1977 Cheverolet Monte Carlo on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM workers in Oshawa walk out in protest of plant closure

TORONTO/MONTREAL – Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Monday expressed his "deep disappointment" in General Motors' decision to close its Oshawa plant, a move Canadian officials only learned about on Sunday and which led workers to walk off the job on Monday. GM said the closure affects a total of 2,973 assembly line jobs. GM's total employment in Canada is 8,150 direct jobs. Workers in the Unifor trade union walked out of the Oshawa plant "in protest," ahead of a meeting with GM about the announcement, a union spokeswoman said. "I've moved my family twice for this company and they do this to me," a tearful worker told CBC TV as he left the plant. Currently, the Oshawa plant builds the Cadillac XTS and Chevy Impala sedans. Under Unifor's four-year contract signed in 2016, GM must give the union a year's notice before closing the plant. The automaker intends to close the plant in December, 2019. A 2015 study commissioned by Unifor, which represents GM employees, estimated that shutting the plant would eliminate 4,100 direct jobs and reduce Ontario's gross domestic product by C$1.1 billion. But Jerry Dias, president of Unifor, said the move amounts to a breach of the automaker's contract with its employees. "We have a collective agreement that says they're not closing any of our facilities ... so we will do anything by any means to make sure that they live up to their word," Dias said at a news conference. Dias said the contract between Unifor and the company forbids GM from closing any of its Canadian plants during the contract period, which ends in September 2020. "They are not closing our damn plant without one hell of a fight." Canadian officials promised to aid auto workers affected by the 2019 closure, part of a wider restructuring by the automaker that will cut production of slow-selling models and slash its North American workforce. "I spoke with GM (CEO) Mary Barra to express my deep disappointment in the closure," Trudeau tweeted on Monday. "We'll do everything we can to help the families affected by this news get back on their feet." GM workers have been part of the heart and soul of Oshawa for generations - and we'll do everything we can to help the families affected by this news get back on their feet. Yesterday, I spoke with @GM's Mary Barra to express my deep disappointment in the closure.

Here are a few of our automotive guilty pleasures

It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. The world is full of cars, and just about as many of them are bad as are good. It's pretty easy to pick which fall into each category after giving them a thorough walkaround and, more important, driving them. But every once in a while, an automobile straddles the line somehow between good and bad — it may be hideously overpriced and therefore a marketplace failure, it may be stupid quick in a straight line but handles like a drunken noodle, or it may have an interior that looks like it was made of a mess of injection-molded Legos. Heck, maybe all three. Yet there's something special about some bad cars that actually makes them likable. The idea for this list came to me while I was browsing classified ads for cars within a few hundred miles of my house. I ran across a few oddballs and shared them with the rest of the team in our online chat room. It turns out several of us have a few automotive guilty pleasures that we're willing to admit to. We'll call a few of 'em out here. Feel free to share some of your own in the comments below. Dodge Neon SRT4 and Caliber SRT4: The Neon was a passably good and plucky little city car when it debuted for the 1995 model year. The Caliber, which replaced the aging Neon and sought to replace its friendly marketing campaign with something more sinister, was panned from the very outset for its cheap interior furnishings, but at least offered some decent utility with its hatchback shape. What the two little front-wheel-drive Dodge models have in common are their rip-roarin' SRT variants, each powered by turbocharged 2.4-liter four-cylinder engines. Known for their propensity to light up their front tires under hard acceleration, the duo were legitimately quick and fun to drive with a fantastic turbo whoosh that called to mind the early days of turbo technology. — Consumer Editor Jeremy Korzeniewski  Chevrolet HHR SS: Chevy's HHR SS came out early in my automotive journalism career, and I have fond memories of the press launch (and having dinner with Bob Lutz) that included plenty of tire-smoking hard launches and demonstrations of the manual transmission's no-lift shift feature. The 260-horsepower turbocharged four-cylinder was and still is a spunky little engine that makes the retro-inspired HHR a fun little hot rod that works quite well as a fun little daily driver.

Chevy says not to look at the 2019 Silverado's fuel economy rating

The 2019 Chevy Silverado is hitting dealerships soon, and one of the most notable changes for the new full-size pickup is the addition of a 2.7-liter turbocharged inline-four. The engine replaces the naturally-aspirated 4.3-liter V6 in volume consumer models like the Silverado LT and promises more power, less weight and — most importantly — better fuel economy. The thing is, the gains in efficiency haven't been as dramatic as some might have hoped, especially when stacked up against competitors from Ford and Ram. As Automotive News reports, GM's response is a little murky. First, let's talk numbers. We're pulling all figures from FuelEconomy.gov, the official U.S. government source for fuel ratings. Fuel economy numbers on trucks vary greatly based on a number of factors. Bed and cab configuration play a part, but so does a four-wheel-drive system. You also have to factor in tires, transmissions, rear-axle gearing, hybrid systems and cylinder deactivation. Things like that can make the difference between best- and worst-in-class. The EPA's website doesn't give enough information a lot of the time, so there's really no easy way to compare apples-to-apples. First, take a look at the ratings for the 2019 Silverado. A 2.7-liter model with two-wheel drive is rated 20 city, 23 highway and 21 combined. That's both better and worse than a two-wheel drive 2018 Silverado with the 4.3-liter V6 (18 city, 24 highway and 20 combined). The updated 2019 Silverado with a 4.3-liter V6 has yet to be rated. With less weight and a smaller engine, many hoped Chevy would make bigger gains. It's unusual to see any decrease in a fuel economy metric these days. GM says that it's not done tuning the new 2.7-liter engine, so fuel economy could theoretically increase. Expanding further, a V8-powered 2019 Silverado (17 city, 24 highway and 19 combined) actually gets better highway fuel economy than a turbocharged four-cylinder powered truck in certain configurations, even if the latter has a better overall average. But that's only with two-wheel drive, the 8-speed transmission and cylinder deactivation. A Silverado with the 5.3-liter V8 and a 6-speed automatic is rated at 15 city, 22 highway and 17 combined. The biggest issue with the Silverado 2.7-liter doesn't come from within GM itself but from Ford and Ram. GM cites the Ford F-150 with the 3.3-liter V6 and the Ram 1500 with the 3.6-liter V6 as the closest competitors to its new 2.7-liter inline-four.