General Motors discussions

xrunner2

Heck, I really like the new look of the LaCrosse. Heck, who needs a Lucerne when you can get an awesome LaCrosse Super - VentiPorts and all!

Is Super like an SS version of Impala?

How about Chinese Buick full size? Doesn't it beat the US models for looks?

Are ventiports functional (what function?) or just some clip on chrome (or fake plastic chrome) that will catch road salt and cause rust and are hard to clean around. Buick trying to bring back Harvey Earl gimmicks?

1487

If I'm not mistaken you suggested that perhaps GM was offering remote start as a way to help speed up the demise of your AC unit so you can get it replaced. My point was that makes little sense because GM is hardly the only one offering this feature. Would you suggest that Toyota had similar nefarious intent when it offered remote start?

1487

"Yes, the world knows that in USA people prefer auto transmissions. This however doesn't mean everyone wants an automatic. With a four banger, the most bang is with a stick. And with a GOOD stick transmission, you can even have fun with it. Depends on the stop and go traffic in your area. That said, in Euorope they have heavy traffic + manual transmission use as the majority of all vehicles sold.

And yes, I agree, the Cobalt is faster to the gas station. "

I suggest you plead your case to the buying public since I am not making them buy autos. People just dont want sticks much anymore.

The cobalt is faster EVERYWHERE it goes, not just to the gas station. if all cars needed 10 secs to get to 60 they probably would all get 35mpg like the civic. BTW, MT had a compact car comparo a few months back and the civic test mileage was around 28mpg which was only slightly better than the larger engined cars in the test like the Elantra.

anythngbutgm

Yes, but GM is marketing the Lambdas as super efficient without sacrificing utility. Something like 17/24 if I recall correctly.

The thing is only 5 inches shorter than a Suburban, so for what it is 16 mpg isn't surprising. Hell, my buddys' Suburban gets 12mpg on a good day, 10 if he actually drives it...

btw, for comparison sake, I just hung out with him over the weekend, took the Tundra (5.7l DC). He's supposedly getting a consistent 19mpg with it so far...

anythngbutgm

BTW, MT had a compact car comparo a few months back and the civic test mileage was around 28mpg which was only slightly better than the larger engined cars in the test like the Elantra.

I don't read MT anymore, was that with an Si model? Seems awfully low otherwise (32/40 sticker)

louiswei

If I can rated the ugliest cars on the street both the Kia Amanti and Hyundai XG will be on top of that list. Sonata is okay looking but it is a hybrid of Audi and Honda Accord. Azera is good looking and the style is very original, it is also one of those cars that pictures just don't do it justice. The first time I saw the Azera on the street I was stunned by how elegant looking the car is. Much much better than its main competitor, Avalon, exterior wise.

Back to Buick. I really don't understand the point of the LaCrosse Super. I get the Lucerne Super (well, sort of) but who is the intended market that GM is aiming at with the LaCrosse Super? A 300HP FWD big sedan... it is as pointless as the current Chevy Impala SS if not more.

If Buick wants to make itself attractive again to the younger crowd I will just bring this to the states, drop a supercharged I4 around 200HP and call it a day...

anythngbutgm

Meh, Hyundai called, they want their Elantra back Nice interior aside from the el cheapo steering wheel and the Delta Airlines economy seat door rests.

And a Turbo I4 in a Buick to be sold in the states would be suicide. Not the intended customer. Plus, they'd just further make Pontiac look like a waste of space.

andre1969

The thing is only 5 inches shorter than a Suburban, so for what it is 16 mpg isn't surprising. Hell, my buddys' Suburban gets 12mpg on a good day, 10 if he actually drives it...


Waitaminute...isn't a Suburban something like 220" long? I know those Lambdas aren't exactly tiny things, but I know they're not 215" long! Maybe 5" shorter than a Tahoe?

lemko

Shoot, the VentiPorts were never functional. They even started out as something of a lark when Ned Nickles, a Buick designer, punched some holes in the front fenders of his 1947 Buick and put some colored lights in the holes hooked up to the distributor. Each light would flash when the particular cylinder to which it was hooked would fire. The head executive of Buick saw it and was impressed and incorporated the VentiPorts into the design of the 1949 Buick.

Road salt and rust? Heck, I never saw even the most neglected Buick rust out around the VentiPorts. If the VentiPorts are such a bad gimmick, why do I see guys putting aftermarket ones on a variety of both import and domestic makes? Heck, back in the day when the VentiPorts were a new idea, aftermarket manufacturers made them so you could put them on your Chevy or Plymouth.

Harley Earl gimmicks? Heck, Harley Earl was one of the best designers of all time! He protege Bill Mitchell was even better! These two masters were infinitely better than today's designers whose cars sport bland, look-alike styling mostly penned by soulless computers.

I must admit, some of those Chinese Buicks look pretty plush inside. They should make the American LaCrosse as nice inside. The Chinese Buick exterior styling is debatable.

imidazol97

>One thing with the remote start is that if people are using it to get the AC kicking before they get into the car, I was always told that turing off and starting the car with the AC turned on would be bad for the compressor. Is that still the case? Is the general throwing you a $150 accessory in hopes of charging you a grand dow the road for an AC overhaul?

Huh? In my GM cars the air conditioning has a delay built-in when the key returns to "on" before the AC/heater starts up. So the "general" isn't trying to do something to generate business later, as though they would do that in the first place. I don't know about the other brands like Honda, Toyota, etc., and how they have their AC systems set up.

lemko

Kind of looks like a Nissan Altima with a Buick grille. I don't think it would go over well over here. If Buick wants the youth market, they should once again build something like the Grand National.

louiswei

Plus, they'd just further make Pontiac look like a waste of space.

GM has to make up its mind.

Between the Buick and Pontiac, AT LEAST one of them is a waste of space. GMC is getting there too if the Sierra sales doesn't pick up. The Acadia should have been a Chevy from day one IMO.

m1miata

Looks like another variant of the Aura / New Malibu. Just what Buick needs. Next ya know, Cadillac will have one too!
L

louiswei

No Loren, this thing is a compact, size-wise it's like a Civic or Corolla.

m1miata

Well it appears to me that ALL manufactures have GM beat when it comes to be first with anything. Kicking and screaming they will add side air bags, and later on, once again kicking and screaming shall come the stability control. Are the hood props extra?
L

m1miata

Wow, they all look the same. Ever get the feeling that the Malibu Classic, the now rental car, was actually the more modern looking, or is it Euro looking design compared to the current Malibu? Do you see a bit of Classic in the New Malibu? IMHO, and nothing more, I thought the classified as boring Malibu "Classic" had potential. Give sharper steering and drivetrain, and an interior upgrade, it would basically have been there years ago. It would not have taken too much to update that model, which I think was better than the current. Now, is there really a need for so many variants of Epsilon is the question, or question two.

So they want a baby Buick, or the BB car? Is it RWD?
Loren

andres3

I suppose that 11K for a new Cobalt seems like a good deal until you look at the used car (5K mile or so) almost new Cobalts for $9,000.

An insurance company could legitimately give you half of what you paid after one year, whereas with the Civic they'd have to give you 90%+.

m1miata

No, they are talking about a Civic, and not a cheap car. You have this vision of a Cobalt or something.
L

m1miata

Yes, pay cash. You tend to buy what you can afford, and the bank doesn't make a penny on the transaction. Yes, I know sometime they offer 0% financing. Most times it is at the expense of a cash discount however. Just hate the thought of not having pink slip in hand, and having to remember to mail in payments. I go for cash savings and pay cash only now.
L

gsemike

"actually the fielded a car that was better equipped, more powerful and more refined than the majority of the competition at the time."

Yet it's an also ran 3 years into it's product cycle. They focused on features that don't appeal to an economy car buyer like 17 inch wheels and sacrificed 3 mpg for more HP. The sell about 150k less units a year than the aging Corolla. They dropped the ball.

That is my objective list. I know that you'll rant that I'm all wrong but your opinion still doesn't matter to the current offensive.

btw: More refined?? Who are you kidding??

m1miata

OUCH! :surprise:

andre1969

Actually, that thing looks kinda like a variant of the Suzuki Forenza to me! Not a bad looking car, but I dunno if a little Buick, even a little high-quality Buick, would sell. Seems to me that if GM wants to go for that market, they'd be better off putting some effort into Saab.

m1miata

They gotta learn to get those cars out of second gear So they got 28MPG with a Civic. Quite possible I suppose. I have recorded a low of 20 MPG with my V6 Accord with mostly in town driving and stomping around on short hops on the freeway. Most times it is 24 MPG in mixed driving and 29 MPG on highway.
L

andres3

Anyhow, I suppose my point is that, no matter what you drive, it's HOW you drive that gets you good mileage from ANY car.

However, if you don't want to change your lead foot driving ways (I'm in this group), but you do want to improve fuel economy and get the most mileage you can get, then you had better get the best you can get in gas mileage.

andre1969

However, if you don't want to change your lead foot driving ways (I'm in this group), but you do want to improve fuel economy and get the most mileage you can get, then you had better get the best you can get in gas mileage.


Yeah, but there's not always a direct correlation to that. Remember that when the EPA does those testing procedures, they pretty much drive like little old ladies would. The highway cycle is a laboratory test, probably on a treadmill, where average speed is something like 48 mph. Basically, the point where most automatic torque converters first lock up, and where most manual trannies are probably in top gear.

Sometimes if you start flogging a car with an under-sized engine (not necessarily a small engine, but an engine that's just too small for the size of the car it has to propel), and you'll end up with worse economy than if you start flogging a car with a more appropriately-sized engine. And undersized engine will just make a lot of noise and protest, and waste fuel without really doing much, but an engine that's appropriate for the car will give you the power you need. And will use more fuel than if you drove it gently, for sure, but might still use less than an under-sized engine, if it's not straining all the time.

andres3

Hmmmm...... I found the last generation 1.7 liter Civic engine to be quite economical for fuel even when driven like a race car (though you won't get the top mileage, you'll still get good mileage).

I found the old 1.5L to be the same way in the Civic.

I found the 2.0L I4 Dodge engine to be more like a V12 gas guzzler when you pushed it hard.

The 3.0L Honda V6 was pretty good at maintaining respectable mileage when red-lined a lot.

The current turbocharged 2.0L I drive does like to drink some extra gas when pushed to the extremes, but you sure do get a whole lot of speed and acceleration in return. I've never gotten less than 20 MPG. The only thing wrong is the gearing in 6th... not nearly tall enough.... works great for going up the grape vine at any speed in top gear w/o the need to ever shift, but for the mostly flat state of CA, seems like a waste of engine speed and limits highway mileage to about 30 when I think they could get 32 or 33.

sls002

The EPA cycle is designed to test the emmissions, not the fuel economy. The fuel consumption was added after the 73 oil crisis (embargo), when fuel consumption suddenly mattered to a lot of people. The highway rating is really not a highway cycle, but rather is a warm start with more of an urban (not stop and go) route. The highway route is not an interstate cruise by any means. This is one reason why I would like to see what sort of "real" consumptions would be at a steady cruise at say 65 MPH and 75 MPH. Then one could get a good idea of steady highway cruise might be.

m1miata

It is interesting that the EPA fuel numbers seem to have all fallen. I usually did as good as the old numbers or better, and I drive briskly off the line and shall we say the tall side of highway 65's and 70's posted, without getting those low numbers they say are closer to reality. That said, the PT Cruiser, being a bit more tall & blocky sometimes did not hit the mark for gas mileage. Any good wind against you or a slight foot into it and PT Cruiser start to suck gas. Just right conditions yield old EPA numbers. On the other hand, most every CAR with half the way decent aerodynamics seemed to be OK, if not 10% over the government figures. I think using the new ratings is going to make it pretty hard for the car manufacturers to sell anything but hybrids in the future once new laws take over. Hybrids -- I don't want a hybrid. Guess if I don't keep the Accord for life, and if gas prices are under $4 a gallon, I may get something used. Gonna be looking some day for a sports car again, and likely used. Gee, in fifteen years, if all cars are hybrids, my Accord will be a classic. Enough people getting good gas mileage could yield some better gas prices is the real hope, as in under $3 again, one fine day. Well we are just shy of $3 now, but I am looking into the future, as in a decade from now. Wonder if it hits $4 or $5, people stop driving the SUVs and buy smaller cars, then gas falls?
L

andre1969

That said, the PT Cruiser, being a bit more tall & blocky sometimes did not hit the mark for gas mileage. Any good wind against you or a slight foot into it and PT Cruiser start to suck gas. Just right conditions yield old EPA numbers.

I always thought the PT Cruiser was a bit of a guzzler anyway, given its size. When it came out for 2001, with the 2.4/automatic, it was rated at 20/25, although for 2007 that's been nursed up slightly to 21/26. In a 2001 Sebring, which weighed about the same, it was 20/30. I guess that more upright body hurt highway economy a bit. Was the PT geared differently?

My 2000 Intrepid is rated at 18/26 on the "new" method, originally 20/29. I'd have to dog the hell out of it to get economy that bad! I think I did get it down to 18 mpg a few times, like driving in the winter, and only going back and forth to work, which is 3 1/2 miles and would never give the car a chance to warm up. Plus, that winter blend gas is usually worse for economy, anyway.

m1miata

I bought the stick PT. Let me tell ya, the stick feels strange when shifting. That high throne seat means almost the whole leg must be thrown in to shift. Never fully got use to it. It is the only way to ANY gas mileage out of a PT. Yes, the automatic is a major guzzler. May as well get a nice V8 as to have the little i4 with an automatic. Of course, by V8 I don't mean in a PT, as it won't fit. Actually the i4 barely does, and may be hard to work on down the road. Cute little car, and you carry lots of stuff with it. In a way fun, but not fun enough for me. My Accord V6 is more sporting.
L

m1miata

That is what a Super would be, and I am not sure that would work these days. I think cars and brands must be more purpose built from the ground. Making a car into the next National or GTO isn't like the old days. I think we saw the last of that. That said, how about a CTS Coupe, then add sport suspension and the 300HP engine as standard. Oh boy and Eldorado of golden idea..... maybe? Even a Malibu, in today's skin is a stretch to add the sports stuff to get it be a macho SS, though it may handle and go fast. The Aura handles good, goes fast in the XR model. Hard to think of the Malibu topping it by much, though you could put a high end 3.6 V6 at 300 HP and stiffen the springs and have a real SS. The looks though still kinda are a bit sleepy. You know, as in pleasant.
L

anythngbutgm

Yup Andre, you're correct, I don't know why, I coulda swore I read elsewhere the 5" difference. However, the Enclave is 3" longer than the Tahoe (202" vs 198"). Still, my point was that the 16mpg is decent given the size of the thing. Not great, but better than one of those BOF elephants like the Suburban or even the Tahoe it seems...

chuckhoy

I don't understand how anybody expects a vehicle that large and heavy with a 275hp V-6 in it would get great mileage compared to a car. Unless it had some sort of hybrid system in it,it is absurd to think it woud get 25/35. Come on! It is a minivan sized vehicle.

hwyhobo

According to this article, GM's got it, but it's only 15% more frugal than a regular engine. Considering that a diesel can save in the neighborhood of 30%, HCCI seems to be a bit of letdown. Am I misreading it?

m1miata

16 MPG --- Oh my! I don't know if I ever owned a vehicle like that. Can not recall the MPG of my '65 Mustang 289. Anyway, in the 20th and 21st Century never owned a guzzler, nor would wish that sort of gas bill on anyone. Now 10 or 12 MPG, is plain absurd. Guess I was never so rich as to be able to burn money. But then again, I am not use to the concept of a $100 +++ motel or hotel room. Yea, those are worth $3,000 per month rent, as you may not even stay in one for 12 hours time. That's $200 per day, and well..... my goodness the waste of money these days. Must be a lot of rich or those of which can spend more than the rich out there.
L

PF_Flyer

I guess one way to look at it is that this would close the efficiency gap between gas and diesel by making gasoline engines more efficient.

15% improvement is pretty significant

lweiss

So I guess I am the tree hugger. And right, maybe unrealistic to think that big vehicles will get good mileage (good= 24+ MPG city). But then again, gasoline prices are up 60% over the past 3 years, I am 165 lbs and don't need a 4000 pound vehicle getting me around from point A to point B (me and my gym bag, my laptop case, maybe some groceries). So I guess GM's sweet spot is to make the big vehicles for people that appreciate those things, not me. And when gasoline goes to $5/gallon in the next couple of years, I guess I'll miss those $100 fill ups. Oh well...

anythngbutgm

The tank in a Suburban or a Tahoe is 35 gallons I believe. Which should bring the cost of a fillup to around 175 bucks if gas goes to 5/gallon. My buddy spends 100 now on his Suburban...

PF_Flyer

HCCI works under the "lazy" umbrella too since people don't want to have to do anything or change anything to get a benefit. To illustrate, an Impala (to stick with the GM theme) with an HCCI engine would be identical in every respect to an Impala with a conventional engine from the user perspective. They'd pull up to the same gas pump, drive it the same way (no electric-mode or anything like that). It would be right in people's comfort zones AND I get 15% better mileage? As long as it makes economic sense and doesn't cost me more to own the car than any savings I would get, sign me up. (the dreaded hybrid premium debate)

The technology sounds promising. I know advances take time, but it just feels that something like this would have happened long ago.

guss

But people want to look green. If GM puts it in a goofy body style and charge alot more like the Prius greenies will love it. Keep it the same and change the wheels like the Civic Hybrid and nobody gets excited about it.

I agree though, 15% is a huge improvement without any effort.

PF_Flyer

Style over substance. Far too many people are worried about what they look like to others if you ask me.

I have no need to "look green" to prove anything to anyone. I'm about function. HCCI is a function, not a style.



But a tip of the hat for another idea for the blog! Appreciate it! :P

dieselone

My 1/2 ton 4x4 Suburban has a 31 gallon tank. Most I've every spent on a fill up is around $75 I believe the Tahoe something like 25 gal and the 3/4 ton Suburban is somewhere around 35 gal.

We just got back from a round trip to Florida. Drove about 3000 miles and I avg about 16mpg with A/C full blast in 100 degree heat plus being fully loaded with family and gear.

Even when towing my boat (which weights about 4500lbs) plus a weekends worth of gear, I will get around 12mpg.

When we go boating and camping on the weekends you can't beat a Suburban sized vehicle. Sometimes we'll take another family with us. How many vehicles can tow a boat and haul 8 people? While no doubt fuel prices will weed out those who really don't need a fullsize body on frame 1/2 ton SUV. But for those of use who can afford and use the utility/capability, we'll keep buying them.

dieselone

Wonder if it hits $4 or $5, people stop driving the SUVs and buy smaller cars, then gas falls?


So all of our consumption issues with gasoline is due to SUVs? I don't think so. SUVs could completely dissapear and I don't think you'll see a huge reduction gas prices.

sls002

I don't see how even $3 prices for gas can be sustained when synthetic fuel made out of coal only costs about $1 per gallon (or $40 to $45 per barrel) to make. Taking taxes into account, the profits are at least $1 per gallon. So, at $5 per gallon, the synthetic fuel profits are so high that greed will almost certainly drive production.

sls002

My SRX (a crossover) only manages about 21 on the highway, but then it is still new and the engine/drive_train is still breaking in. I don't see how the Enclave can get much better than that. However, SUV fuel consumption is a function of the drag, and with taller bodies there is more drag than a car has. I also think that the higher ground clearance has some effect on the coefficent of drag. Cars, with air dams, have a low coefficent of drag. Allowing more air to flow under the vehicle may increase the drag :confuse:

dieselone

No doubt about drag effecting fuel economy of SUVs. My Suburban feels like it's hitting a wall over 70mph and fuel economy plummets above 70mph.

SLS, does your SRX have a v6 or v8? I don't see an enclave besting it unless you were to drive very slow.

1487

"btw, for comparison sake, I just hung out with him over the weekend, took the Tundra (5.7l DC). He's supposedly getting a consistent 19mpg with it so far... "

thats prety miraculous since most reviews of the Tundra show it getting 14mpg. Never heard of a pickup with a V8 that averages 19mpg. Ever.

1487

" So I guess GM's sweet spot is to make the big vehicles for people that appreciate those things, not me. And when gasoline goes to $5/gallon in the next couple of years, I guess I'll miss those $100 fill ups. Oh well... "

shocking as this may seem, people have different needs for their vehicles. Everyone cant get away with driving a compact or a Prius. If people can afford to fill up a crossover with gas that is their choice. I never get why people who hate SUVs think they have the right to dictate what other's needs are when it comes to vehicles.

1487

"Yes, but GM is marketing the Lambdas as super efficient without sacrificing utility. Something like 17/24 if I recall correctly.

never seen "super efficient" in an ad for the lambdas. GM is simply saying they offer more space and hp with similar or superior mileage than their competitors and that is accurate. No large crossover is efficient compared to a midsize car with a 4 cylinder. Dont blame GM for people believing crossovers are much more efficient, blame the press and the public. When the import brands dominated crossover sales the press was raving about how those car based vehicles spelled doom for the Detroit SUVs. Now that GM and Ford are in the crossover game big time people are suddenly skeptical of the merits of crossovers.

chuckhoy

My SRX (a crossover) only manages about 21 on the highway, but then it is still new and the engine/drive_train is still breaking in. I don't see how the Enclave can get much better than that.

My Outlook (same as the Enclave from a mechanical standpoint) gets in the mid 20s on the highway. When I took it on a 1200 mile trip (it started ou having about 1k miles on it) with 4 adults and 3 kids and loaded to the gills with luggage, it still got 24mpg on the highway. Well, until I made the mistake of filling it up at a north woods gas station and got a bad tank of gas. After that fuel got used it was back up to 24mpg on the highway again.

I think the 6 speed tranny and the engine work wonders. At 75 mph on the highway with flat terrain, the engine is at about 1800 to 1900 rpms. If you do hit a hill it will downshift to 5th and be at about 2400 rpms. Then mileage will suffer.

I also think the SRX is geared more towards performance driving. The lambdas are purely family-haulers.