1998 Chevrolet S10 Ls Extended Cab Pickup 2-door 2.2l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Leaked GM document shows GMC Sierra I6 diesel is more powerful than F-150's

GM told us earlier this year that the 2019 GMC Sierra would be getting a 3.0-liter I6 diesel option, but it never mentioned power or fuel economy figures. Hold the phone though, because a leaked GM Canada document just showed up online that lists out the details we've been waiting for. Originally published by TFL Truck, the 3.0-liter oil-burner supposedly makes 282 horsepower and 450 pound-feet of torque. For those who are counting, that's more than the Ford F-150's 250 horsepower and 440 pound-feet from its 3.0-liter diesel. It soundly bests the 240 horsepower and 420 pound-feet of torque from Ram's 3.0-liter diesel as well. Fuel economy is another story, though. The promotional material states that it will get 28 mpg on the highway, which is 2 mpg short of the F-150's 30 mpg — mind you, it's only capable of that magical 30 mpg figure in rear-wheel drive form. There's another caveat here, too; these are numbers for Canada, so they're not exactly finalized EPA figures. However, we wouldn't expect drastic differences between the two when the American numbers come out. The leaked documents also state the diesel Sierra will be capable of towing 7,800 pounds. That number seems remarkably low when compared to the F-150, which can tow up to 11,400 pounds with its diesel. Extra power and torque would have us assume that GM could get even better numbers than Ford, so we're going to hold our final judgment for official word. A 10-speed automatic will do the shifting on the diesel, just like on the 6.2-liter V8. Since the Chevy Silverado is also expected to get this engine, we can assume the figures would be almost, if not identical, to those we see here. We recently drove the 2019 Sierra and Silverado without the diesel engines, so go check those reviews out if you'd like to know more of our thoughts on the redesigned GM trucks. Related video:

Junkyard Gem: 1986 Chevrolet Sprint Plus

General Motors sold second- and third-generation Suzuki Cultuses with Geo or Chevrolet Metro badging in the United States from 1989 through 2001 model years, and we've all seen plenty of those cars on the street over the years. The first-generation Cultus was sold here as well, with Chevrolet Sprint badges, and I've found a rare example of the Sprint five-door hatchback in a Northern California car graveyard. The Chevy Sprint first appeared on the West Coast as a 1985 model, then became available everywhere in the United States for the 1986 through 1988 model years (in Canada, it was sold as the Pontiac Firefly). It was available here as a hatchback with three or five doors; for 1986 only, the five-door was badged as the Sprint Plus. Soon enough, The General would be selling many more Asian-built cars with Detroit badges here. Isuzu I-Marks were sold as Chevrolet/Geo Spectrums starting in the 1986 model year, while Daewoo provided the Pontiac LeMans two years later. Under the hood, a 1.0-liter three-cylinder rated at 48 horsepower. The five-door Sprint cost $5,580 in 1986, which was $200 more than the three-door (those prices would be $15,445 and $14,891 in 2023 dollars). I've documented seven discarded Sprints prior to this one (including an extremely rare Turbo Sprint), and all of them were three-doors; we can assume that price was the most important factor for Sprint buyers. Gasoline prices were crashing hard during the middle 1980s, but memories of gas lines and odd-even-day fuel rationing from 1979 remained strong. What cars competed with the '86 Sprint on sticker price? Well, there was no way to undercut the hilariously affordable (and terrible) Yugo GV, which cost $3,990. The much bigger (but still pretty bad) Hyundai Excel listed at $4,995, while Toyota would sell you a sturdy (but zero-fun) Tercel starting at $5,448. Even the wretched Chevy Chevette — yes, it was still available in 1986 — cost $5,645. The original buyer of this car was willing to shell out an extra $395 to get an automatic instead of the base five-speed manual. That's about $1,093 in today's money. This car must have been slow. By the end, the doors were held shut with duct tape, but it still stayed alive until age 37. 53 miles per gallon on the highway! It does everything. The camels of the highway.

GM won't really kill off the Chevy Volt and Cadillac CT6, will it?

General Motors is apparently considering killing off six slow-selling models by 2020, according to Reuters. But is that really likely? The news is mentioned in a story where UAW president Dennis Williams notes that slumping US car sales could threaten jobs at low-volume factories. Still, we're skeptical that GM is really serious about killing those cars. Reuters specifically calls out the Buick LaCrosse, Cadillac CT6, Cadillac XTS, Chevrolet Impala, Chevrolet Sonic, and the Chevrolet Volt. Most of these have been redesigned or refreshed within the past few model years. Four - the LaCrosse, Impala, CT6, and Volt - are built in the Hamtramck factory in Detroit. That plant has made only 35,000 cars this year - down 32 percent from 2016. A typical GM plant builds 200,000-300,000 vehicles a year. Of all the cars Williams listed, killing the XTS, Impala, and Sonic make the most sense. They're older and don't sell particularly well. On the other hand, axing the other three seems like an odd move. It would leave Buick and Cadillac without flagship sedans, at least until the rumored Cadillac CT8 arrives. The CT6 was a big investment for GM and backing out after just a few years would be a huge loss. It also uses GM's latest and best materials and technology, making us even more skeptical. The Volt is a hugely important car for Chevrolet, and supplementing it with a crossover makes more sense than replacing it with one. Offering one model with a range of powertrain variants like the Hyundai Ioniq and Toyota Prius might be another route GM could take. All six of these vehicles are sedans, Yes, crossover sales are booming, but there's still a huge market for cars. Backing away from these would be essentially giving up sales to competitors from around the globe. The UAW might simply be publicly pushing GM to move crossover production to Hamtramck to avoid closing the plant and laying off workers. Sales of passenger cars are down across both GM and the industry. Consolidating production in other plants and closing Hamtramck rather than having a single facility focus on sedans might make more sense from a business perspective. GM is also trying to reduce its unsold inventory, meaning current production may be slowed or halted while current cars move into customer hands. There's a lot of politics that goes into building a car. GM wants to do what makes the most sense from a business perspective, while the UAW doesn't workers to lose their jobs when a factory closes.