General Motors discussions

m1miata

Just kidding about the 2 for 1 sale!

Who knows what tomorrow pricing scheme will be. People still recall the " no sales, great every day pricing at Sears news some years back? " That lasted about a month.
Now reduced pricing is seriously a good idea on some or all of the GM cars. In some cases, like the CTS, perhaps a little less on the retail, and make the base engine the 3.6 V6. Why skimp if it is a luxury car? Chrysler 300 with a 2.7 V6 is a joke.
So it is not all GM doing dumb things, on a consistent basis.

m1miata

How would you rate the Ford product vs. GM on say the Fusion vs. Malibu? Or would you say the G6 competes in the same class?

How about G6 Coupe vs. Accord Coupe?

Loren

plekto

Chrysler has some of the best designers in the industry. If they could only engineer the things to last 300-400K miles, then I'd be the first to but something like this - it's a LOT hotter than the Mustang or Camaro, both of which are more plastic and looks than substance.

gtee

I think that this whole discussion about Camaro and Mustang and Charger is just funny. It just goes to show how the Domestic car companies don't have any new ideas. The market for a 2 door sports car is fairly limited. I think about 10 years ago the market for 2 door cars was close to dead. Chevy canceled the Camaro, Ford canceled Thunderbird because the sales were so low. I would guess that the market for 2-door 'Mustang' type car is about 200K per year in USA max. The only reason that Mustang is doing well is because there is no competition for it. No more Camaro, No more Firebird, and No more Thunderbird. When the Camaro, Charger and Mustang start to compete for the same 200K buyers all of them will loose. Its not a case of well Mustang sold 150K cars per year, so the Camaro will also sell 150K cars per. Its the case of Mustang sales will drop and Camaro's sales will suck.

The youth of America is not buying V-8 powered Muscle cars. They cannot afford the insurance rates on the RWD 300HP car. The youth is buying the Hondas and Scions because they are cheap to insure and they are cool. Mustangs are purchased by 40 year old trying to remeber the youth. Hey you have to be 40 just to afford an insurance on a Mustang GT. The Camaro will not be a big hit for GM. It will not even be a hit at all.

I can just see how the idea for Camaro was born. GM managers knew that the market for 2-door cars was dead, and they were totally surprised that Ford Mustang was a hit. So they had to do something. (Reactionary management style.) And some bright manager came up with the idea: "Hey if Ford can copy and 67 Mustang, then why don't we copy the 67 Camaro." And the prototype was born.

It just goes to show how GM has absolutely no new ideas what so ever. They are so lost its not even funny.

Take a look at the new Saturn Hybrid. Now I am an electrical engineer. I see what a joke the Saturn Hybrid is. Toyota carefully engineered their hybrids. They have electric CVT transmission without a torque converter and they have Atkinson cycle engines. Toyota invested the money and did Hybrid right.

What does GM do to catch up. Well they replaced the normal alternator on the Saturn with a 'Bigger' motor. Look at the picture, its just a big alternator. It has the same 4-speed automatic transmission with a torque convert as plain old Saturn Vue. Every body knows that the torque converter is very inefficient. To me the Saturn Hybrid looks like a high school project of converting a car into a hybrid. I am surprised that more engineers on this forum have not said something about the Saturn Vue "Hybrid."

plekto

Though, even the Prius is a far cry from a true hybrid. I cal lit a halfway measure and the rest are jokes as they rely on the IC engine - more like "electric boost" or "electric idle mode".

Also, CVT transmissions with a torque converter(bastardization of the technology, btw) cost about $3000 or so to replace when they go bad, last I checked. The CVT in the Prius has no torque converter, so it should last a decade and cost a few hundred dollars to fix.

As for true hybrid - that would be an electric vehicle powered by a small turbo-diesel engine the size of a motorcycle's. Maybe 2-4 batteries for peak use/hill climbing for 10 miles max, instead of 10-20. Essentially you use a 60HP or so motorcycle sized engine that gets 80-100mpg to adequately power a small car. Extra points if the thing is multi-fuel/vegetable oil compatable. Bonus on top of that if it's a small turbine(ie - only 4-5 times larger than a typical turbocharger unit!).

Of course, it would be gallon(s) per hour. It would use the same fuel idling as it does running around in the city, since the engine is essentially a fancy little generator.

GM can't catch up. in 4-5 years, Toyota will be pounding the market flat again with the 3rd or 4th generation Puris and/or making all of their vehicles hybrids other than the 4*4s. The ONLY way that GM can truly compete is to abandon catching up and aim for where Toyota will be in 5 years. Essentially do a leapfrog tactic and skip a step.

This means building a car like what I posted above. No drivetrain, no gearbox, no engine mounts to fail(bolted in place instead), no radiator(small enough to be air-cooled), no complicated emissions equipment since it runs at one constant RPM... And the "engine" would only weigh maybe 200lbs. Add 200 lbs of batteries and that's it - you just dropped the weight of that Buick LaCrosse to 2800lbs.

Ort they can play catch-up with halfway implimented designs a college class could do better than. Their choice.

imidazol97

If you keep prices same, some complain.
If you lower prices, some complain.
If you do nothing, some complain.
I figured it out!

gsemike

I love the 69 Camaro but that Camaro concept is way overblown. How much will it weigh? You can't compare the current Mustang with the Camaro concept because the Camaro will never look like that when it comes to market. When the Mustang concept first materialized, it was alot wilder than the production version.

The Camaro will have to go on a serious diet and get alot more feminine before it hits showrooms. Even then, it will be a limited appeal car. They should have put less effort into this and more effort into the Impala which looks like a retro 95 Lumina.

andre1969

if production versions of the Camaro, as well as the Challenger, would keep that pillarless hardtop style? I've actually seen pics of the Charger concept with the rear windows rolled down, and it was all open, no B-pillar, just like back in the day.

IIRC though, one of the concepts for what ultimately became the 1995 Monte Carlo was also pillarless, but when it came to market it was just a generic 2-door sedan. The LaCrosse concept (the one that would've been more of a Park Ave replacement) was also a hardtop. It even had little windows in the C-pillar, aft of the rear doors that rolled down.

Hardtops aren't exactly cheap to build, at least if you do them right. AFAIK Mercedes Benz is the only one these days to still offer a hardtop. The old BMW 8-series was also a hardtop. It would be nice to see some (semi) affordable hardtops come on to the market.

dpat

Take a look at the new Saturn Hybrid. Now I am an electrical engineer. I see what a joke the Saturn Hybrid is. Toyota carefully engineered their hybrids. They have electric CVT transmission without a torque converter and they have Atkinson cycle engines. Toyota invested the money and did Hybrid right.

I guess you could look at it that way. The way I see it is that they added other things to it to obscure the true cost and benefit of the actual hybrid system. How much of the improved fuel economy is from the hybrid system, and how much is from the CVT and atkinson engine? How much of the additional cost? Why doesn't Toyota put Atkinson engines and CVTs in every car they build if they're so great?

With the GM system, we know exactly how much the Hybrid system costs and how much benefit we get from it. Toyota does everything in its power to hide those facts from us.

Everyone says GM is behind in hybrids. Maybe they're just waiting until they can build vehicles where the hybrid systems make economic sense. (By the way, GM has been building hybrid buses, with a very advanced "full" hybrid system, for several years now, so they have the technology)

anythngbutgm

http://thetruthaboutcars.com/content/1136908925848489408/index.php

"UPDATE: The Chevy Tahoe Hybrid has been removed from the floor of the Detroit Auto Show."

rockylee

Hi everyone

I've seen some of the new concepts from GM and like em' alot !!!! :shades:

I gotta check em' out closer to see what's included in the vehicles besides benchmark Quality, styling, fit and finish

Rocky

quikkash

Improved styling would go a long way towards saving GM. The Pontiac GTO would likely have hit its sales targets had it not looked like a bloated Cavalier. GM was actually near the leading edge of the whole crossover SUV phenomenon with the Pontiac Aztec, but the styling was nothing short or horrendous so nobody bought these capable, but monstrously ugly vehicles without serious discounts. How much money could have been made over the years if they had gotten the look right?

lemko

If the Aztek had looked more like the Torrent, would've the Aztek been a success? It would also help if they'd have spelled "Aztec" properly.

sls002

While you make some valid points, there are some errors in your post. The Thunderbird started out as a sports car like the Corvette. Then Ford made it into a luxury personal coupe. As such it continued into the 1970s. At some point Ford decided to lower the price and make it into a lower end coupe. The recent Thunderbird was a remake/retro of the first Thunderbird, a luxury convertible, not a muscle car. The Mustang is a muscle car in the lower price range. The Camaro/Firebird were the prime competitors. Now the GTO is a competitor, but does not have much in the styling department.

It is true that the Mustang has little competition with the demise of the Cararo/Firebird. However, the Thunderbird was more competition for the Corvette, although the T-bird was really a convertible for the luxury market, not a sports car.

lemko

...Corvette stayed true to its sportscar origins. Could you imagine what would've happened if it followed the Thunderbird's path? The Corvette would've ended up as a plush huge personal luxury coupe based on the Eldorado in the '70s. Then it would've been downsized and been no different than a 1979 Regal coupe.

anythngbutgm

Actually wasn't it true that the original 54 didn't live up to the hype? Wasn't till the V8 was added that the car had any kind of performance cred.

lemko

...the original Corvette was the 1953 model. It had a 250 cid Blue Flame Six with three two-barrel carbs. The first few Corvettes used the same wheelcovers as Bel Air sedans.
It wasn't until 1955 that the Corvette got the 265 V-8 that debuted with the standard Chevrolet cars. The fact that the original 'Vette came with an automatic tranny didn't help.

sls002

reading GM's blogs indicates that the Camaro concept is just that, a concept. A production version is not planned at this time. There are many other products under development that are needed first. I think what is really needed is a decent RWD platform for both large sedans and intermediate size sedans/coupes, that does not cost too much to build. The current sigma RWD platform is an expensive platform to build.

andre1969

those '53-54 Corvettes with the 150 hp "blue flame" 6-cyl were good for 0-60 in around 10-11 seconds, with an automatic. That was considered fast for the time. Not too many domestics would touch it at the time, and precious few with an automatic. Maybe a Caddy? And the old Chryslers that used the Windsor body and the NYer Hemi and a manual shift (can't remember if they used the Saratoga name that early on) were pretty quick. And the Buick Century, the Olds 88, and various Lincolns were fairly quick. Back then though, if you wanted speed, you had to pay for it. Or you bought some old 30's wreck and dropped a bigger engine in it.

But for all of Chuck Berry's singing about how nothing would catch his V-8 Ford, they were slugs prior to 1955.

sls002

I think that the Corvette started out as more of an experiment than anything. It became a decent sports car by the end of the 50's in my opinion. The Thunderbird started out as a flashy 2 passenger sports car, but not with great handling. The T-bird was more of a luxury sports-like convertible. Ford developed it into a different style of car than the Corvette. The group at GM behind the Corvette knew what they wanted it to become.

sls002

The group at GM that developed the Corvette had come back from WWII with European sports cars on their minds. Chevy only had six's in the early 50's.

anythngbutgm

There aren't too many things I wouldn't do to own a mint 55 T-bird... One of my favorite classics. The 04' failure may have taken a few styling cues, but it was nowhere near as elegant or classy looking.

sls002

The first T-birds are very classy looking, much nicer than the Corvettes.

The recent T-bird's failure goes along with the Riviera and Eldorado extinctions too. Large, luxury personal coupes seem to be out of style. I think this is so because the "sports sedan" is now the in car for this market. Or maybe the "sports, luxury, crossover SUV" is in.

xrunner2

I would like to see the Chrysler Challenger selling around $21K too. Bring back the base models like the old days. I don't need the anti-lock brakes, stability control and all that jazz. I want a car, not a techno gadget people carrier.

Too bad GM does not apparently benchmark the BMW 3 series and then build something better than a pony car. Don't they already have a decent in-line engine from Trailblazer that could be used in a GM 3 series? GM builds many rear-drive vehicles, so they have that expertise. There is a larger market for a "balanced" enthusiast car (no monster V8) than there will be for pony cars. A mid-20's priced "BMW type" GM, or Chrysler or Ford, car (available as both base and expensive frills) would attract buyers both of American and foreign brand preferences.

bumpy

those '53-54 Corvettes with the 150 hp "blue flame" 6-cyl were good for 0-60 in around 10-11 seconds, with an automatic. That was considered fast for the time.

Original 1953 Corvette Specifications:
Curb Weight: 2,886 lbs.

That puts it in the neighborhood of an early 240SX hatchback, compared to the typical 4000+ pound battletanks of the era.

sls002

The CTS is a GM 3-series. I do not think that the Trailblazer six would fit. I think that a car version of this engine could be made, but for the CTS a V8 could have been designed with a smaller block than the northstar. I am thinking something in the 3.5-4.0 liter range. Perhaps something with 8 cylinders of the same size as the 2.8 V6 -> 3.7 liters, perhaps 280 horsepower.

xrunner2

The CTS is a GM 3-series.

I suggested a "mid-20s" GM 3 series available as base model, with optional higher end frills model, as an alternative to another pony car. Trailblazer six has gotten good reviews for its power. How would it compare to BMW six if put in GM styled BMW? This would be a good car for Pontiac, the advertised performance division, as a replacement for Australian GTO.

Pontiac has Solstice that competes with Miata and as stretch kind of Honda S2000. Would be nice for Pontiac to have direct competitor to BMW 3 series. Cadillac can try to compete with BMW at 5 and 7 series level.

xrunner2

The CTS is a GM 3-series.

I suggested a "mid-20s" GM 3 series available as base model, with optional higher end frills model, as an alternative to another pony car. Trailblazer six has gotten good reviews for its power. How would it compare to BMW six if put in GM styled BMW? This would be a good car for Pontiac, the advertised performance division, as a replacement for Australian GTO.

Pontiac has Solstice that competes with Miata and as stretch kind of Honda S2000. Would be nice for Pontiac to have direct competitor to BMW 3 series. Cadillac can try to compete with BMW at 5 and 7 series level.

gtee

How much of the improved fuel economy is from the hybrid system, and how much is from the CVT and atkinson engine?

Well Toyota cannot put a Atkinson cycle engine in non-electric hybrids because this type of engine does not develop low end torque. The low end torque is provided by the electric motor. Again the electric CVT transmission is 'Electric.' It needs the batteries of the hybrid powertrain to operate. I don't have the space here to explain to you how it works, but rest assured that it works very efficiently.

The whole point of my post is that Toyota actually engineered two very complicated, but efficient subsystem like special engine and transmission for the hybrid to maximize the fuel efficiency. These components can only be used in a hybrid car. GM does not have the resources or does not have the knowledge or desire to engineer something specifically for the Saturn hybrid. They took the quick and easy way out by simply exchanging a regular alternator for a larger alternator/motor. They did not even want to change the design of the engine/transmission package to fit the alternator between the engine and transmission like Honda does it. No, they made a "BELT DRIVEN" hybrid. They left everything the same, and simply replaced a regular alternator with a more powerful alternator, which can also work as a motor. BIG DEAL. They did not even bother to put in a 5-speed automatic transmission. They left the same old boring 4-speed unit.

To me this Saturn Vue hybrid is just another example of GM's mediocre engineering skills.

(By the way, GM has been building hybrid buses, with a very advanced "full" hybrid system, for several years now, so they have the technology)

Yes they have the technology, the problem is that this technology only fits on a Bus. It will take them years to reduce the size of this technology so it fits in a car.

62vetteefp

I know him. He is an auto salesman. Conspiracies!

gtee

I should have clarified about the Thunderbird. I was talking about the middle-late 90's Thunderbird SC. That is when every body stated to cancel the 2-door cars. I think also Lincoln Mark VIII and Cadillac Eldorado come to mind as 2-door cars that just did not sell. The whole market for a personal 2 door car is very small.

My point is still the same. The market for a Mustang type muscle car is very small, and having to divide the same number of customers three ways between Mustang, Camaro and Charger will just result in dismal sales for all three of them.

sls002

The Trailblazer six is 4.2 liters. That is a large inline six. BMW's six is currently 3 liters. I am surprised that the new 3-series did not get a larger inline six. The 3-series engine is new. I think BMW is limited in how large the inline six can get. I think that a small V8 would make more sense than the Trailblazer six. I would agree that a nice RWD platform that is less costly to build than the sigma platform would make sense for a lower priced sedan/coupe that might compete in the low end 3-series category.

sls002

I think that you are right, the market for 2-door cars is not what it used to be. There are some that do OK in the low priced market. GTO sales are around 12,000 per year. With the addition of more cars like this, sales of each will be less. To make the GTO profitable, a RWD sedan on the same platform is needed that would sell at the rate of say 60,000 or more annually.

lemko

...how big was the Hudson Hornet's inline six? Wasn't it somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 cid?

sls002

But cars back then were much larger. Buick used to have a straight eight before GM decided that the hoods were too long.

lemko

I could've bought a black 1950 Buick Roadmaster with that huge inline eight when I was back in college for a mere $600! Trouble is, I already had my 1979 Buick Park Avenue and my money was earmarked for tuition and such. I remember seeing the name "FIREBALL EIGHT" in bold text across that long valve cover. That, and the HUGE six-volt battery beside it. It was neat how you started the car. You turned the key one click, then pressed down on the gas pedal. That car fired-up immediately. Ahhhh, another one that got away!

andre1969

used to have a 300 CID inline six in their truck lineup. I'm not positive, but I think it dated back to the 240 CID 6 that they used in full-sized cars starting around 1965. I believe the 250 CID was also in this same engine family. It was a physically larger, heavier block than the small 144/170/200 CID 6-cyl that was used in Falcons, Mustangs, Mavericks, and other small cars, but I don't think it was too overtly bulky.

andre1969

there's an old 1949 or so Buick on a piece of property that my family owns down in southern VA. If you want it, you can have it, but you gotta go get it! Oh, BTW, last time I saw it was around 1979-80, and it was pretty buried in the woods and shot up/beat up back then. I'd shudder to think what it looks like now, 25-26 years later.

lemko

...I had a professor who had a really nice turquoise and white 1952 Buick Super. When I was very young, a neighbor had a pink and white 1955 Buick Special. He later got a new gold 1969 Cadillac Calais.

jae5

200K cars/6 cars per dealer per month /12 months is the correct calculation, which would put you @ 2,778 dealers

plekto

How much of the improved fuel economy is from the hybrid system, and how much is from the CVT and atkinson engine? How much of the additional cost? Why doesn't Toyota put Atkinson engines and CVTs in every car they build if they're so great?
***
The thing is - Toyota plans to eventually convert all of their passenger cars, save a couple of special sportscars and the lowest-end econoboxes to such a system. They have the technology, the willpower, and are looking far into the future. A future where gasoline is $5-10 a gallon as it is slowly running out. A future where hybrids are considered necessarry. You can evidently get a hybrid Camry next year - same system as in the Prius. Going to sell even more of these than the Prius I bet.

GM and Ford? Not even trying. Chrysler seems to have the desire to make nice cars and hybrids, but lacks the engineering skills to do so. I think their original bankruptcy helped them to not make the same mistakes anymore - at least in leadership and in dealing with unions, so they will survive in some fashion, at least. Of course, the cars are still second-rate from an engineering prespective.

gtee

Exactly right about Toyota Hybrids. GM's attempt at Saturn Hybrid is so pathetic that its an embarrassment to the company. Now compare Saturn to Ford Escape Hybrid. Ford Escape Hybrid uses the Toyota Hybrid system with a full hybrid technology. Look at the city gas millage for Escape and Vue. Ford Escape is rated at 36 MPG in the City, while the Vue is only rated at 27 MPG in the City. City driving is where Hybrids do best and show their true fuel economy. This is where regenerative braking comes into play.

Now that should tell you something about the efficiency of the GM's hybrid technology. There are many reasons why the GM's system does not work well. Then you have to remeber the "First Year" effect of this whole GM hybrid system. I wonder how good Mr. Goodwrench will be in changing fuses in the GM Hybrid drive.

dpat

Just because something's simple doesn't make it bad. It'll be a much easier task for mechanics to adjust to the Vue Green line than it was for them to adapt to the Toyota system because, as you have repeatedly said, it's very similar to the pure ICE system.

The hybrid premium for GM's "mild hybrid" system is reported to be about $2000. Compare this to the $4000-$5000 in MSRP difference for a hybrid escape or highlander. (and that's not even taking into account the fact that the true hybrid premium is often even higher because non-hybrid vehicles usually sell at much larger discounts from MSRP - that won't be the case with Saturn's no-haggle pricing)

veliger

Ford Escape Hybrid uses the Toyota Hybrid system with a full hybrid technology.

This is simply an untrue statement. Ford developed their own parallel Hybrid system. They licensed several patented technologies from Toyota, but the Ford system is NOT the Toyota system. How did this Urban Legend/Myth get started?

I'm still waiting for a plug-in serial hybrid, essentially an electric car with a gasoline generator to recharge the batteries, or supply more current in high demand situations. A serial hybrid should be much simpler, cheaper and more efficient than the unnecessarily complex Toyota and Ford parallel hybrid systems.

bumpy

How did this Urban Legend/Myth get started?

Before it had any hybrids on the road, Ford licensed the Toyota system to avoid a patent infringement lawsuit. The reasons for the license tend to get omitted in retelling, thus the general assumption is that Ford is using the Totota system much like the forthcoming Nissan Altima hybrid.

hondamatic

Toyota plans to eventually convert all of their passenger cars, save a couple of special sportscars and the lowest-end econoboxes to such a system. They have the technology, the willpower, and are looking far into the future. A future where gasoline is $5-10 a gallon as it is slowly running out

Actually, isn't that future already here in Europe? I heard or read somewhere that gas costs the equivalent of $9(!) per gallon in Germany. Can someone confirm if this is true? I know it's a lot more than here in the US. If that's the case, wouldn't hybrids already be very popular there? Or do Europeans prefer to go the clean turbo diesel route?

carlisimo

It's mostly due to taxes there (gas prices, I mean). But it seems that Europeans would much rather drive a smaller car than a larger hybrid. For one thing, they already like tiny cars with tiny engines (50-60% diesel). Those get great mileage. And a car just isn't popular in Europe if it isn't stylish, stickshift and fun to drive. Not to mention Toyota and Honda hardly have any marketing presence there.

m1miata

No doubt higher gas prices may force us all out of the cars we loved. Gone will be the Mustang GT with the wonderful V8 power and sound. We will be forced to drive electric and hybrid heavy and dull little cars with no soul at all. Hate to think of American muscle cars, as well as, others with V6 and V8s as a static display in an auto museum. There I will be staring at these wonderful machines in a museum, and telling stories of the glory days to all the young ones that stop by for a glimpse of the past. If I have more room around the home here, I would be tempted to buy say a Mustang with the last 5.0 engine just to have something in the future to start up and reminisce of better times.

Think of the current situation with TV viewing. The new sets are outstanding. The number of stations 50 times more, yet not much to actually be entertained with. So there you go, best technology to date, but worth less than ever. Gone is the Ed Sullivan show, and all the great ones. What we have now is sitcoms, which one in ten may be funny, no shows featuring singing talent, perhaps due to the lack of new talent. Getting hard to find a Grammy winner since the music died. So there we will be, in the best techno car to date, but without a soul. Times change, and I suppose I too will adapt and warm to the silent running, twin engine, techno wonders. The new Ford will be Fix Or Recharge Daily. Oh I am bad

Loren

fred222

It's mostly due to taxes there (gas prices, I mean). But it seems that Europeans would much rather drive a smaller car than a larger hybrid
I am sure that they would prefer the larger hybrid if it did not cost any more to buy. Europeans are taxed to death at every turn. One of the Scandinavian countries has a 100% tax on new cars. Ouch

fred222

I saw a new Impala yesterday for the first time. For the first couple of glances I thought it was a mid 90's Camry and then realized what it was. I think that the Camry was a very attractive car ten years ago.