2007 Chevrolet Tahoe on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Motor Trend puts Chevy Camaro Z28 and Porsche 911 GT3 Head 2 Head

Motor Trend admits, "This is an unfair comparison." But that doesn't make it any less fun to watch when they pit a Camaro Z/28 against the Porsche 911 GT3. The former has a 7.0-liter V8 with 505 horsepower and 481 pound-feet of torque shifted through a six-speed manual. The latter has a 3.8-liter flat-six with 475 hp and 324 lb-ft shifted through a seven-speed dual-clutch transmission. Yet those are only the little disparities – the big disparities are mass and money: the Camaro weighs 3,882 pounds and costs $76,150 as-tested, the Porsche weighs 3,267 pounds and costs $145,785. But they're both about hardcore performance, so MT takes them out on the street, to the drag strip, to the parking lot for figure eights and a skidpad test, and finally to Big Willow for Randy Pobst to give his professional assessment. Remember when a lotta people spent a lotta time debating Pirates vs. Ninjas? This is like that, only it's the "haul-ass good-time car" vs. the "track surgeon." Enjoy the debate in the video.

Stop-start standard in four-cylinder 2015 Chevrolet Impala

Chevrolet has announced that it will include stop-start technology as standard in the entry level 2015 Impala. The result is a nearly five-percent improvement in city fuel economy, also known as one mile per gallon, up to 25 mpg, combined. The 3.6-liter V-6 Impala will not feature stop-start. The 2015 Impala comes equipped with Chevrolet's 2.5-liter Ecotec four-cylinder engine, which will also offer 22 mpg in the city, and 31 on the highway. The 3.6-liter V-6 Impala will not feature stop-start and the mild-hybrid eAssist model from the 2014 MY, which got 29/25/35 combined/city/highway mpg, has been discontinued. Chevrolet spokesman Chad Lyons told Green Car Reports that not even one percent of the 2014 Impalas purchased were the Eco model. So Chevy is trying something different. With a seamless driving experience in mind, the new Impala's stop-start tech features software that governs under what conditions the feature will activate. The engine won't shut off if the car has not reached a speed of six miles per hour, so the start-stop won't be cycling during traffic jams. It can also fire the starter even if the engine has not come to a full stop, which quickens reaction time, particularly in instances of what Chevrolet calls "change-of-mind events." The stop-start function uses information about cabin temperature and humidity as well as battery charge to help determine whether or not to shut off the engine. The 2015 Impala has been engineered to reduce NVH, which will also help create a smoother stop-start experience for occupants, Chevy says. Motor mounts have been updated, and a burlier starter motor will help restart the engine after a stop. The Impala follows the 2014 Malibu as Chevrolet's second vehicle to feature stop-start tech. The four-cylinder model currently makes up over 30 percent of Impala sales. The 2015 Impala will be available beginning this summer, with a base MSRP of $27,735 (including destination charges). And while one MPG isn't a huge difference, neither is the price increase of just $50 for a bit of eco-minded innovation. Read on for more details in the press release below. Chevrolet Makes Stop/Start Standard in 2015 Impala Technology improves city fuel economy by 5 percent 2014-05-22 DETROIT – Stop/start technology will be standard on the 2015 Impala base 2.5-liter ECOTEC® engine, an addition that improves the vehicle's city fuel economy by nearly 5 percent, or one mile per gallon.

General Motors and EVs: No stranger to firsts, but where's the leadership?

2015 is already shaping up to be the year of "affordable, 200-mile EV" concepts. Nissan and Tesla have each been talking about them for some time, the latter promising to unveil its Model 3 at the North American International Auto Show in January before balking when the time came. Instead, Chevrolet beat them all by unveiling the Bolt concept at the same event, followed shortly thereafter with suggestions of a 2016 launch – potentially offering the first nationwide EV with anything close to that range. It was the ballsiest EV-related move General Motors has made in a quarter century. But will it remain so? Exactly 25 years before the Bolt rolled up onto the turntable, then-Chairman Roger Smith unveiled GM's last ground-up EV concept, the even-more-unfortunately-named Impact, at the Los Angeles Auto Show in January 1990. A few months later, he surprised most of his colleagues by announcing its intended production in honor of Earth Day. It was the first modern foray into electric vehicles for the US by any automaker, one that was rewarded by the State of California with what is now known as the Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate. The program not only forced other automakers into competing with Roger's pet project, but inspired all of them to fight it like small children against bedtime. Some years later, the drivers themselves weighed in, with a biting documentary about that obstinance and the leadership it cost both GM and the country. Within months, GM was first back into the fray of plug-in vehicles. Many criticized the company for starting with a PHEV rather than jump straight back into EVs. The choice wasn't totally out of the blue – even EV1 was meant to be followed by a PHEV. And especially on the heels of Who Killed the Electric Car?, some skittishness was understandable: even a successful EV would invite a "we told you so" public reaction, underscoring their mistake in ending the EV1 program. If a new EV didn't do well, they'd be convicted in the public eye as serial killers. All while seeking a federal bailout. For all the flak, the resulting Chevy Volt was and is a better car than GM has ever gotten credit for. But the company seemed to grow weary of having to overcome its varied past, and while the current owners remain happy, much of the stakeholder and community engagement that so effectively built early goodwill and sales growth faded not long after launch. Marketing has been spotty in both consistency and effectiveness.