General Motors discussions

chuckhoy

I completely agree. I'm sure I can cram my three kids into the backseat of a Civic, but I don't think that is safe at all. They barely fit in the back of my L200. And, for the sanity of the driver, why would I want kids in that close of proximity for a long trip? A DVD player can only do so much. Then it is UFC in the backseat.

Why isn't anybody bashing minivans as being gas guzzlers? They only get about 18/25. Same as a crossover and way better than a SUV of comprable size. I don't hear anyone bemoaning familys from getting one of those.

anythngbutgm

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.

link title

link title

So far my best milage on a back scenic road with no traffic at 35 to 55 mph has been 26.5 mpg. On secondary hwy at 55 to 60 mpg is 22.5 mpg. At interstate 70 to 75 mph is 19.2. Overall mpg average is 17.5 to 18. Driveability for a truck, which is closer to a three quarter ton than a one half ton is nothing less than fantastic.

:shades:

nwng

because when you drive a minivan, you are really hauling people, why else would you want to drive a vehicle with such low mojo?

Most suvs or pu I seen around here are hauling air. If I got 3 kids, I would be driving a minivan or a crossover. But if I got to tow FREQUENTLY, definitely a suv.

Also, minivans are a lot less expensive than crossovers and suvs, and IMO more comfortable

anythngbutgm

Dont blame GM for people believing crossovers are much more efficient, blame the press and the public. \

:confuse: What, because they are?

m1miata

Well let's see, simple math here, when an SUV gets 1/2 to a 1/3 of the gas mileage of a car, I would say it has a significant impact on gas prices. Reduce the consumption and prices will be falling. That said, the choice of Big Oil not to build more refineries is a major issue at hand.

The large SUV is a significant danger to other cars on the roads, most times do not fit into the parking areas, and wear streets down quicker than less heavy vehicles. You can not see over them while on the freeways to see what is ahead, they tend to not see you as well. Basically the vehicle has become a pain to other motorists.
L

m1miata

Well I don't know, let's see, why would those driving an SUV have a right to have a double kill rate in accidents, use triple the gas, not follow the weight limitations of the local city, take up extra parking space, become an issue for sight ahead while driving, roll on off the roads like a hippo spinning, run others off the road as they don't see them or don't care, and then turn around and call it a right.

Well, the privilege, as it is for all motorists, is granted for SUV use on the roads. And there are responsible truck / SUV motoring people out there, with some actually needing the monsters to tow a vehicle. Towing something is a privilege as well, BTW. The government should have regulated the weights, how bumpers and fronts of vehicles react with other vehicles of unequal weight, type of license, and other issues to regulate the overuse of these dinosaurs. Many are tall enough, with wheels large enough, that they will simple run atop and flatten a car, killing occupants instantly. I guess human life keeps getting cheaper these days.

As for Crossovers, those cute crossdressers, some are sort of interesting looking, like the Murano and Mazda CX-7 which are cool and sporty. The Cadillac is stylish in a way, and Enclave is sorta interesting, but not sure why it is seen as so special.
L

sls002

I have the V8 with a six speed automatic. I cruised 70 MPH most of the time. At 70 MPH, the engine is turning over at 1800 RPMs.

dieselone

The real effect is how much a vehicle actually burns. Which is worse on gas prices? My MIL who drives a 100 miles a day to work in her Camry or my Suburban that only goes on more than 15 miles a day on our familytrips? Her 05 Camry has 60k on it, my 2000 Suburban has 91000miles. Which has burned more fuel since 05? Look at all the fleet cars that get driven 30-50k miles per year.

If SUVs are such a menace, why are the insurance rates on my Suburban cheaper than any vehicle I've ever owned? SUVs aren't much worse than a minivan when it comes to being seen around. As for parking, I rarely have a problem and have even parallel parked it a few times. I know the limitations of my Suburban. I don't drive 90 miles an hour and I don't tail gate, I know I can't stop as fast as most other vehicles.

Bottomline is if I loaded an average sedan with my family and all the gear we take on our weekend trips, it would be severely unsafe in regards to braking and handling. I can safely load the Burb up with the family and gear and it's hardly effected.

dieselone

With a v8 you probably won't get as good of fuel economy as a v6 Enclave etc. I'd think your economy might go up a bit with break in. Even at 70mph you probably will not see the greatest hwy economy.

dieselone

Well let's see, simple math here, when an SUV gets 1/2 to a 1/3 of the gas mileage of a car, I would say it has a significant impact on gas prices.

The Avg. car doesn't avg. 30mpg and the avg. SUV avgs. more than 10mpg, so your stretching the facts more than a bit.

dieselone

It's a slipperty slope when it comes to determining what is wasteful and what is not. You can say my using a Suburban (which burns a lot of gas) to tow my boat (which burns much more gas) to entertain and spend quality time with my family is a privilige and a waste of resources. I can respond by saying taking a family to a college or pro football game, wasting gallons of fuel idling in traffic, to see two teams play that used God knows how much fuel for travel etc.

Or the guy or gal that rides his Harley around, just because. Where does it end. I guess we should all sit at home and keep the TVs on in every room. Ohh, wait that's a waste and a privilige too.

As for safety, I've seen bone headed driving with about every type of vehicle on the road.

lweiss

I think the debate about SUVs and Trucks has been exhausted and is on other threads. But since this thread is about GM, it still seems to me that GM is putting its resources into vehicles that are not as fuel saving as they need to be if/when fuel costs really soar (not hoping, but a distinct possibility). And I read the PR and reports that GM has changed their thinking, but I am still not convinced. And I still maintain that GM's conscious decisions in the late 1990's to emphasize the big and powerful vehicles over the gas savers is one of the main reasons that they are in the trouble they are in today. If they can't adapt in time, GM is finished.

m1miata

Per miles driven, the Suburban uses more fuel. And even parked, it took a lot of energy to build the vehicles which are not used. As for insurance on the vehicle, they are looking at your low miles driven, and possibly lower rate of damage to your vehicle. There was talk of raise rates for the SUV due to claims against them in accidents, but it seems your company is happy enough. Yes, I agree they can carry more items. People seem to travel with everything, and the kitchen sink these days. The mini-van also carries lots of stuff. Too much stuff, not secured is unsafe in both vehicles. As for what most people can observe every days is that most trucks and SUVs seem to have no load inside and many time but only the driver as an occupant. Seems to be a status symbol. And I doubt most people need a car two stories high to drive to McDonald's, unless there is a severe flood, and the food would be wet anyway.
:shades: Loren

m1miata

OK, so they averaged 12 and I average 24 with a V6, that is half. And yes, a bit of exaggeration in effect Now considering those driving a Civic, there is no exaggeration, the large trucks and SUVs get a 1/3. Considering what a motorhome gets, at say 8 miles per gallon, you could sleep at a Hiliton Inn for a lot less money. Just a thought.
L

m1miata

Well travel - driving for pleasure doesn't have to have a burn rate of 10 miles per gallon. This is the 21st Century.

There is little on TV these days, and it is getting worse.

Travel on roads is a privilege due to safety concerns, and cost of upkeep of roads. Drivers must be safe (yea, they don't test much I guess) and the vehicle must not destroy the streets and roads. This is something written into law many a year ago.

If you do the same thing, be it wasteful, like you pointed out idling the car while going to a football game, with something more fuel efficient, you still come out the winner with the better fuel efficient car. You may even find a parking space and be able to park it easier - just a thought.

And in the end, maybe the smaller, as in much smaller GM will be able to be profitable building SUV and trucks in North America and just forget the rest. Seems to be somewhat of a sideline with them anyway, other than Cadillac, which SUV once again saved the day for that line too. Maybe this is one of those, just do what you do best and forget the rest.
L

sls002

The motor homes cost around $100,000 and you really can't use it for a daily driver. They make sense if you are really roaming around the country several months every year. But if you are not traveling much, it makes more sense to stay in a motel. One can travel about 400 miles per day in one (50 gallons of fuel->~$150). Add in the interest on the investment....

With my SRX, I can go 600 miles (easy)->30 gallons->$100. But in two days I will have gone three days of motor home travel.

m1miata

Wonder what the cost is to rent those. Some people had RVs, decided they did not use it enough, like you say "months" every year, so they now rent those vehicles. There are the benefits, no doubt. Cost efficient is not one of them. I can see how it would be very nice in some ways to have your home along with you. And for some, it is their home. I would hate to wheel those dinosaurs around though, whew! Once parked, they are nice. It has its points I would say. Now, easier drive in the car, and more fun I may add, plus a nice comfy room where they do the cleaning and buy all the supplies, for say $50 to $75 per night, to me still seems the better deal, but then again, I am not out on the road for months.

So, is GM making money in the motor homes these days? And the military vehicles business ?

L

wlbrown9

Well the EPA City mileage of a 2008 Explorer 4.0L 6 cyl is 13 mpg vs. 16 for the 2008 Enclave. 2007 Explore 4.0L 6 cyl is rated at 15 city vs. 2007 Acadia city rating of 18 MPG...there was not a 2007 Enclave so I used the Acadia ratings. If you go by the EPA ratings, there could be significant difference in what you get. But we all know that actual will vary depending on how each person drives.

BTW, full 2008 ratings are

Enclave 16/24 city/hwy

Explorer 13/19 city/hwy 4.0L 6 cyl

sls002

GM does not build motor homes. They may supply a basic truck chassis. GM is building the Hummer H1, which is the military "jeep".

lweiss

So in real (projected real that is), the cost of fuel for the vehicles will be (18K miles per year, $3/Gallon fuel):

Buick Enclave/ 16mpg: $3,375/year
Ford Explorer/ 13mpg: $4,153/year
Honda CRV/22mpg: $2,453/year

For many people, the power and comfort of the big vehicles is worth it- even for $1,800 per year difference. Heck, look at all the people that live in enormous houses, go on expensive vacations, eat out at the expensive restaurants, etc- not an issue since they can afford it. "Money paid for perceived value received"- that's what sells.

m1miata

Or you can buy a new very nice computer each year with the money, or an LCD TV, or..... It seems to me that in the year 2007, an SUV should be able to make better gas mileage. As for comfort, the smaller sized is so much more comfortable to wheel around and park - so much better. As for power, just buy a Corvette to dust off the competition. The CR-V does the 0-60 in under 10 sec. In a hurry to get to the soccer match, I say get the RAV-4 with the V6 and do it in around 7.1 sec 0-60 and the MPG is 21 City 28 Highway = whoo-hooo, go soccer Momma go! Ya know the RAV is pretty cool and with the V6 kinda fast. I would be getting one of those I guess to RV race.
L

1487

"Why isn't anybody bashing minivans as being gas guzzlers? They only get about 18/25. "

Thats easy: the best minivans are imports. GM is accused of exaggerating the efficiency of the Lambdas even though their mileage is about the same as import minivans that have less power and less weight.

1487

"What, because they are? "

dont understand what you are talking about but my point was the media has created this hype about crossovers being far superior to traditional SUVs. In reality the mileage of V6 crossovers is only about 3mpg better than V8 BOF SUVs on a good day. Its pretty stupid for a journalist to blast GM for the lambda's mileage when most V6 SUVs get the same mileage and only a short time ago media types were singing the praises of any unibody SUV.

1487

"but not sure why it is seen as so special.
L"

thats what I say about most Honda products. What a coincidence.

its silly to suggest that only SUV drivers are selfish and dangerous. In fact, I would argue that younger drivers with sports or sporty cars are some of the most obnoxious and dangerous drivers on the road.

BTW, in spite of all your hyperbole about how dangerous SUVs are the reality is most of them come with stability standard these days. I'm pretty sure rollovers are largely a thing of the past under most circumstances.

I dont care for SUVs for my personal use but if people want to buy them I dont care. Its their money.

"use triple the gas"

the average V8 SUVS gets about 14mpg in mixed driving while the average V6 sedan gets about 20-22mpg in mixed driving. Not quite triple the gas.

m1miata

Do I sense some sour grapes over losing the minivan market? God Lee Iaccoca invented the minivan, Chrysler made the sales, soccer Moms abandoned the less macho vans to beef up their image. Those still seeing the benefits of such transportation can still find a very nice example at Chrysler, Honda, or Toyota. GM, for the most part is absent in the mix. I see you would prefer the Japan make of minivan, as you described them as "the best minivans." How about the RAV-4, do ya like it better too than the smaller SUV from GM, how ever many dozen that represents badge wise? Looks like the V6 is a little rocket and gets good gas mileage, with high resale value.
L

chuckhoy

Let me drag out the baseball bat and beat this dead horse some more. Can a CRV seat 5 comfortably and haul around all the kid related gear? I suppose we should adopt a Chinese style 2 kid policy to force people into smaller more fuel efficient cars. Outlaw the SUV and minivan. Might as well outlaw boating too because you can't tow a boat of any size with a car. I suppose kayaking and canoeing would be OK because you could put them on a roof-rack. Although that would be dangerous in the 3 cylinder metro-redux we would all have to drive for the sake of fuel efficiency.

I also do not see why you compared a CRV to an Enclave. Completely different sized cars. It is like comparing a Mini Cooper to a Caddy CTS. Apple meet Orange.

1487

"And I read the PR and reports that GM has changed their thinking, but I am still not convinced. And I still maintain that GM's conscious decisions in the late 1990's to emphasize the big and powerful vehicles over the gas savers is one of the main reasons that they are in the trouble they are in today. If they can't adapt in time, GM is finished. "

everyone is entitled to an opinion, but yours doesnt jive with the facts. GM is committed to 6 speed autos, AFM, hybrids, etc. and yet you say GM's main focus is on guzzling gas. That is totally contradictory to the facts.

why would GM be investing in the Tahoe hybrid, Vue hybrid (two versions), Malibu 4 cylinder/hybrid, Aura 4 cylinder for 2008, Astra, etc. if they are not serious about offering customers options that save fuel?

In case you missed it the import companies spent the late 1990s and early 2000s focusing on SUVs, crossovers and pickups to compete with Detroit's offerings. I fail to see how they were more focused on fuel efficiency than GM. Nissan was ridiculing hybrids up until last year and then they decided to buy Toyota's system for use in the Altima.

BTW, what evidence to you have that at this time GM is putting its resources into powerful vehicles instead of tech that increases mileage? Just curious since most vehicles GM will introduce in the next 3 years will either be cars or hybrids. I dont think GM is launching another large SUV or pickup or crossover before the end of the decade.

m1miata

Or you could but a Honda* and average 24 MPG with the V6

As for roll overs, they are very common here on the left coast, the land of many SUV and trucks, for some odd reason. Use to be the land of the sports cars, but I suppose those too are more abundant.

You do know the statistics of death in a car vs. SUV compared to a car vs. car? And the injury rate is rather high too. I would imagine two tanks colliding to be a rather nasty ending as well. As for the driver being more dangerous, I have no clue as to percentages. They could actually be a better driver, who knows. Was talking about the vehicle. Be it intentional or not, they do run you off the road some times.

L

* Or any fuel efficient V6

m1miata

Desperate times call for desperate measures

glad to be able to sum it up for you,
Loren

1487

Small SUvs cant tow and have unusable 3rd rows, if they have one at all. The ones with 3rd rows have useless cargo space with the 3rd row in place. On top of that most of them are pretty slow, with the RAV4 being an exception.

I dont consider the CR-V's 9.8 sec 0-60 time to be impressive by any means. If you want something slow, relatively small and efficient the CR-V is a good choice. If you want a V6, a 3rd row, nice styling, towing capacity,etc. you better look elsewhere.

1487

"Desperate times call for desperate measures

glad to be able to sum it up for you, "

Huh? Dont get it, again.

I think I summed up that the idea that GM isnt investing in fuel saving technology is false anyway you cut it.

dieselone

I was looking at fueleconomy.gov with the new 08 fuel economy standards. Comparing fuel economy between a Trailblazer and a Suburban was quite eye opening. According to the site. A 5.3 powered 4x4 Suburban is rated at 14 city & 19 hwy. A 4.2L TB is rated at 14city 20hwy and a 5.3 powered TB is rated at 13 city and 19 hwy. How is that possible? Both are rated at 16 overall. For what ever reason, the midsize BOF SUVs don't get much better economy than the full size models.

I used to have an 01 Nissan Pathfinder and I'd avg around 15 in town and 17-18 on the hwy. My Suburban which is much much bigger gets 13-14 around town and usually around 16 on the hwy. I will not buy another midsize SUV for that reason. I'll take the extra capacity with a minimal fuel economy hit. Heck an Impala with a 3.5 is rated at 22 overall. When a 5500+ Suburban can achieve 16mpg on the same overall cycle, 22mpg in a sedan that weighs 1/3 less with a 1/3 less power is not all that impressive. An Impala SS with the 5.3 is rated at 19mpg overall, not a huge improvement over a Suburban which is rated at 16mpg.

m1miata

No thanks, I find it challenging enough to drive from the drivers seat. Three rows back, I can't reach the pedals.

Need rows of seating and ear plugs -- got kids to fill a soccer field -- you need minivan (stretch ).
L

anythngbutgm

dont understand what you are talking about but my point was the media has created this hype about crossovers being far superior to traditional SUVs.

Well, the trend is crossovers are taking sales away from traditional utilities. Look at the Explorer, the GC, the Trailblazer clones, all have taken a nosedive sales-wise since car based utes like the Highlander, the Pilot, RAV4, the RX and Escape appeared. They offer 90% of the utility of those others with a more carlike ride and improved fuel mileage. Remember, most these utes never see a dirt trail in their life, hell their owners probably would probably freak once they left the pavement...

In reality the mileage of V6 crossovers is only about 3mpg better than V8 BOF SUVs on a good day.

There are plenty out there that do better than 3mpg. Look at the RAV4 for instance, the Murano, even the Lambdas. Hell, even GM claims those can get 24mpg HW. That's a heck of a lot more than 3mpg you claim.

Its pretty stupid for a journalist to blast GM for the lambda's mileage when most V6 SUVs get the same mileage...

Well, 16mpg is lower than the 18/24 that is on the sticker. So in their case, their test sample performed poorly. Just stating the facts is all they were doing.

...and only a short time ago media types were singing the praises of any unibody SUV.

Because there was, and in case still is a significant difference between your average V6 crossover compared to a BOF'er. Car like ride, better interior packaging (in most cases), maneuverability, tauter handling, fold away third row seating, ingress/egress...

In the end, you don't agree with it because it reflects negatively on GM Not the journalists fault the thing didn't perform up to snuff.

dieselone

No thanks, I find it challenging enough to drive from the drivers seat. Three rows back, I can't reach the pedals.


Then you need to get the adjustable pedal option;) LOL

We only have two kids, but they do have friends and they like to bring them along. That's why we went with a Suburban vs. a Tahoe. The extra room behind the 3rd row allows the 3rd row to be usable while also having room for cargo w/o having to go to a top carrier (I'm trying to save fuel ya know). Also the extra wheel base is a huge improvement for towing stability.

anythngbutgm

The CRV is kind of a poor example. It's only got a 4-cylinder and seats 5. I doubt very much anyone will cross-shop the Honda with a Lambda unless they like the smaller profile and nimble handling.

Even still, the CRV tows as much as a V8 SRX and the third row seating in that thing is useless.

m1miata

It was only after it was near the end of the line for them, as the turning point to build something with gas efficiency and those hybrids. They are once again following. Only after Toyota is now into second generation hybrids is GM starting to come out with somewhat fuel efficient technology to match. More words and talk slower should get it.

What is the use of the hybrid Aura? The four cylinder for 2008, which is news worthy (or maybe not) gets 22-30 and the hybrid gets 24-32 after all the hoopla. Big deal. My car is now rated 18-26 with V6 power and not so much off of the Hybrid Aura with so much less power and around the same net price which I paid for a V6. The old figures which EPA used, are really accurate. I get the 20-29 with an average of 24 most of the time. This is particially broken in engine. I think the full break in period is something like 200K miles. :shades:
L

dieselone

Once again I looked up a few more vehicles on fueleconomy.gov. The Pilot is rated at 15city 20hwy. Hmm, that a huge improvement over my Suburban.

The Highlander is rated at 17city, 23 hwy and 19 combined

The Acadia AWD is rated at 16city 22hwy and 18 overall. I fail to see how the crossovers are far superior to BOF SUVs particularly fullsize models in terms of fuel economy.

m1miata

Recall those days of the reverse seat in the back of a station wagon? I saw a modern day car with a seat facing backwards. Pretty scary for those kids, I would think. Actually, I never liked to take people out of town in the PT if in the back seat. Too close to fate in a rear ender.
L

m1miata

Yes, they need to work on that fuel economy.

New gas figures seem very pessimistic. Only a PT Cruiser against the wind should have such troubles getting the old figures, is what I am thinking. I bet 80% of cars got gas mileage as stated previously. GM seemed to be spot on -- heck all the cars I had were close to EPA, and I don't drive really slow at all, or creep off the line. Must be politics involved here. Maybe Toyota bought the EPA a new caffeteria at some building.... ( just kidding :P )
L

dieselone

Recall those days of the reverse seat in the back of a station wagon?

When I was a kid my dad had a '79 Caprice Classic wagon with the 3rd row rear facing seat. We loved it as kids. We could make faces at the people driving behind us LOL.

As far as safety, we didn't wear seatbelts, so it probably wasn't much of an issue.

ssaari

re/ bigfur
since gm diesels suck so bad buy a dodge diesel and get a real truck

cooterbfd

Considering what a motorhome gets, at say 8 miles per gallon, you could sleep at a Hiliton Inn for a lot less money. Just a thought.

Loren;

It has been my experience that, dollar for dollar, towing a camper STILL comes up cheaper than staying at a hotel.

On our yearly pilgrimage to Hershey, Pa. (348 miles door to door), if I took my Park Ave, 2 Adults (over 200 lbs ea) 2 kids (skinny, ages 10 and 13) with luggage and got my 33 mpg I would use 21.1 gallons round trip, plus another 400 miles of driving around the area at 24 mpg is 16.7 gal for a total of 37.8 gal. At $2.75/gal, that's $103.95. If I took my camper, and got 13.5 mpg (I tow a fifth wheel w/ a 1 ton Dually diesel) towing and 16.5 all around, I would use 75.8 gal. Again, at $2.75/gal, that's $208.45.

Here's the kicker: A good campground costs $45/nite. The average Hotel is $120. For a week w/ the camper it's $315+fuel($208.45) for a grand total of $523.45. The Hotel is $840.00+fuel($103.95) for a grand total of $943.45.

As you can see, the difference is still SO great, even renting a car to save fuel while your there w/ the camper makes no difference.

hwyhobo

I agree that for the "do nothing" approach from the driver, it is a significant gain. I was just hoping that the "breakthrough" would mean something that would beat diesel efficiency. I worry that it could slow down diesel introductions even more by domestic manufacturers like GM.

Still, if I had no other choices, certainly I would take 15% rather than nothing.

m1miata

Dang, that $120 per night for a room would hurt. Haven't taken a vacation for a few years, and had no idea it was that much. Well other than locally. Calif. coast is like $55 to $80 for a Motel6, so good hotel may indeed be $150 to $350 or more on the coastline. Seems like a lot to pay for nothing. It is like the next morning you leave with nothing but $150 less in pocket. Now the old deals in Vegas and Laughlin - wow! Guess they have the deals still at double the low rates. I am use to Super8 like prices of $39+ but alas those days may be gone. And then you add the family. I think I got a deal on a La Quinta room in Reno at a bit over $50, but that may be a $100 now, who knows.

I recall the days of the $12 camp site with hookups, and certainly no more than $20 today, I would think. No way a space of ground and perhaps a shower, some electricity and sewer is worth $1,350 per month. Has the World gone mad? I think my cheapest room was atop the CircusCirus 15th floor for $14 per night. Oh, that was a few ago

I would love one of those trailers to park in say St George UT for a few months, then leave before the heat. Only if someone else wants to drive the thing however. Trailer are a bit much, I would think to drive around. Quite the deal down there in Quartzsite, Az.

m1miata

When will we see those "See the USA in your Chevrolet " ads with Dina Shore again? Dinah Shore Chevy Show 10/5/56 - 5/12/1963 The info. link is here
THE SONG
I would say good timing would be with the launch of the New Impala.

Loren

murphydog

loren -

I have to disagree with your line of thinking here. Let push on though and see where we should stop.

Big SUV bad - too big an impact (gas, size, etc, etc) compated to CUV/Mini van
Wait...CUV/Mini van bad - too big an impact compared to midsized car
Wait...Midsized car bad - too big an impact compared to small car
wait...small car bad - too big an impact compared to a scooter
etc, etc. Where is the line drawn, and more importantly why are you drawing the line for me?

If we take your position to its logical end we are all walking? No problem if that is where you want to go, just don't tell the rest of us to go with you...

anythngbutgm

It's not that it's a huge improvement across the board, but some, like the RAV4 and the Murano with the V6 do better than the 3mpg that 1478 stated, that's all.

cooterbfd

It sure would!!

It would also go along with the "An American Revolution" theme, in the sense that for so long now Chevy, as the poster child for everything that has historically been GOOD about "American" cars has also been the poster child for everything BAD about them recently.

So, even though they have been using that slogan for a few years, it would seem that starting w/ the GMT900 SUV's and trucks, and now with the '08 Malibu, Going forward w/ a new Impala and Camaro, they may very well be on a Revolution of sorts spearheading GM's offensive to take back the American auto industry.

cooterbfd

As long as we're on a trip back in time....

http://thefiftiesandsixties.com/CarsWeDrove.htm