2003 Chevrolet Suburban 4x4 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM to squeeze out more production capacity for midsize trucks

General Motors was predicting a strong showing for the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon before they debuted, and demand among dealers for the midsize trucks even exceeded company's expectations. The positive situation has left GM with a problem, though: finding ways to increase capacity for the pickups at the Wentzville Assembly plant in Missiouri. With a third shift already running, GM has continued to look for ways to build just a few more of the trucks at the plant. The company has plans to hire as many as 1,000 more workers for the Saturday and Sunday shifts to construct an additional 2,000 pickups a month, according to unnamed insiders at the factory speaking to Automotive News. The little adjustments even extend to getting rid of an unpaid break to add 18 minute of assembly time over the course of a day, which equals about 3,500 more vehicles a year. All of this effort comes because the trucks are in such high demand. According to GM's figures, the company has delivered a combined 35,720 units of the Colorado and Canyon from January through April 2015, and the Chevy was the fastest-selling truck in the US for the previous three months. In May, it spent an average of just 12 days in showrooms before being snapped up. And even better for the company, 43 percent of these buyers came from other brands. According to Automotive News, the most popular trade-ins have included the Ford F-150, Toyota Tacoma, and Dodge Dakota. Related Video:

Both Android Auto and Apple CarPlay slated for Chevrolet lineup

Long awaited, the race among automakers to keep drivers connected to their smartphones has officially entered a new era. Hyundai said Tuesday it would be the first manufacturer to put Google's Android Auto into a production car, the 2015 Hyundai Sonata sedan. Not to be outdone, General Motors said today it'd offer both Android Auto and Apple's CarPlay on several Chevrolet models set to hit dealerships this summer. By giving car buyers the choice between these rival phone-projection systems, Chevrolet hopes to quell concerns from prospective customers worried about the compatibility of their smartphones and vehicles. "It's about providing choice," said Alicia Boler-Davis, GM's senior vice president for global connected car consumer experience. "No two customers are alike, and we cannot expect a single solution that works for every driver in every situation." Across the industry, automakers are rushing to add both to their cars as a growing base of customers seek an array of connected features. Estimates from automotive technology research firm SBD indicate smartphone-integrated content is available in 36 percent of current vehicles, and the company expects that penetration rate will grow to 84 percent by 2025. For Chevrolet, the systems will be available on select 2016 iterations of the Cruze, Camaro, Volt, Spark and Malibu as early as next month, and appear on 14 Chevy models overall for the 2016 model year. They're available on all trim levels, but they only work with the company's MyLink infotainment package installed in the cars, and the first to hit showrooms will only work on the seven-inch touchscreen models. "CarPlay and Android Auto, these are things that are addressable to the broad market, and I think it makes a lot of sense for GM to put it into Chevys first," IHS Automotive senior analyst Mark Boyadjis said. Via physical connections, both Apple CarPlay and Android Auto allow users access to smartphone features like turn-by-turn directions, phone calls, voice-to-text messages and music streaming. Interfaces are similar to the ones found on the respective smartphones, but on the dashboard, they're redesigned for a simpler, in-car experience. Fonts are larger, for example, and easier to press on a touchscreen. CarPlay relies heavily on Siri so that drivers spend more time staring at the road instead of their touchscreen. That sounds good, at least in theory.

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.