2003 - Chevrolet Corvette on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

2016 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray Beauty-Roll

For those of you paying attention, we've really ramped up the old Autoblog video game these days. Our new series Car Club USA joins Translogic and The List, and there are more Daily Drivers and Short Cuts than ever. But sometimes, all you care about is the car. The Autoblog Beauty-Roll video series has one goal: bring you glossy video images of cars, and nothing but. We're collecting moving pictures of all the cars we test, inside and out. Each episode comes with a hit of engine sound – start-up and with a few revs – to round out the package. Set your resolution to max, kick it into full-screen, turn up the sound, and enjoy today's subject, the 2016 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray. Oh, and if you'd like more Beauty-Roll, click here to see the back catalog.

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.