GM News, New Models and Market Share

nippononly

I would put it a little differently - how many automakers the size of Toy/GM is there ROOM FOR in the global marketplace - but yes I agree, that is the question.

My thinking is there is probably room for six. Maybe 8 if things really get going in India and China, but China at least has stalled out for the time being.

GM and Ford will have increasing competition in that global arena from Tata, Chery or SAIC (but probably not both), and maybe VW Group in the next two decades, ON TOP OF the fierce competition from Toyota, Honda, Nissan/Renault, and Hyundai that they already face. I just don't see both GM and Ford making it. I am certain that Chrysler won't, that's just a matter of time, although the name may stick around a bit as a manufacturing concern for other automakers.

Can Ford make it? I'm not sure. I know GM can if it arrests this slow death spiral it has been on for two decades RIGHT NOW and cuts all the remaining excess out of its bottom line. But how else can it do that as rapidly as it needs to, save employing the bankruptcy court? If it doesn't file for bankruptcy, it will need to continue shrinking for another decade just slowly enough that its expenses will overwhelm it, while just fast enough that it won't have the resources it needs to really take on its global competition with all guns blazing.

imidazol97

I don't understand how you mean Chevy should have become the compact car line. There was no such thing as compact cars in the 50s... By the end of the 60s there were attempts at small cars but they weren't really serious because it didn't seem like a large part of the market.

sls002

I think that all these vehicles require a new source of energy to make the global market viable. Who ever comes up with a cheap solution to making vehicles run on far less fuel (oil) will win.

sls002

The Corvair was a 1959 model and it was a compact car for its time. The VW beetle was certainly small. Chevy was an A-body car in the early 50's, which was at the smallest end of GM full size platform, with the Cadillac's on a C-body size. At the end of the 50's, Chevy moved to the B-body size, making the full size line two basic sizes. The A-body became (at some later point) the midsize cars.

The basic point is that looking back (hindsight) one can see what might have been done differently. At the time (1959) making the Chevy Impala bigger with a big V8 was the obvious thing to do. GM never really understood the small car, never expected to make any money on small cars, and so we got the Vega

The Saturn division has also never made GM any money. GM's profits have in recent years come from the light trucks which are big vehicles. This is why GM is now bleeding red ink by the tankcar (or perhaps now by the train load). :P

circlew

My Mom had a'56 Chevy Belaire. It was roomy, comfortable and was one of the past family cars that made Chevy what it WAS!

Chevelle, Malibu, Impala, Nova, Chevelle, Monte Carlo, Camaro Corvette. Chevy makes me sleepy now!

Now, it's a Corolla fighter with no ammunition!

Regards,
OW

sls002

The 56 Chevy's were still the full sized A-body, the smallest of GM bodies at the time. GM's bodies were in three sizes, A, B and C, with the Cadillac limo's bigger than C, and probably a D body. However, the divisions had:
Chevy - all A bodies
Pontiac - A at the lowest end, with the upper series B bodies
Oldsmobile - all B bodies (the 98 moved to C at the end of the 50's
Buick - B for lower and midrange models, Roadmasters were C
Cadillac - C for everything but limo's (or series 75 models)

So Oldsmobile was the middle range of GM's line up. But once you get to the 60's, with compact and midsize cars for every division, there really is no differential between Chevy and Buick. Cadillac was still all big bodies. But in the 60's the Chevy Caprice was very close to being a Buick Electra, except for the size. In fact the lower end Electra probably was not a nice as the Caprice. The Electra was available as standard, custom and limited.

62vetteefp

Think General Motors Corp.'s Chevrolet Volt concept car has lost some of its power as a supercharged hype-machine?

Hardly.

Chevy Volt - production front-end peek.jpgGM director of advanced design Bob Boniface this morning displayed mere images of the production-representative front and rear of the advanced "extended-range" electric vehicle at the annual Center for Automotive Research Management Briefing Seminars, a longstanding elbow-rubbing confab of industry big wheels.

Result: by 1 p.m., GM's stock price soared by as much as 15 percent, ending the day hiked by a still-healthy 10 percent.

GM's stock-price jump may not be attributable entirely to the Volt showing some skin, so to speak, but the event seems to have certainly influenced Wall Street - although the reaction seems overheated, as the Volt is not scheduled to hit showrooms until late 2010, and the glimpses of sheetmetal are far from worthwhile indicators of the development status of the Volt's critical lithium-ion batteries and other complex systems. A GM source was quick to say the Volt's progress is on schedule, however.

62vetteefp

As Toyota, General Motors and other automakers race to bring rechargeable electric vehicles to showrooms, the man running much of Toyota's research says its approach is the least costly way to get great mileage and performance in the near term.

Toyota Motor Corp. plans to bring a plug-in hybrid vehicle to market sometime in 2010. Justin Ward, manager of the automaker's advanced powertrain program in the U.S., said the design will be similar to that of the current Prius, the most popular gas-electric hybrid in the nation.

The plug-in will have new lithium-ion batteries and can be recharged from a home outlet. Yet unlike General Motors Corp.'s planned Chevrolet Volt, it won't rely completely on an electric motor to turn the wheels.

While it can run in electric-only mode, Toyota's plug-in will have a small internal combustion engine that can assist the electric motor in a "blended" mode, Ward said.

The Toyota approach, he said, will be less costly than the "series" design GM is developing. The Volt will have an internal combustion engine, but it will be used solely to recharge the batteries.

jae5

Believe the A-bodies became the midsize platform in '64 model year. The '59 Impala was a re-body of the 58, adding more Caddy-style (particularly in the front-end treatment) and those sideways tail fins and cat-eye taillamps. Remember, Impala debuted in 58 as the top-end Chevrolet, putting the Bel-Air on a lower, second tier. Just as the with the Caprice intro in '66 model year - it was to be the top dog, sort of speak, in terms of luxury, comfort and such. I guess the thinking was Impala, while still being able to be comfy-cozy, was more known as being full-size muscle. Also don't forget it really wasn't GM versus Ford, it was more Chevrolet versus Ford, so there was obviously going to be a match-up size for size. With Corvair and Chevy II / Nova, then with the Buick Special, Pontiac Tempest (pre-64, with the indie rear) and the turbo'd Olds - these were as compact as you were going to get. So the whole Chevy could have become the compact king...you didn't have to worry about dealers buying it, the corporate brass wouldn't have to begin with.

lemko

...people were hailing it as the second coming of the 1955 Chevrolet as the standard Chevrolet had grown so much since the 1955-57 generation. Weren't the wheelbase and length essentially the same as the 1955 Chevy?

andre1969

Even back in the 50's though, things were starting to overlap. I remember reading an old road test from some magazine. Consumer something-or-other, I think, but not Consumer Reports. In one 1956 issue, they tested a few low-end cars, but interestingly chose to put a Buick Special in the mix with a Chevy Bel Air and several other cars.

The Bel Air was very well-equipped, with a 265 V-8. I forget what size engine the Special had by that time. something around the size of a 322 maybe? It's been ages since I read that review, and can't remember the details, but for the most part I think they actually preferred the Bel Air to the Special. It was faster and handled better, had a nice interior (the Bel Air was pretty spiffy back then, whereas the Special was pretty bargain-basement...it even undercut the cheapest Olds models). I think they were even pretty close in price.

The '56 Chevy Bel Air also seemed like it was a slightly more upscale package than its immediate competition...the Ford Fairlane and the Plymouth Belvedere.

I know the B-body was bigger and heavier than the A-body, but I wonder if it was any bigger inside? A '55-56 Olds or Special/Century certainly looks a lot swoopier than a Pontiac or Chevy, but sometimes that low look can cost you interior room. Back then they also had a habit of stretching out cars in areas where you really didn't see any corresponding improvement to interior room. For instance, I think a '56 Chevy is on a 115" wb, while the cheaper Pontiacs were on a 122" and the nicer ones were on a 124". They'd often stick that additional length ahead of the firewall, or behind the back seat, which would give you a long hood or a long rear deck, but usually not a bigger car inside.

The B-body around that timeframe was on a 122" wb for the Century/Special and the Olds 88's. The 98 was on a stretched 126" version, but again I think it was all ahead of the firewall, or behind the back seat. So there was actually a lot of overlap between the A and the B-body, with size at least.

But in the 60's the Chevy Caprice was very close to being a Buick Electra, except for the size. In fact the lower end Electra probably was not a nice as the Caprice. The Electra was available as standard, custom and limited.

The Caprice was definitely an upscale package for a Chevy, and indeed, I think the interior was probably more luxurious than the base Electra. However, I think the Buick still would've had a few other advantages besides just being bigger. It would've still had a bigger standard engine. And a standard automatic tranny. I'd imagine power steering and brakes were standard on an Electra by 1965 as well. On a '65 Caprice, you might still have had to pay extra for an automatic, power steering, and power brakes, even though most of them were most likely equipped that way.

Hey, regarding the whole A/B/C naming convention, was there still a differentiation between an A and B body from, say, 1959-64? While a '58 Chevy/Pontiac still looks notably different in the roofline from a Special/Century or Oldsmobile, by 1959-64, the Chevies, Pontiacs, Olds 88's, and Buick LeSabre/Invictas all looked like they had the same basic structure. Just differing wheelbases, some having longer hoods, longer decks, etc. But still all about the same in the passenger cabin area. Now I do remember that Pontiacs and Oldsmobiles had perimeter frames and conventional, shallow gas tanks, whereas Chevies and Buicks had X-frames and more vertical gas tanks, and a more deep-well trunk, but I'm thinking by this time they were all just called the B-body?

andre1969

I think the '64 Chevelle was a bit narrower, and obviously more low-slung than a '55-57 Chevy. But wheelbase was the same...115". Overall length was close too. I think the Chevelle was 194.5" (shorter than a Dart, believe it or not!). I think the '55-57 Chevies ran 196-200 inches. The '57 had a bit more overhang to fluff it up a bit, as longer was the way to go back then.

circlew

My brother thought it was. The point is a car like this should have been developed as the 'vette has been. Stick to the original intent and continuously improve the brand. I guess I'm just a dreamer!

But here we are today and Chevy needs to scramble...interesting they chose the MALIBU, huh?

Regards,
OW

circlew

I don't write 'em...I feel 'em and pass it forward!

Although the University of Michigan’s American Customer Satisfaction Index doesn’t have the clout of other industry surveys – such as J.D. Power and Consumer Reports – it does give an indication of a customer’s satisfaction with a six month to three year old vehicle. The domestic automakers probably should start taking note of U of M’s study as all three performed poorly in this year’s survey.

The Big Three had actually been gaining on their Japanese and German rivals over the past few years, but the Michigan automakers took a big hit this year. “The gap is extending. Detroit is falling,” Claes Fornell, the professor in charge of the study, told The Detroit News. “It’s all foreign at the top and all American at the bottom.”

Fornell says that the decrease in satisfaction with the domestic brands is directly related to their truck and SUV-heavy lineups. Consumers have become fed up with high gas prices and therefore aren’t as satisfied with their large vehicles.

General Motors’ Chevrolet brand fell the furthest in the study – slipping by 3.7 percent – and actually ranked just behind Kia. The only brands ranked below Chevy in the survey were Chrysler’s Dodge and Jeep brands.

Despite the poor performance by Chevy, GM’s Buick was the highest ranked domestic brand, and the company’s Saturn division posted the biggest improvements. Coincidently, Saturn is GM’s most fuel-efficient brand.

Ford’s Lincoln and Mercury brands fared well – ranking above the industry average – but the Ford brand actually came in below the average.

Lexus, BMW, Toyota and Honda took the top four spots, respectively.

Regards,
OW

stever

GM extends employee discounts to everyone on most '08 models (Detroit Free Press)

sls002

GM did have standardized sizes for its bodies with common sizes for the doors, windows and such. This reduced costs. Each division had some leaway in how to style the bodies and wheelbases were on the frame.

The Buick Special had a 264 cu in V8 in 55; 322 in 56 and 364 in 57.

The Chevy body was a B-body in 58. The 57 was the last year of being the small body. Compact cars were in the planning stages. Rambler was selling a lot of compact cars in the late 50's and VW's were selling well too.

Each division had their own frame designs. Buick had a torque tube enclosing the driveshaft. This was the primary reason that Buick wanted the dynaflow shiftless transmission as the automatic shifts were felt more with this design.

Overlap between divisions was certainly there. Bottom of the line Buicks and Oldsmobiles were not that much different than the Chevies or Pontiacs. Even bottom of the line Cadillacs were not that great, but the series 61 ended production after 1951 and the series 62 was the basis for the DeVille models. In 1959 the deVille was upgraded to series 63 making the series 62 lower end.

sls002

While many name plates are still in use (like Impala) from the 50's, very few cars are like they were then. The Corvette is still kind of like the original, but not really. The deVille has evolved but may still be close to the basic intent. Chevy should be GM's cheapest and smallest cars.

sls002

"So the whole Chevy could have become the compact king...you didn't have to worry about dealers buying it, the corporate brass wouldn't have to begin with."

As I tried to make clear, hindsight is much better than foresight. GM did what they did for good reasons in the 60's. I think if they had done what I suggested, the current mess would be different. But perhaps not better.

andre1969

As I tried to make clear, hindsight is much better than foresight. GM did what they did for good reasons in the 60's. I think if they had done what I suggested, the current mess would be different. But perhaps not better.

GM probably did exactly what they needed to in the 60's. The market was simply different back then. People were a lot more brand loyal. While Chevy was the bottom rung, the market still wanted big Chevies, luxurious Chevies, fast Chevies, etc. Heck, the Impala alone often accounted for 1 million units or more back in those days. There just wasn't enough of a compact market in those days for Chevy to sustain itself solely on small cars. Dodge and Plymouth tried it in 1962, downsizing their standard-sized cars about 15 years too early, and accidentally creating intermediates instead, and look what happened to them. Dismal years, and they never really recovered until they offered a broad lineup of full-sized cars again in 1965.

And in those days, people really didn't go for luxurious compact cars. So if Chevy became the "compact king", then today they'd probably be remembered for building cheap little econoboxes than a broad lineup of desireable cars, and today they'd be more of an obscure cult car, more like Rambler of the 60's. The market did start demanding more luxurious compacts in the 70's, and Detroit gave them what they wanted. Cars like the Granada, Nova LN, Omega Brougham, Skylark Limited, nicer versions of the Phoenix, Dart and Aspen S/E, Valiant Brougham and Volare Premier, all ensured that the compact buyer had as much access to shag, ploodgrain, and velour, as any luxury car brand of the time.

nippononly

"GM News" or "GM of the 60s, Mayhem in the Heyday"? :-P

torque_r

Things go real bad and GM splits into two companys? In other words, half of the brands get bought by some private enterpriser? It would look like this:

Chevy/Saturn/Cadillac/Saab
And
Buick/Pontiac/GMC

Each half would be competitive with its own ways and designs. Very efficient and no more overlap.

Another scenario is the separation of Saturn and Saab into its own full-line company. Would strengthen both brands and give them full lines of affordable and luxury products.
This would leave the original GM with the bread-and-butter Chevy, and its upscale car and truck lines of Pontiac and GMC. FWD- based luxury brand Buick, and RWD luxury Cadillac.

tlong

GM extends employee discounts to everyone on most '08 models (Detroit Free Press)

Didn't we see this as a mistake a couple of years ago? What has changed? Or is it desperation?

circlew

Listen, I respect your views and I KNOW your suggestion would have been better. The problem is that the simple becomes complex and the strong becomes weak. You have to see it coming and not be blinded by money and ego. The collective ego at GM has been mind boggling.

Regards,
OW

circlew

Desperation. Need cash, please! Buy leftovers, and, oh yeah, the gas guzzlers we mad last year, PLEASE!

Regards,
OW

62vetteefp

The gap is extending. Detroit is falling,” Claes Fornell, the professor in charge of the study, told The Detroit News. “It’s all foreign at the top and all American at the bottom.”

Fornell says that the decrease in satisfaction with the domestic brands is directly related to their truck and SUV-heavy lineups. Consumers have become fed up with high gas prices and therefore aren’t as satisfied with their large vehicles.

Wow, people who bought low mpg vehicles are now unhappy with their gas mileage. Who could a thunk? And those who bought high MPG vehicles are happier.

Anyway with gas prices going down truck sales are going back up. Or perhaps those who need trucks are buying again?

62vetteefp

What is the normal time period for used car warranty?


GM increases used car warranties to bolster sales, residuals
August19

One of the biggest knocks against General Motors as of late is the poor resale value of its used vehicles. GM has already greatly reduced the number of vehicles it sells to daily rental companies – which will prevent a flood of GM cars on the used car market – and today the Detroit automaker announced another initiative to bolster the value of its used cars.

Effective September 13th, GM will launch a new 12-month/12,000 mile bumper-to-bumper warranty for all GM Certified and Saturn Certified used vehicles. The previous warranty only covered certified used vehicles for 3-months or 3,000 miles.

In addition, GM raised the mileage limit on its certified used vehicle program to 75,000 – an increase of 15,000 miles. Although the age limit on GM’s certified program will remain at six model years, Saturn’s coverage will be extended to six model years, up from five.

“We believe this 12/12 bumper-to-bumper warranty will grow our business as well as help reinforce our residuals,” Brian McVeigh, general manager of GM’s fleet and commercial operations, told Automotive News.

cooterbfd

I know here in RI, they don't even have to offer a warranty. But, there is a sticker on the window that clearly states whether is has a full warranty, a 50/50 type, or no warranty-sold as is.

stever

Didn't we see this as a mistake a couple of years ago?

Indeed we did. The first time that I remember this promotion was in '05, and Ford and Chrysler jumped on the bandwagon too. Ford just did it again in June for the F-150s.

As Gimmicks Go, Don't Discount Employee Pricing (Inside Line)

62vetteefp

GM needs to clear their lots of trucks as do all manufacturers and the '08's because the '09's are shipping now. This will move the metal.

When sales are down (demand) and supply is up with no end in site something needs to be done to change that equation. One is to cut product availability and GM has done that with trucks. Now they are reducing the price of what is already out there. Sure there are other consequences but GM has to do something to reduce the inventory.

sls002

My idea extended beyond just making Chevy small cars. If GM had made Chevy the small car division and Pontiac the midsize division, then Chevy dealers would have gotten Pontiacs and Oldsmobiles (the new low priced full size division). Pontiac dealers would have gotten Chevies and Oldsmobiles. Olds dealers would have gotten the Chevies and Pontiacs. Buick dealers probably would have to get Chevies and Pontiacs, but not the Olds. Basically my thinking was to merge the dealers. The dealers probably would not have liked this then.

What GM tried to do was to have the Chevy small car the base model, with the Buick version more of the high end model. But in the 60's the difference in interiors (which is where the base and luxury differences really appear) between Chevy and Buick were not that great. Both the Impala and Caprice interiors were quite nice.

Toyota at present you see has a line up of different sized vehicles, some of which are repeated at a higher end in the Lexus line, but there are not 3 or 4 different makes of basically the same thing which is what GM did. In 1982 there were 5 different makes of the Cadillac Cimarron. The Cimarron is exactly what was wrong with the whole concept.

tlong

What is the normal time period for used car warranty?

Our used Honda Odyssey bought as a certified used car last year has a 12 mo/12,000 warranty.

62vetteefp

Who backs that warranty?

nippononly

I'm curious about that too. The manufacturer CPO warranty for Toyotas is 90 days/3000 miles bumper-to-bumper. I thought Honda followed the same standard.

stever

Edmunds has a Certified Program Comparison tool (naturally). It sure sounds like the manufacturer backs the Honda one, as does GM.

Here's a different laundry list if you don't like the comparision tool.

Certified Used Vehicle Programs

lemko

My grandfather was super-loyal to Chevrolet to the end, though he easily could've afforded a high-end Buick or a Cadillac. From what I remember as a child to the present day, he had a 1964 Chevrolet Biscayne, 1967 Chevrolet Bel Air, 1974 Chevrolet Impala, 1980 Chevrolet Impala, and a 1989 Chevrolet Caprice Classic Brougham.

I guess I kind of carry on that tradition as I'm unlikely to buy anything other than a Buick or Cadillac.

lemko

Oh, boo-hoo-hoo! I bought a Hummer H2 with a home equity loan against my McMansion that is losing value by the hour and gas prices are going up! I'm unhappy with my Hummer H2! Sob! It's all the manufacturer's fault and not that of my impulsive nature, emotional immaturity, and poor financial management skills

Fools like this are too stupid to live! :mad:

62vetteefp

Well, you know GM did advertise the trucks so it is their fault and of course nobody else was that bad of a company because no one else did it. Whoops, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota also did it.

Gad, it must be greed that did it.

andre1969

I guess I kind of carry on that tradition as I'm unlikely to buy anything other than a Buick or Cadillac.

In the same sort of way, I guess, I've always been partial to Pontiacs, so in the past I've often had a preference for the Pontiac version of a car over a Chevy, Olds, or Buick. Even with badge-engineered stuff, I have to admit I prefer the G5 and Torrent over the Cobalt and Equinox. I think the Torrent is gone, though. Pontiac really doesn't have much out there anymore, which really aggravates me. Back in the 60's, 70's, and even the 80's, they had a wide variety of cars that appealed to me. Today though, the only model that really turns me on is the G8.

tlong

Who backs that warranty?

American Honda.

62vetteefp

The first photographs of General Motors Corp.’s all-new Chevrolet Cruze
global compact sedan evokes a strong reaction from industry observers
and insiders alike.

“It looks really quite good, as good as GM led us to believe. A handsome
car,” says Ed Kim, director-industry analysis at AutoPacific, which
provides marketing- and product- consulting services to the auto
industry.

“The key will be if it gets the same interior as Europe,” Kim tells
Ward’s. “But with a 1.4L direct-injection engine and a 6-speed
automatic, which is a real high-end, high-grade powertrain, that’s more
for a small car than we’ve ever seen out of Detroit.”

GM previously has said the U.S.-market car would feature a 1.4L
turbocharged version of a global 4-cyl. engine slated for production in
Flint, MI. An official announcement awaits investment-incentive
approvals from the City of Flint.

Erich Merkle, an auto analyst with Crowe Chizek and Co., says if GM
wrings 40 mpg (5.9 L/100 km) out of the U.S. powertrain, it will have a
hit on its hands with the Cruze.

“It’s a great-looking vehicle, a great-looking compact car,” he says.

Jim Graham, president of United Auto Workers union Local 1112 in
Lordstown, says he’s an early fan of the design, as well.

“I love it,” he says. “It has more of a European flair and not an Asian
look.”

The front end benefits from large headlamp housings that wrap the
corners and “sweep up, arrow-like,” GM says, to the fenders and sculpted
hood. GM also cites “a concave shoulder line, 2-tier grille and a
‘wheels-out/body-in’ stance” as other distinctive design details.

Inside, the Cruze will get the same Corvette-inspired, “twin-cockpit”
design seen on the redesigned-for-’08 Malibu midsize car and the
upcoming Traverse midsize cross/utility vehicle.

Cruze Chief Designer Taewan Kim says GM’s goal was bold but not
evolutionary, styling.

“We wanted to take a big step forward, making a strong design statement
for Chevrolet products around the world,” Kim says in a statement.

GM says the Cruze will launch in Europe in March with an available
16-valve, 1.6L 4-cyl. engine generating 112 hp and a 1.8L 4-cyl. mill
delivering 140 hp. Both gasoline engines will feature variable-valve
timing on both inlet and exhaust sides, which according to GM provides
more power, better fuel economy and lower emissions.

A new 2.0L turbocharged diesel engine with 150 hp and 236 lb.-ft. (320
Nm) of torque also will be available. GM will mate a 5-speed manual
transmission to the engines and offer the brand’s first 6-speed
transmission in the compact segment.

GM intends to offer additional, regional-specific powertrains, such as
the Flint-built 1.4L DIG engine, as the vehicle launches elsewhere
around the world.

62vetteefp

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080822/AUTO01/808220329/1148-

Cool article on future small powertrains. More at the link

Ford EcoBoost: Small to mighty

Automaker's president touts performance of new turbocharged and fuel-injected engines.

Bryce G. Hoffman / The Detroit News

"People think environmentally friendly cars are boring," says Ford Americas President Mark Fields. "Watch this."

He punches the accelerator on a Lincoln MKS sedan equipped with a prototype of Ford's new EcoBoost engine. The vineyards of the Old Mission Peninsula become a blur.

"This will put a smile on your face," Fields says. "But you get 20 percent better fuel economy with 15 percent less CO2. I call it the great taste, less filling school of powertrain technology."

It is a school that Detroit is embracing in a big way as high fuel prices once again turn American consumers away from gas-guzzling V-8s and new fuel-economy standards force automakers to rethink their engine offerings.

Ford Motor Co.'s EcoBoost system combines turbocharging and direct injection to provide better performance and higher gas mileage. The new engines will debut on the MKS next year and spread rapidly to the rest of Ford's lineup. The company plans to make EcoBoost available on 90 percent of its models by 2013 and expects to be selling 500,000 EcoBoost-equipped cars and trucks in North America alone within five years.

General Motors Corp. already has similar engines in limited production, and recently announced plans to expand its offerings. The automaker, which refers to its technology simply as "downsize boosting," plans a more limited roll-out than Ford.

For both companies, it comes down to eking out a few more miles per gallon from gasoline engines while waiting for the cost to drop of other technologies, such as hybrids.

Ford has not announced pricing for EcoBoost, but it is not expected to add more than about $1,000 to the price of a car or truck, significantly less than the premium commanded by hybrids. Perhaps more importantly for the two struggling automakers, these engines do not eat into their profits the way hybrids do.

"The bottom line is that, if you want to be environmentally friendly, you won't have to spend an arm and a leg to do it," Fields told The Detroit News.

Some Ford executives argued that U.S. consumers would never accept a V-6 in place of a V-8, no matter how much horsepower and torque it generated. In this country, they argued, size still mattered. Others wanted to see a greater emphasis placed on developing hybrids because of the breakout success of Toyota Motor Corp.'s Prius.

But Kuzack and his team had done the math: hybrid powertrains add thousands of dollars more to the price of a vehicle. EcoBoost's fuel savings are more modest, but so is the initial investment.

GM takes a quieter approach
GM already is offering its version of the same technology on the Solstice GXP. Its 2.0-liter turbo-charged direct injection four-cylinder generates 260 horsepower and gets 28 miles per gallon on the highway. The base model's 2.4-liter naturally aspirated engine delivers 173 horsepower and gets 25 miles per gallon.

Sam Winegarden, GM's head of engine engineering, said it is about "making a small engine look big."

"Direct injection with turbo-boosting turns out to be a very synergistic pair of technologies," he said.

In June, it announced plans to build another engine using downsize boosting technology at its plant in Flint. The 1.4-liter four-cylinder will go into the Chevy Cruze, its newest small car slated for production in April 2010, and it will be the gas engine for the anticipated Chevrolet Volt. It could also be used in the Saturn VUE.

The Solstice's 2.0-liter engine is also an available option on this year's Chevrolet HHR. Using this technology, GM believes it can produce a 2.4-liter 4-cylinder engine that delivers performance comparable to its 3.6-liter V-6.

For the 2009 model year, GM will offer the two engine variants in seven different models. It expects to sell more than 40,000 of these vehicles. By 2010, the company plans to add a third engine variant available in 10 models.

And the winner is ...
Even Toyota is looking at using a similar approach in some of its new engines.

"I suspect everybody's looking at it," said analyst Jim Hall of 2953 Analytics LLP in Birmingham. "The question is where they are in deployment. Ford has outlined the most aggressive strategy. But it will be operating costs and reliability that make one better ."

62vetteefp

I expected an uptick for trucks but never this quick!

What many thought could be a permanent shift by consumers to smaller
cars and trucks has evaporated with the decline of gasoline prices in
recent weeks.

"We certainly are seeing more interest in full-size SUVs and trucks over
the last several weeks," said Jack Nerad, editorial director of Kelley
Blue Book. "Remember, we are in our eighth week of declining fuel prices
in the U.S." (Although yesterday, light, sweet crude for October
delivery rose $5.62 to settle at $121.18 a barrel on the New York
Mercantile Exchange after earlier spiking as high as $122.04, crude's
highest trading level since Aug. 4.)

Some Pittsburgh area dealers say they have started seeing more interest
in trucks and SUVs -- boosted by sales incentives and the lower cost of
gasoline. A month ago, a gallon of regular unleaded gas was selling for
an average of $4.010 a gallon, according to the AAA East Central.
Yesterday, that average was $3.705.

"In May, we were selling one truck for every one car we sold at our
dealers, and we had never been one to one -- it was always three trucks
to two cars," said Joe Thurby, chairman of the Ford Dealer Advertising
Association's Pittsburgh region, which includes 87 dealers in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Maryland. Industry analysts
consider Ford's bottom line to be heavily dependent upon sales of SUVs
and trucks.

"However in June, when Ford came out with employee pricing, things
changed. My theory is when something is cheap enough, people buy it. We
began to see the trend for sales go back more toward trucks," Mr. Thurby
said.

"July was really something. We had our best truck month in the
Pittsburgh [region] since August 2007. That really blew our minds. So
the incentives, combined with the reduction in gas prices greatly
increased our truck sales."

Jiu Du, director of decision optimizations for Kelley Blue Book, agreed
that the shift away from trucks, big SUVs and large cars had eased.
"Last month, when you saw gas prices going down a little, we noticed
that the price and value reductions for big cars and trucks slowed down.
Also, the increases in the residual value of small cars leveled off too.
They are still increasing, but at a reduced rate."

As for the thought that consumers' shopping tastes had changed
permanently to small cars, Mr. Nerad added: " Our experience has been
that American consumers adapt pretty rapidly to fuel price spikes and
higher fuel prices. I think people were initially shocked, and there
were some people who reacted in knee-jerk fashion and said, 'Hey, I
gotta get out of my SUV,' or, 'Hey, I don't want to spend $100 for a
tank of gas.' Now, people are starting to have a more rational take on
all of this."

Moreover, most analysts say gasoline prices would have to remain at the
$4 or more per gallon level for at least a year or so before buying
habits for small cars will become a permanent preference.

"Residual values [a new vehicle's projected value after 36 months] for
trucks and full-sized SUVs declined at about twice the rate at which
they normally declined [over the last few months]. That was very steep,"
Mr. Nerad said.

"Now things are starting to level out again. Some SUVs, like Chevy
Tahoe, Ford Expedition and Toyota Land Cruiser, had dropped by as much
as 25 or 30 percent over a six month period of time. Those residual
values have now stabilized."

jae5

Andre,

I'm the same on the Cobalt / G5. I prefer the look of the G5, particularly the rear-end / taillamp treatment. The Poncho taillamps seem more at home, integrated and thought out than on the Cobalt. Though I've only seen a few on the street, I prefer the look of the G5 over the Cobalt.

circlew

Hope your right....

There's one other unsettling prospect: The market may not even need three domestic automakers. In fact, the quick shrinkage or even disappearance of a big carmaker might solve an oversupply problem: An industry that built and sold almost 17 million vehicles in 2004 and 2005 will be lucky to sell 14 million in 2008. And there's no guarantee that sales will bounce back to levels that many thought amounted to a mini-bubble. That sharp reduction can be spread across all the players--or borne by a few of the most beleaguered. Which is what seems to be happening.

Bankruptcy, Anyone?

Regards,
OW

62vetteefp

Interesting, most everyone else thinks that by 2011 the US will be selling gonzo number of vehicles. There is a huge generation of buyers entering the older years that have lots of money to buy and a whole bunch of younger buyers moving up also. It is the 2 years inbetween that are the issue.

Rick is a smart guy. The article is pretty much right on target in its discussion of what would happen if someone declared bankruptcy. Some here seem to think that is the only way GM can get out of it's problems. However we will see that GM, with all the upcoming cost reductions, will have plenty of money thru 2009 even if the market does not rebound. However if it gets worse (doubtful) then the domestics are in trouble.

circlew

I think they are trying to change their model but the competition has grown exponentially and the old model is taking too long to transition out of. That is why the addiction of the SUV/PU trucks dealt a severe blow this year as gasoline spiked. It hurt the whole industry but the domestics were addicted far more deeply.

Anyone who thinks gasoline will return to $2.00/gallon given the global demand...well, you know the answer in reality. Getting 2.5 ton vehicles to deliver exceptional efficiency wasn't even on the drawing board until very recently.

I never hope any company goes bankrupt. But I will not blindly support US products that are second rate to other products in this global economy. It does not make any sense. No matter what the product is.

The market will determine the good from the bad. Once bitten, twice shy.

Regards,
OW

carthell

Bankruptcy may be closer than you think.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&refer=us&sid=aY4154PYXWD8

GM and Ford want $50 billion in government-backed loans to afford the production upgrades needed to stay in business. And they want the government to put less controls on how the funds are used. They want Congress to put up $3.75 billion of your and my money to do it!

I see the situation as a desperate move. The world's private markets do not trust the companies to save themselves. I think the government should have taken a hint and stepped aside. (Too late, the law passed last year!)

nippononly

That's just plain disgusting. If my congressional representatives voted for that, I will do my best to get them ousted at the next election. $3.75 billion is already authorized in principle? Money down the toilet, out of the pockets of taxpayers. I would rather see them pay 10% of that to the Cerberus company to shut the doors permanently at Chrysler Group. Not only would it open a big gaping hole in the market for GM and Ford to come rushing into like the tide, thereby shoring up their bottom lines, but they would be doing everyone a small favor at the same time.

Absolutely disgusting.

As for this
What many thought could be a permanent shift by consumers to smaller
cars and trucks has evaporated with the decline of gasoline prices in
recent weeks
Americans are so stupid, they deserve exactly what they get. Gas is a full 40 or 50% higher than it was 1 little year ago, but I guess since it dropped $0.40 all their concerns are now moot, eh? :sick:

circlew

So, I have to buy foreign to get a great car AND my tax dollars will go to the Detriot 3 anyway? :mad:

Regards,
OW

corvette

A bailout is likely when a company is "too big to fail," even though it may, at the same time, be too incompetent to survive.