Our panel of 91 professional philosophers has responded to

23
 questions about 
History
51
 questions about 
War
38
 questions about 
Race
68
 questions about 
Happiness
364
 questions about 
Logic
34
 questions about 
Music
32
 questions about 
Sport
220
 questions about 
Value
58
 questions about 
Punishment
87
 questions about 
Law
116
 questions about 
Children
208
 questions about 
Science
69
 questions about 
Business
43
 questions about 
Color
133
 questions about 
Love
4
 questions about 
Economics
571
 questions about 
Philosophy
282
 questions about 
Mind
5
 questions about 
Euthanasia
58
 questions about 
Abortion
110
 questions about 
Biology
153
 questions about 
Sex
243
 questions about 
Justice
81
 questions about 
Identity
24
 questions about 
Suicide
31
 questions about 
Space
284
 questions about 
Language
151
 questions about 
Existence
75
 questions about 
Beauty
36
 questions about 
Literature
167
 questions about 
Freedom
88
 questions about 
Physics
67
 questions about 
Feminism
217
 questions about 
Education
1268
 questions about 
Ethics
2
 questions about 
Culture
282
 questions about 
Knowledge
77
 questions about 
Emotion
2
 questions about 
Action
104
 questions about 
Art
107
 questions about 
Animals
54
 questions about 
Medicine
96
 questions about 
Time
79
 questions about 
Death
391
 questions about 
Religion
67
 questions about 
Truth
75
 questions about 
Perception
27
 questions about 
Gender
124
 questions about 
Profession

Question of the Day

The fallacy of composition is drawing conclusions about the whole from facts about the parts when the facts about the parts don't support the conclusion. Obvious case: every cell in my body weighs less than a pound. But that doesn't support the conclusion that I weigh less than a pound. The fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy: you can't tell whether it's been committed just by looking at the form of the inference while ignoring the content.

In any case, the inference you're considering isn't a conclusion about a particular car—a whole—based on premises about its parts. It's a conclusion about all or most cars of a certain sort based on facts about some cars of that sort. This doesn't count as a part/whole relationship in the sense relevant for potential cases of the fallacy of composition. "Chevy cars" aren't a whole in the relevant sense.

On the other hand, it would be hasty to generalize about Chevies based on a sample of two. So yes: hasty generalization.

A footnote, however: even people who've taught informal logic are often bad at naming fallacies; I certainly am. That's because the names aren't really important. What's important is being able to say what's gone wrong. Saying that an argument commits a petitio principii or the homunculus fallacy (I didn't know what that was either until five minutes ago) won't help most people unless they already know what these terms mean. And most of the time, they won't.