4wd 143.5" Lt Low Miles 4 Dr Crew Cab Truck Automatic Vortec 4.8l Vvt V8 Sfi Fle on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM natural gas-powered vans recalled due to possible leak

General Motors is recalling almost 3,200 of its compressed-natural-gas powered utility vans because of possible leaks. GM and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a notice last week saying that 3,196 Chevrolet Express and GMC Savana CNG vans are on recall, though no accidents have been reported due to the possible issue. The recall is specifically for vans for model years ranging from 2011 to 2014. The recall stems from a potential leak from the compressed natural gas high-pressure regulator, and such a leak could cause a fire or explosion. GM will replace the vehicles' high-pressure regulator in order to fix the problem, will do it free of charge and is instructing owners to contact Chevrolet or GMC customer service to arrange for the parts replacement. Utility vehicle makers like General Motors have pushed for fleet sales of CNG-powered vans and trucks for the past few years and have touted them for their cheaper refueling costs relative to standard gasoline, not to mention the fact that natural gas can be readily sourced from throughout North America (thanks, fracking). According to CNGPrices.com, compressed natural gas sells for about $2.22 a gallon, on average, while the AAA is pegging the average price of gas at $3.34 a gallon. NHTSA has posted information on the recall here. Featured Gallery News Source: NHTSA via Reuters Green Chevrolet GM GMC Natural Gas Vehicles CNG gmc savana

Recharge Wrap-up: Ford steals Best Green Brand spot from Toyota, EV buyer survey goes online

Chevrolet is one of the Top Global Green Brands of 2014, according to brand consultancy firm Interbrand. Chevy ranks number 32 on the list, which cover brands across a wide variety of segments. The report measures brand perception and brand performance, and the gap between the two is small for Chevrolet. "The company is not only actively demonstrating its environmental commitment," says Interbrand CEO Jez Frampton. "It's communicating those efforts in an authentic way that resonates with customers." Chevrolet cites its Spark EV, Volt and Cruze models as reason for its green cred. This is the first time Toyota didn't take the top spot. Being 32nd is good and all, but other automotive brands ranked much higher than the Bowtie. Ford, Toyota, Honda and Nissan took the top four spots in the report, respectively, with BMW, Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz all besting Chevrolet. The big takeaway here is that Ford topped the list. In the Top Global Green Brand list's four-year history, this is the first time Toyota didn't take the top spot. Ford was second on the list last year, and 15th in 2012. "Ford embodies everything the business of the future must be: efficient, visionary, flexible, adept at problem-solving, cooperative, and focused on creating shared value," Interbrand says on its website. "From unveiling a first-of-its-kind solar-powered vehicle, the C-MAX Solar Energi Concept, to partnering with peers across sectors to do the seemingly impossible - like creating bio-plastic out of tomato fiber with Heinz-Ford is showing us what's possible." It bears mentioning that Ford's most recent MPG adjustments came after the study was conducted. Ford is also making the news for its 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine earning International Engine of the Year for the third straight year. Awarded Best Engine Under 1.0 Liter, the turbocharged three-cylinder motor earned high praise from judges. "This year's competition was the fiercest yet, but the 1.0-liter EcoBoost continues to stand out for all the right reasons – great refinement, surprising flexibility and excellent efficiency," said International Engine of the Year co-chairman Dean Slavnich. "The 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine is one of the finest examples of powertrain engineering." The 123-horsepower engine powers the Fiesta 1.0-liter EcoBoost, and will be available in a version of the Ford Focus in the US later this year. See more about the award in the press release, below.

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.