2007 Chevrolet Cobalt Lt Sedan 4-door 2.2l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Bob Lutz says Tesla remains 'fringe' brand

We've said it before, we'll said it again: Bob Lutz gives great quotes. From his toilet-themed opinion of global warming to Toyota's deity status, the man knows how to get your attention. His latest? Saying that Tesla Motors is and will remain a fringe brand. Take that, Tesla fanbois. This, of course, is the same fringe company that prompted Lutz and his former colleagues at General Motors to start working on the Chevy Volt around eight years ago. The same fringe company that has easily outsold the similarly priced (but don't call it a competitor) Cadillac ELR with its Model S. Lutz did clarify that the fringe status will only last until Tesla comes out with a mass-market electric vehicle that has a range of 200 to 300 miles. Lutz was on CNBC talking about the TSLA stock's recent performance, and he pointed out that even Tesla CEO Elon Musk says that the California automaker's stock is overvalued these days. Despite its prevalence around these parts, Tesla is not yet a household brand. But the company is working hard to get a cheaper, long-range EV to market in the not-too-distant future, so this fringe thing may not last much longer than that show Fringe did. Watch the video below. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. News Source: CNBC via Green Car Reports Green Chevrolet Tesla Green Culture Electric Hybrid PHEV cnbc

IIHS: High numbers of drivers treat partially automated cars as fully self-driving

WASHINGTON — Drivers using advanced driver assistance systems like Tesla Autopilot or General Motors Super Cruise often treat their vehicles as fully self-driving despite warnings, a new study has found. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), an industry funded group that prods automakers to make safer vehicles, said on Tuesday a survey found regular users of Super Cruise, Nissan/Infiniti ProPILOT Assist and Tesla Autopilot "said they were more likely to perform non-driving-related activities like eating or texting while using their partial automation systems than while driving unassisted." The IIHS study of 600 active users found 53% of Super Cruise, 42% of Autopilot and 12% of ProPILOT Assist owners "said that they were comfortable treating their vehicles as fully self-driving." About 40% of users of Autopilot and Super Cruise — two systems with lockout features for failing to pay attention — reported systems had at some point switched off while they were driving and would not reactivate. "The big-picture message here is that the early adopters of these systems still have a poor understanding of the technologyÂ’s limits," said IIHS President David Harkey. The study comes as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is scrutinizing Autopilot crashes. Since 2016, the NHTSA has opened 37 special investigations involving 18 deaths in crashes involving Tesla vehicles and where systems like Autopilot were suspected of use. Tesla did not respond to requests for comment. Tesla says Autopilot does not make vehicles autonomous and is intended for use with a fully attentive driver who is prepared to take over. GM, which in August said owners could use Super Cruise on 400,000 miles (643,740 km) of North American roads and plans to offer Super Cruise on 22 models by the end of 2023, did not immediately comment. IIHS said advertisements for Super Cruise focus on hands-free capabilities while Autopilot evokes the name used in passenger airplanes and "implies TeslaÂ’s system is more capable than it really is." IIHS in contrast noted ProPILOT Assist "suggests that itÂ’s an assistance feature, rather than a replacement for the driver." NHTSA and automakers say none of the systems make vehicles autonomous. Nissan said its name "is clearly communicating ProPILOT Assist as a system to aid the driver, and it requires hands-on operation.

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.