1971 Chevrolet Chevelle Malibu on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM cutting Chevy Sonic, Buick Verano production [UPDATE]

UPDATE: A previous version of this story indicated that Orion Assembly would be idled for seven weeks, from February 16 through April 6. This was incorrect. The factory will instead only be idled for the weeks of February 16 and April 6. The story has been edited to reflect this. General Motors has announced that the factory responsible for the Buick Verano and Chevrolet Sonic will be idled for the weeks of February 16 and April 6, with blame being placed on excess supply. The Orion Assembly plant, about 45 minutes north of GM's Renaissance Center headquarters, employs about 1,800 people, but they'll be given a pair of furloughs as inventories of the sub-compact Sonic and premium compact Verano reach 127 days and 84 days, respectively. That works out to 26,600 Chevys and 9,800 Buicks waiting for buyers. According to Automotive News, the compact Chevy sales bested the industry average in 2014, jumping up nine percent versus the the overall segment's eight-percent gain, while the Buick sedan's sales were down four percent. When asked about the shutdown, a GM spokesman told AN that it will "build to market demand," while also pointing out that the company did not comment on production plans. News Source: Automotive News - sub. req.Image Credit: Bill Pugliano / Getty Images Plants/Manufacturing Buick Chevrolet GM buick encore orion assembly

Fernando Alonso sputters in his Indy test

INDIANAPOLIS — Helio Castroneves and Fernando Alonso kept waiting around Wednesday. Now both international stars have some unfinished business to take care before qualifying for this year's Indianapolis 500. After enduring a rain delay of more than four hours then watching IndyCar regulars turn laps at Indianapolis Motor Speedway for two more hours, Castroneves and Alonso finally made it onto the track — but couldn't quite complete their refresher course. "Happy to be back here because this place is great," Alonso said after posting a fast lap of 218.690 mph — the slowest of the nine-driver evening session. "We were slow because the weather and some of the decisions people made on running time and things like that." He faced a bevy of problems in his first trip back to Indy since an impressive rookie performance in 2017. The rain delay forced organizers into rescheduling the one-day test, moving the rookie and refresher driver time from midday to the evening, cutting a significant amount of practice time for Alonso and the others. And when the green flag finally waved, Alonso's No. 66 car stalled in the warmup lane forcing the two-time Formula One champion from Spain to be towed back to pit lane where his crew worked feverishly to fix an electrical problem while sat in the cockpit. Eventually, he did get out and passed the first of two refresher phases. He'll have to wait until opening practice of the 500 on May 14 to pass the second. "It was frustrating for everyone because it was a brand new chassis and a brand new car, so we expected to run a lot," said Alonso, who drives for McLaren Racing. "If we could have had this at midday, you could work on your issues in the afternoon and then go out again." To put his day in perspective, Takuma Sato, the 2017 Indy winner from Japan, posted the fastest lap of the day at 226.993 mph and Colton Herta was the fastest rookie at 226.108. Castroneves, as usual, was good right from the start and posted a fast lap of 225.565. The three-time Indianapolis 500 winner looked smooth and fast on his favorite track and wasted no time passing the first phase. That much should have been expected from the popular Brazilian, who has recorded seven top-three finishes in 18 Indy starts and will make his season debut May 11 in the IndyCar Grand Prix. The weather and yellow flags prevented four of the five veterans — Castroneves, Alonso, Oriol Servia and JR Hildebrand — from passing phase two. Only Indy native Conor Daly made it.

BMW, Hyundai score big in JD Power's first Tech Experience Index

While automakers are quick to brag about winning a JD Power Initial Quality Study award, the reality, as we've pointed out before, is that these ratings are somewhat misleading, since IQS doesn't necessarily distinguish genuine quality issues. JD Power's new Tech Experience Index aims to solve that problem. The new metric takes the same 90-day approach as IQS but focuses exclusively on technology – collision protection, comfort and convenience, driving assistance, entertainment and connectivity, navigation, and smartphone mirroring. It splits the industry up into just seven segments, based loosely on size, which is why the Chevrolet Camaro is in the same division (mid-size) as Kia Sorento and the Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class is in the same segment as the Hyundai Genesis (mid-size premium). It makes for some screwy bedfellows, to be sure. Still, splitting tech experience away from initial quality should allow customers to make more informed and intelligent decisions when buying new vehicles. In the inaugural study, respondents listed BMW and Hyundai as the big winners, with two segment awards – the 2 Series for small premium and the 4 Series for compact premium, and the Genesis for mid-size premium and Tucson for small segment. The Chevrolet Camaro (midsize), Kia Forte (compact), and Nissan Maxima (large) scored individual wins. Ford also had a surprising hit with the Lincoln MKC, which ranked third in the compact premium segment behind the 4 Series and Lexus IS. This is a coup for the Blue Oval, whose woeful MyFord Touch systems made the brand a victim of the IQS' flaws in the early 2010s. But Ford and other automakers might not want to celebrate just yet. According to JD Power, there's still a lot of room for improvement – navigation systems were the lowest-rated piece of tech in the study. Instead, customers repeatedly saluted collision-avoidance and safety systems, giving the category the best marks of the study and listing blind-spot monitoring and backup cameras as two must-have features – 96 percent of respondents said they wanted those two systems in their next vehicle. But this isn't really a surprise. Implementation of safety systems from brand to brand is similar, and they don't require any input from users, unlike navigation and infotainment systems which are frustratingly deep.