2012 Chevrolet Cruze Ls Sedan 4-door 1.8l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Chevy might've pulled out of NASCAR if it weren't for new Gen 6 car

We've been on the fence with NASCAR for some time now. On one hand, it's some of the closest racing anywhere in motorsports, with actual passing and door-handle-to-door-handle action as a matter of course. But on the other, it's become template racing - a personality-driven sport more about the drivers than any sort of loyalty to a particular automaker. The Car Of Tomorrow format really rammed that message home, with a racecar's identity coming down to little more than headlamp stickers slapped on the nose. That's not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but we've wondered for some time what's in it for the automakers, who pay big money to stay in a series that has had little increasingly little do with street car sales, let alone innovation.
Apparently General Motors was beginning to wonder the same thing. In a new ESPN report, Rick Hendrick, team owner of Hendrick Motorsports, suggests that GM would have seriously considered leaving NASCAR if it wasn't for the move away from the COT to the new Gen 6 racer. According to Hendrick, GM North America boss Mark Reuss spearheaded the charge away from the 2007 COT and toward a racecar with clearer automaker ties - cars like the new Chevrolet SS racer shown above. Learn more about the fight for a closer-to-production look in the ESPN story at the link.
Now, if we could just get more rear-wheel drive V8 coupes into showrooms....

2016 Camaro gets most revealing tease yet

Chevrolet started its long teaser campaign for the 2016 Camaro by just revealing the exhaust manifold and front frame, but as time has passed the company has slowly unveiled more. In the latest glimpse ahead of the pony car's May 16 debut, we're actually getting to see the model's profile completely undisguised. As suggested by the recent tease of the rear and hood, the 2016 Camaro wears a sharper, more angular design than the current model. This is especially the case when you look at the taut lines making up the rear. Chevy claims that the new shape underwent 350 hours of wind tunnel tests to be able to generate left lift, improve cooling and reduce wind noise in the cabin. A smooth underbody pan is among the aerodynamic tweaks, and it runs from underneath the front grille to the center of the Camaro. Chevy asserts that all of the changes at the front help reduce lift by 30 percent. Related VIdeo: 2016 Camaro is all about the Aero Total aerodynamic lift improved by 30 percent for improved stability 2015-05-11 DETROIT – After 350 hours of wind tunnel testing – often 24 hours a day – the new Camaro will slip more easily through the wind, and drivers of the Camaro SS will experience a marked improvement in reduced aerodynamic lift. These changes illustrate the lengths the aerodynamics team went to for improved performance, stability, cooling and lower wind noise intrusion "The importance of aerodynamics increases exponentially as we increase vehicle performance," said Kirk Bennion, Exterior Design manager. "As engine output increases, we need more engine cooling. As acceleration and top speeds climb, we need to reduce lift for better high-speed stability. However, we cannot make any changes at the expense of increasing drag, which can hurt fuel economy. "To balance these different aerodynamic targets, we tested literally hundreds of changes on the new Camaro, millimeters at a time." For example, the initial design called for the lower grille bars to be set at a 20-degree angle to the horizon. However, after meticulous testing, the team improved engine-cooling airflow by 1 percent by shifting the angle to 13 degrees – a change that achieved the airflow target while maintaining the original grille design. And rather than a traditional front air dam to reduce aerodynamic lift, the team developed a flush belly pan that stretches from the front grille to the center of the vehicle.

Chevy Volt replacement battery cost varies wildly, up to $34,000

There's a growing hubbub in the plug-in vehicle community over what looks like some ridiculously cheap replacement batteries for the Chevrolet Volt going up for sale. GM Parts Online, for example, is selling a replacement Volt battery with an MSRP of $2,994.64 but, with an online discount, the price comes down to $2,305.88. For the 16-kWh pack in the 2012 Volt, that comes to a very low $144.11 per kilowatt hour (kWH). But is it a real deal? How can it be, when a Chevy dealer may quote you a price of up to $34,000 to replace the pack? For a 16-kWh Volt pack, $2,305.88 comes to a very low $144.11 per kWh. But is it a real deal? Battery packs in alternative propulsion vehicles are usually priced by the kWh and, historically, they've been thought to be in the range of $500-per-kWh for OEM offerings. Since automakers are understandably secretive about their costs, we still don't know what the real number is today, but we do know it varies by automaker. Tesla, for example, has said it pays less than $200-per-kWH at the cell level but, of course, a constructed pack would be more. Whatever is going on, li-ion battery prices are trending downward. So, $144.11 certainly sounds great, but what's the story here? Kevin Kelly, manager of electrification technology communications for General Motors, reminded AutoblogGreen that GM Parts Online is not the official GM parts website and that, "the costs indicated on the site are not what we would charge our dealers or owners for a replacement battery. There would be no cost to the Volt owner if their battery needs replacement or repair while the battery is under the eight year/100,000 mile limited warranty coverage provided by Chevrolet." A single price tag also can't be accurate for everyone, Kelly said. "If the customer needs to have their battery repaired beyond the warranty, the cost to them would vary depending on what needs to be replaced or repaired (i.e. number of modules, which specific internal components need replacement, etc.)." he said. "So, it's hard for us to tell you exactly what the cost would be to the customer because it varies depending on what might need to be repaired/replaced. As a result, the core charge would vary." But, is the $2,300 price even accurate for anyone? Thanks to a reader comment, we see that this similar item on New GM Parts makes it look like the lithium-ion modules that Kelly mentioned – where a lot of the expensive bits are – are not included.