GM News, New Models and Market Share

nippononly

Ummm, OK how about this: why they don't just do a coupe treatment of the S2000, and price it under $30K?!

andre1969

Careful what you wish for...I think he has man-boobs now that would hang past his waist if he didn't wear a truss. :P

torque_r

Toyota tops General Motors sales in first half of 2008\

David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau

General Motors Corp. said its global sales fell 5 percent in the second quarter of the year, sapped by a steep decline in U.S. sales, even as Toyota Motor Corp. widened its lead in its race to lead worldwide sales for the first time.

GM said it sold more than 2.28 million vehicles worldwide in the quarter, thanks in part to a total overseas increase in sales of 116,000 vehicles, or 10 percent. Several GM brands posted strong overseas growth: Cadillac was up 14 percent, while Chevrolet was up 19 percent on strong growth in emerging markets.

GM said it sold 4.54 million vehicles in the first half of 2008, a 3 percent decline over the first six months of 2007. GM's North American sales are down 15.3 percent through the first half of the year.

Advertisement
Toyota said it sold 4.8 million vehicles in the first half of the year. The company sold 2.406 million vehicles in the three months ended June 30, compared with 2.36 million in the first quarter of 2007 -- a 2 percent increase.

Toyota had a 160,000-vehicle lead on GM after the first quarter -- a lead that is now about 260,000 vehicles after the first half of the year.

GM said the U.S. market in July was continuing to be "challenging."

"Early indications are it's going to be another challenging month," said Mike DiGivoanni, GM's executive director of global markets and industry analysis.

Toyota said its U.S. sales fell 7 percent in the first half of the year, but it made up for that with strong growth in emerging markets.

GM said it predicts that the worldwide auto industry market would be about 72 million vehicles, up 2.5 percent over last year amid strong growth in the so-called "BRIC countries" -- Brazil, Russia, India and China.

GM barely topped Toyota in 2007 -- by 3,100 vehicles -- to retain its title as worldwide auto sales leader for the 77th straight year

sls002

Toyota is ahead so far this year and I don't see GM retaining the world wide #1 position.

bumpy

The S2000 was never under $30k, so I don't see any coupe version getting that low. The S series was always a convertible (even though there was a low-volume hatchback for a year or three), so a coupe was never in the cards.

jpstax1

[quote] It doesn't bode well for the timing of the Camero to be planning a 400hp car in the world of $5.00 gas - who knows where it will be in the year 2010. I'm guessing gas was under $2.00 per gallon when they gave the thumbs up for a 400hp car that essentially seats two people. [unquote]

In the latest Edmund's review of the 2010 Camaro it says the following:

"The Camaro SS automatic is somewhat less powerful, as the 6.2-liter small-block V8 is designated the L99 and should make right around 400 hp and 395 lb-ft of torque. The L99 incorporates an active fuel management system that shuts down four cylinders in light throttle load conditions to improve economy."

That's not bad compared with Ford and Chrysler performance cars, which don't offer the same fuel saving technology. I think it should help sell the Camaro SS.

Link: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=129446

bumpy

I think it should help sell the Camaro SS.

I doubt it. How many people are going to buy a 400 hp Camaro to drive it under "light throttle load conditions to improve economy"?

circlew

There are plenty of Little Old Laddies in Pasadena.

Regards,
OW

sls002

One would expect most to buy the manual transmission if buying the big engine. Highway estimates put the V6 at 26 MPG, while the variable displacement engine is about 23 MPG (I think with the automatic). I would think the manual transmission with big engine would compare with the Corvette.

Anyone concerned with fuel consumption would buy the V6 I think (or would buy a Prius).

aspesisteve

what does the "fuel management system" amount to in mpg?

every bit helps, but a 6.2 litre engine isn't where the masses are headed these days unless you need to pull a horse trailer, and there aren't many out there looking to pull a trailer.

For too long there has been an emphasis on greater horsepower. I guess you could say these new, larger engines are relatively efficient, but I would say there hasn't been enough effort in making the smaller engines more fuel efficient. Why the 4 cyl gets only a couple mpg better than some of the 6 cyl baffels me.

The car can get great reviews and look sharp, but it's timing is poor. GM would be better off introducing their own version of the Prius - can they do it?

dieselone

For too long there has been an emphasis on greater horsepower. I guess you could say these new, larger engines are relatively efficient, but I would say there hasn't been enough effort in making the smaller engines more fuel efficient. Why the 4 cyl gets only a couple mpg better than some of the 6 cyl baffels me.


I think the answer lies in the power it takes to actually move the vehicle. Cars and trucks seem to have gotten bigger and gained weight over the last 20 years. It requires "X" amount of energy to move a vehicle.

For ex. a car needs x amount of power to go 60mph. Gearing choices also make a huge difference, but it seems the bigger engine gets the best transmission where the smaller engine gets stuck with less ratio's than the bigger engine.

Now looking at the Malibu, the 4cyl 4speed is rated at 22/30 and the v6 is rated at 17/26. That's a decent improvement. Seems the 3.6 isn't all that fuel efficient even with the 6speed. An Accord 4cy with auto is rated at 21/31 and the v6 is rated at 19/29. The Malibu's 4cyl is competitive, but why is the v6 2-3 mpg worse with less hp (marginally more torque at much lower rpm)? I guess cylinder deactivation with the Honda v6is the difference.

While a 2mpg difference doesn't sound like much, but it is roughly 10% which would be noticeable.

I was reading in one of my boating magazines where they compared a 350 vs the big block 496 option in the same boat. Cruising mpg was actually marginally better with the 496 as it could go about 5 mph at it's most efficient rpm vs the 350. Full throttle, obviously the 496 could and did burn more fuel as it produced about 75 more HP along with a lot more torque.

circlew

Now look at the Z06 Corvette.

505Horsies/475ft-lb - 15/24 mpg.

The 6.2L gets 16/26 mpg with the M/T

This Chevy gives much more for the fuel used!

Regards,
OW

sls002

For most owners the base engine in the Corvette has more than enough power. I would actually like Corvette to offer the XLR's engine or perhaps the Camaro's V6. At one time the only engine available on the Corvette was a 6 (inline). But the Corvette used to offer a range of V8s in the 60's.

circlew

The thing is you can get that mileage out of a High Performance V-8 sans cylinder deactivation.

Regards,
OW

sls002

But what you actually get depends on how you drive the car, not what the EPA numbers say. I am getting about 21 MPG with my SRX this summer in day to day driving. One reason is that I have been working part time about 25 miles (one way) from home and in the morning I don't need the A/C. This is better than last summer when the engine was still new. On long trips I have yet to do better than about 21.

jpstax1

I think we can all agree on one thing. That is, modern-day engines with fuel injection and advanced computers (which among other things control cylinder de-activation) get far better mileage than engines with carburetors and no computer systems. I remember my buddy crying about how his '68 Chevy, with the 427-425 HP engine and huge Holley quad, only got about 8 mpg cruising around the streets of Chicago.

circlew

Back in '68, everything was raw but what we all desired as real performance cars. Todays engines are so much more efficient.

25 miles per gallon in 1968 was unheard of in the United States unless you had a bike.

Regards,
OW

circlew

I'll bet you can get mid-20's in a vette all day long on the highway but in local traffic, the average will most likely drop to the teens. Agreed, aggressive driving would keep it mid-teens for sure. But it's nice to know if you drove a z-06 like there were eggs on the gas pedal, you get pretty fantastic economy for half a grand horespower! That's what I'm talkin' about!!

This weekend, I eeked out 29.6 MPG out of my 330xi with a full carload on the highway on a 200 miler. I religiously get 22 mpg tank to tank with 80% highway.

Regards,
OW

62vetteefp

Why did Toyota do worse than GM in June? Anybody know? I can see Honda doing well because they only sell small vehicles. However trucks at Toyota are nowhere near what the % that GM had.

General Motors Corp., for example, saw its U.S. sales drop by 18.5%. That's one reason behind the company's recent announcement that it is cutting workers, production and its entire dividend. It may even sell some of its model lines.

At Ford Motor Co., June sales plummeted by 28.1%. The company's truck sales -- where its F-series has been the company's bread and butter -- fell by 35.6%, while Ford's SUV sales have fallen 40% thus far in 2008.

Even Toyota Motor Corp. had a rough month, selling 21.4% fewer vehicles in the United States in June, year over year. Toyota's Japanese rival Honda Motor Co. managed to eke out a 1.1% June sales gain.

62vetteefp

The large V8 will sell well. Not as well as it would have 1 year ago but it needs to be there. I cannot imagine GM marketing a Camaro w/o a big V8. In the first two years the V8 will sell very well and then drop when all those who want the power and prestige of having the first buy them and then tire of them.

Perhaps with gas going below $3.75 and still dropping some of the panic will subside? Never know what will happen there.

62vetteefp

I wonder if they are working on a automatic version or jsut waiting til the Cruz come out?

During the 18 months he worked on a new version of the Chevrolet Cobalt, Mike Danowski saw consumer tastes change before his very eyes.

When he started, studies showed that styling was the No. 1 reason people bought Cobalts. By the time the vehicle rolled out, fuel economy had leapt to the top of the list, the Cobalt XFE project manager says.

The Cobalt team's timing couldn't have been better.

A combination of revised gear ratios, engine recalibration and low-rolling-resistance tires improved highway fuel economy 9 percent, from 33 mpg in highway driving for the base Cobalt to 36 mpg for the XFE.

When the Cobalt XFE hit the market in March, consumers applauded. The XFE accounts for about 8 percent of Cobalt's sales volume. "We thought it would be in the 2 to 3 percent range," says Chevrolet spokeswoman Nancy Libby. She says dealers have an 18-day supply of XFEs, the fastest turn of any Cobalt version.

sls002

I had an 86 Corvette with automatic that on long trips would get about 23-24 MPG. My 2002 Seville LS would average 29 MPG on long trips loafing at 70 MPH. The Corvette's with manual transmission (overdrive ratio ~0.5:1) can get good mileage on long trips with the engine turning over very slowly.

sls002

Digital processors have made electronic fuel injection very efficient, and along with tuned intake manifolds, have made cars much more fuel efficient than they were. I think GM was one of the first to have digital fuel injection begining with the 80 Cadillac's.

circlew

Bosch developed an electronic fuel injection system, called D-Jetronic (D for Druck, German for "pressure"), which was first used on the VW 1600TL in 1967. This was a speed/density system, using engine speed and intake manifold air density to calculate "air mass" flow rate and thus fuel requirements. The system used all analog, discrete electronics, and an electro-mechanical pressure sensor. The sensor was susceptible to vibration and dirt.[citation needed] This system was adopted by VW, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, Citroën, Saab, and Volvo. Lucas licensed the system for production with Jaguar.

Fuel injection was phased in through the latter '70s and '80s at an accelerating rate, with the US and German markets leading and the UK and Commonwealth markets lagging somewhat, and since the early 1990s, almost all gasoline passenger cars sold in first world markets like the United States, Canada, Europe, Japan, and Australia have come equipped with electronic fuel injection (EFI). Many motorcycles still utilize carbureted engines, though all current high-performance designs have switched to EFI.

Fuel injection systems have evolved significantly since the mid 1980s. Current systems provide an accurate, reliable and cost-effective method of metering fuel and providing maximum engine efficiency with clean exhaust emissions, which is why EFI systems have replaced carburetors in the marketplace. EFI is becoming more reliable and less expensive through widespread usage. At the same time, carburetors are becoming less available, and more expensive. Even marine applications are adopting EFI as reliability improves. Virtually all internal combustion engines, including motorcycles, off-road vehicles, and outdoor power equipment, may eventually use some form of fuel injection.

Regards,
OW

andre1969

I think technically, Chrysler offered the first electronic fuel injection, in 1958 on their high performance cars. Chevy and Pontiac both offered it for 1957, but their systems were mechanical.

I think it was Bendix that designed the fuel injection for Chrysler. It wasn't very reliable, and was extremely expensive. I think it was about a $400-500 option. Something like 12-13 Chrysler 300D's were ordered with it, but supposedly every single one was converted to dual quads. A handful of DeSoto Adventurers and Plymouth Furys also had it, as did a few Dodges with the D-500 package.

Back in the late 50's though, fuel injection was all about performance. Fuel economy was probably the furthest thing from the engineers' minds!

200mph

Circle W wrote: "25 miles per gallon in 1968 was unheard of in the United States unless you had a bike."

Not true. Many of us owned Euro sports cars and sedans that would better 25 mpg.

Examples include MGB, MG Midget, MG 1100, Austin Healey Sprite, Austin America, Fiat 850, Fiat 1100, the original Mini Cooper, Sunbeam Alpine, Triumph Spitfire and more would give better than 25 mpg. The Mini with an 850cc engine was slow, but could squeeze 40 mpg.

fintail

Heck, my fintail can easily do 22-24mpg on the highway, and it's not even a small car.

Back in the 90s my dad had a 68 Fairlane with a 289 and a 3-on-the-tree as one of his hobby cars...I know it could easily pass 20mpg anyway.

andre1969

Not true. Many of us owned Euro sports cars and sedans that would better 25 mpg.

Examples include MGB, MG Midget, MG 1100, Austin Healey Sprite, Austin America, Fiat 850, Fiat 1100, the original Mini Cooper, Sunbeam Alpine, Triumph Spitfire and more would give better than 25 mpg. The Mini with an 850cc engine was slow, but could squeeze 40 mpg.

Heck, I had a 1969 Dodge Dart GT, with a 225 slant six and 3-speed automatic, that would get 22-23 on the highway. And that's at 70-75 mph, a/c cranked up, with its big V-2 compressor sapping economy. I'd imagine that, if driven gently, that car could have broken 25 mpg. And if that Dart could hit 25, there were certainly domestic compacts with smaller engines that could have. Maybe a 6-cyl Falcon or Mustang. I don't think the Chevy II/Nova was very efficient though, because GM tended to put a 2-speed automatic in it, rather than a 3-speed.

Some larger cars could be fairly efficient, too. For example, Consumer Reports would usually test a Catalina, Impala, Fury, and Galaxie for their low-priced big cars. The Catalina would usually get the best fuel economy, despite having the biggest engine. The secret was an engine with a lot of torque that just didn't have to strain very hard, mated to a 3-speed automatic and a tall 2.56:1 axle. I don't know how this would equate to highway mileage these days, but CR used to measure fuel consumption at steady speeds, such as 30 mph, 40 mph, 50 mph, etc. I remember the Catalina would actually break 20 mpg at a steady 60 in their tests.

imidazol97

>Circle W wrote: "25 miles per gallon in 1968 was unheard of in the United States unless you had a bike."

1967 Mustang easily bested 25 on trips when I wasn't even trying for gas mileage maximization.

lemko

My 1968 Buick Special Deluxe had a 350 V-8 with a 2 bbl carb. I don't remember being strapped for cash to pay for fuel because the car got at least 20 MPG or more.

sls002

I specifically stated digital fuel injection. I think that Cadillac was first. I am not sure who helped GM with the development, it was either Bendix or Bosch. Analog electronic fuel injection was better than carburetors, but the digital microprocessor is what makes modern fuel injection what it is.

I programmed analog computers at one time, so I do know what they are/were.

dieselone

Growing up I had a 71 Mustang convertible with 351C 2v and c6 3speed that never got over 15mpg. Same with a 75' Buick Regal that my grandpa gave me as my first car when I started driving in '87. It had a 2v 350 and even driving 60mph it wouldn't get much more than 15. Considering my Expedition weighs 2000lb more and has a lot more HP, the fact that it gets 18-19mpg @70mpg on the hwy isn't so bad. I'm sure having a 6speed trans has a lot to do with that.

sls002

My 71 Riviera would get about 13 MPG cruising at 75+. At 50 MPH I think it would get about 16 MPG. It had a 455 cubic inch engine.

andre1969

Back in June, I took my '76 LeMans, which has a Pontiac 350-4bbl, to the GM show in Carlisle. I started off with a full tank, and filled up just before coming back home, and then filled up when I got back home. The first tank I got 16.1 mpg. That was loafing it a bit, trying to stay around 60-65 mph. It also included some local driving. The trip back, which was practically pure highway, got 17.4 mpg. I tried driving gently, but when I got back closer to home and the road went out to 4 lanes in either direction, I got tired of driving that slow and bumped it up to a more comfortable 70-75, where traffic conditions would allow.

When I took my '79 New Yorker (360-2bbl) up to Carlisle for the Mopar show a few weeks later, I got about 18 mpg. Again that was driving fairly gently, around 60-65, although I think I got up to 80 once or twice.

I've heard that with GM cars, sometimes if you got the 4-bbl carb instead of the 2-bbl, that they could actually be more economical as long as you kept your foot out of it. Supposedly the primaries are smaller on the 4-bbl...although the ones on my '76 LeMans still look pretty big to me.

sls002

Fuel consumption is less when the secondaries are closed, but at lower speeds the drag is lower and power requirments are reduced. Fuel consumption will also depend on whether you are going to a higher/lower altitude. So, on a round trip the higher destination leg willl burn the most fuel.

circlew

Those were basically bikes with 2 extra wheels!

Regards,
OW

62vetteefp

Looks like GM is looking ahead to the upcoming issue of where all that electricity is going to come from for all the future plug in electrics.

WASHINGTON -- General Motors Corp. and a consortium of more than 30
electric utilities will announce today a partnership to speed the
commercialization of plug-in vehicles.

The joint project of GM and the Electric Power Research Institute, which
represents more than 30 electric utilities with operations in 37 states
and three Canadian provinces, will work to resolve some of the thorny
issues that must be worked out before plug-in vehicles begin hitting
showrooms in late 2010.

Those issues include ensuring that infrastructure is in place for safe
and convenient vehicle charging, raising public awareness of plug-in
electric vehicles, and working with government leaders to ease the
transition from petroleum to electricity as a fuel source, GM and the
institute said in a statement.

The announcement of the partnership was to be made today in San Jose,
Calif., at Plug-in 2008, a three-day conference. The institute includes
DTE Energy in Michigan.

GM said the project, which it called the largest and most comprehensive
between an automaker and the electric utility industry, will pave the
way "for customers to realize the benefits of plug-in electric vehicles
such as the Chevrolet Volt and Saturn Vue plug-in hybrid."

Arshad Mansoor, a vice president with the institute, said the
"collaboration is critical in the development of standards that will
lead to the widespread use of electricity as a transportation fuel."

One big advantage to electric power is cost. Lauckner said the estimated
cost per mile with electric power is 1 cent per mile in off-peak periods
and 2 cents at peak periods, versus about 14 cents per mile at gasoline
prices of more than $4 a gallon.

62vetteefp

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0807_2009_opel_insignia_first_dri- ve/index.html

62vetteefp

Vauxhall's Ellesmere Port plant on Merseyside is being studied as the
possible European production centre for General Motors' revolutionary
Volt electric car, it emerged yesterday.

The Volt, which is powered by advanced batteries and an electric motor
coupled to a small petrol engine to extend its range, has potential fuel
costs as low as £100 a year. It is due to be launched in North America
in 2010.

The prospect of the Merseyside plant being used for the venture was
raised yesterday by Carl-Peter Forster, president of GM Europe, after a
meeting with Gordon Brown at the British motor show. The prime minister
announced the government would put up £90m in funding over the next five
years to support electric, hybrid and other environmentally clean car
projects.

Mr Forster, who said GM would be "seriously considering" Ellesmere Port,
indicated that a climate of tangible government goodwill towards the
project would be influential in making a decision.

To date GM has given no estimates of likely production volumes for the
Volt either in North America or Europe. However, there is much
enthusiasm within GM for the project, which offers potentially
substantial reductions in carbon dioxide emissions while freeing drivers
from some of the pain of soaring petrol and diesel prices. Company
officials said that only a single European plant would be required to
build the Volt under all three of its planned brand names: Opel,
Vauxhall and Chevrolet.

sls002

It will take several years of production for plug in vehicles to reach a point of impacting the electric power grid. If GM were to convert their entire light vehicle production to all plug-in models (not very likely), then there might be some impact in a few years. I am assuming that the cars will be charged over night in most cases. The electric grid has unused capacity late at night, particularly after midnight.

But now is the time for the industry to start thinking about the longer term impact of recharging a fleet of plug-in vehicles.

62vetteefp

Maybe 1 billion? There are not many dealers

With its dealers struggling to sell vehicles from a brand that might be sold, General Motors has paid Hummer dealers early bonuses and is in talks to buy out stores.

"Hummer is quietly getting dealers to sign off on their stores and making deals with each one," Tim Kelly, a Hummer dealer in Chattanooga, Tenn., told Automotive News.

Kelly said GM is "tiptoeing through a legal minefield" by trying to shed Hummer, trying to avoid the lawsuits that ensued when it killed Oldsmobile. He said he doesn't think that dealers "are going away without a fight, but I think GM is handling it the right way by making peace with each dealer, one by one."

But several dealers confirmed that GM is buying out stores from owners. One owner said he is holding talks with GM about selling his store but had signed a confidentiality agreement.
i>

aspesisteve

don't forget when comparing milege of cars in the 70's vs. those today - those 70's cars were relatively dirty to the environment. Catalitic converters didn't come into play until the mid or late 70's. Plus I think lead was being used to fuel most beasty engines up to the early 70's.

Many cities today have better air quality despite there being many more cars on the road compared to the 70's. That accomplishment can be directly attributed to cars being much cleaner.

sls002

The cost of shutting down Olds was about 1 billion, so I would think Hummer would be less. However, if they sell Hummer why would there be a problem? The Hummer 1 is still in use by the Military is it not, so what happens with that? Since Hummer is a fairly new franchise, I would have thought that the agreements would have been more sensible.

sls002

Beginning with the 71 or 72 model year, most cars were designed for lead free. However, leaded gas was available for some time after that and cheaper, so you know what the typical person would do.

nippononly

I think there's some type of complicated agreement in place here that affects this, like GM builds the civilian H1 (well, not any more) but AM General always made the military version. GM only has the civilian brand to sell, which has nothing to do with AM General's production for the army.

I would think if Tata were brave enough to buy Land Rover (and Jaguar, yikes!), there would be someone in the world brave enough to take on Hummer, and with the desire to do so.

cooterbfd

I believe you could get it on some 1975 models, and then starting in 1976 with the Seville.

BTW OW, I religously get 22 MPG in my '99 Park Ave (65% hwy), and got 32 on a 700 mi round trip.

It's all in how you drive it.

circlew

Yup, my Mom gets the same with her 2001 BPA.

Regards,
OW

andre1969

Yep, according to this Cadillac website, they started offering fuel injection in March, 1975. It was a $600 option, which was a lot of money back then, so I wonder if it was very popular.

Also standard for 1975 was something called "High Energy Ignition". It had been a $77 option in 1974. They weren't still using points and condensers for standard equipment in '74, were they?! Or was there just some other electronic ignition that wasn't "High Energy"?

sls002

Yes, the Seville had an analog electronic, not digital, fuel injection system, which was also offered as an option on the 500 cubic inch V8.

I think that the digital processor controlled electronic fuel injection system that Cadillac put on the 6 liter V8 in 1980 was the first digital fuel injection system. Bosch went to digital in 1982 if this is right.

This link supports my claim for Cadillac.

andre1969

That Caddy website I referenced above also mentioned the digital fuel injection being offered in 1980. It calls it both "DEFI" and "DFI". It was standard on the Eldorado's 368 V-8. The Seville's standard engine was actually the Diesel 350, but the DFI 368 was a ~$270 credit option. Imagine that...actually paying the customer money to take the better engine! :shades:

The DeVille and Fleetwood used a 4-bbl carb version of the 368. Interestingly, the 4-bbl put out a bit more hp (150 versus 145) but slightly less torque (265 ft-lb versus 270). I wonder which one was the better engine to live with on a daily basis. Also, California Eldorados were fitted with a fuel-injected (probably still analog?) Olds 350, with 160 hp/265 ft-lb of torque. I guess the DFI 368 wasn't yet certified for California? I wonder if that meant it was actually "dirtier" than the other engines?