2013 Shelby Gt500 Mustang Coupe on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Detroit 3 to implement delayed unified towing standards for 2015

Car buyers have a responsibility to be well-informed consumers. That's not always a very simple task, but some guidelines are self-evident. If you live in a very snowy climate, you generally know a Ford Mustang or Chevrolet Camaro might not be as viable a vehicle choice as an all-wheel drive Explorer or Traverse, for example. If you want a fuel-efficient car, it's generally a good idea to know the difference between a diesel and a hybrid. But what if it's kind of tough to be an informed consumer? What if the information you need is more difficult to come by, or worse, based on different standards for each vehicle? Well, in that case, you might be a truck shopper. For years, customers of light-duty pickups have had to suffer through different ratings of towing capacities for each brand. For 2015 model year trucks, though, that will no longer be a problem. According to Automotive News, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler Group have announced that starting with next year's models, a common standard will be used to measure towing capacity. The Detroit Three will join Toyota, which adopted the Society of Automotive Engineers' so-called SAE J2807 standards way back in 2011. The standard was originally supposed to be in place for MY2013, but concerns that it would lower the overall stated capacity for trucks led Detroit automakers to pass. Ford originally passed, claiming it'd wait until its new F-150 was launched to adopt the new standards, leading GM and Ram to follow suit. Nissan, meanwhile, has said it will adopt the new standards as its vehicles are updated, meaning the company's next-generation Titan should adhere to the same tow ratings as its competitors. While the adoption of SAE J2807 will be helpful for light-duty customers, those interested in bigger trucks will still be left with differing standards. There is no sign of the new tow standards being adopted for the heavy-duty market.

Is it time for American carmakers to give up on dual-clutch transmissions? [w/poll]

Last week, in the midst of Detroit's first days seeking relief in Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code, Automotive News contributor Larry P. Vellequette penned an editorial suggesting that American car companies raise the white flag on dual clutch transmissions and give up on trying to persuade Americans to buy cars fitted with them. Why? Because, Vellequette says, like CVT transmissions, they "just don't sound right or feel right to American drivers." (Note: In the article, it's not clear if Vellequette is arguing against wet-clutch and dry-clutch DCTs or just dry-clutch DCTs, which is what Ford and Chrysler use.) The article goes on to state that Ford and Chrysler have experimented with DCTs and that both consumers and the automotive press haven't exactly given them glowing reviews, despite their quicker shifts and increased fuel efficiency potential compared to torque-converter automatic transmissions.
Autoblog staffers who weighed in on the relevance of DCTs in American cars generally disagreed with the blanket nature of Vellequette's statement that they don't sound or feel right, but admit that their lack of refinement compared to traditional automatics can be an issue for consumers. That's particularly true in workaday cars like the Ford Focus and Dodge Dart, both of which have come in for criticism in reviews and owner surveys. From where we sit, the higher-performance orientation of such transmissions doesn't always meld as well with the marching orders of everyday commuters (particularly if drivers haven't been educated as to the transmission's benefits and tradeoffs), and in models not fitted with paddle shifters, it's particularly hard for drivers to use a DCT to its best advantage.
Finally, we also note that DCT tuning is very much an evolving science. For instance, Autoblog editors who objected to dual-clutch tuning in the Dart have more recently found the technology agreeable in the Fiat 500L. Practice makes perfect - or at least more acceptable.

EV tax credits: Here's every electric car or plug-in hybrid that qualifies

Starting on April 18, the Internal Revenue Service released new guidance for U.S. buyers shopping for a new electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle. On April 18th, the IRS showed only six fully electric vehicles on the qualified list, but a day later Volkswagen confirmed its U.S.-built ID.4 also qualifies. That means right now, seven fully electric vehicles qualify for the full $7,500 EV tax credit, with three more from Chevrolet coming for the 2024 model year (we would expect these 2024 models to roll out slowly and be difficult to find for at least the first few months they are on the market). In addition to those seven fully electric cars, two plug-in hybrids also qualify for the full $7,500 credit. To qualify, a vehicle must be assembled in North America and must meet a strict set of guidelines that cover where battery materials were sourced. If any battery materials come from certain countries (importantly including China), the vehicle's tax credit is automatically cut in half. Further, according to the IRS, the vehicle's manufacturer suggested retail price (MSRP) can't exceed $80,000 for vans, sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks or $55,000 for any other type of vehicle (basically meaning sedans). Electric vehicles that qualify for the full $7,500 EV tax credit: Cadillac Lyriq (2023-2024) Chevrolet Blazer EV (2024) Chevrolet Bolt EV (2023-2024) Chevrolet Bolt EUV (2023-2024) Chevrolet Equinox (2024) Chevrolet Silverado (2024) Ford F-150 Lightning — all models (2022-2023) Tesla Model 3 Performance (2022-2023) Tesla Model Y — all models (2022-2023) Volkswagen ID.4 — U.S.-built models (2022-2023) Plug-in hybrid cars that qualify for the full $7,500 EV tax credit: Chrysler Pacifica PHEV (2022-2023) Lincoln Aviator Grand Touring (2022-2023) A smaller credit is offered on fully electric cars and plug-in hybrids that are assembled in North America but have batteries with materials sourced from unqualified countries (mostly China).