1972 Chevelle.....beautiful Car And Its Rock Solid....things Work on 2040-cars

Auto blog

10 of 18 midsize SUVs earn 'good' IIHS side impact safety rating

It's not terribly surprising that midsize SUVs earned better safety ratings than small SUVs in the latest side-impact tests performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Just how much better they scored, on the other hand, certainly raises an eyebrow. Ten out of 18 midsize SUVs earned the highest rating of 'good' in the stringent new test, altered for vehicles starting with the 2020 model year with a heavier barrier (4,200 pounds) that moves at a higher speed (37 miles per hour) and is fitted with a hard honeycomb frontal structure. By way of contrast, just one out of of 20 small SUVs earned a 'good' score.  SUVs that receiving 'good' scores were the Ford Explorer, Infiniti QX60, Lincoln Aviator, Mazda CX-9, Nissan Pathfinder, Subaru Ascent, Toyota Highlander, Volkswagen Atlas, Volkswagen Atlas Cross Sport and Volkswagen ID.4. For EV fans, it's worth noting the ID.4 was the only electric vehicle included in the test. The Buick Enclave and Chevrolet Traverse scraped away with 'acceptable' ratings while the Honda Passport, Honda Pilot, Hyundai Palisade, Jeep Wrangler 4-door, Kia Telluride and Nissan Murano were deemed merely 'marginal' in the tough new test. Only two models — the Mazda CX-9 and Volkswagen ID.4 — earned a "Good" rating in every test category.  Interestingly, the Jeep Wrangler would have scored a 'good' rating if it were equipped with side airbags for the rear seating positions. It would likely be an engineering challenge to equip its removable top and/or doors with airbags, but the lack of that safety feature allowed the head of the rear passenger dummy to hit the vertical support of the top. Otherwise, the Wrangler scored good ratings across the board. The new Ford Bronco, which makes more allowances for side-impact safety, has not yet been tested.  The popular Hyundai Palisade and Kia Telluride SUVs stand out in the test with 'poor' ratings for driver pelvis injuries. The Nissan Murano, a vehicle last redesigned for the 2015 model year, was the only vehicle tested that received a 'poor' rating for its structure and safety cage. Videos of the tests of 12 of these 18 SUVs can be found on the IIHS' YouTube page. Related video: Green Buick Chevrolet Ford Honda Hyundai Infiniti Jeep Kia Mazda Nissan Subaru Toyota Volkswagen Safety Crossover SUV IIHS Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Junkyard Gem: 2003 Chevrolet Tracker

When General Motors created the Geo brand to sell vehicles designed and — in some cases — built by Japanese partners, the first four models were introduced for the 1989 model year: the Metro (Suzuki Cultus), Prizm (Toyota Sprinter), Spectrum (Isuzu Gemini) and Tracker (Suzuki Sidekick). Geo got the axe in 1997, with the Metro, Prizm and Tracker becoming Chevrolets. Of those, the Tracker survived the longest, with U.S.-market sales continuing into 2004. Here's an example of a very late Tracker, found in a North Carolina car graveyard recently. The 1989-1997 first-generation Trackers were based on the Suzuki Sidekick, while the 1998-2004 Trackers had the Suzuki Vitaras (not to be confused with the much grander Grand Vitaras) as their siblings. Production of these trucks for the South American market (as the Chevrolet Vitara) continued in Ecuador all the way through 2014. The Tracker name has also gone onto some versions of the Chevrolet Trax around the world. This one is a base four-door hard top/rear-wheel-drive model, which had an MSRP of $17,330. That's about $29,789 in 2024 dollars. You'll find one in every car. You'll see. The engine is a Suzuki 2.0-liter straight-four rated at 127 horsepower and 134 pound-feet. A five-speed manual was base equipment, but very few American vehicle shoppers wanted three pedals by the middle 2000s. This truck has the Aisin four-speed automatic. We like it loud. It appears that someone associated with this truck graduated from Julius L. Chambers High School last year. In the United States, the Tracker was replaced by the Saturn Vue. If Tracker can handle (unspecified Middle Eastern country), it can survive the jungle back home. Siempre contigo.

Chevy Bolt EV's battery shows big improvements over Spark's

Plug-in vehicle battery technology moves fast, and all you need to do to see this in action is to take a look at the new 60-kWh lithium-ion pack inside the 2017 Chevy Bolt EV. Well, you need to do that and then compare it to the battery packs inside of GM's other plug-in vehicles. And you don't even to go as far back as the EV1 to see progress. Let's start with what we know about the new Bolt's pack. It is supposed to drive the Bolt EV over 200 miles on a full charge. It weighs 960 pounds and is made up of 288 cells. Chevy's other all-electric car, the limited-availability Spark EV, had a 19-kWh pack and offered 82 miles of range. It had 192 cells and weighed 474 pounds. So, in the few years since the Spark EV was released, GM engineers have figured out how to get three times the energy capacity and almost two-and-a-half times more range out of a pack that weighs only about twice as much. And that doesn't even get to the price drops. GM has figured out how to get 3x the energy capacity and almost 2.5 times more range out of a pack that weighs only twice as much. Speaking of those 288 cells, that number might sound familiar to regular readers because that's exactly how many are in the new Chevy Volt. But the packs in the Volt and the Bolt are entirely different beasts. For one thing, while the Volt cells are made by LG Chem in Holland, MI, LG Chem will make the Bolt's cells in South Korea. The cell chemistries are also different. We spoke with GM engineer Tim Grewe (again) and while he declined to answer some of our Bolt battery pack questions until more details are unveiled at the SAE World Congress in April, he was able to explain a few things. "The cell inside the Chevy Bolt EV was specifically designed for EV range so it's up on energy," he said. "That's a different cell chemistry than on the extended range Chevy Volt, which is a smaller pack, smaller energy but more power per cell. We work with all of those vehicle requirements and customer demands and we say how do we meet this and we change the chemistry to make it all work." Comparing the 60 kWh in the Bolt and the 18.4-kWh pack in the Volt is really one of those apples to oranges issues, he said. "If you look at the Volt battery pack, how it went from where it was and where it's up to, from 38 miles to 50 miles, that was basic, overall industry improvement. Now, the 18 [kWh] to the 60 [kWh] is extended range vs. EV.