Wow. Tough electrical rates. Maybe California is not the place to be. Here in Memphis area we have it a little better:
First 2,000 kWh per month at $0.07481 per kWh Additional kWh per month at $0.08335 per kWh
Also, since GM predicts $.40 to charge, I don't think will will need a complete 16 KWH to recharge. I don't have a good feel for that usage or calculation but if they are saying 4 hours to charge @ $.10 per KWH total $.40 then would we assume roughly 1000 watt draw for the charger? If that is the case then even at your very high rates it might be $1.40 per charge.
If we then took that assumption and divided 40 miles on a charge by $1.40 to get a charge then I calculate about 28.5 MPD.
Now if I take a vehicle that gets 40 MPG @ $2.50 a gallon then the MPD equals 16 in that case.
Until we get some of these PHEVs out on the road and see what they really get on a full charge, then what they get running on the generator after that, who knows.
I would guess they might get better mileage in San Diego than Memphis, esp. during summer driving. Much more AC need here than there and I think the accessories such as heat and AC are electric.
One thing you might consider for mileage while running on Generator. A company named Raser Tech has a prototype PHEV based on an H3 Hummer. Even in that vehicle they are reporting around 33 MPG just running on Generator. So, I would assume if that is the case, 45-50 in a smaller vehicle would be reasonable. But again, until we get some on the road and get real world experience, all figures will be questionable.
Although it deserves noting that GM CEO Fritz Henderson didn't exactly say the 230 mpg rating was an official figure from the EPA, it sure is being bandied about as if it were gospel in the huge marketing campaign launched ahead of today's announcement.
Further, GM believes that coming out with the 230 rating at this point in time is one way to change people's perception of what kind of car the Volt is.
EPA is suggesting to GM that cars like the Volt need to be tested in a different way than gas-only cars, since its electric-only range is large enough to invalidate the current test procedures. I would say yes and no: yes people who have a daily driving range around 50 miles will experience the 230 mpg GM is touting, but OTOH people who drive 100 miles a day round trip (which is plenty of commuters) will only get 50 mpg or whatever.
It is a conundrum. I'm glad I'm not the one who has to decide.
As for this: Even if GM is lucky and can meet their late 2010 target, we taxpayers end up prroviding $7500 subsidy to buyers of Volt.
I would say personally I'm glad to offer these incentives in order to get this technology into the mainstream. It's the same as the incentives that were offered earlier to get hybrids into the mainstream. I do have some concern about the impact on the electrical grid though, not because initial sales will suddenly take it down, but because Americans are super-duper loath to invest in the electrical grid, and even if these electric cars take off in the marketplace, I expect there will STILL be little to no investment in modernization and expansion for increased electrical capacity.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I agree with you regarding the technology infusion but this is a little late, afaic, particularly from GM. Be that what it may, it's all good to stifle the OPEC mafia.
As far as the power grid is concerned, it needs an extreme makeover anyway. We might not like it, but that and the crumbling road/bridge system will ensure high transportation taxes for a long, long time. It might take a system-wide blackout to underscore this to most folks, but it is what it is. If everyone in the U.S.A. plunged in a Volt-like EV each night, there would be a nation-wide, unexpected Holiday in the A.M.!!
My system has a big battery bank and a fine efficient converter. I can charge the batteries during the day, then I could charge the car at night. I'm shooting for 2KWs steady state, so in 8 hours, I could have 16KWHRs. I could charge several cars with that.
That will work. Those systems are pricey if you bought all new batteries. I started to build a house off the grid in Hawaii and solar with battery backup was a sizable share of the cost of building. Sounds like you have it well thought out. Hope it all works for you. Though a nice EV may come on the market before the Volt.
Lithium Ion battery technology is not the equivalent of lead acid battery technology. To imply that GM is marketing the new Volt battery as re-packaged 30 year old technology is just not true.
Boy are you in for a rude awakening.
40 miles on battery power alone *is* exactly what a set of lead-acid batteries is normally good for in a self-made EV. We're talking stuff like this:
Stuff that "kit" at cost(say $5K, tops) into a small Chevy and... 80 mile range EV for $20K. GM just... utterly fails form a technical standpoint. Any engineering student(let alone a real engineer) would tell you that a 40 mile range in 2009 is laughable at best.
http://www.evalbum.com/1 Flip through the "pages" there. Loads of people have been making 40-100 mile range EVs for literally decades. All GM is doing is taking crap technology, putting some shine on it and a small on-board engine to recharge it to extend the range. For the low-low price of $40K!
I could do the exact same thing myself today for under $10K(refit cost) and I'm a normal guy doing that out of my garage.
Oh -and 100MPG? the VW One supposedly got over 200mpg. And there are numerous 70-80+mpg minicars in the works currently as well.(and the Prius with a bigger battery pack as well..)
Alright, so Toyota is blasting the airways with the message: #1 fuel efficiency leader and most dependable vehicles made. I mean it's everywhere. What they do is disclaim their claim by stating: "based on Toyota, Scion, Lexus combined data" 1) Last I saw toyota ranked 10th in most fuel efficient manufacturer 2) Toyota is not the most dependable vehicle...Lexus is followed close by last read was buick So why doesn't GM do the same thing? Combine GMC and Chevy and you have the number one selling truck on the planet 100 years in a row Chevy already holds the #3 most fuel economical manufacturer so they can claim: "1 fuel efficiency leader in full line manufacturers. Honda at 2 doesnt make a truck and mini at 1 doesnt either so the claim is valid.
it drives me nuts that we let toyota get away with blatant misleading advertising and nobody reacts to it.
1) You'll drive yourself insane trying to find truth in advertising. They all claim, and they all disclaim in fine print. 2) Toyota is absolutely the most dependable vehicle...once you read the fine print that defines "dependable" as whatever they define it as. You may be referring to reliability or initial quality, which are of course different things as any advertising lawyer will tell you.
And if Chevy and GMC combined they'd still have trouble meeting the numbers of Ford's F-series (which consists of several different models depending on the time of day and which lawyer is asking).
Said lawyers will also point out that Honda does in fact make several trucks..the Ridgeline being an actual truck, and the Pilot, CR-V and Element being technical SUV-trucks or whatever.
Everyone misleads in advertising. Including GM, when they say they sell the most hybrid models of any manufacturer (all of them "mild" hybrids, for the most part and "models" includes 2 rebadged versions of the same vehicle). As well as having the most fuel efficient compact (but only in XFE trim which dealers don't order because it's a stick and most Americans want automatics).
Calm down and stop paying so much attention to commercials. When those come on you're supposed to use the bathroom, grab snacks, and whatever else. :shades:
Alright, so Toyota is blasting the airways with the message: #1 fuel efficiency leader and most dependable vehicles made. I mean it's everywhere. What they do is disclaim their claim by stating: "based on Toyota, Scion, Lexus combined data"
Not so surprising. Last summer when gas prices peaked, GM was advertising "most models over 30mpg". They were combining all their divisions. It's an easy claim when you have so many rebadges as they did.
So why doesn't GM do the same thing? Combine GMC and Chevy and you have the number one selling truck on the planet 100 years in a row
Dare I say GM is just too stupid. They could have dumped GMC or at least made them a commercial-only division. Even the latest Edmund's writeup about upcoming products says GMC doesn't even seem sure where GMC is going. Don't know why they kept this division. Seems like the new GM is not acting new enough -- they have Lutz, GMC, and the UAW -- seems still too much like the old GM, just with billions of dollars of yours and mine.
What is point of two V6's? Just offer the 3.6 version. Also, testers noted smallish side windows. Seems like car will feel claustrophobic. Problem here could be with Buick's main customers, seniors. They like big windows, lots of visibility as I understand. Smallish trunk also a negative and compounded by weird, small operning.
I notice that Government Motors is trying to double up on Lexus. Witness the dumbing down of the SRX, the future fwd/awd XTS and Lambda Escalade. And now they are trying to aim Buick at the ES and Toyota Avalon with this new Lacrosse.
My best guess is to differentiate it from a base CTS. I would also say we'll get a clearer picture in the coming years as they refine the model. But, I dunno.
In spite of the windows (the doors offer a VERY high beltline) it isn't clausterphobic at all. Quite roomy, in fact, and the seats are very comfortable.
The smallish trunk is somewhat nullified by the fact that the rear seats do fold down flat right into the trunk. From the outside, the trunk looks big enough on it's own, but the small lid opening will probably frustrate. It should be adequate for luggage or golf bags, though (and groceries).
As far as their "main" customers, I feel they are targeting people in the 35-54 range with this car. At 70, even my father was able to work the nav. system in his new Chrysler Town&Country, so this shouldn't be a problem. All the buttons on the center stack are clearly labeled, and don't take much to figure out. Trust me, I've already test drove one!!!
My best guess is to differentiate it from a base CTS
I am not quite sure this is the reason. The 2010 CTS will have the same 3.0L base engine, and the 3.6L will be optional. They will produce 270hp and 304hp, compared to 255hp and 280hp in the LaCrosse though. Unless maybe you mean they wanted to make the base model less powerful than the base CTS? Actually, why are there two V-6 engines in the CTS to begin with? The Infiniti G37 has a standard 330-hp, 3.7L V-6.
Cause GM, well most of the domestics, always offer to many engine choices.
Eh, it could be worse. In 1976, I think there were like 6 engine choices in my LeMans. They started off with a Chevy 250-6 cyl and progressed up through an Olds 260-2bbl, Pontiac 350-2bbl, Pontiac 350-4bbl, Pontiac 400-4bbl, and Pontiac 455-4bbl. And I think a few of them ended up with Chevy 305's, unless that was just Canada?
Y'know, I could actually see offering a wider choice of engines for a more mainstream car. For instance, I could see offering a Malibu with a 4-cyl, a turbo 4, a weaker V-6, and a stronger V-6. But something like a LaCrosse should be a premium car at this point, and it should be limited to one or two engines. However, even the base engine should be pretty powerful and refined. And in something like a Cadillac CTS, it should get nothing but the best.
Bank Of America-Merrill Lynch have released their annual “Car Wars” report, and it predicts slumping sales for GM and Chrysler. GM’s market share of 22 percent last year is seen shrinking to a mere 15 percent, which is significantly lower than the 18 percent number that GM admits to. The real butt-clencher? Merrill Lynch based its calculations on a 14m unit SAAR, which is much higher than the 10m SAAR that we’ve been seeing through the first half of the year. Which means GM’s losses could be even worse if we don’t see a return to those sales numbers soon. Even at a 14m SAAR though, the three percent discrepancy between GM’s numbers and Merrill’s would amount to GM selling half a million fewer autos than expected. The report places blame on weakness in GM’s new-product pipeline for the projected drops. GM’s Tom Wilkinson fires back at the Freep, arguing “we understand that analysts get paid to try to predict the future but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are going to be right.” Gosh, can’t anyone just trust GM?
The Car Wars report also savages Chrysler, arguing that (like GM) a weak product pipline will bring Auburn Hills down. Again. Still. Merrill predicts that ChryCo will be half its size within a few years. Chrysler refused comment on the report, except to say “we have no plans to be half our size in the future.”
Meanwhile, the fact that Ford plans on replacing 99 percent of its lineup in the 2010-2013 window makes Merrill bullish on the blue oval. Ford is projected to pick up about 3 percent market share by 2013, joining Honda and Hyundai/Kia as the top-tier in projected market share growth. Toyota and Nissan are seen increasing their shares as well, although at a slightly slower rate. The European manufacturers should stay about level, according to Business Week’s take on the report.
At 15%, I calculate the bailout funds won't be paid back while I'm alive...not with 4 divisions, it won't.
"After sweating through bankruptcy, it looks as if GM's designers have gotten down to the business of sweating the details. GM's got some formidable-looking new metal coming in the next couple of years."
The editors aren't so thrilled about the Spark or the compact Buick sedan.
Why the heck should Malibu have four engine choices? I see two V-6s and a turbo as being totally redundant. Pick one, for goodness' sake.
Subaru offers a turbo 4 and a flat 6 in the Legacy with about the same horsepower rating, and I have NEVER understood why. Pick the turbo or the 6 and call it a day.
I could see having a Malibu SS with a MUCH more powerful engine for that trim only, to bring the engine choices to 3, but that's it.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"It's not unusual for General Motors Co. and other big car companies to show the media a couple year's worth of pending new models. The difference this week was that GM showed the goods - and allowed reporters to tell all about what they saw."
If the bean counters still hold the power, you're right to be concerned. I don't get a Buick Aveo, kind of like a Lexus Tercel but without the quality. I can see a Buick compact if gas prices go up, which I think they will. However, it will have to be much more upscale and differentiated from the Chevy. Not another tarted up Nova called Apollo, or a barely undistinguished Monza with a Skylark tag (my how GM ruined the brand value of some classic car names!).
Well, it's looking like the whole re-organization was window dressing...publicly drop a few brands and be humble, while the same set of guys makes the same decisions before and after.
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution Take a bow for the new revolution Smile and grin at the change all around me Pick up my guitar and play Just like yesterday And I'll get on my knees and pray We don't get fooled again Don't get fooled again
Change it had to come We knew it all along We were liberated from the fall that's all But the world looks just the same And history ain't changed 'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war
Saw new Camaro at county fair. Styling is good with high waistline, small side windows, chopped top look. BUT, appears that visibility is severely compromised. Car was locked, could not sit in it to check out. Sales guy probably would open it up for a serious prospective buyer. Wonder if car insurance companies will charge extra premium for Camaro over Mustang based on lousy visibility.
I think it was a sign of things to come for GM. There current small cars are all Daewoos and their new midsize Buick is Korean as well as the batteries for the Volt.
It's like GM isn't even an American nameplate anymore.
Good observation. Hopefully the sight lines on the wagon will be okay. I still like the CTS sedan, though. Nice lines. I really, really wanted to like the new Camaro but driving one felt like driving a German pillbox. I know there's structural and airbag considerations but Jesus H. Christ, I MUST be able to see out of the vehicle. A small consideration, I know.
I don't know, I think the new Camaro looks a bit squished and kind of plasticy. The dash didn't do much for me either. Like the Challenger, I felt let down. But I guess they have to use current architecture, so they can't make them sleek like the originals. The drivetrains on them kind of show up the Mustang though.
Yeah, and even though my '76 LeMans isn't exactly the high point for the nameplate, at least the car still had SOME dignity left...
My gpa had one of those and my gma had a '77 Ventura (i.e. Nova). I have fond memories of sitting on the front seat arm rest as a very small child (wow, those days are gone, no carseats...) and watching the fender turn signal repeaters on the way from one grandparent's house to the other.
My parents had a '76 Nova at the time that survived to be my car in the 90s. It had a perf rear end, TH350 and the 250 I6. That was the only automatic I ever had, and I was reminded it wasn't "mine" often.
I think that was a mixed-up reference to the new compact Buick, platform-buddy to the Cruze, which is Korean-designed. But it IS U.S. built, if that's any consolation to anyone.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Comments
First 2,000 kWh per month at $0.07481 per kWh
Additional kWh per month at $0.08335 per kWh
Also, since GM predicts $.40 to charge, I don't think will will need a complete 16 KWH to recharge. I don't have a good feel for that usage or calculation but if they are saying 4 hours to charge @ $.10 per KWH total $.40 then would we assume roughly 1000 watt draw for the charger? If that is the case then even at your very high rates it might be $1.40 per charge.
If we then took that assumption and divided 40 miles on a charge by $1.40 to get a charge then I calculate about 28.5 MPD.
Now if I take a vehicle that gets 40 MPG @ $2.50 a gallon then the MPD equals 16 in that case.
Until we get some of these PHEVs out on the road and see what they really get on a full charge, then what they get running on the generator after that, who knows.
I would guess they might get better mileage in San Diego than Memphis, esp. during summer driving. Much more AC need here than there and I think the accessories such as heat and AC are electric.
One thing you might consider for mileage while running on Generator. A company named Raser Tech has a prototype PHEV based on an H3 Hummer. Even in that vehicle they are reporting around 33 MPG just running on Generator. So, I would assume if that is the case, 45-50 in a smaller vehicle would be reasonable. But again, until we get some on the road and get real world experience, all figures will be questionable.
Bill
Although it deserves noting that GM CEO Fritz Henderson didn't exactly say the 230 mpg rating was an official figure from the EPA, it sure is being bandied about as if it were gospel in the huge marketing campaign launched ahead of today's announcement.
Further, GM believes that coming out with the 230 rating at this point in time is one way to change people's perception of what kind of car the Volt is.
Arrogance lives on at the new GM...
It is a conundrum. I'm glad I'm not the one who has to decide.
As for this:
Even if GM is lucky and can meet their late 2010 target, we taxpayers end up prroviding $7500 subsidy to buyers of Volt.
I would say personally I'm glad to offer these incentives in order to get this technology into the mainstream. It's the same as the incentives that were offered earlier to get hybrids into the mainstream. I do have some concern about the impact on the electrical grid though, not because initial sales will suddenly take it down, but because Americans are super-duper loath to invest in the electrical grid, and even if these electric cars take off in the marketplace, I expect there will STILL be little to no investment in modernization and expansion for increased electrical capacity.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I'll wager by the time the Volt is 6 months old, the competition will trump GM as usual.
It's always fun to watch the early adopters struggle with patience!
Regards,
OW
As far as the power grid is concerned, it needs an extreme makeover anyway. We might not like it, but that and the crumbling road/bridge system will ensure high transportation taxes for a long, long time. It might take a system-wide blackout to underscore this to most folks, but it is what it is. If everyone in the U.S.A. plunged in a Volt-like EV each night, there would be a nation-wide, unexpected Holiday in the A.M.!!
It's the cost of progress.
Regards,
OW
Skeezix
Boy are you in for a rude awakening.
40 miles on battery power alone *is* exactly what a set of lead-acid batteries is normally good for in a self-made EV. We're talking stuff like this:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/12/24/homebuilt-ev-conversion-drops-gas-bill-f- - rom-10-a-day-to-60-cent/
Home-built, no economy of scale, paid retail prices as well. $7400 in batteries and parts to convert a normal small sedan into an 80mpg range vehicle. Lead acid batteries and 30 year old+ tech gets *double* the range of the Volt?
Stuff that "kit" at cost(say $5K, tops) into a small Chevy and... 80 mile range EV for $20K. GM just... utterly fails form a technical standpoint. Any engineering student(let alone a real engineer) would tell you that a 40 mile range in 2009 is laughable at best.
http://www.evalbum.com/1
Flip through the "pages" there. Loads of people have been making 40-100 mile range EVs for literally decades. All GM is doing is taking crap technology, putting some shine on it and a small on-board engine to recharge it to extend the range. For the low-low price of $40K!
I could do the exact same thing myself today for under $10K(refit cost) and I'm a normal guy doing that out of my garage.
Oh -and 100MPG? the VW One supposedly got over 200mpg. And there are numerous 70-80+mpg minicars in the works currently as well.(and the Prius with a bigger battery pack as well..)
http://www.priusownersgroup.com/?p=186
Sorry - my bad. 96mpg...
1) Last I saw toyota ranked 10th in most fuel efficient manufacturer
2) Toyota is not the most dependable vehicle...Lexus is followed close by last read was buick
So why doesn't GM do the same thing? Combine GMC and Chevy and you have the number one selling truck on the planet 100 years in a row
Chevy already holds the #3 most fuel economical manufacturer so they can claim: "1 fuel efficiency leader in full line manufacturers.
Honda at 2 doesnt make a truck and mini at 1 doesnt either so the claim is valid.
it drives me nuts that we let toyota get away with blatant misleading advertising and nobody reacts to it.
So NOW this is a problem, yet when they were giving them out for the Prius, it was OK?
2) Toyota is absolutely the most dependable vehicle...once you read the fine print that defines "dependable" as whatever they define it as. You may be referring to reliability or initial quality, which are of course different things as any advertising lawyer will tell you.
And if Chevy and GMC combined they'd still have trouble meeting the numbers of Ford's F-series (which consists of several different models depending on the time of day and which lawyer is asking).
Said lawyers will also point out that Honda does in fact make several trucks..the Ridgeline being an actual truck, and the Pilot, CR-V and Element being technical SUV-trucks or whatever.
Everyone misleads in advertising. Including GM, when they say they sell the most hybrid models of any manufacturer (all of them "mild" hybrids, for the most part and "models" includes 2 rebadged versions of the same vehicle). As well as having the most fuel efficient compact (but only in XFE trim which dealers don't order because it's a stick and most Americans want automatics).
Calm down and stop paying so much attention to commercials. When those come on you're supposed to use the bathroom, grab snacks, and whatever else. :shades:
Not so surprising. Last summer when gas prices peaked, GM was advertising "most models over 30mpg". They were combining all their divisions. It's an easy claim when you have so many rebadges as they did.
So why doesn't GM do the same thing? Combine GMC and Chevy and you have the number one selling truck on the planet 100 years in a row
Dare I say GM is just too stupid. They could have dumped GMC or at least made them a commercial-only division. Even the latest Edmund's writeup about upcoming products says GMC doesn't even seem sure where GMC is going. Don't know why they kept this division. Seems like the new GM is not acting new enough -- they have Lutz, GMC, and the UAW -- seems still too much like the old GM, just with billions of dollars of yours and mine.
Will it work?
My best guess is to differentiate it from a base CTS. I would also say we'll get a clearer picture in the coming years as they refine the model. But, I dunno.
In spite of the windows (the doors offer a VERY high beltline) it isn't clausterphobic at all. Quite roomy, in fact, and the seats are very comfortable.
The smallish trunk is somewhat nullified by the fact that the rear seats do fold down flat right into the trunk. From the outside, the trunk looks big enough on it's own, but the small lid opening will probably frustrate. It should be adequate for luggage or golf bags, though (and groceries).
As far as their "main" customers, I feel they are targeting people in the 35-54 range with this car. At 70, even my father was able to work the nav. system in his new Chrysler Town&Country, so this shouldn't be a problem. All the buttons on the center stack are clearly labeled, and don't take much to figure out. Trust me, I've already test drove one!!!
I am not quite sure this is the reason. The 2010 CTS will have the same 3.0L base engine, and the 3.6L will be optional. They will produce 270hp and 304hp, compared to 255hp and 280hp in the LaCrosse though. Unless maybe you mean they wanted to make the base model less powerful than the base CTS? Actually, why are there two V-6 engines in the CTS to begin with? The Infiniti G37 has a standard 330-hp, 3.7L V-6.
The raspy engine and the refined one? :P
Eh, it could be worse. In 1976, I think there were like 6 engine choices in my LeMans. They started off with a Chevy 250-6 cyl and progressed up through an Olds 260-2bbl, Pontiac 350-2bbl, Pontiac 350-4bbl, Pontiac 400-4bbl, and Pontiac 455-4bbl. And I think a few of them ended up with Chevy 305's, unless that was just Canada?
Y'know, I could actually see offering a wider choice of engines for a more mainstream car. For instance, I could see offering a Malibu with a 4-cyl, a turbo 4, a weaker V-6, and a stronger V-6. But something like a LaCrosse should be a premium car at this point, and it should be limited to one or two engines. However, even the base engine should be pretty powerful and refined. And in something like a Cadillac CTS, it should get nothing but the best.
How does it compare with 2008? Is Gov't Motors better than General Motors?
Bank Of America-Merrill Lynch have released their annual “Car Wars” report, and it predicts slumping sales for GM and Chrysler. GM’s market share of 22 percent last year is seen shrinking to a mere 15 percent, which is significantly lower than the 18 percent number that GM admits to. The real butt-clencher? Merrill Lynch based its calculations on a 14m unit SAAR, which is much higher than the 10m SAAR that we’ve been seeing through the first half of the year. Which means GM’s losses could be even worse if we don’t see a return to those sales numbers soon. Even at a 14m SAAR though, the three percent discrepancy between GM’s numbers and Merrill’s would amount to GM selling half a million fewer autos than expected. The report places blame on weakness in GM’s new-product pipeline for the projected drops. GM’s Tom Wilkinson fires back at the Freep, arguing “we understand that analysts get paid to try to predict the future but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are going to be right.” Gosh, can’t anyone just trust GM?
The Car Wars report also savages Chrysler, arguing that (like GM) a weak product pipline will bring Auburn Hills down. Again. Still. Merrill predicts that ChryCo will be half its size within a few years. Chrysler refused comment on the report, except to say “we have no plans to be half our size in the future.”
Meanwhile, the fact that Ford plans on replacing 99 percent of its lineup in the 2010-2013 window makes Merrill bullish on the blue oval. Ford is projected to pick up about 3 percent market share by 2013, joining Honda and Hyundai/Kia as the top-tier in projected market share growth. Toyota and Nissan are seen increasing their shares as well, although at a slightly slower rate. The European manufacturers should stay about level, according to Business Week’s take on the report.
At 15%, I calculate the bailout funds won't be paid back while I'm alive...not with 4 divisions, it won't.
Regards,
OW
The editors aren't so thrilled about the Spark or the compact Buick sedan.
Design on the Line: GM Opens the Product Vault (Inside Line)
Subaru offers a turbo 4 and a flat 6 in the Legacy with about the same horsepower rating, and I have NEVER understood why. Pick the turbo or the 6 and call it a day.
I could see having a Malibu SS with a MUCH more powerful engine for that trim only, to bring the engine choices to 3, but that's it.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Two Dozen New Models May Overcrowd GM's Four-Brand Garage (AutoObserver)
On top of this, GMC is now making car-based...well, cars to be honest.
In summary, Buick and GMC are taking over for Saturn and Pontiac....and GM has just as many (stinking rebadges!!) models as ever.
The New GM. Just like the old GM, only spending YOUR money this time.
Well, at least we'll always have Ford.
Meet the old boss....same as the new boss....
(I date myself with that quote :P )
No reason yet to shop U.S. cars from my vantage point at the moment....or any time in the near future.
Regards,
OW
Regards,
Wayne
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
Change it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fall that's all
But the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war
WE WON"T GET FOOLED AGAIN, GM!
Regards,
OW
I think it was a sign of things to come for GM. There current small cars are all Daewoos and their new midsize Buick is Korean as well as the batteries for the Volt.
It's like GM isn't even an American nameplate anymore.
Destruction at it's worst!
Regards,
OW
EXACTLY! Why bother buying second-hand, cloaked Aisans with worse quality?
Regards,
OW
Might as well talk about these cars.
Regards,
OW
What do you mean by that? Isn't that the new Cadillac SUX? :shades:
Which one?
My gpa had one of those and my gma had a '77 Ventura (i.e. Nova). I have fond memories of sitting on the front seat arm rest as a very small child (wow, those days are gone, no carseats...) and watching the fender turn signal repeaters on the way from one grandparent's house to the other.
My parents had a '76 Nova at the time that survived to be my car in the 90s. It had a perf rear end, TH350 and the 250 I6. That was the only automatic I ever had, and I was reminded it wasn't "mine" often.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)