Reduce the semitruck traffic speed so they are much more efficient. They drive exceeding fast, above even the 70 mph speed limit in states with 70. In states with 55 mph limits they ignore that worse than a high school kid trying to impress a girl. The aerodynamic design of a huge box increases air resistance exponentially with speed. Slow them down and let them save fuel.
How about "reduce amount of semitrucks".
Is GM still in the train diesel/locomotive business? Seem like a lot of long-haul semi routes and traffic could be reduced if US rail system was upgraded and added to.
Wonder percentage of US freight moves in semis compared to rail. Also, how does this compare to Euro which is touted to have modern rail transport.
Would be great to get more and better rails in US to cut down on long-haul semis on our interstates. If GM still in loco business, are there opportunities here if Congress allocates funds for rail improvements. But, then again, the trucking industry probably has huge lobby in D.C.
Freight rail is actually doing quite well in the U.S., because many loads are now shipped partly by truck, and partly by rail. The two forms of transport work in conjunction with each other.
GM got out of the diesel locomotive business, if I recall correctly.
Your point is well taken. I made the assumption that all trucks were full and carrying their maximum load at 75+ mph in many areas.
As for rail, a CSX line runs parallel to I75 through Northern Ohio and is essentially clogged in areas because it was reduced to one track in places blocking north and south flow at the same time.
This year might be a breakthrough for General Motors. Just two years after losing more than $10 billion, GM appears to be turning itself around.
GM remains in the red, but it has been narrowing its losses. The automaker is peaking with new products and has signed a landmark contract with the UAW that is expected to save billions annually. CEO Rick Wagoner discussed GM's future with Editorial Director Peter Brown and Staff Reporter Jamie LaReau.
Q. After looking at your second quarter, we did a story that said, "The new GM is where you make money and grow all over the world despite a challenging North America." What's the model you expect to work for you?
A. We'd like to do all that and make money in North America. It has been an interesting year. It caught us by surprise at how strong, for example, South America's comeback was this year. This was a place a couple of years ago we weren't making much money at all. All the major developing countries – they're not all hugely profitable, but when you add it all up, it's made a huge difference.
Q. What are you doing to exploit that world, which now has a market of more than a million units, that you weren't doing 10 years ago?
A. Ten years ago we were selling about 60,000 units in China. Every country is a different story, but moving aggressively in China and taking a big bet was the first thing.
Q. Do you have a goal to be in the top three in every major market?
A. Not really stated as such – most of the big ones, with the exception of India, we have a good position as top two or three. It's a dogfight.
Q. Can you do global platforms in developing markets, or do you have to be localized?
A. It depends. By and large, we can use our global portfolio. Sometimes we need to use legacy architectures, basically those that have been around for a while, because they're lower cost.
Q. On the subject of small cars, are you going to get in the race to build the $2,500 or $3,000 new car?
A. We actually have some very low-cost cars that we build today, like in Brazil. Not too far off that, maybe a thousand dollars higher than that, but they don't look very low-cost to consumers because the taxes are so high.
Q. So you don't need an engineering moonshot to get in that ballpark?
A. No, I'm not sure it's worth applying resources that way to come up with a clean-sheet low-cost car. We're watching with a lot of interest what Tata's done, because they're smart guys.
Q. How integrated is GM's Indian engineering operation with everything else?
A. Highly, but doing specific work. We have a lot of engineers there, I guess, getting on 600 maybe by the end of this year, in things like developing capability in engine control module programming. But it has up till now been more like engineering services work, as opposed to really developing vehicles. So now we're going to get them into that business.
Q. Along the lines of global manufacturing, can you shift production quickly to avoid any regional disruptions?
A. As we roll out these global architectures is when we enhance the capability to do that. I don't generally see it as a panacea. Our lifetime experience in this business is if you can generally build where you sell, that's the best model.
We are going to be exporting and importing vehicles around the world. The more we can be balanced – that helps a lot. I'd be surprised if we get to a world where a huge number of vehicles to cover Europe come out of Asia, or a huge number of vehicles for the U.S. come out of Asia.
Q. Would you be able to use it to gain leverage with the unions?
A. It's an awfully long road. We build at least 3 million vehicles in the U.S. We're never going to have an extra 3 million units of capacity lying around the rest of the world.
I think we need to find other ways to work with the union. I think this round of negotiations shows that big things can happen in a more constructive environment.
Q. In the new contract, will GM purchasing chief Bo Andersson need to buy more parts from union suppliers?
A. Bo's still going to do what he's been doing. There are no specific obligations in that regard.
Q. You're going to be bringing some work in-house, right?
A. There are several categories of work that we've agreed we would review to bring in. It's got to be cost-competitive. Think of things like kitting and sequencing to the plant. That's been done by generally a logistics company, which would set up a plant to get parts on an inline sequence basis. Possibly with a Tier 2 wage that we could just have the parts come directly into our plant and do the kitting there.
Q. How do you like your positioning relative to your major competitors as Europe goes to 120 grams of carbon emissions per kilometer driven and America goes to 32 or 35 miles per gallon? How do you regard GM as being positioned for that new world?
A. We're positioned pretty well. I think this is where size and scope and technical depth really count for something, and we have a lot of that. We have more than most if not all of our competitors.
The tough part is that we get all these great technologies on (vehicles), and they are expensive, and the consumer suddenly sees gas prices go back down where they used to be. It isn't that different than what happened in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Back then, we were caught a little flat-footed in truck capacity and V-8 engine capacity because we had moved for the future and the future didn't come – well, it took 20 years to come.
Q.
Would you envision GM making cars in China that would be exported to here or elsewhere?
A. Any significant export from China to the U.S. is further away than most people think. And I can tell you right now we don't have any big plans.
Q. Where would you characterize the turnaround right now? Do you have any benchmarks?
A. The product side of the turnaround is moving very well. The advanced propulsion side is moving well, although we're just getting into the market. The sales and marketing, parts of it we move very well on, such as getting to the right size daily rental. Changing the basis of advertising, getting off deals and more on brand building and the channel stuff, we're further along. And obviously the cost side is running ahead of plan, and the labor agreement really gives us a second wind at how to go at that.
It's fair to say that profitability continues under pressure. It's a relatively weak U.S. market. Raw material costs have been a big issue. And the other thing is, frankly, we're putting more costs in our products to make them better products. There is obviously going to be some lag before we can get that fully back in revenue, but I would call that an investment strategy.
Q. We have seen advertisements for the Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid. You haven't announced the car, you hav
General Motors (GM) says it hopes to begin pumping hundreds of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles a year into ordinary buyers' hands through GM dealerships beginning in 2011. Though small numbers by auto-industry standards, it's the most ambitious public plan yet to bring pollution-free fuel-cell vehicles into the mainstream.
Until now, Honda has been the fuel-cell champion. CEO Takeo Fukui said in Japan late last month that Honda will put up to 100 of its 2008 FCX regular-production fuel-cell sedans into U.S. customers' hands next year, probably via two- or three-year leases.
Hyundai has promised to mass-produce fuel-cell vehicles as soon as 2012, no later than 2015.
Burns says 2011 is as soon as GM could deliver. Problems during remaining development could delay that, as could the failure of energy companies to build the expected additional hydrogen stations in the Los Angeles area, where the first regular-production hydrogen vehicles are likely to be launched.
As envisioned, the GM fuel cell will be a hydrogen version of the Chevrolet Volt electric car. Volt, unveiled at the Detroit auto show in January, is a battery-power car that can be recharged by plugging into a normal electric outlet or by a small gasoline engine in the car.
In the hydrogen versions, fuel cells would replace batteries, combining hydrogen and oxygen in an electrochemical reaction that produces electricity.
GM promised the United Auto Workers, as part of a labor deal signed in September, that it would start manufacturing Volt in 2010.
The fuel-cell Volt, expected about a year later, probably would be leased. Fuel-cell technology is expensive, and the cars can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to build. Piggybacking onto Volt will cut that somewhat, says Daniel O'Connell, director of a GM unit that services and supports fuel-cell vehicles.
The government says it's possible to eventually produce hydrogen at a cost equal to $1 to $1.50 a gallon for gasoline. GM foresees the equivalent of $2 to $3 a gallon in the short term.
Personally I think the Impala should stay FWD. I see no real competitors in the large car segments going RWD. Pontiac/Cadillac can do the G8/CTS thing and compete with the very few RWD cars out there. What are the RWD cars today? 300, Charger, 3, 5, 7 series, MB's. Any other big players out there? A few Lexus maybe?
Just need to assure a size / segment difference between it and the Malibu.
Just when you thought General Motors was giving up on the front-drive Chevrolet Impala for a high-powered, rear-drive sedan, the automaker has quietly developed a backup plan.
GM's new global mid-sized vehicle architecture has the building blocks to create an Impala-sized fwd sedan. It also can be used for cars shorter than the 2007 Chevrolet Malibu and Opel Vectra.
Such is the flexibility of the architecture. It will replace two vehicle platforms: the Epsilon mid-sized architecture used in the Chevrolet Malibu and Pontiac G6 cars, and the older W-body architecture for cars like the Impala and Buick LaCrosse.
"Some vehicles will border on large-car market segments," while others "will be the tightest, smallest mid-sized models," said Jim Federico, vehicle line executive for GM's mid-sized architecture.
GM's concerns about a possible steep increase in federal fuel-economy requirements may change those plans, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz says. GM insiders say the rwd sedan would be bigger and likely heavier than today's Impala.
"The large rwd (Chevrolet) sedan is always on the bubble, depending on what the government does," Lutz says. "A lot of the product lineups are up in the air right now and very flexible."
Lutz said GM would like to have one fewer fwd sedan in the Chevrolet lineup because the Impala and the 2008 Malibu are too similar in size.
The question is whether the Chevrolet model developed on the global fwd mid-sized architecture – also for 2010 – will be a large Impala-sized sedan or a Malibu replacement.
"The way they are thinking, they are afraid to abandon the fwd Impala," said John Wolkonowicz, Global Insight's senior auto analyst for North America. "Of course, they should be – it is their best-selling automobile."
Last year GM sold 289,868 Impalas in the United States. By contrast, industry forecasts peg annual sales for the rwd Chevrolet sedan in the 100,000 to 130,000 range, fewer than half of the current Impala's. The price of gasoline could alter those projections.
The rwd Chevrolet sedan is scheduled to share a platform with the Pontiac G8 and the Chevrolet Camaro. Eight- and six-cylinder engines are expected.
Wonder percentage of US freight moves in semis compared to rail. Also, how does this compare to Euro which is touted to have modern rail transport.
I'll have to try to find the link - as I recall, the freight number I saw is something like 40% of all goods go by rail (yeah, seems high to me too). And the percent in the EU was down around 17%.
Ok, Wikipedia says 38% for the US and only 8% for Europe.
It's hard to truck massive amounts of coal and grain on trucks, and barges are even better than trains I suppose.
But now you know why your GM car has rail dust on it. :shades:
"It was only a matter of time before somebody used the "do it for the children" line. Few things agitate me more than people that stoop to making that kind of emotional appeal. If your argument can't stand on logic, drop it. Leave the "children the poor poor children" out of it."
My argument consisted of 3 parts: A) that petroleum is a finite and non-renewable resource, that petroleum used today can't be used tomorrow, and C) that it is immoral to waste a resource when later generations will still need it. The first two parts are indisputable facts. The third one is clearly a value judgment, not a fact. As such is hard to evaluate logically. None the less, I am comfortable with it. If you have a logical argument for why wasting oil is not immoral, go for it.
NEW YORK -- Delphi Corp. said Monday it has asked a bankruptcy court to postpone a scheduled Nov. 8 hearing to consider amendments to its reorganization plan so the auto-parts maker can have more time to negotiate with creditors.
The Troy, Mich.-based company said it needs more time to hold talks with creditor committees, which on Friday filed objections to Delphi's disclosure statement and investment agreement amendment. Other stake holders also filed objections.
Delphi said it's unlikely all the conditions to the investment agreement will be met before the Nov. 8 hearing, and has asked the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan to reschedule the hearing for later this month. The court will consider the request on Thursday.
Delphi, which filed for bankruptcy two years ago, had planned to emerge from Chapter 11 by the end of the year but revised its timetable after changing the terms of its reorganization plan last week. The company was forced to make the changes after it hit trouble trying to obtain bankruptcy-exit financing in a tight credit market.
Delphi now expects emerge from Chapter 11 during the first quarter of 2008.
All this talk about scads of new models may fade quickly if Saturn sales stay as anemic as they've been this year. They've redone almost their entire model lineup, gotten into 2 segments they hadn't been in lately, and yet sales are still essentially flat compared to last year. The Aura got great reviews but is a sales flop -- running well behind the Chrysler Sebring and just barely ahead of the hapless Buick LaCrosse. The Outlook is by far the weakest seller of the new GM trio of big crossovers, even though it's the least expensive. The new Vue is doing moderately well but is nowhere near the top sellers in its segment.
It's a shame: Saturn finally has a decent lineup, but it may be too late.
Though GM doesn't say, most industry observers think Saturn has been bleeding cash for most of its life. If the Astra is not a hit, GM may well decide to pull the plug.
The new Vue is TOO new to judge its sales yet. You can't compare Aura and Sebring sales, as Sebring is the darling of Hertz, Avis, Enterprise, and just about everyone else. Look at their fleet sales, you will see LITERALLY 80% of all Sebrings going to the rental companies.
Since Saturn doesn't do the rental thing for the most part, their sales are bound to be much lower. The Astra still isn't here, and Saturn has a much smaller dealer network than either GMC or Buick, the other dealers selling versions of the Outlook.
Now it is true that 60K sales of Aura in its first year is a pretty dismal number. But Saturn won't really be BACK until 2008, its first full calendar year of revived line-up. On 1-1-09, we can look to see how it's really doing.
One thing which may hurt Saturn is when GM starts selling Chevy versions of the Aura and Outlook. The Aura, AKA '08 Malibu, is just about to start arriving at dealers, and it sounds like a Chevy Outlook is not more than about six to nine months behind. :-(
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Victorville, Calif. - The Carnegie Mellon University Tartan Racing Team, with it's GM Chevrolet Tahoe "Boss" entry, claimed first prize today in the DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) Urban Challenge. The Urban Challenge is a competition between vehicles that drive themselves in a mock urban environment.
"This competition has significantly advanced our understanding of what is needed to make driverless vehicles a reality," said Larry Burns, GM vice president of R&D and Strategic Planning. "Imagine being virtually chauffeured safely in your car while doing your e-mail, eating breakfast and watching the news. The technology in "Boss" is a stepping stone toward delivering this type of convenience."
GM is focused on reinventing the automobile in ways that enhance driving safety and reduce traffic congestion, energy consumption and emissions," Burns continued. "We look forward to integrating the technology we used in this race into our cars and trucks, and to ensuring future personal transportation is sustainable."
In addition to GM and Carnegie Mellon University, the Tartan Team is supported by the following sponsors: Caterpillar, Continental AG, Intel, Google, Applanix, TeleAtlas, Vector, Ibeo, Mobileye, CarSim, CleanPower Resources, M/A-COM, NetApp, Vector, CANtech and Hewlett Packard.
One thing which may hurt Saturn is when GM starts selling Chevy versions of the Aura and Outlook. The Aura, AKA '08 Malibu, is just about to start arriving at dealers, and it sounds like a Chevy Outlook is not more than about six to nine months behind.
No kidding. Everyone (including the paid drones flooding the internet forums) wants to talk about a "big turnaround at GM" that miraculously happened over the past (1) year :confuse: yet this rebadging crap is no different than your typical laziness of the past. Take one model, rebadge it a hundred times, milk the platform in to oblivion and wonder why the newer models are killing the sales (and the resale values )of the older ones.
I am baffled that anyone would buy a new Malibu for full sticker when it arrives. Seriously, what does it offer that cannot be found in the Saturn Aura?
A fresher bodystyle (LOL, the one with the same nose and profile as the Camry that all the anti-Toyota crowd bashes)?
For 26 grand one could buy a loaded Saturn Aura XR, get the Saturn sales experience and service. Or how about better resale because unlike the Malibu, the Aura doesn't end up flooding the rental lots once the hype over the new model wanes.
Or how about this? For even less than either of those, you could score a Pontiac G6. If you can live with the Cavalier-esque interior and older bodystyle, deals on those things can be had all day long. 19 grand gets you a brand new V6 GT nowaddays. And people are going to spend 28 grand on a hum drum Chevy midsize?
I am also baffled by this boneheaded move to sell a Chevy version of what is being sold by three other divisions, including the Saturn Outlook which last I checked is not selling nearly as well as the other two (Arcadian/Enclave). Now, they're going to throw an even cheaper Chevy version which is going to do nothing but steal sales away from the other three.
Again, it reeks of typical GM rebadging of yore and shows NO SIGN that GM has turned a corner and is learning from their past. It also shows that Lutz and crew were probably a bit too eager to jumpstart a brand that has been asleep for 15 years prior to its supposed "renaissance".
It is laughable how GM continues to take baby steps towards a comback, yet along the way acts as if it's still 1990 when Saturn was actually something fresh and something new.
Just sayin' but I really hate these Q&As with the industry top dogs. They evade the questions and answer in generalities or platitudes, and the reporters don't hold their feet to the fire. Not as bad as Larry King's softball interviews, but still a waste of space in my opinion.
Kind of like questioning our elected "leaders" or wannabes. Where's Harry Truman when you need him?
Gotta put in a plug for my adopted home state: The Virginia Tech team came in third. And the team from my native Pittsburgh (Carnegie Mellon) came in second!
Of course you have listed several good reasons for people to buy the Aura over the Malibu and the Outlook over whatever the Chevy gets called. That may work in Saturn's favor in the next 13 months if other folks see the same wisdom.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
LOL, Saab is dead brand walking. I'm surprised that any effort, even as little as a rebadge of an existing design is worth the investment. heck, most Americans have probably forgotten the brand still exists!
Might as well put a Caddy version out there to add to the infighting...
General Motors Corp. and Allison Transmission Inc. deliver another fleet of hybrid-powered transit buses, proving the financial acumen of the nation’s municipalities is growing as quickly as their environmental concerns.
“Business is great,” Chris Collet, a sales manager for Allison Electric Drives, tells Ward's after a ceremony marking the delivery of 15 hybrid transit buses to the local transportation authority here. “In the last 90 days, about 750 hybrids have been awarded to different communities.”
GM and Allison – the auto maker licenses its patented hybrid technology to its former transmission unit – will deliver a total of 379 hybrid transit buses this year.
Ann Arbor’s new fleet, which the city hopes will number 27 hybrid buses within the next 18 months, joins more than 830 GM-Allison hybrids in service in 74 cities in North America and Europe.
The buses draw power from a parallel hybrid-electric powertrain that consists of a nickel-metal-hydride battery pack, a pair of electric motors and a traditional diesel engine.
One recent study concluded hybrid buses deliver 75% better fuel economy than traditional transit buses and reduce oxides of nitrogen emissions up to 39%. Particulate matter is trimmed 97%, carbon monoxide up to 60% and hydrocarbons upwards of 75%. All are considered greenhouses gases that scientists say contribute to global warming.
Ann Arbor officials estimate a reduction in CO and hydrocarbons of up to 90%, plus a 50% reduction in CO2 and NOx.
Other advantages of the hybrid buses include superior torque, better acceleration and quiet operation.
Ann Arbor, which intends to turn its entire fleet of 69 buses over to the GM-Allison drive, expects to save $2.5 million in fuel costs and 811,200 gallons (3.1 million L) of fuel with the buses over the next 12 years.
The hybrids are a sweet deal, too. A GM-Allison hybrid bus costs about $500,000, depending on options from the upfitter. That’s about $195,000 more expensive than a traditional transit bus.
But government funding can cover the entire cost differential, which is important because cost remains the No.1 obstacle to proliferation of the hybrids across the country.
That’s one reason why U.S. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Detroit) suggests a government funding commitment toward advanced-fuel and vehicle-technology energy independence on par with the investment in the Apollo space program during the 1960s, a Levin spokeswoman says during the Ann Arbor event.
The Congressman wants roughly $15 billion over five years dedicated to producing advanced automotive technologies, renewable non-polluting energy sources and furthering energy independence.
The more funding the better, says Chris White, who manages service development for the AATA and secured its hybrid-fleet grant. He is tasked with winning funding for the additional buses and now has 15 units with parallel-hybrid technology for which he needs money to maintain.
“Transit, in general, is a lot easier to get capital for than operations,” White says. “That would include money for maintenance on the new hybrids.”
Toyota Motor Corp. will not engage in a race with General Motors Corp. to produce hybrid vehicles powered by lithium ion batteries.
The Japanese automaker considers the lithium battery technology to still be too hazardous to put in hybrid cars and trucks for widespread consumer use.
Lithium ion batteries can overheat and catch fire. There have been numerous incidents in recent years of laptop computers and cell phones suddenly bursting into flames.
GM is planning to use the batteries in a production version of the Chevrolet Volt plug-in concept, possibly as early as 2010.
While Toyota executives said safety concerns still bar using lithium ion technology in cars, the number-two worldwide auto company hopes to squeeze more performance from nickel-metal hydride batteries.
And here is what they are actually doing:
Amid the race among automakers to introduce a more powerful but possibly risky kind of battery to reduce emissions, Toyota has already been quietly offering a green technology based on the lithium-ion battery in Japan.
Lithium-ion batteries are considered critical in developing ecological cars of the future. The batteries are widely used in laptops and other gadgets. But they still aren't common in cars except in experimental electric vehicles.
But the lithium-ion battery has been part of an "intelligent package" for Toyota Motor Corp.'s Vitz subcompact since 2003 although the feature is available in extremely small numbers at about 10 vehicles a month.
Toyota now uses a different kind of battery called nickel-metal hydride battery in its hit gas-electric hybrid Prius.
Still, the commercially sold cars with Toyota's own lithium-ion batteries may be its best kept secret.
It underlines how Toyota is quietly but surely collecting information about the battery's performance under road conditions among consumers.
Toyota Executive Vice President Masatami Takimoto told The Associated Press recently the company hasn't marketed the feature aggressively because battery supplies are limited and the company can't respond to massive demand.
But the feature is available at dealers, and consumers can get them if they ask for it.
"We don't tell everybody about it," Takimoto said. "But we already have our own lithium-ion battery."
The Vitz with the lithium-ion battery delivers better mileage at about 25 kilometers a liter (60 miles a gallon), in Japanese testing, compared with the regular Vitz at about 22 kilometers a liter (53 miles a gallon), according to Toyota.
The Vitz lithium-ion battery sits below the passenger seat. The car also has a regular battery under the hood. The ignition starts using the regular battery.
When the car goes into idling, as when the driver shifts to neutral or park at a stop light or congested traffic, the engine stops automatically.
While the car is idling, the lithium-ion battery keeps providing electric power to the car's air conditioning, radio and other equipment.
When the driver's foot is lifted from the brake pedal, the engine restarts from idling, using the lithium-ion battery. The lithium-ion battery recharges automatically as the car gets driven.
A Vitz with the "intelligent" feature costs about 1.17 million yen ($10,200), about 100,000 yen ($870) more than standard models.
Other automakers, including General Motors Corp. and Japanese rival Nissan Motor Co., are all working on lithium-ion battery technology for green cars expected in the next decade or so.
Toyota has not given details about what's in store for the next-generation Prius. And it's unclear when it plans to offer electric cars, hybrids or other models with lithium-ion batteries.
Ahh, it is so dangerous they are testing it on consumers and keeping it secret
There is a lot of talk about who will win the fight for the greenest car maker in 2008: Toyota or GM? Also, who will win in the battle for the best hybrid: the two-mode or synergy drive? I'm here to tell you who will be the winner but first let me tell you how well each has trained.
Next year, GM could release the first plug-in hybrid (it might bow in 2009). GM has already surpassed Toyota's Highlander SUV's highway mileage with its Saturn SUV. Next year, GM's two-mode hybrids will probably have better city and highway mileage than the Highlander, maybe even the Prius. GM is running ads for the Volt already and next year the Volt will be a working car, not just a concept. GM calls their cars vegetarian and it looks like they are the leaders on batteries. Knock out? Don't dismiss Toyota just yet.
Toyota is testing plug-in hybrids and they promise to be first on lithium-ion batteries. Toyota has the best hybrid on the market and they plan to increase the electric only range and top speed. Prius is ready to be a brand and Toyota has said they will lower the price of a hybrid so much, they will have a hybrid in every car they make. Toyota has a track record of supporting hybrids before they were cool so who knows who will win? I do!
Who will be the winner in the fight for the greenest car makers in 2008? The consumer will be the winner, and, with gas prices probably going up a lot in 2008, we could use it.
I don't normally quote from others, but I think it's only fair in this instance:
The International Herald Tribune reports that SHOCK! Toyota already offers lithium-ion batteries in a Japan-only vehicle: the Vitz. While the media seems to think the move indicates Toyota's got a leg-up on their Li-Ion chasing (cough Volt) competition, the truth is that the Vitz' laptop-style battery only kicks-in to maintain electricity (for the radio, AC, etc.) when the subcompact's fuel-saving stop - start motor stops. That's a far cry from providing motive power. And it casts doubt about the Trib's contention that the Li-Ion-equipped Vitz "delivers better mileage at about 25 kilometers a liter (60 miles a gallon) in Japanese testing, compared to about 22 kilometers a liter (53 miles a gallon) in the regular Vitz."
No, what he is refering to is the processing and/or mining of the nickel itself. The place in Canada it comes from is a wasteland for a 1/2 mile radius around the plant because of the pollution. I don't believe the Prius itself will only last 100,000 miles, but that was the estimated life expectancy of the battery pack. Seeing as how the originals are now 8 or 9 yrs old, I wonder how their original packs are holding up.
Well that explains it a bit. The li batteries are only used to run electrical loads while the engine is off and I assume to start the engine. Therefore it would not be doing much work, probably small in size and therefore would not overheat easily.
I don't believe the Prius itself will only last 100,000 miles, but that was the estimated life expectancy of the battery pack. Seeing as how the originals are now 8 or 9 yrs old, I wonder how their original packs are holding up.
But I think few owners of a Prius (unless they are eco's trying make a point) will spend the money to replace the batteries in a 10 year old vehicle. Any idea what a new set of batteries cost?
I believe from what I've read only a few Prius batteries have kicked the bucket.
And yes, the $2200 price is in the ballpark. For reference, I spent $1600 to have the transmission replaced in my '90 Sable at the 93K mile mark. Because I had the car since new, I figured it was less expensive to replace the transmission and keep the car rather than buy an equivalent or somewhat "younger" used car whose maintenance, driving, or crash history could not be documented.
Wonder if there is a black market for Prius batteries like the way they used to steal airbags. Ours get stolen so you go to a shady guy and get another one. The car that that guy got the bag from gets another one the same way and on you go.
Probably not since removing the batteries will not be easy. Heh, there is probably a Prius junkyard in California where you can get used batteries.
I think this means that GM broke even but took a $39 billion write off? What does this mean and why did they take it? The article reads out as a bunch of mumbo jumbo to me.
Sounds like this is partially due to the came mortgage issues that banks like Citibank have taken charges on.
Essentially when a company loses money, it can carry the tax assets forward on its books to offset taxes on future income. But when it appears those assets will not be used in the near term, they are then to be written off, sometimes resulting in a large charge.
Record third quarter automotive revenue of $43.1 billion Improved automotive operations on continued strength in emerging markets Ongoing challenges in U.S. mortgage market adversely impact GM income from GMAC $39 billion reported loss driven by $39 billion valuation allowance on deferred tax assets Improved liquidity position of $30 billion
As Rick Wagoner notes, "We continue to implement the key elements of our North America turnaround strategy, and these initiatives are driving steady improvement in our financial results, despite challenging North America market conditions. In addition, we are very encouraged by our performance in emerging markets. Our record third quarter global sales are strong evidence that our commitment to great cars and trucks is being embraced by consumers around the globe.”
"The whopping loss announced Wednesday was attributed to a $38.6 billion non-cash charge to stay in compliance with accounting laws that say a company can't keep booking tax credits if it doesn't have a track record of making money."
"If a company loses money, it can get a credit on its taxes that it's allowed to take at a later date. It's called a "deferred tax asset" or a "loss carry forward." But accounting rules say a company can only keep those credits on the books if it can show proof that it will make money soon.
Even though GM has posted some positive quarters in the past year, all together its performance from the last 12 quarters adds up to a loss.
Julie Gibson, a GM spokeswoman, says the automaker has won back tax credits like these in other countries, such as Brazil."
Basically GM can't ask/get tax credits if they haven't been making a steady profit. If you continually post losses quarter after quarter, year after year (despite having maybe one or two profit reports during that time frame) you cannot be entitled to credits and breaks. You need to show steady profit, not losses. So in this case, GM can't get the credits in N.A. but can in places where it has had steady profit, like Brazil.
Based on what was said on the PBS business reports this morning, my understanding is that GM wrote off some kind of tax credits that they will not be able to take advantage of because they will not make enough profits in the near term.
Worse than this, the North American operations are still not doing well, so GM still looks like an iffy long term player.
I saw the CNBC report this morning and i got the same read. Pretty much Wall street and others are shocked with this loss. It shows that GM is not out of the water like many of us on Edmunds thought. Instead they are still chest deep in it even with the concessions of the UAW. With $3 gas and the Chinese coming in a year or two, the battle for market share will be even more intense.
Yes, thanks. Not quite as clear as water but a lot less muddier!
I know GM is very concerned about the US market thru '08. With gas prices up and the mortgage problems and a looming recession/depression they are getting a bit worried.
So it looks like they cannot assure profits next year.
General Motors Corp. said Tuesday it will take a $39 billion charge to its third-quarter results to offset the value of deferred tax assets in anticipation of a "challenging" environment in the near future
Today I want to tackle the larger and more complex question of whether anyone should build such a car.
Let's look at the elements:
Production - GM anticipates capitalizing on spare hydrogen production capacity from existing industrial operations--refineries, fertilizer plants, industrial gas facilities--to supply the H2 for the first large increment of fuel cell cars. That means relying on H2 made mostly from natural gas, at least initially, with its associated costs and emissions. In this regard, the "zero emissions/zero petroleum" label on the Equinox I drove only accounted for the vehicle's inputs and outputs, not a "well-to-wheels" lifecycle energy and emissions profile. While GM's figures on total US hydrogen production looked accurate, all of that output is currently spoken for, making cleaner gasoline, ultra-low-sulfur diesel, and other products. GM and its partners are apparently still working on an estimate of how much incremental H2 might be available from these sources. The energy and environmental benefits are likely to vary regionally and locally, depending on the source of H2, though all should be an improvement over the internal combustion engine (ICE).
Storage - The Equinox Fuel Cell has three high-pressure H2 tanks. H2 at 10,000 psi is dense enough to give the car a 150-mile range, and it is manageable enough to allow the car to be refueled in 5-7 minutes, a bit longer than your typical gasoline fill-up, but far quicker than recharging any existing electric vehicle. Compressed H2 entails some trade-offs, however. While not subject to the venting concerns and boil-off losses that have plagued liquid H2--BMW's chosen mode--it is still not dense enough to provide as much range as gasoline, even after the 2X efficiency improvement from the fuel cell. And while the tanks are carbon-fiber-wrapped and the safety systems include sensors that close all the H2 valves in a collision, I will never be thrilled with a storage system that bottles up that much mechanical energy, even if it were compressed air, rather than H2. In the long run, metal hydrides or carbon nanotubes may provide a welcome upgrade, but I can appreciate that compressed H2 is what was doable now.
Distribution - GM has mapped out how many refueling facilities would be necessary in each of their target markets. For example, in L.A. they foresee 30 local stations, supplemented by another 10 along the routes to Santa Barbara, Palm Springs, etc., handling up to 40,000 FCVs. The logistics of that seem a little snug to me, but that aspect has presumably been vetted by GM's fuel partners, including Shell. The economics of the required investment, cited at up to $3 million/station, look daunting, however. Absent government subsidies, the margin on retail H2 would have to be commensurately high, approaching $2/kg, to ensure positive returns on these facilities. Will GM's fuel partners have the stamina to put down in excess of $100 million against what could easily prove to be a negative NPV? But how many cars can GM sell, without pre-positioning enough stations to refuel them conveniently?
Many experts have written off hydrogen as a bad idea. As I mentioned in last Thursday's webinar I believe that view ignores the substantial well-to-wheels efficiency and emissions benefits that hydrogen fuel cells offer, and which the GM team highlighted in their presentation. It also presumes that we already know what will induce consumers to trade in their reliable-but-inefficient conventional cars. I give GM a lot of credit for getting the FCV to the point at which they can put it in the hands of real consumers, as Toyota is currently doing with a similar demonstration fleet of Priuses modified into plug-ins. Such market tests are essential to establish the viability of these concepts, though in neither case is consumer acceptance the only hurdle on the path to commercial viability. Manufacturers must still cut the cost of these cars to a level justified by their energy and emissions savings, and complex infrastructure issues--technical and economic--must be solved. For now, the race proceeds, but the finish line remains distant
Correct. It is not just on the current / past losses (I just pulled a couple of the paragraphs that discuss the main meat of the reason) but also the future is somewhat bleak, as you stated mostly in NA. Which means they still feel they are going to have some losses. This may be largely be due to the housing / mortgage situation, remember they still have 49% of GMAC.
I'm not sure why the markets were somewhat shocked as someone else posted. GM has improved but they haven't improved THAT much to totally negate and make people forget the past losses. Memories can't be that short can they :confuse:
They are still heavy on the truck side and is why they really need the 'Bu to be a hit, the CTS to continue to gain ground and have the new products down the pipeline be hits. And with $4 fuel (forget $3, that's going to be a memory fast) they got to get it together on the small vehicle front pronto!!
I posted the comment about analyst being shocked because this reported loss was much greater then any predicted. $39B is more then GM is worth! The Malibu selling 50k more units or the CTS selling 25k units more is not going to get it done. They need more then this since the profit margin on the Bu is not that great, probably around $1.5-$3k (depending on sale price and rebates). There profits come from their trucks and SUVs which is part of their issue. And with the oil prices rising for no logical reason other then greed, expect those vehicles to continue their downward trend.
GM needs to continue changing how they do business. This means changing their relationship with their suppliers. This means more cuts and more plant consolidations. The key to them being profitable in NA is to control production. They are moving in this direction and it will take time. It's like turning around the Titanic. it hard to move something this big quickly.
Yes, thanks for the making the analyst comment. $39B is a lot of loot for sure but I wondering why they felt GM wasn't going to be on the hook for a large sum like that.
I'm not sure how much more the 'Bu or CTS needs to sell to over the previous gens make them great-sellers, but as you pointed out 50 & 25 is not going to get it done. That's why I was saying they pretty much need everything that's coming out the gate to be smashes, home runs, whatever analogy you want to use. I think they need to continue to push the Malibu attributes, clearing out all the "Rental-lot Renee" stigma of the previous gen. If there will be some rental versions don't make them bottom feeders and/or swamp the lots with them, that'll make it crash & burn.
Yes, agree it's going to take some time to turn this ship; I just hope they stop at 180 and not go 360 degrees and end up being where they started.
"No, what he is refering to is the processing and/or mining of the nickel itself. The place in Canada it comes from is a wasteland for a 1/2 mile radius around the plant because of the pollution. I don't believe the Prius itself will only last 100,000 miles, but that was the estimated life expectancy of the battery pack. Seeing as how the originals are now 8 or 9 yrs old, I wonder how their original packs are holding up."
That is very disturbing, but the assumption that you have to build 3 Priuses for every H2 had to be a huge factor in the claim that the H2 was greener than the Prius. I don't know where the 100,000 mile figure comes from, as Toyota has always claimed (at least for the 2004+) that they expect 150,000 with no significant battery degradation.
By the way, although Edmunds classifies the Prius as a compact, the EPA classifies it as midsized. Rocky and I were both right.
The study assumed that the H2 will last 300,000 miles and the Prius will only last 100,000 miles. Basically, if you want 300,000 miles worth of transportation you could buy 1 H2 or 3 Priuses. Taking into account the pollution created by building the Priuses the H2 is a greener option. I think it is clear that the study overestimates the average life of an H2 and seriously underestimates the life of a Prius.
The article compared McD's fall in the 1980's and then turnaround to where GM is today - it's fallen but shows signs of a turnaround. Key quotes:
"Look past the headlines, however, and the Big Three have just engineered a sweeping overhaul of internal incentives. Out goes the UAW's ability to dictate headcount, wages and benefits. Out, therefore, goes the financial imperative that for decades kept the Big Three churning out unprofitable cars to cover a "fixed" labor bill. Let's admit the truth: Detroit designed many of its cars to be sold at a loss.
The change is already visible. GM is now free to protect the desirability and profitability of its hot-selling new Buick Enclave by not overproducing them. Chrysler is free to protect the image of its future designs by pulling the plug on poorly performing existing models rather than keeping its factories humming and dumping the output on rental fleets and unhappy dealers.
Not all McDonald's franchisees were up to spiffing up their stores. Likewise, the Big Three have design, engineering and marketing departments that are used to pushing out low-cost fodder for volume sales. They'll need a new mindset to go with the new economics: Aiming for designs that stand a real chance of becoming winners in their categories.
Unlike Volkswagen or BMW or Toyota, the U.S. Big Three have been singularly unsuccessful in creating a central branding image to let customers know what a GM or Chrysler or Ford vehicle is all about. McDonald's got back in touch with the idea that a trip to the Golden Arches was a treat with its "I'm lovin' it" campaign. It will take better marketing brains than ours to solve this problem for the Big Three, but we'll offer one prediction: Look for GM to show the way, as it has at every other stage of Detroit's epochal effort to right itself."
In other words once a vehicle is in the dealership how many days does it sit. They are referring to days to turn.
And one good reason they do not kill Buick is because GM is trying to go worldwide with their marques. Buick sells big in China so they gotta keep it. Pontiac is the one that sells nowhere else. Saturn is turning Opel. Chevrolet is going everywhere. Hummer is also. Cadillac is too.
GM's Buick is #1! Yes It's True, I'm Not Making This Up By Phil LeBeau cnbc.com | 08 Nov 2007 | 09:01 AM ET So there I am driving to the Northwestern/Iowa football game last Saturday when my friend Bruce says, "Hey, what do you think of the Buick Enclave? I think it's pretty sharp." Well Bruce, you are not alone.
The latest stats from J.D. Power's Power Information Network shows the Buick Enclave was the fastest selling vehicle in the U.S. last month. Yes, #1. The Enclave sold so fast, it was in showrooms fewer days than the Toyota Prius, Mercedes C Class, GL Class, and Honda Fit which rounded out the top "hot selling cars" in October.
Why is this a big deal? Buick is hurting, and if the Enclave is generating buzz with little marketing it is significant. It shows a good looking model can be sell even if the badge on the front is gasping for air. It also shows GM's designers have hit the right chord with it's latest crossovers (the GMC Acadia was the only other American model in the top ten of fast selling models).
If you've read this blog for any amount of time you know my thoughts on Buick. It's the forgotten brand at GM with an undefined niche, little marketing support, and until now, few models I found attractive. Heck sales are down 23% this year and it represents less than 5% of GM's total sales. All reasons why I've wondered why GM doesn't go ahead and give Buick the Oldsmobile treatment and kill it.
That may still happen. But for now, the Enclave is giving Buick executives and fans a reason to smile. As I told my friend Bruce, "The Enclave is very nice, give it a look"
Comments
How about "reduce amount of semitrucks".
Is GM still in the train diesel/locomotive business? Seem like a lot of long-haul semi routes and traffic could be reduced if US rail system was upgraded and added to.
Wonder percentage of US freight moves in semis compared to rail. Also, how does this compare to Euro which is touted to have modern rail transport.
Would be great to get more and better rails in US to cut down on long-haul semis on our interstates. If GM still in loco business, are there opportunities here if Congress allocates funds for rail improvements. But, then again, the trucking industry probably has huge lobby in D.C.
GM got out of the diesel locomotive business, if I recall correctly.
Your point is well taken. I made the assumption that all trucks were full and carrying their maximum load at 75+ mph in many areas.
As for rail, a CSX line runs parallel to I75 through Northern Ohio and is essentially clogged in areas because it was reduced to one track in places blocking north and south flow at the same time.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
By Peter Brown
Nov. 5, 2007
This year might be a breakthrough for General Motors. Just two years after losing more than $10 billion, GM appears to be turning itself around.
GM remains in the red, but it has been narrowing its losses. The automaker is peaking with new products and has signed a landmark contract with the UAW that is expected to save billions annually. CEO Rick Wagoner discussed GM's future with Editorial Director Peter Brown and Staff Reporter Jamie LaReau.
Q. After looking at your second quarter, we did a story that said, "The new GM is where you make money and grow all over the world despite a challenging North America." What's the model you expect to work for you?
A. We'd like to do all that and make money in North America. It has been an interesting year. It caught us by surprise at how strong, for example, South America's comeback was this year. This was a place a couple of years ago we weren't making much money at all. All the major developing countries – they're not all hugely profitable, but when you add it all up, it's made a huge difference.
Q. What are you doing to exploit that world, which now has a market of more than a million units, that you weren't doing 10 years ago?
A. Ten years ago we were selling about 60,000 units in China. Every country is a different story, but moving aggressively in China and taking a big bet was the first thing.
Q. Do you have a goal to be in the top three in every major market?
A. Not really stated as such – most of the big ones, with the exception of India, we have a good position as top two or three. It's a dogfight.
Q. Can you do global platforms in developing markets, or do you have to be localized?
A. It depends. By and large, we can use our global portfolio. Sometimes we need to use legacy architectures, basically those that have been around for a while, because they're lower cost.
Q. On the subject of small cars, are you going to get in the race to build the $2,500 or $3,000 new car?
A. We actually have some very low-cost cars that we build today, like in Brazil. Not too far off that, maybe a thousand dollars higher than that, but they don't look very low-cost to consumers because the taxes are so high.
Q. So you don't need an engineering moonshot to get in that ballpark?
A. No, I'm not sure it's worth applying resources that way to come up with a clean-sheet low-cost car. We're watching with a lot of interest what Tata's done, because they're smart guys.
Q. How integrated is GM's Indian engineering operation with everything else?
A. Highly, but doing specific work. We have a lot of engineers there, I guess, getting on 600 maybe by the end of this year, in things like developing capability in engine control module programming. But it has up till now been more like engineering services work, as opposed to really developing vehicles. So now we're going to get them into that business.
Q. Along the lines of global manufacturing, can you shift production quickly to avoid any regional disruptions?
A. As we roll out these global architectures is when we enhance the capability to do that. I don't generally see it as a panacea. Our lifetime experience in this business is if you can generally build where you sell, that's the best model.
We are going to be exporting and importing vehicles around the world. The more we can be balanced – that helps a lot. I'd be surprised if we get to a world where a huge number of vehicles to cover Europe come out of Asia, or a huge number of vehicles for the U.S. come out of Asia.
Q. Would you be able to use it to gain leverage with the unions?
A. It's an awfully long road. We build at least 3 million vehicles in the U.S. We're never going to have an extra 3 million units of capacity lying around the rest of the world.
I think we need to find other ways to work with the union. I think this round of negotiations shows that big things can happen in a more constructive environment.
Q. In the new contract, will GM purchasing chief Bo Andersson need to buy more parts from union suppliers?
A. Bo's still going to do what he's been doing. There are no specific obligations in that regard.
Q. You're going to be bringing some work in-house, right?
A. There are several categories of work that we've agreed we would review to bring in. It's got to be cost-competitive. Think of things like kitting and sequencing to the plant. That's been done by generally a logistics company, which would set up a plant to get parts on an inline sequence basis. Possibly with a Tier 2 wage that we could just have the parts come directly into our plant and do the kitting there.
Q. How do you like your positioning relative to your major competitors as Europe goes to 120 grams of carbon emissions per kilometer driven and America goes to 32 or 35 miles per gallon? How do you regard GM as being positioned for that new world?
A. We're positioned pretty well. I think this is where size and scope and technical depth really count for something, and we have a lot of that. We have more than most if not all of our competitors.
The tough part is that we get all these great technologies on (vehicles), and they are expensive, and the consumer suddenly sees gas prices go back down where they used to be. It isn't that different than what happened in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Back then, we were caught a little flat-footed in truck capacity and V-8 engine capacity because we had moved for the future and the future didn't come – well, it took 20 years to come.
Q.
Would you envision GM making cars in China that would be exported to here or elsewhere?
A. Any significant export from China to the U.S. is further away than most people think. And I can tell you right now we don't have any big plans.
Q. Where would you characterize the turnaround right now? Do you have any benchmarks?
A. The product side of the turnaround is moving very well. The advanced propulsion side is moving well, although we're just getting into the market. The sales and marketing, parts of it we move very well on, such as getting to the right size daily rental. Changing the basis of advertising, getting off deals and more on brand building and the channel stuff, we're further along. And obviously the cost side is running ahead of plan, and the labor agreement really gives us a second wind at how to go at that.
It's fair to say that profitability continues under pressure. It's a relatively weak U.S. market. Raw material costs have been a big issue. And the other thing is, frankly, we're putting more costs in our products to make them better products. There is obviously going to be some lag before we can get that fully back in revenue, but I would call that an investment strategy.
Q.
We have seen advertisements for the Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid. You haven't announced the car, you hav
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-11-04-gm-hydrogen_N.htm?csp=34
General Motors (GM) says it hopes to begin pumping hundreds of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles a year into ordinary buyers' hands through GM dealerships beginning in 2011.
Though small numbers by auto-industry standards, it's the most ambitious public plan yet to bring pollution-free fuel-cell vehicles into the mainstream.
Until now, Honda has been the fuel-cell champion. CEO Takeo Fukui said in Japan late last month that Honda will put up to 100 of its 2008 FCX regular-production fuel-cell sedans into U.S. customers' hands next year, probably via two- or three-year leases.
Hyundai has promised to mass-produce fuel-cell vehicles as soon as 2012, no later than 2015.
Burns says 2011 is as soon as GM could deliver. Problems during remaining development could delay that, as could the failure of energy companies to build the expected additional hydrogen stations in the Los Angeles area, where the first regular-production hydrogen vehicles are likely to be launched.
As envisioned, the GM fuel cell will be a hydrogen version of the Chevrolet Volt electric car. Volt, unveiled at the Detroit auto show in January, is a battery-power car that can be recharged by plugging into a normal electric outlet or by a small gasoline engine in the car.
In the hydrogen versions, fuel cells would replace batteries, combining hydrogen and oxygen in an electrochemical reaction that produces electricity.
GM promised the United Auto Workers, as part of a labor deal signed in September, that it would start manufacturing Volt in 2010.
The fuel-cell Volt, expected about a year later, probably would be leased. Fuel-cell technology is expensive, and the cars can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to build. Piggybacking onto Volt will cut that somewhat, says Daniel O'Connell, director of a GM unit that services and supports fuel-cell vehicles.
The government says it's possible to eventually produce hydrogen at a cost equal to $1 to $1.50 a gallon for gasoline. GM foresees the equivalent of $2 to $3 a gallon in the short term.
Just need to assure a size / segment difference between it and the Malibu.
Just when you thought General Motors was giving up on the front-drive Chevrolet Impala for a high-powered, rear-drive sedan, the automaker has quietly developed a backup plan.
GM's new global mid-sized vehicle architecture has the building blocks to create an Impala-sized fwd sedan. It also can be used for cars shorter than the 2007 Chevrolet Malibu and Opel Vectra.
Such is the flexibility of the architecture. It will replace two vehicle platforms: the Epsilon mid-sized architecture used in the Chevrolet Malibu and Pontiac G6 cars, and the older W-body architecture for cars like the Impala and Buick LaCrosse.
"Some vehicles will border on large-car market segments," while others "will be the tightest, smallest mid-sized models," said Jim Federico, vehicle line executive for GM's mid-sized architecture.
GM's concerns about a possible steep increase in federal fuel-economy requirements may change those plans, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz says. GM insiders say the rwd sedan would be bigger and likely heavier than today's Impala.
"The large rwd (Chevrolet) sedan is always on the bubble, depending on what the government does," Lutz says. "A lot of the product lineups are up in the air right now and very flexible."
Lutz said GM would like to have one fewer fwd sedan in the Chevrolet lineup because the Impala and the 2008 Malibu are too similar in size.
The question is whether the Chevrolet model developed on the global fwd mid-sized architecture – also for 2010 – will be a large Impala-sized sedan or a Malibu replacement.
"The way they are thinking, they are afraid to abandon the fwd Impala," said John Wolkonowicz, Global Insight's senior auto analyst for North America. "Of course, they should be – it is their best-selling automobile."
Last year GM sold 289,868 Impalas in the United States. By contrast, industry forecasts peg annual sales for the rwd Chevrolet sedan in the 100,000 to 130,000 range, fewer than half of the current Impala's. The price of gasoline could alter those projections.
The rwd Chevrolet sedan is scheduled to share a platform with the Pontiac G8 and the Chevrolet Camaro. Eight- and six-cylinder engines are expected.
I'll have to try to find the link - as I recall, the freight number I saw is something like 40% of all goods go by rail (yeah, seems high to me too). And the percent in the EU was down around 17%.
Ok, Wikipedia says 38% for the US and only 8% for Europe.
It's hard to truck massive amounts of coal and grain on trucks, and barges are even better than trains I suppose.
But now you know why your GM car has rail dust on it. :shades:
My argument consisted of 3 parts: A) that petroleum is a finite and non-renewable resource,
The Troy, Mich.-based company said it needs more time to hold talks with creditor committees, which on Friday filed objections to Delphi's disclosure statement and investment agreement amendment. Other stake holders also filed objections.
Delphi said it's unlikely all the conditions to the investment agreement will be met before the Nov. 8 hearing, and has asked the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan to reschedule the hearing for later this month. The court will consider the request on Thursday.
Delphi, which filed for bankruptcy two years ago, had planned to emerge from Chapter 11 by the end of the year but revised its timetable after changing the terms of its reorganization plan last week. The company was forced to make the changes after it hit trouble trying to obtain bankruptcy-exit financing in a tight credit market.
Delphi now expects emerge from Chapter 11 during the first quarter of 2008.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071105/UPDATE/711050435/1148- /rss25
-Rocky
It's a shame: Saturn finally has a decent lineup, but it may be too late.
Though GM doesn't say, most industry observers think Saturn has been bleeding cash for most of its life. If the Astra is not a hit, GM may well decide to pull the plug.
Since Saturn doesn't do the rental thing for the most part, their sales are bound to be much lower. The Astra still isn't here, and Saturn has a much smaller dealer network than either GMC or Buick, the other dealers selling versions of the Outlook.
Now it is true that 60K sales of Aura in its first year is a pretty dismal number. But Saturn won't really be BACK until 2008, its first full calendar year of revived line-up. On 1-1-09, we can look to see how it's really doing.
One thing which may hurt Saturn is when GM starts selling Chevy versions of the Aura and Outlook. The Aura, AKA '08 Malibu, is just about to start arriving at dealers, and it sounds like a Chevy Outlook is not more than about six to nine months behind. :-(
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Victorville, Calif. - The Carnegie Mellon University Tartan Racing Team, with it's GM Chevrolet Tahoe "Boss" entry, claimed first prize today in the DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) Urban Challenge. The Urban Challenge is a competition between vehicles that drive themselves in a mock urban environment.
"This competition has significantly advanced our understanding of what is needed to make driverless vehicles a reality," said Larry Burns, GM vice president of R&D and Strategic Planning. "Imagine being virtually chauffeured safely in your car while doing your e-mail, eating breakfast and watching the news. The technology in "Boss" is a stepping stone toward delivering this type of convenience."
GM is focused on reinventing the automobile in ways that enhance driving safety and reduce traffic congestion, energy consumption and emissions," Burns continued. "We look forward to integrating the technology we used in this race into our cars and trucks, and to ensuring future personal transportation is sustainable."
In addition to GM and Carnegie Mellon University, the Tartan Team is supported by the following sponsors: Caterpillar, Continental AG, Intel, Google, Applanix, TeleAtlas, Vector, Ibeo, Mobileye, CarSim, CleanPower Resources, M/A-COM, NetApp, Vector, CANtech and Hewlett Packard.
No kidding. Everyone (including the paid drones flooding the internet forums) wants to talk about a "big turnaround at GM" that miraculously happened over the past (1) year :confuse: yet this rebadging crap is no different than your typical laziness of the past. Take one model, rebadge it a hundred times, milk the platform in to oblivion and wonder why the newer models are killing the sales (and the resale values )of the older ones.
I am baffled that anyone would buy a new Malibu for full sticker when it arrives. Seriously, what does it offer that cannot be found in the Saturn Aura?
A fresher bodystyle (LOL, the one with the same nose and profile as the Camry that all the anti-Toyota crowd bashes)?
For 26 grand one could buy a loaded Saturn Aura XR, get the Saturn sales experience and service. Or how about better resale because unlike the Malibu, the Aura doesn't end up flooding the rental lots once the hype over the new model wanes.
Or how about this? For even less than either of those, you could score a Pontiac G6. If you can live with the Cavalier-esque interior and older bodystyle, deals on those things can be had all day long. 19 grand gets you a brand new V6 GT nowaddays. And people are going to spend 28 grand on a hum drum Chevy midsize?
I am also baffled by this boneheaded move to sell a Chevy version of what is being sold by three other divisions, including the Saturn Outlook which last I checked is not selling nearly as well as the other two (Arcadian/Enclave). Now, they're going to throw an even cheaper Chevy version which is going to do nothing but steal sales away from the other three.
Again, it reeks of typical GM rebadging of yore and shows NO SIGN that GM has turned a corner and is learning from their past. It also shows that Lutz and crew were probably a bit too eager to jumpstart a brand that has been asleep for 15 years prior to its supposed "renaissance".
It is laughable how GM continues to take baby steps towards a comback, yet along the way acts as if it's still 1990 when Saturn was actually something fresh and something new.
Kind of like questioning our elected "leaders" or wannabes. Where's Harry Truman when you need him?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Might as well put a Caddy version out there to add to the infighting...
“Business is great,” Chris Collet, a sales manager for Allison Electric Drives, tells Ward's after a ceremony marking the delivery of 15 hybrid transit buses to the local transportation authority here. “In the last 90 days, about 750 hybrids have been awarded to different communities.”
GM and Allison – the auto maker licenses its patented hybrid technology to its former transmission unit – will deliver a total of 379 hybrid transit buses this year.
Ann Arbor’s new fleet, which the city hopes will number 27 hybrid buses within the next 18 months, joins more than 830 GM-Allison hybrids in service in 74 cities in North America and Europe.
The buses draw power from a parallel hybrid-electric powertrain that consists of a nickel-metal-hydride battery pack, a pair of electric motors and a traditional diesel engine.
One recent study concluded hybrid buses deliver 75% better fuel economy than traditional transit buses and reduce oxides of nitrogen emissions up to 39%. Particulate matter is trimmed 97%, carbon monoxide up to 60% and hydrocarbons upwards of 75%. All are considered greenhouses gases that scientists say contribute to global warming.
Ann Arbor officials estimate a reduction in CO and hydrocarbons of up to 90%, plus a 50% reduction in CO2 and NOx.
Other advantages of the hybrid buses include superior torque, better acceleration and quiet operation.
Ann Arbor, which intends to turn its entire fleet of 69 buses over to the GM-Allison drive, expects to save $2.5 million in fuel costs and 811,200 gallons (3.1 million L) of fuel with the buses over the next 12 years.
The hybrids are a sweet deal, too. A GM-Allison hybrid bus costs about $500,000, depending on options from the upfitter. That’s about $195,000 more expensive than a traditional transit bus.
But government funding can cover the entire cost differential, which is important because cost remains the No.1 obstacle to proliferation of the hybrids across the country.
That’s one reason why U.S. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Detroit) suggests a government funding commitment toward advanced-fuel and vehicle-technology energy independence on par with the investment in the Apollo space program during the 1960s, a Levin spokeswoman says during the Ann Arbor event.
The Congressman wants roughly $15 billion over five years dedicated to producing advanced automotive technologies, renewable non-polluting energy sources and furthering energy independence.
The more funding the better, says Chris White, who manages service development for the AATA and secured its hybrid-fleet grant. He is tasked with winning funding for the additional buses and now has 15 units with parallel-hybrid technology for which he needs money to maintain.
“Transit, in general, is a lot easier to get capital for than operations,” White says. “That would include money for maintenance on the new hybrids.”
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/09/hybrid_batteries.html
By Joe Benton
ConsumerAffairs.Com
September 3, 2007
Toyota Motor Corp. will not engage in a race with General Motors Corp. to produce hybrid vehicles powered by lithium ion batteries.
The Japanese automaker considers the lithium battery technology to still be too hazardous to put in hybrid cars and trucks for widespread consumer use.
Lithium ion batteries can overheat and catch fire. There have been numerous incidents in recent years of laptop computers and cell phones suddenly bursting into flames.
GM is planning to use the batteries in a production version of the Chevrolet Volt plug-in concept, possibly as early as 2010.
While Toyota executives said safety concerns still bar using lithium ion technology in cars, the number-two worldwide auto company hopes to squeeze more performance from nickel-metal hydride batteries.
And here is what they are actually doing:
Amid the race among automakers to introduce a more powerful but possibly risky kind of battery to reduce emissions, Toyota has already been quietly offering a green technology based on the lithium-ion battery in Japan.
Lithium-ion batteries are considered critical in developing ecological cars of the future. The batteries are widely used in laptops and other gadgets. But they still aren't common in cars except in experimental electric vehicles.
But the lithium-ion battery has been part of an "intelligent package" for Toyota Motor Corp.'s Vitz subcompact since 2003 although the feature is available in extremely small numbers at about 10 vehicles a month.
Toyota now uses a different kind of battery called nickel-metal hydride battery in its hit gas-electric hybrid Prius.
Still, the commercially sold cars with Toyota's own lithium-ion batteries may be its best kept secret.
It underlines how Toyota is quietly but surely collecting information about the battery's performance under road conditions among consumers.
Toyota Executive Vice President Masatami Takimoto told The Associated Press recently the company hasn't marketed the feature aggressively because battery supplies are limited and the company can't respond to massive demand.
But the feature is available at dealers, and consumers can get them if they ask for it.
"We don't tell everybody about it," Takimoto said. "But we already have our own lithium-ion battery."
The Vitz with the lithium-ion battery delivers better mileage at about 25 kilometers a liter (60 miles a gallon), in Japanese testing, compared with the regular Vitz at about 22 kilometers a liter (53 miles a gallon), according to Toyota.
The Vitz lithium-ion battery sits below the passenger seat. The car also has a regular battery under the hood. The ignition starts using the regular battery.
When the car goes into idling, as when the driver shifts to neutral or park at a stop light or congested traffic, the engine stops automatically.
While the car is idling, the lithium-ion battery keeps providing electric power to the car's air conditioning, radio and other equipment.
When the driver's foot is lifted from the brake pedal, the engine restarts from idling, using the lithium-ion battery. The lithium-ion battery recharges automatically as the car gets driven.
A Vitz with the "intelligent" feature costs about 1.17 million yen ($10,200), about 100,000 yen ($870) more than standard models.
Other automakers, including General Motors Corp. and Japanese rival Nissan Motor Co., are all working on lithium-ion battery technology for green cars expected in the next decade or so.
Toyota has not given details about what's in store for the next-generation Prius. And it's unclear when it plans to offer electric cars, hybrids or other models with lithium-ion batteries.
Ahh, it is so dangerous they are testing it on consumers and keeping it secret
Nov. 2, 2007
There is a lot of talk about who will win the fight for the greenest car maker in 2008: Toyota or GM? Also, who will win in the battle for the best hybrid: the two-mode or synergy drive? I'm here to tell you who will be the winner but first let me tell you how well each has trained.
Next year, GM could release the first plug-in hybrid (it might bow in 2009). GM has already surpassed Toyota's Highlander SUV's highway mileage with its Saturn SUV. Next year, GM's two-mode hybrids will probably have better city and highway mileage than the Highlander, maybe even the Prius. GM is running ads for the Volt already and next year the Volt will be a working car, not just a concept. GM calls their cars vegetarian and it looks like they are the leaders on batteries. Knock out? Don't dismiss Toyota just yet.
Toyota is testing plug-in hybrids and they promise to be first on lithium-ion batteries. Toyota has the best hybrid on the market and they plan to increase the electric only range and top speed. Prius is ready to be a brand and Toyota has said they will lower the price of a hybrid so much, they will have a hybrid in every car they make. Toyota has a track record of supporting hybrids before they were cool so who knows who will win? I do!
Who will be the winner in the fight for the greenest car makers in 2008? The consumer will be the winner, and, with gas prices probably going up a lot in 2008, we could use it.
Go to: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/11/02/i-know-who-will-be-the-winner-in-the-fig- ht-for-greenest-car-make/
-Rocky
The International Herald Tribune reports that SHOCK! Toyota already offers lithium-ion batteries in a Japan-only vehicle: the Vitz. While the media seems to think the move indicates Toyota's got a leg-up on their Li-Ion chasing (cough Volt) competition, the truth is that the Vitz' laptop-style battery only kicks-in to maintain electricity (for the radio, AC, etc.) when the subcompact's fuel-saving stop - start motor stops. That's a far cry from providing motive power. And it casts doubt about the Trib's contention that the Li-Ion-equipped Vitz "delivers better mileage at about 25 kilometers a liter (60 miles a gallon) in Japanese testing, compared to about 22 kilometers a liter (53 miles a gallon) in the regular Vitz."
For more see this.
But I think few owners of a Prius (unless they are eco's trying make a point) will spend the money to replace the batteries in a 10 year old vehicle. Any idea what a new set of batteries cost?
-rockylee
And yes, the $2200 price is in the ballpark. For reference, I spent $1600 to have the transmission replaced in my '90 Sable at the 93K mile mark. Because I had the car since new, I figured it was less expensive to replace the transmission and keep the car rather than buy an equivalent or somewhat "younger" used car whose maintenance, driving, or crash history could not be documented.
I would of done the same thing as you.
-Rocky
Probably not since removing the batteries will not be easy. Heh, there is probably a Prius junkyard in California where you can get used batteries.
Sounds like this is partially due to the came mortgage issues that banks like Citibank have taken charges on.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071107/BUSINESS01/711070338
Essentially when a company loses money, it can carry the tax assets forward on its books to offset taxes on future income. But when it appears those assets will not be used in the near term, they are then to be written off, sometimes resulting in a large charge.
Record third quarter automotive revenue of $43.1 billion
Improved automotive operations on continued strength in emerging
markets
Ongoing challenges in U.S. mortgage market adversely impact GM income
from GMAC
$39 billion reported loss driven by $39 billion valuation allowance on
deferred tax assets
Improved liquidity position of $30 billion
As Rick Wagoner notes, "We continue to implement the key elements of our
North America turnaround strategy, and these initiatives are driving steady
improvement in our financial results, despite challenging North America
market conditions. In addition, we are very encouraged by our performance
in emerging markets. Our record third quarter global sales are strong
evidence that our commitment to great cars and trucks is being embraced by
consumers around the globe.”
This article may help:
39B lost
From the article:
"The whopping loss announced Wednesday was attributed to a $38.6 billion non-cash charge to stay in compliance with accounting laws that say a company can't keep booking tax credits if it doesn't have a track record of making money."
"If a company loses money, it can get a credit on its taxes that it's allowed to take at a later date. It's called a "deferred tax asset" or a "loss carry forward." But accounting rules say a company can only keep those credits on the books if it can show proof that it will make money soon.
Even though GM has posted some positive quarters in the past year, all together its performance from the last 12 quarters adds up to a loss.
Julie Gibson, a GM spokeswoman, says the automaker has won back tax credits like these in other countries, such as Brazil."
Basically GM can't ask/get tax credits if they haven't been making a steady profit. If you continually post losses quarter after quarter, year after year (despite having maybe one or two profit reports during that time frame) you cannot be entitled to credits and breaks. You need to show steady profit, not losses. So in this case, GM can't get the credits in N.A. but can in places where it has had steady profit, like Brazil.
Did this help?
Worse than this, the North American operations are still not doing well, so GM still looks like an iffy long term player.
I know GM is very concerned about the US market thru '08. With gas prices up and the mortgage problems and a looming recession/depression they are getting a bit worried.
So it looks like they cannot assure profits next year.
General Motors Corp. said Tuesday it will take a $39 billion charge to its third-quarter results to offset the value of deferred tax assets in anticipation of a "challenging" environment in the near future
Nov. 6, 2007
Today I want to tackle the larger and more complex question of whether anyone should build such a car.
Let's look at the elements:
Production - GM anticipates capitalizing on spare hydrogen production capacity from existing industrial operations--refineries, fertilizer plants, industrial gas facilities--to supply the H2 for the first large increment of fuel cell cars. That means relying on H2 made mostly from natural gas, at least initially, with its associated costs and emissions. In this regard, the "zero emissions/zero petroleum" label on the Equinox I drove only accounted for the vehicle's inputs and outputs, not a "well-to-wheels" lifecycle energy and emissions profile. While GM's figures on total US hydrogen production looked accurate, all of that output is currently spoken for, making cleaner gasoline, ultra-low-sulfur diesel, and other products. GM and its partners are apparently still working on an estimate of how much incremental H2 might be available from these sources. The energy and environmental benefits are likely to vary regionally and locally, depending on the source of H2, though all should be an improvement over the internal combustion engine (ICE).
Storage - The Equinox Fuel Cell has three high-pressure H2 tanks. H2 at 10,000 psi is dense enough to give the car a 150-mile range, and it is manageable enough to allow the car to be refueled in 5-7 minutes, a bit longer than your typical gasoline fill-up, but far quicker than recharging any existing electric vehicle. Compressed H2 entails some trade-offs, however. While not subject to the venting concerns and boil-off losses that have plagued liquid H2--BMW's chosen mode--it is still not dense enough to provide as much range as gasoline, even after the 2X efficiency improvement from the fuel cell. And while the tanks are carbon-fiber-wrapped and the safety systems include sensors that close all the H2 valves in a collision, I will never be thrilled with a storage system that bottles up that much mechanical energy, even if it were compressed air, rather than H2. In the long run, metal hydrides or carbon nanotubes may provide a welcome upgrade, but I can appreciate that compressed H2 is what was doable now.
Distribution - GM has mapped out how many refueling facilities would be necessary in each of their target markets. For example, in L.A. they foresee 30 local stations, supplemented by another 10 along the routes to Santa Barbara, Palm Springs, etc., handling up to 40,000 FCVs. The logistics of that seem a little snug to me, but that aspect has presumably been vetted by GM's fuel partners, including Shell. The economics of the required investment, cited at up to $3 million/station, look daunting, however. Absent government subsidies, the margin on retail H2 would have to be commensurately high, approaching $2/kg, to ensure positive returns on these facilities. Will GM's fuel partners have the stamina to put down in excess of $100 million against what could easily prove to be a negative NPV? But how many cars can GM sell, without pre-positioning enough stations to refuel them conveniently?
Many experts have written off hydrogen as a bad idea. As I mentioned in last Thursday's webinar I believe that view ignores the substantial well-to-wheels efficiency and emissions benefits that hydrogen fuel cells offer, and which the GM team highlighted in their presentation. It also presumes that we already know what will induce consumers to trade in their reliable-but-inefficient conventional cars. I give GM a lot of credit for getting the FCV to the point at which they can put it in the hands of real consumers, as Toyota is currently doing with a similar demonstration fleet of Priuses modified into plug-ins. Such market tests are essential to establish the viability of these concepts, though in neither case is consumer acceptance the only hurdle on the path to commercial viability. Manufacturers must still cut the cost of these cars to a level justified by their energy and emissions savings, and complex infrastructure issues--technical and economic--must be solved. For now, the race proceeds, but the finish line remains distant
Go to: http://energyoutlook.blogspot.com/2007/11/fuel-cell-test-drive-part-ii.html
I'm not sure why the markets were somewhat shocked as someone else posted. GM has improved but they haven't improved THAT much to totally negate and make people forget the past losses. Memories can't be that short can they :confuse:
They are still heavy on the truck side and is why they really need the 'Bu to be a hit, the CTS to continue to gain ground and have the new products down the pipeline be hits. And with $4 fuel (forget $3, that's going to be a memory fast) they got to get it together on the small vehicle front pronto!!
GM needs to continue changing how they do business. This means changing their relationship with their suppliers. This means more cuts and more plant consolidations. The key to them being profitable in NA is to control production. They are moving in this direction and it will take time. It's like turning around the Titanic. it hard to move something this big quickly.
I'm not sure how much more the 'Bu or CTS needs to sell to over the previous gens make them great-sellers, but as you pointed out 50 & 25 is not going to get it done. That's why I was saying they pretty much need everything that's coming out the gate to be smashes, home runs, whatever analogy you want to use. I think they need to continue to push the Malibu attributes, clearing out all the "Rental-lot Renee" stigma of the previous gen. If there will be some rental versions don't make them bottom feeders and/or swamp the lots with them, that'll make it crash & burn.
Yes, agree it's going to take some time to turn this ship; I just hope they stop at 180 and not go 360 degrees and end up being where they started.
That is very disturbing, but the assumption that you have to build 3 Priuses for every H2 had to be a huge factor in the claim that the H2 was greener than the Prius. I don't know where the 100,000 mile figure comes from, as Toyota has always claimed (at least for the 2004+) that they expect 150,000 with no significant battery degradation.
By the way, although Edmunds classifies the Prius as a compact, the EPA classifies it as midsized. Rocky and I were both right.
What kind of idiotic theory is that? :sick:
"Look past the headlines, however, and the Big Three have just engineered a sweeping overhaul of internal incentives. Out goes the UAW's ability to dictate headcount, wages and benefits. Out, therefore, goes the financial imperative that for decades kept the Big Three churning out unprofitable cars to cover a "fixed" labor bill. Let's admit the truth: Detroit designed many of its cars to be sold at a loss.
The change is already visible. GM is now free to protect the desirability and profitability of its hot-selling new Buick Enclave by not overproducing them. Chrysler is free to protect the image of its future designs by pulling the plug on poorly performing existing models rather than keeping its factories humming and dumping the output on rental fleets and unhappy dealers.
Not all McDonald's franchisees were up to spiffing up their stores. Likewise, the Big Three have design, engineering and marketing departments that are used to pushing out low-cost fodder for volume sales. They'll need a new mindset to go with the new economics: Aiming for designs that stand a real chance of becoming winners in their categories.
Unlike Volkswagen or BMW or Toyota, the U.S. Big Three have been singularly unsuccessful in creating a central branding image to let customers know what a GM or Chrysler or Ford vehicle is all about. McDonald's got back in touch with the idea that a trip to the Golden Arches was a treat with its "I'm lovin' it" campaign. It will take better marketing brains than ours to solve this problem for the Big Three, but we'll offer one prediction: Look for GM to show the way, as it has at every other stage of Detroit's epochal effort to right itself."
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071110/AUTO01/711100356/1148- /rss25
-Rocky
And one good reason they do not kill Buick is because GM is trying to go worldwide with their marques. Buick sells big in China so they gotta keep it. Pontiac is the one that sells nowhere else. Saturn is turning Opel. Chevrolet is going everywhere. Hummer is also. Cadillac is too.
GM's Buick is #1! Yes It's True, I'm Not Making This Up
By Phil LeBeau
cnbc.com
| 08 Nov 2007 | 09:01 AM ET
So there I am driving to the Northwestern/Iowa football game last Saturday when my friend Bruce says, "Hey, what do you think of the Buick Enclave? I think it's pretty sharp." Well Bruce, you are not alone.
The latest stats from J.D. Power's Power Information Network shows the Buick Enclave was the fastest selling vehicle in the U.S. last month. Yes, #1. The Enclave sold so fast, it was in showrooms fewer days than the Toyota Prius, Mercedes C Class, GL Class, and Honda Fit which rounded out the top "hot selling cars" in October.
Why is this a big deal? Buick is hurting, and if the Enclave is generating buzz with little marketing it is significant. It shows a good looking model can be sell even if the badge on the front is gasping for air. It also shows GM's designers have hit the right chord with it's latest crossovers (the GMC Acadia was the only other American model in the top ten of fast selling models).
If you've read this blog for any amount of time you know my thoughts on Buick. It's the forgotten brand at GM with an undefined niche, little marketing support, and until now, few models I found attractive. Heck sales are down 23% this year and it represents less than 5% of GM's total sales. All reasons why I've wondered why GM doesn't go ahead and give Buick the Oldsmobile treatment and kill it.
That may still happen. But for now, the Enclave is giving Buick executives and fans a reason to smile. As I told my friend Bruce, "The Enclave is very nice, give it a look"