engine will be made in Mexico. GM will move production to Flint, MI during the first year it makes the 2016 Volt. The battery is slightly bigger in the new Volt – 18.4 kWh compared to 16.5 in the current-gen – and will have less range variation in the cold. GM is also using more of the overall capacity in the pack in the 2016 Volt than in previous versions, but is not saying how much more. GM is not ready to publish acceleration times just yet, but the 2016 Volt has improved numbers, especially when going from 30-60 miles per hour. Most everything on the new powertrain has become more efficient compared to the first-gen Volt.

IIHS: High numbers of drivers treat partially automated cars as fully self-driving

WASHINGTON — Drivers using advanced driver assistance systems like Tesla Autopilot or General Motors Super Cruise often treat their vehicles as fully self-driving despite warnings, a new study has found. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), an industry funded group that prods automakers to make safer vehicles, said on Tuesday a survey found regular users of Super Cruise, Nissan/Infiniti ProPILOT Assist and Tesla Autopilot "said they were more likely to perform non-driving-related activities like eating or texting while using their partial automation systems than while driving unassisted." The IIHS study of 600 active users found 53% of Super Cruise, 42% of Autopilot and 12% of ProPILOT Assist owners "said that they were comfortable treating their vehicles as fully self-driving." About 40% of users of Autopilot and Super Cruise — two systems with lockout features for failing to pay attention — reported systems had at some point switched off while they were driving and would not reactivate. "The big-picture message here is that the early adopters of these systems still have a poor understanding of the technologyÂ’s limits," said IIHS President David Harkey. The study comes as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is scrutinizing Autopilot crashes. Since 2016, the NHTSA has opened 37 special investigations involving 18 deaths in crashes involving Tesla vehicles and where systems like Autopilot were suspected of use. Tesla did not respond to requests for comment. Tesla says Autopilot does not make vehicles autonomous and is intended for use with a fully attentive driver who is prepared to take over. GM, which in August said owners could use Super Cruise on 400,000 miles (643,740 km) of North American roads and plans to offer Super Cruise on 22 models by the end of 2023, did not immediately comment. IIHS said advertisements for Super Cruise focus on hands-free capabilities while Autopilot evokes the name used in passenger airplanes and "implies TeslaÂ’s system is more capable than it really is." IIHS in contrast noted ProPILOT Assist "suggests that itÂ’s an assistance feature, rather than a replacement for the driver." NHTSA and automakers say none of the systems make vehicles autonomous. Nissan said its name "is clearly communicating ProPILOT Assist as a system to aid the driver, and it requires hands-on operation.