2002 Chevrolet Avalanche 1500 4x4, Crew Cab, Runs Perfect, Shifts Perfect on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Chevy's latest Silverado videos assume we're idiots

UPDATE: This article has been revised to reflect that any mention of materials used in a future Chevrolet Silverado is speculation. Can we have a sound, rational debate about the merits of aluminum versus steel? According to Chevrolet's latest marketing videos pitting the Silverado against the Ford F-150, the answer is no. The tone of all three ads is almost Orwellian: steel good, aluminum bad. Of course, this will all be a hilarious joke when an aluminum-bodied Silverado comes in 2018. That's an if, as a member of the General Motor public relations team has reminded me that any articles regarding future product are pure speculation. Until then Chevy needs to sell the current Silverado, with its body comprised chiefly of steel, against the Ford F-150's lightweight aluminum panels. Instead of touting the merits of the "most-dependable, longest lasting pickup," the strategy seems to center around negative propaganda towards the 13th element. The tone of all three ads is almost Orwellian: steel good, aluminum bad. Of the three videos, the most fair is Silverado vs. F-150 Repair Costs and Time: Howie Long Head to Head. Basically: aluminum costs more than steel, it's more difficult to repair, and requires special equipment for body shops. In terms of Chevy versus Ford, the blue oval truck costs more and takes longer to repair - an average of $1,755 more and 34 more days in the shop, according to the ad. But why stop there when you can have pitchman Howie Long raising an eyebrow at random facts? When Silverado Chief Engineer Eric Stanczak says of the Ford, "It's manufactured in a way that combines aluminum, rivets, and adhesive in a process that's different than Silverado." Long responds, "Huh. Interesting." At the end of the video, Long says "I'd be interested to know what happens to insurance costs." Note he's not saying anything substantive. If Chevy's legal team could sign off on some facts about insurance rates, it would be in this ad. On our Autoblog Cost to Own calculator, there is no significant difference in projected insurance costs between the two trucks. But at least that ad has facts. The other two videos are pure hype. In Cages: High Stength Steel, real people are asked what they think of aluminum and steel in a room with two cages. Then a bear is released into the room, and the subjects scurry to the safety of the steel cage.

Can DARPA hack into a Chevy Impala through OnStar?

An ex-video game wizard named Dan Kaufman tracked a circuitous route to becoming the head of the Software Innovation Division at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. DARPA normally makes these pages because of its work with autonomous vehicles and automobile technology that overlaps with military applications, but for the past five years Kaufman and his multiple research teams have been working on creating unhackable software code that could be used in military drones. Part of that work has involved hacking into just about everything else, and as a segment on 60 Minutes reveals, that includes cars. The masterminds discovered a way to hack into OnStar, the General Motors telematics system. After figuring out how to hook into OnStar's emergency communication system, they overwhelmed it with data. While the computer was busy trying to manage the overrun of data, the research team inserted code that took control of the sedan's other computers, giving it control. So while reporter Leslie Stahl tooled around in a parking lot, a DARPA researcher with a laptop would occasionally take control of the car, like by applying its brakes or, conversely, removing the ability for Stahl to use the brakes. Hacking into vehicles has been in the news for years: Car and Driver ran a feature on the various ways cars could be hacked in 2011, two hackers released a car-hacking code at the hacker-fest Defcon in 2013 and demonstrated how it worked on a Toyota Prius and Ford Escape, and German researchers demonstrated how they could hack into BMW's Connected Drive remote-services system last week via an attack on the cars' telematics units. This isn't about GM or Onstar or the future; hacking into cars of all kinds isn't coming, it's here, and it doesn't take the half-billion-dollar annual budget of a small DARPA division to do it. Check out the 60 Minutes video on the CBS site (you can watch the entire video from a mobile device without logging in). The OnStar hacking starts at 6:45, but it's worth watching what leads up to that. News Source: Jalopnik Chevrolet Safety Technology Infotainment Autonomous Vehicles Videos Sedan hacking 60 minutes

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.