2010 Lt 5.3l V8 16v Automatic 4wd Premium Onstar on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM: Without LG Chem, we couldn't build Bolt EV [UPDATE]

It's absolutely no surprise that General Motors has a thing for LG Corp. The Detroit automaker and the Korean parts supplier have been working in public on electric vehicles ever since it was announced that LG Chem would supply the battery cells for the Chevy Volt in 2009. LG Chem was even named GM's 2010 Supplier of the Year. But, yesterday, the connection between the two companies was strengthened with the announcement that LG Electronics would be supplying a number of components for the upcoming Chevy Bolt electric vehicle. The Bolt is expected to be able to go about 200 miles and will carry a price tag of about $30,000 (after incentives) when it arrives in 2017 or so. LG's new components can be found almost everywhere in the Bolt. They include the battery pack and the battery heater, a new motor, the power inverter module, the electric climate control system compressor, the on-board charger, high-power distribution module, the accessory power module, and power line communication module. Oh, and then there are LG Electronics' advanced display technologies like the new instrument cluster and a new infotainment cluster. LG Electronics also supplies parts for the 4G LTE OnStar system, just like it does in other new Chevys. If that all sounds like a lot of components to you, you're right. Mark Reuss, GM executive vice president of global product development, purchasing and supply chain, said that without the expanded relationship with LG, GM would not be able to bring the Bolt to market (insert old ironic quote link here). "I think GM was lacking that [electrification knowledge] in a very complete way for many years, I'll just be frank about that," Reuss said. "I also think that on an electrified basis, this requires a long-term commitment and trust that sometimes is violated on a more short-term, regular, traditional basis. I think we have found something completely different with LG and I think that has become a widely talked about and duplicated want from our purchasing and corporate standpoint with our supply base." The "this" that Reuss is talking about here is the OEM-supplier relationship, something has evolved with the LG-GM situation. Previously, the automaker-supplier relationship used to be more like a dictator telling underlings what he needed, Reuss said, and that was a bad idea. "Today's competitive landscape requires a different approach, especially in electrified vehicles," he said.

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.

We really want to use an eCrate to restomod an old GM car. Here's what we'd build

You hopefully saw the news today of GM's introduction of its Connect and Cruise eCrate motor and battery package, which effectively makes the Bolt's electric motor, battery pack and myriad other elements available to, ah, bolt into a different vehicle. It's the same concept as installing a gasoline-powered crate motor into a classic car, but with electricity and stuff.  This, of course, got us thinking about what we'd stuff the eCrate into. Before we got too ahead of ourselves, however, we discovered that the eCrate battery pack is literally the Bolt EV pack in not only capacity but size and shape. In other words, you need to have enough space in the vehicle to place and/or stuff roughly 60% of a Chevy Bolt's length. It's not a big car, but that's still an awful lot of real estate. There's a reason GM chose to simply plop the pack into the bed and cargo area of old full-size SUVs. Well that, and having a rear suspension beefy enough to handle about 1,000 pounds of batteries.  So after that buzz kill, we still wanted to peruse the GM back catalog for classics we'd love to see transformed into an electric restomod that might be able to swallow all that battery ... maybe ... possibly ... whatever, saws and blow torches exist for a reason.  1971 Buick Riviera Consumer Editor Jeremy Korzeniewski: If you’re going to build an electric conversion, why not do it with style? ThatÂ’s why IÂ’m choosing a 1971-1973 Buick Riviera. You know, the one with the big glass boat-tail rear end that ends in a pointy V. Being a rather large vehicle with a big sloping fastback shape, IÂ’m hoping thereÂ’s enough room in the trunk and back seat to pack in the requisite battery pack. That would likely require cutting away some of the metal bulkhead that supports the rear seatback, but not so much that a wee bit of structural bracing couldnÂ’t shore things up. The big 455-cubic-inch Buick V8 up front will obviously have to go. Remember, this was the 1970s, so despite all that displacement, the Riviera only had around 250 horsepower (depending on the year and the trim level). So the electric motorÂ’s 200 horsepower and 266 pound-feet of torque ought to work as an acceptable replacement.   1982 Chevrolet S10 Associate Editor Byron Hurd: OK, so the name "E-10" is already taken by a completely different truck, but let's not let labels get in the way of a fun idea.