2009 Chevrolet Traverse on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Did the Chevy Corvette Z06 break 7 minutes at the Ring? Not likely

"Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true." That's rule number one, two and arguably, three, of surfing the world wide web. In today's example of this rule, we have the following. The website HorsepowerKings is claiming that a 2015 Chevrolet Corvette Z06, with the eight-speed automatic and Z07 package, managed to lap the Nurburgring Nordschleife in under seven minutes. To put that in perspective, that super-quick time would put the 650-horsepower, $97,000 (the price of a 2LZ with the Z07/8AT combo) Z06 a mere two seconds slower around the world's most challenging race track than the $929,000, 887-horsepower Porsche 918 Spyder Weissach. It's about eight seconds quicker than Nissan's own test of the GT-R Nismo Track Pack and 13 seconds faster than a Dodge Viper ACR. Unfortunately, Chevy says there isn't anything to it. We reached out to the Bowtie's Monte Doran, who confirmed that HK's claims are "not accurate." "Any one – a manufacturer, a journalist, a guy standing on the fence of the Ring – can claim a lap time. As such, we think the in-car video is essential to proving a time is real and credible, and Chevrolet will not release a lap until we have a video to substantiate the claim," Doran told Autoblog. "Chevrolet accumulated nearly 1,000 miles of testing on the Nurburgring with the Z06. During that time, we only had two opportunities to run a lap on video – and both were rained out. If we get a lap on video, we will post an official time." Doran finished by referencing the "only official lap time" for the Z06 – a 2:41 around the Virginia International Raceway. Frankly, we aren't terribly surprised by Chevy's position. One would imagine if the Z06 were matching million-dollar hypercars around the 'Ring, the company would literally be screaming about it from Renaissance Center's rooftop. As this is quite the opposite of that, though, we're betting that the real Z06 lap time - while still likely very, very fast – won't be quite quick enough to frighten the brightest and best of today's hypercars.

Cruze Diesel Road Trip reveals the good and bad, but no ugly

Most of us have strong opinions on diesel-powered cars based on our perceptions of and experience with them. I used to thoroughly dislike oil burners for their noise, smoke and lackluster performance, and the fact that they ran on greasy, smelly stuff that was more expensive than gasoline, could be hard to find and was nasty to get on your hands when refueling. Those negatives, for me, trumped diesel's major positives of big torque for strong acceleration and better fuel economy. Are any of those knocks on diesel still valid today? I'm not talking semis, which continue to annoy me when their operators for some reason almost never shut them down. At any busy truck stop, the air seems always filled with the sound – and sometimes smell – of dozens of big-rig diesels idling endlessly and mindlessly. Or diesel heavy-duty pickups. Those muscular workhorses are far more refined than they once were and burn much less fuel than their gasoline counterparts. But good luck arriving home late at night, or departing early morning, without waking your housemates and neighbors with their clattery racket. No, I'm talking diesel-powered passenger cars, which account for more than half the market in Europe (diesel fuel is cheaper there) yet still barely bump the sales charts in North America. Diesel fuel remains more expensive here, too few stations carry it, and too many Americans remember when diesel cars were noisy, smelly slugs. Also, US emissions requirements make them substantially more expensive to certify, and therefore to buy. But put aside (if you can) higher vehicle purchase and fuel prices, and today's diesel cars can be delightful to drive while delivering much better fuel efficiency than gas-powered versions. So far in the US, all except Chevrolet's compact Cruze Diesel come from German brands, and all are amazingly quiet, visually clean (no smoke) and can be torquey-fun to drive. When a GM Powertrain engineering team set out to modify a tried-and-true GM of Europe turbodiesel four for North American Chevy Cruze compacts, says assistant chief engineer Mike Siegrist, it had a clear target in mind: the Volkswagen Jetta TDI 2.0-liter diesel. And they'll tell you that they beat it in nearly every way. "I believe we have a superior product," he says. "It's powerful, efficient and clean, and it will change perceptions of what a diesel car can be." The 2.0L Cruze turbodiesel pumps out 151 SAE certified horses and 264 pound-feet of torque (at just 2,000 rpm) vs.

GM won't really kill off the Chevy Volt and Cadillac CT6, will it?

General Motors is apparently considering killing off six slow-selling models by 2020, according to Reuters. But is that really likely? The news is mentioned in a story where UAW president Dennis Williams notes that slumping US car sales could threaten jobs at low-volume factories. Still, we're skeptical that GM is really serious about killing those cars. Reuters specifically calls out the Buick LaCrosse, Cadillac CT6, Cadillac XTS, Chevrolet Impala, Chevrolet Sonic, and the Chevrolet Volt. Most of these have been redesigned or refreshed within the past few model years. Four - the LaCrosse, Impala, CT6, and Volt - are built in the Hamtramck factory in Detroit. That plant has made only 35,000 cars this year - down 32 percent from 2016. A typical GM plant builds 200,000-300,000 vehicles a year. Of all the cars Williams listed, killing the XTS, Impala, and Sonic make the most sense. They're older and don't sell particularly well. On the other hand, axing the other three seems like an odd move. It would leave Buick and Cadillac without flagship sedans, at least until the rumored Cadillac CT8 arrives. The CT6 was a big investment for GM and backing out after just a few years would be a huge loss. It also uses GM's latest and best materials and technology, making us even more skeptical. The Volt is a hugely important car for Chevrolet, and supplementing it with a crossover makes more sense than replacing it with one. Offering one model with a range of powertrain variants like the Hyundai Ioniq and Toyota Prius might be another route GM could take. All six of these vehicles are sedans, Yes, crossover sales are booming, but there's still a huge market for cars. Backing away from these would be essentially giving up sales to competitors from around the globe. The UAW might simply be publicly pushing GM to move crossover production to Hamtramck to avoid closing the plant and laying off workers. Sales of passenger cars are down across both GM and the industry. Consolidating production in other plants and closing Hamtramck rather than having a single facility focus on sedans might make more sense from a business perspective. GM is also trying to reduce its unsold inventory, meaning current production may be slowed or halted while current cars move into customer hands. There's a lot of politics that goes into building a car. GM wants to do what makes the most sense from a business perspective, while the UAW doesn't workers to lose their jobs when a factory closes.