1965 Chevrolet Corvette Sting Ray Convertible on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Should heavy-duty pickup trucks have window stickers with fuel mileage estimates?

If you were to stroll into your nearest Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Nissan, or Ram dealership, you'd find a bunch of pickup trucks. Most of those would have proper window stickers labeled with things like base prices, options prices, location of manufacture, and, crucially, fuel economy estimates. But you'd also run across a number of heavy-duty trucks with no such fuel mileage data from the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA doesn't require automakers to publish the valuable miles-per-gallon measurement for vehicles with gross weight ratings that exceed 8,500 pounds. That makes it difficult for consumers to compare behemoths powered by turbocharged diesel engines – between one another, and between smaller, gasoline-fueled trucks. Consumer Reports doesn't think it should be this way, and it's spearheading an effort (PDF link) to get the government to require manufacturers to publish fuel economy estimates. In its own testing, CR found that heavy-duty pickups powered by Ford's Power Stroke, GM's Duramax, and FCA's Cummins diesel engines (which doesn't include the Ram's EcoDiesel) get worse fuel mileage than their lighter-duty gas-powered siblings. We're not so sure HD-truck buyers are unaware of this fact – big diesels don't really come into their own until big loads are placed in their beds or attached to their trailer hitches. Under heavy workloads, the diesel trucks will almost certainly return greater efficiency than a similar gas-powered truck. What's more, HD trucks with lumbering diesels in general make the driver feel more confident while towing due to greater torque at low engine RPM than gas trucks. They also offer greater max-weight limits. Still, we agree EPA fuel mileage estimates should be offered for heavy-duty pickups. And we think the comparisons provided by Consumer Reports might be interesting to potential buyers. Click here to see the results of CR's tests, and let us know what you think using the poll below. Related Video: Featured Gallery 2017 Ford F-Series Super Duty: First Drive View 22 Photos News Source: Consumer Reports Government/Legal Green Read This Chevrolet Ford GMC Nissan RAM Fuel Efficiency Truck Commercial Vehicles Diesel Vehicles poll gmc sierra hd chevy silverado hd

Impala SS vs. Marauder: Recalling Detroit’s muscle sedans 

Impala SS vs. Marauder — it was comparo that only really happened in theory. ChevyÂ’s muscle sedan ran from 1994-96, while MercuryÂ’s answer arrived in 2003 and only lasted until 2004. TheyÂ’re linked inextricably, as there were few options for powerful American sedans during that milquetoast period for enthusiasts. The debate was reignited recently among Autoblog editors when a pristine 1996 Chevy Impala SS with just 2,173 miles on the odometer hit the market on Bring a Trailer. Most of the staff favored the Impala for its sinister looks and said that it lived up to its billing as a legit muscle car. Nearly two-thirds of you agree. We ran an unscientific Twitter poll that generated 851 votes, 63.9 percent of which backed the Impala. Muscle sedans, take your pick: — Greg Migliore (@GregMigliore) April 14, 2020 Then and now enthusiasts felt the Impala was a more complete execution with guts. The Marauder, despite coming along later, felt more hacked together, according to prevailing sentiments. Why? On purpose and on paper theyÂ’re similar. The ImpalaÂ’s 5.7-liter LT1 V8 making 260 horsepower and 330 pound-feet of torque was impressive for a two-ton sedan in the mid-Â’90s. The Marauder was actually more powerful — its 4.6-liter V8 was rated at 302 hp and 318 lb-ft. The ImpalaÂ’s engine was also used in the C4 Corvette. The MarauderÂ’s mill was shared with the Mustang Mach 1. You can see why they resonated so deeply with Boomers longing for a bygone era and also captured the attention of coming-of-age Gen Xers. Car and DriverÂ’s staff gave the Marauder a lukewarm review back in ‘03, citing its solid handling and features, yet knocking the sedan for being slow off the line. In a Hemmings article appropriately called “Autopsy” from 2004, the ImpalaÂ’s stronger low-end torque and smooth shifting transmission earned praise, separating it from the more sluggish Mercury. All of this was captured in the carsÂ’ acceleration times, highlighting metrically the differences in their character. The Impala hit 60 miles per hour in 6.5 seconds, while the Marauder was a half-second slower, according to C/D testing. Other sites have them closer together, which reinforces the premise it really was the little things that separated these muscle cars. Both made the most of their genetics, riding on ancient platforms (FordÂ’s Panther and General MotorsÂ’ B-body) that preceded these cars by decades. Both had iconic names.

2016 Chevy Volt powertrain technical details

The last time General Motors launched a Chevy Volt, it was operating without really knowing how people would use the plug-in hybrid. Sure, it had experience with the EV1, but the Volt was a new kind of car, and you can see in the archives just how much time GM spent explaining this fresh, new powertrain to potential customers. Then, once the vehicle was released, the company collected voluntary data from a large number of owners to learn about their driving and charging habits. The company also asked them what they wanted most in the new version. There's got to be an algorithm buried somewhere in GM headquarters that was used to take all of the numbers GM collected and spat out the headline figures for the 2016 Volt: 50 miles of EV range and 41 miles per gallon. Another important number – price – is something GM isn't talking about yet (expect it in April or May), but the company is sharing some powertrain details about the upcoming car. At a preview lunch in Detroit last week for the SAE 2015 Hybrid & Electric Vehicles Technologies Symposium that's happening now in California, GM engineers Peter Savagian (who is presenting a paper on the new inverter used in the updated Volt) and Tim Grewe (talking about the entire second-generation powertrain) sat down with AutoblogGreen to tell us about the Volt's all-new propulsion system: The overall gist is that the new Voltec 5ET50 drive unit is lighter, smaller and more powerful thanks to a redesigned two-motor traction drive. As previously reported, the new engine is a 1.5-liter DOHC four-cylinder that offers 101-horsepower (at 5,600 RPM). Grewe said it's "great for range extension." The electric motor side of the powertrain offers 149 motoring horsepower from a two-motor, continuously variable transaxle. Initially, the new engine will be made in Mexico. GM will move production to Flint, MI during the first year it makes the 2016 Volt. The battery is slightly bigger in the new Volt – 18.4 kWh compared to 16.5 in the current-gen – and will have less range variation in the cold. GM is also using more of the overall capacity in the pack in the 2016 Volt than in previous versions, but is not saying how much more. GM is not ready to publish acceleration times just yet, but the 2016 Volt has improved numbers, especially when going from 30-60 miles per hour. Most everything on the new powertrain has become more efficient compared to the first-gen Volt.