2002 S-10 Ls 4x4 Crew Cab 4 Door V-6 4.3l Red/black Loaded 139k on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2016 Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid Quick Spin [w/video]

If a Chevy Volt is like a hybrid that prefers its electric motor, then the new Malibu hybrid is like a Volt you never have to plug in. That's partly because you can't plug it in, but more because the Volt and the gas-electric Malibu share a lot of major components. Since we happen to like the newly refined Volt, that's good news for the larger family sedan. The shared parts include the blended braking system, A/C compressor, the auxiliary power module, and most of the hybrid transaxle (what you might call a fancy electro-transmission). In the Malibu, the electric motors use neodymium magnets for efficiency and power, while the Volt has weaker ferrite magnets to reduce drag, and the Volt also gets an extra clutch to lock out the engine. The two use different batteries, with their size, power capabilities, and chemistry suited to the task for each vehicle. Unlike most of the midsized sedan leaders, the Malibu has never had a full hybrid option. For a few years in the last generation, Chevy offered the Malibu Eco with a version of GM's eAssist mild-hybrid system, which featured a small motor-generator in place of an alternator hooked up to a bigger battery that could harvest energy during deceleration and add some back in when you hit the throttle; it also brought engine stop-start functionality to save a little more fuel. But it saved only a little fuel, so eAssist was nixed in favor of a more efficient four-cylinder with a standalone stop-start system. Driving Notes Mode switches between gas and electric are just as smooth as in the Volt. No shudder or weirdness in the throttle. It drives as much like a gas-only car as any midsized hybrid does. The blended braking system is also noticeably well sorted. There's no deadness in the pedal, no touchiness, and no artificial, wooden feeling when you step through the regen portion of its travel. There's nothing abrupt or jarring about any of the experience, and the Malibu's baked-in quietness helps to deal with noise from the somewhat coarse 1.8-liter gas engine. Engine startup and shutdown are noisy from outside, but much less noticeable from within. The 2016 Malibu is larger yet lighter. The hybrid weighs about 125 pounds more than a comparably equipped 1.5T. You don't notice the extra weight, but there is some space eaten out of the trunk by the battery.

5 reasons why GM is cutting jobs, closing plants in a healthy economy

DETROIT — Even though unemployment is low, the economy is growing and U.S. auto sales are near historic highs, General Motors is cutting thousands of jobs in a major restructuring aimed at generating cash to spend on innovation. It's the new reality for automakers that are faced with the present cost of designing gas-powered cars and trucks that appeal to buyers now while at the same time preparing for a future world of electric and autonomous vehicles. GM announced Monday that it will cut as many as 14,000 workers in North America and put five plants up for possible closure as it abandons many of its car models and restructures to focus more on autonomous and electric vehicles. The reductions could amount to as much as 8 percent of GM's global workforce of 180,000 employees. The cuts mark GM's first major downsizing since shedding thousands of jobs in the Great Recession. The company also said it will stop operating two additional factories outside North America by the end of next year. The move to make GM get leaner before the next downturn likely will be followed by Ford Motor Co., which also has struggled to keep one foot in the present and another in an ambiguous future of new mobility. Ford has been slower to react, but says it will lay off an unspecified number of white-collar workers as it exits much of the car market in favor of trucks and SUVs, some of them powered by batteries. Here's a rundown of the reasons behind the cuts: Coding, not combustion CEO Mary Barra said as cars and trucks become more complex, GM will need more computer coders but fewer engineers who work on internal combustion engines. "The vehicle has become much more software-oriented" with millions of lines of code, she said. "We still need many technical resources in the company." Shedding sedans The restructuring also reflects changing North American auto markets as manufacturers continue to shift away from cars toward SUVs and trucks. In October, almost 65 percent of new vehicles sold in the U.S. were trucks or SUVs. That figure was about 50 percent cars just five years ago. GM is shedding cars largely because it doesn't make money on them, Citi analyst Itay Michaeli wrote in a note to investors. "We estimate sedans operate at a significant loss, hence the need for classic restructuring," he wrote. The reduction includes about 8,000 white-collar employees, or 15 percent of GM's North American white-collar workforce. Some will take buyouts while others will be laid off.

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.