Fixing the black dots might have been harder than it seems, since identical vehicles like the Pontiac Torrent and Chevy Equinox had different numbers of black dots, and things like body hardware often show different results for the same car with four and six-cylinder engines--????? Sample error.
OK, we all know CU has sampling errors. But, in general, they are more correct than not. And instead of denying the validity of a lot of their sampling, why didn't these companies do anything about it? There is a reason that GM lost 50% market share over 30 years, and most of it was not CU.
If Lutz is like most posters here Consumer Reports is the last place he would look for any kind of info regarding cars.
Ford went to CU and basically asked "why do our cars suck" when Mulally was hired. They used the feed back from CU and now Ford's reliability rivals any manufacturer among all of the reliability/quality studies I've seen. CU must have known something.
Those market-share numbers can be as informative as unemployment numbers. Not very! The government and GM had quite a bit of incentive to make sure GM's current status looked rosy.
- You do know that a manufacturer counts an auto-sale when the vehicle is shipped to the dealer. I've heard dealers have quite a bit of inventory they had to take.
- also with the government politically wanting the new-GM to launch, it would have been fairly easy for the feds to accelerate their fleet purchases of GM vehicles.
So 19% market-share or 9.4% unemployment. They both seem to be rather incomplete and undetailed numbers.
When GM is totally free of their government coddling, we'll see if they make profit. And if they can make enough profit, and not waste it on raises and bonuses and such, that when the next financial crisis hits, that GM won't be ready to sink. Because every few years or decade or 2 we're having major financial problems. The GM-ship needs to not just look okay when the skies are bright, but they better prepare for the next hurricane. I don't want to hear from GM and everyone else when the next economic storm hits, that "gee we can't survive this, who would have expected a financial crisis, bail us out!".
When GM is totally free of their government coddling, we'll see if they make profit.
We might get to find out in a year or so.
"The U.S. Treasury could sell its remaining stake in General Motors Co. within the next year, an Obama administration official said Wednesday, signaling a much shorter time frame than the auto maker initially expected." (WSJ - may be a registration only link)
Those market-share numbers can be as informative as unemployment numbers. Not very! The government and GM had quite a bit of incentive to make sure GM's current status looked rosy
I disagree. Not only has GM held their market share, but their average transaction prices have gone up around $3,000 per vehicle recently. They are actually making a profit.
As an example I bought a new 2006 Silverado base work truck for my business after rebates for about $14,000 plus tax. That was a ridiculously low price for a full size truck. I looked at the Edmunds TMV price for a 2011 base Silverado work truck and it was about $22,000. The F-150's and Silverados are selling like hotcakes as businesses replace their older fleets. I can probably sell my 2006 for about $11,000 right now. That is a depreciation of about $3,000 over 4 years. Not bad.
The incentives of a few years ago are just not available anymore. Ford, Gm, and Chrysler realize they cannot sell vehicles $5000 -or more below MSRP and survive. Their problem was overproduction. Once production was reduced to match demand, profitablity went up.
".....So you do the math and tell me how GM can sell vehicles with an average 50mpg if they're going to focus on larger V-8 engines."
That's a very good point. Hovever, I see cars like the Sonic (Yaris, Fit,etc)selling like hotcakes when gas is expensive, and not very well when gas is cheap. I think very few people in the US actually "want" these roller skates. The key is going to be getting mid sized sedans and CUV's to get the 35-40 mpg.
I think anything smaller than a compact or larger than full sized will only be a niche product, selling great only when they are "IN".
As an example I bought a new 2006 Silverado base work truck for my business after rebates for about $14,000 plus tax. That was a ridiculously low price for a full size truck. I looked at the Edmunds TMV price for a 2011
About 5 years ago, I thought about buying a new cheap Silverado truck to replace my '85, which is getting a bit tired and ragged, but just won't die, and without even batting an eye, the salesman said I could get one the way I wanted for around $17k. Which means I could have easily gone lower.
$14K is cheap as hell in my book! Just for reference, my Granddad originally paid $13,5K for the 85...TWENTY-ONE years earlier!
Now granted, the '85 was pretty nice for its time...15x8 sport wheels, 2-tone paint, sliding rear window, cruise, tilt, nice stereo, power windows and locks. Upgraded interior with cloth inserts on the doors, carpet, pull-straps, but oddly, vinyl seats!
That's a very good point. Hovever, I see cars like the Sonic (Yaris, Fit,etc)selling like hotcakes when gas is expensive, and not very well when gas is cheap. I think very few people in the US actually "want" these roller skates. The key is going to be getting mid sized sedans and CUV's to get the 35-40 mpg.
I think anything smaller than a compact or larger than full sized will only be a niche product, selling great only when they are "IN".
The new Elantra gets 40MPG highway, and I suspect that other manufacturers will soon be getting 40+ out of their compact (C class) offerings.
I don't think that D class sedans (Fusion, Accord, etc.) or CUV's will get to 40MPG unless they are significantly lightened and/or get diesel or next gen hybrid technology.
The government seems to force carmakers into a Hobson's Choice - provide extra safety measures, which add weight, and, oh, by the way, we want you to get a fleet average of xxx MPG in the next yyy years. One or the other have to be sacrificed.
The new Elantra gets 40MPG highway, and I suspect that other manufacturers will soon be getting 40+ out of their compact (C class) offerings.
And something else to consider is that the CAFE averages that the car companies have to meet are NOT the same numbers as those EPA figures that get published on the cars. Rather, they're the raw laboratory numbers. So that Elantra that's getting 40 mpg on the highway is probably getting lower 50's in the raw laboratory numbers.
A 4-cyl Chevy Malibu, which is EPA-rated at 22/33, 26 combined, actually gets 27.8/46.8 and 34.0141 combined in the raw laboratory numbers.
".....I don't think that D class sedans (Fusion, Accord, etc.) or CUV's will get to 40MPG unless they are significantly lightened and/or get diesel or next gen hybrid technology. "
That would be my best guess (diesel or hybrid) for them. The Elantra, Cruze, Focus, etc. do fine w/ their EPA #'s. Surprisingly, the smaller cars don't equal these highway #'s. As they do get better economy out of compacts (diesels and Hybrids can work in the too) I'd think that the subcompact cars will remain niche products, only selling during gas spikes.
Surprisingly, the smaller cars don't equal these highway #'s. As they do get better economy out of compacts (diesels and Hybrids can work in the too) I'd think that the subcompact cars will remain niche products, only selling during gas spikes.
The city mpg portion actually carries more weight than the highway portion, in the way they calculate those CAFE numbers. So, while on the highway, sometimes a compact or even a midsized car (and the hybrids) can beat out a subcompact, the subcompact still has its importance, because of that higher city figure.
".....The city mpg portion actually carries more weight than the highway portion, in the way they calculate those CAFE numbers."
I never realized that. Even the raw lab numbers. I think my point is moreso that the buying public won't ever embrace subcompacts like they do their mid sized sedans. They'll sell like they did in '08 when gas spikes, but people prefer a bigger car (and CUV). Even back in the day, it was the A body that ruled the roost, as opposed to the larger cars or the Corvair or Nova.
Read this article and you will see CAFE is going to have a lot more effect than you realize.
"On May 19, 2009, President Obama enacted even tougher standards. Under the new plan the corporate average fuel economy for cars will be raised to 39 MPG and 27 MPG for trucks. But wait, there's more. Instead of a 2020 deadline, President Obama set a 2016 deadline. In fact, the CAFE standard will increase by five percent each year, building on the new 2011 standard (27.3 MPG), until we get to 2016.
With such stringent fuel economy rules, one has to wonder if a car such as the Mustang can survive."
The incentives of a few years ago are just not available anymore. Ford, Gm, and Chrysler realize they cannot sell vehicles $5000 -or more below MSRP and survive.
Well I looked at today's paper and I see ven the new Cruze has a $1,00 owner loyalty rebate. Some other Chevies have 0% + the rebate. The $30K PU trucks are selling for $7,000 off.
Here go take a look at how much you can get off on Chevy's halo-car. http://www.kerbeck.com/
And unless you are working for the government with GM or a high-ranking GM executive you don't know if the numbers are true or not right now. The numbers can be skewed to tell the story they want right now. The launch of the new-GM was too important to the vested interests to let reality get in the way. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying absolutely that the numbers are being played with, just that there's too much $ and co-mingling with government $ right now to tell 1 way or the other.
> The numbers can be skewed to tell the story they want right now. The launch of the new-GM was too important to the vested interests to let reality get in the way.
Interesting statement. I didn't think that any Carls' Jr. or Inn and Out outsold McD's anywhere anytime worldwide.
I've seen McDonalds closing locations while the other two are growing nicely. There is something to be said for making the cars that move people's hearts instead of their conscience.
GM simply can't play the game of trying to out-Toyota Toyota.
GM simply can't play the game of trying to out-Toyota Toyota.
So long as GM doesn't have the number of recalls as Toyota has had, they should be fine.
Another several hundred thousand Lexus IS and GS models recalled in the US - and 1.7M worldwide.
In & Out will never be like McD's or Carl's Jr. - their business model is so different and won't grow beyond their ability to deliver fresh ground meat to their stores ... at the moment, no store is more than a day's drive from the mail processing facility in SoCal. There are plans to open up a second processing facility in Texas, so there may be more growth there in the future.
Well, I think the Mustang (and Camaro) will live. They weren't ever true muscle cars. Pony cars suits them fine. Both were originally available with inline sixes standard. A 250 hp 4 cyl will sell fine, as the performance will be more than adequate.
Remember, it is corporate AVERAGE FE. So, if they sell a million 4 cyl sedans, I can't see 20 or 30,000 V8 pony cars hurting.
Just a suspiscion, based on human-nature, greed, and all that goes along with the gos and desires of politicans and the wealthy. If you want the most obvious and worst example in recent history, consider the story on WMD in Iraq that the U.S. public and world were sold on, as a reason to invade Iraq. It sure looked like the truth at the time right? Do you believe any of the "optimistic" numbers the feds are feeding us on unemployment and inflation?
Now back to GM - do you not think there are billions of reasons (?) to make GM look good? There's a motive.
You've confused the issue. I also said that yes there will be some niche V-8 vehicles in every manufacturer's lineup. The point I was discussing and I'm not even sure with who was "what GM should focus on as it's main bread-and-butter". Whoever iit was said it should be larger V-8 vehicles". It was then that I said that it would be impossible with today's technology to do that as CAFE was going to force the manufacturers to adjust their product mix to small cars with small engines. So, yes I do agree with you that a Camaro or Corvette could be kept, but GM can't make it's strategy to import Holden V-8 mobiles from down-under and sell hundreds of thousands of them.
There is not going to be any move at GM to make large 190+", V-8 or large V-6 engine models. You're going to see many more Chevy Sonics and Sparks coming out to meet the new higher mpg figures. Even 4 cyl. Lacrosses will probably hurt GM's corporate mpg ratings. SUV's, PU's and such are going to be in the equation though at the lower number. I've heard most in the auto industry think those vehicles are going to have to lose at least 1,000 LB on average.
I don't foresee v8 engines disappearing completely, but in cars they'll certainly be niche/high end and most likely slapped with a hefty gas guzzler tax. Those with the scratch will still be able to drive what they want.
V6 engines will probably become rare in the midsize category as direct injected turbo 4's will become mainstream IMO.
Weight definitely needs to be reduced. 3,000lb compacts are way to heavy IMO.
V6 engines will probably become rare in the midsize category as direct injected turbo 4's will become mainstream IMO.
I wonder what percentage of sales in midsized cars the V-6 accounts for these days, anyway? Every once in awhile I'll check our local www.fitzmall.com website, for new and used cars, and I notice in Altimas, it's very rare to see a new V-6 listed. Right now they have 36 4-cyl Altimas, and 2 V-6.
They have 13 Malibus listed, and every single one is a 4-cyl. Toyota Camry? 171 4-cyl models (including one stick shift), and 19 V-6. They don't have a Ford or Honda franchise.
So it looks like V-6 engines have all but disappeared from the mainstream midsize category, anyway. I guess in the premium midsize market, cars like the ES350, Acura TL, Nissan Maxima, etc, they'll persist awhile longer.
I wonder what percentage of sales in midsized cars the V-6 accounts for these days, anyway?
I'd guess less than 20%
I notice in Altimas, it's very rare to see a new V-6 listed. Right now they have 36 4-cyl Altimas, and 2 V-6.
They have 13 Malibus listed, and every single one is a 4-cyl. Toyota Camry? 171 4-cyl models (including one stick shift), and 19 V-6.
I'd guess fleet cars skew that some as they are generally ordered with the base engine and tend to end up on the used market sooner. Also most attractive lease deals are the same.
Regardless, no question the vast majority of Malibus, Camrys,Fusions, Altimas, etc are 4cyl.
I've seen that too, when I've reviewed online inventory at certain dealers. It could be that the 6 cyl sell a little easier, but that still means 4 cyl. are the norm these days. Now I'm pretty sure that if you had the statistics for each manufacturer that their corporate average mpg is just above what is required.
But as we've just read in the link I posted last night, mpg must increase 5% for the next 5 model years. So if most mid-size vehicles already have 4 cyl. engines, that tells me that there's going to have to be some major changes coming thru. That tells me that there is not going to be (for example) a 6.2L gasoline Impala SS in 2014. So either GM will produce the majority of its vehicles as hybrids or diesels, or else you're going to see all almost all new vehicle models or redesigns be lighter, so that they can thus use smaller engines to provide adequate-acceptable acceleration.
I don't believe CAFE will affect the niche, exotic vehicle manufacturers too much other than a hit in the pocketbook. I don't see Ferrari, Lambo, Aston, Maserati, AMG, Bentley and such changing much. They'll either be exempt from the law because they don't manufacture enough, or they'll simply pay the fine/tax for not meeting the CAFE required average-mpg. GM will probably still offer the ZR-1 and the CTS-V in very limited quantities, as a status/marketing tool.
"General Motors said on Thursday that it was withdrawing its application to borrow $14.4 billion from a pool of federal money intended to help automakers build more fuel-efficient vehicles.
G.M. said that, even without the retooling loans, it had invested $3.4 billion in its American plants since emerging from bankruptcy, creating or retaining 11,000 jobs. Much of the upgrade was related to the manufacture of new high-mileage cars like the Chevrolet Cruze and Volt as well as batteries."
Well, as I had feared it looks like the gov is going to dump GM stock too quickly precluding a profit. I have to wonder if GM declining this pool of cash will become part of Washington style accounting making the loss on the stock look less?
".....There is not going to be any move at GM to make large 190+", V-8 or large V-6 engine models. You're going to see many more Chevy Sonics and Sparks coming out to meet the new higher mpg figures. Even 4 cyl. Lacrosses will probably hurt GM's corporate mpg ratings"
I agree with that in the sense that I believe that to meet CAFE requirements, GM (as any other car company must) has to focus on the Cruze, Malibu, Impala, and Equinox (and their sister ships) as their "bread and butter" offerings, and make them as fuel efficient as possible. That may be why starting in 2012 all 4 cyl Lacrosses will come with e-assisit standard. A Caprice, XTS, ATS and even a Sonic I still see as niche products (just like a Camaro, or Vette). The larger cars will sell when gas is cheap, and the Sonic will sell when gas is expensive.
In 2008, a down year yet high gas prices, Toyota sold 102,328 Yaris'
For 2010, the Yaris sold only 40,076 units!!! While it's true that Toyota has it's problems, Honda sold 79,794 Fits in 2008, yet 2010 they dropped to 54,354.
Well, as I had feared it looks like the gov is going to dump GM stock too quickly precluding a profit. I have to wonder if GM declining this pool of cash will become part of Washington style accounting making the loss on the stock look less?
I wonder if the gov knows that the current "good news" is illusory and it's better to get while the getting is good? Hope that's not the case, but it wouldn't surprise me, either.
Yes you are making a fine point about what people want to buy, and what they will buy based on gasoline prices. And I'd agree with you that this is the way things would be 5 to 10 years from now; that is I'd agree except there now is a NEW major change in the rules of the game.
The current types of vehicles with their current mpgs do not meet the new CAFE regs 5 years down the road. So it doesn't matter if there is $2/gal gas in 2016 and there are 500,000 people who want to buy a vehicle of the current size Impala with the current gasoline powertrain. GM is not going to be able to build them. GM is not going to be able to build many of the types of vehicles that only get 25-30 mpg highway. They would need to sell 4 or 5 Sparks, to sell each 28mpg vehicle.
Basically CAFE trumps whatever the consumer wants, no matter how low gas prices go.
I think the whole U.S. and much of the global economy is still illusory, only running on unsustainable government borrowing.
The actions of the federal government are not much different than a football team's medical staff sending some player out to play each week with an injury - just shooting him up with more and more painkillers.
I hope I'm wrong, but I believe that this is "our recovery" before another economic setback/decline. If I were GM or other auto manufacturers, I would note that every government on every level will be cutting spending this year and probably next, so don't expect too many government sales.
And any consumer sales this year might be slightly higher because of the 2% SS tax cut we all received for 1 year. This goes away next year. And next year my company is paying a lower percentage of our health insurance on top of another 10% increase, which will probably be typical; well I just wouldn't plan on sales increasing, given these trends.
Well, I came across a nice article in R&T today by Todd Iassa. Basically, it said if GM had sold 10,000 Volts last yr. the CAFE # for GM would have gone up by .3 MPG. What is amazing is how 10,000 cars can make such a big impact on 2.1 million!!! BTW, the article goes on to state that GM's cafe # is already at 30.6 for last yr.
So, GM is saying 25,000 Volts for this yr and 100,000 next. Andy is right about raw lab #'s for CAFE. The article states that the Cruze's Cafe fig is 45 MPG, while the Volt's is approx 100!!! The Silverado Hybrid's # is 28
The whole point of his article? More Volt's = More V8 cars!!! Another thing we have been discussing.
How many people that you know are seriously going to entertain spending $42K on a Volt, to save $10 or so per week, when you could buy a $15K Fiesta or Elantra, or a $22K Prius? I bet in the winter here in New England I couldn't get more than 25 miles out of the vehicle before it would need to convert to gasoline usage. Between the lights, stereo, wipers, and heater at full blast, driving thru snow-packed roads, with a less-than optimum FWD setup, it's not exactly worth $42K. Sure there's tax-incentives, but as I said before I can get a Fiesta for $15K, and with the savings never pay for gas for it.
Sshhhhh...too much information...it might get out.. Be very weary of the facts..
Some people simply lack the ability to do the math. Government re-elects count on this all the time. That, and poor memories..
Years ago I tried (in vain) to help our area's local pizza delivery driver to dump the Cordoba, in favour of a more economical car. I showed him the numbers. He literally couldn't believe that he could drive a brand new car AND have smaller monthly fuel bills by just dumping the money-pit Chryco. Simply couldn't do/believe the math.
I showed him the numbers. He literally couldn't believe that he could drive a brand new car AND have smaller monthly fuel bills by just dumping the money-pit Chryco.
You'd have to drive a lot (in electric mode) to actually save money with a Volt. How much do you think a payment is on a 40k vehicle? The credit won't be around forever. Most would be better off with a Cruze if you want cheap transportation.
Even if gas is $5 gallon it will cost me 400-500/mo in gas in my Expedition (15k/yr). How am I ahead by spending $600+/mo, plus insurance on a Volt?
I still need the Expedition for summer towing and family hauling duties.
Some people simply lack the ability to do the math. Government re-elects count on this all the time. That, and poor memories..
I think there's also the concept of "one time pain" versus "ongoing pain" here. Buy a Volt or something else that's economical, but doesn't really make fiscal sense, and you'll feel that one time financial pain. But you'll feel the reward every time you fill up.
But, if you keep the gas guzzler around, you'll feel that pain every time you have to feed the sucker. I think in a lot of people's minds, the "pain" is the same, regardless of the actual $ amount. It's more of an emotional thing than it is a financial.
I like that concept. :-) You can plan and budget and scrape for the initial purchase, and you have a bit of control over whether to buy or not. After that, the cost of your fill-ups depend on supply and demand.
And would you rather give your money upfront to Chevy or those greedy, oil exporting Canadians?
You can plan and budget and scrape for the initial purchase, and you have a bit of control over whether to buy or not. After that, the cost of your fill-ups depend on supply and demand.
If one is barely getting by, they have no business borrowing for a $30k+vehicle. Buy a nice used $10k econo-car that can average 25mpg. At $5/gal that's still only $250 month in gas. It will take over 10 years for the Volt to pay for itself and that's if you don't use any gas and it doesn't cost more to maintain. Yeah right.
I do think the Volt is pretty neat. But at this point, I'm not going to spend $40k on a vehicle that looks and drives like a $25k vehicle just to save a $100/mo on gas. That math doesn't add up...yet anyway.
OTOH, rarely is choosing a vehicle solely based on money, so if someone is willing to pay more to avoid buying fuel, I understand 100%
I put about 18k on the Expedition last year and spend $3034 in gas. That's $252/mo average. I need someone to explain to me that math involved that explains how a car like the Volt will pay for itself.
Well, you can carry that argument out a step further and say someone barely getting by should be taking the bus. When you buy a car, you know the out the door price. You don't know what the operating costs are going to be.
You can estimate those costs, but if the Suez Canal shuts down and hammers oil supplies, then you may really be looking at $5 a gallon gas. Or worse, a 70s style gas shortage. If the power grid stays up, you could at least recharge your Volt.
For some of us, mpg and requirements like premium gas are one of the factors we consider when buying a car.
Well, you can carry that argument out a step further and say someone barely getting by should be taking the bus. When you buy a car, you know the out the door price. You don't know what my operating costs are going to be.
That's simply not an option for many. The nearest bus stop from my house is about 8 miles away, so some type of transportation is necessary for those in less densely populated areas.
You can estimate those costs, but if the Suez Canal shuts down and hammers oil supplies, then you may really be looking at $5 a gallon gas. Or worse.
True, but that would most likely be temporary (if not, buying a vehicle like the volt would be the least of our worries). Though I'm sure people will be dumping their SUVs again while in panic mode. Just in time for me to replace my Expedition with a newer one (used) at a nice discount.
If the Suez canal shuts down and gas goes for $7 gal, the Volt won't be an option anyway, cause those with the means will be going nuts causing the price of a Volt to skyrocket. You'll probably see $10k+ over sticker easy.
For some of us, mpg and requirements like premium gas are one of the factors we consider when buying a car.
I understand, but you have to be able to afford the car first. Many can't afford a $40k vehicle even if it's 100% free to use, which the Volt will not be.
If one is barely getting by, they have no business borrowing for a $30k+vehicle. Buy a nice used $10k econo-car that can average 25mpg. At $5/gal that's still only $250 month in gas. It will take over 10 years for the Volt to pay for itself and that's if you don't use any gas and it doesn't cost more to maintain. Yeah right.
Shame most people don't think it through that completely. Heck, I'll even admit, sometimes when I stop at the gas station to fill up my Park Ave, and it gulps down $50 worth of gas, I wonder if I should get something more efficient. But then I stop and think wait...the car is paid off, insurance is dirt cheap (it actually went down when I replaced my Intrepid with this car), and that 50 bucks it just swallowed represented 2-3 weeks worth of driving. And that makes me happy. Until the next fill-up, that is!
Shame most people don't think it through that completely. Heck, I'll even admit, sometimes when I stop at the gas station to fill up my Park Ave, and it gulps down $50 worth of gas, I wonder if I should get something more efficient. But then I stop and think wait...the car is paid off, insurance is dirt cheap (it actually went down when I replaced my Intrepid with this car), and that 50 bucks it just swallowed represented 2-3 weeks worth of driving. And that makes me happy. Until the next fill-up, that is!
I've done the same thing myself many times. When I had the Suburban with a 31 gallon tank and gas was over $4 gal, do the math, and it was over $100 to fill up. I often thought of buying a car to drive around. But the burb was paid for and insurance was cheep. The math doesn't add up to buy an additional car or even trade in the burb on something more fuel efficient. Every scenario I calculated equaled spending more money at the end of the month.
That will be the case until I don't need/want the utility of a full-size SUV.
I have a real world example since I track my gas. I don't track the price though, just the gallons. For my '99 Quest, I used 6618 gallons through 7/10. Assuming an overall cost of $2.60 a gallon, that's $17,206 dollars.
My lifetime mpg is 21.4. Let's say it was an SUV and got 25% worst mpg (16 mpg in other words - not all that unusual). So I'd use 25% more gas or another 1654 gallons for a total of 8272 gallons. That's $21,508 at $2.60 a gallon.
The differential over ~10 years is $4300.
Figuring the usual twenty cent extra for running Premium, the difference in operation costs is $1,300.
New minivans can exceed the cost of a Volt. So if you have to buy new, the numbers start to get a bit interesting.
Is almost ending. I drove my new 4 cyl gas sipper 5100 miles and averaged maybe 27 mpg in the last 11 months. I just found the excise tax receipt from registering it to do my taxes. $404. 404 would buy 149 gallons of gas that would propel my 21 mpg car 3142 miles. After I add in the difference for higher insurance on the new car, it could have got 127 mpg and I still would not have saved a dime in fuel costs. But I did drive a new car.
My '96 Riv was rated 18/27 in '96. It delivered 31 mpg for me on trips in Fall weather. It delivered 27-28 mpg for 4 yrs steadily on a 47 mile each way commute with regular, not premium, including in single digit weather and snow. The commute was 27 miles on the interstate. The most congested interstate in the state. By today's EPA #'s it would be rated maybe 21 or 22 combined? I got 27.5. I also rented some Grand Prix with 3800's and got 3-4 mpg less than the same engine as in a Buick. I just figured it was gearing.
Maybe I should have bought Oil stocks the first word about riots in Egypt. North Sea and Alaskan oil should become more valuable if the Suez canal is threatened. Last I heard, they were going to just shut down the Alaska pipeline. So little oil is flowing through it that it freezes up and doesn't flow. Thousands more jobs lost when it just shuts down from inactivity. What's another $28 Billion for unemployment compensation when we can keep a vast empty oil field pristine?
But don't compare a Volt to a minivan or an SUV in terms of price and mpg. It would make more sense to compare vehicles of equal functionality. Thus you're comparing the Volt to the price and mpg of the Civic, Focus, Elantra, and such which are going to be about $15K out-the-door before any taxes and fees. Compare the cost of the Volt to those vehicles, and compare the fuel cost between them. The Volt will be a "statement" car, mostly for those with above-average incomes (100K+?, or $150K income for a family?), and a strong environmental statement to make.
There'll be a flurry of sales to this group when first introduced, and then we'll see how many typical Americans with good incomes are going to pick a Volt, over the Cadillac CTs, BMW 3-series, Lexus, Infiniti, and Acura vehicles and such vehicles in this price range.
BTW - the Israelis will never allow a radical Egypt to control the Suez Canal, thus being in a position to threaten Israel. If Egypt goes radical, you'll see Israel take the canal.
Comments
OK, we all know CU has sampling errors. But, in general, they are more correct than not. And instead of denying the validity of a lot of their sampling, why didn't these companies do anything about it? There is a reason that GM lost 50% market share over 30 years, and most of it was not CU.
Same reasoning some here still back GM regardless.
Market share in July 2009 coming out of C-11 = 19%
Market Share in December 2010 = 19%
Guess 80% of the market in the US knows something the 19% do not.
Regards,
OW
Another way you could look at it is that they didn't lose any market share which as I recall was a bad habit of theirs.
Ford went to CU and basically asked "why do our cars suck" when Mulally was hired. They used the feed back from CU and now Ford's reliability rivals any manufacturer among all of the reliability/quality studies I've seen. CU must have known something.
- You do know that a manufacturer counts an auto-sale when the vehicle is shipped to the dealer. I've heard dealers have quite a bit of inventory they had to take.
- also with the government politically wanting the new-GM to launch, it would have been fairly easy for the feds to accelerate their fleet purchases of GM vehicles.
So 19% market-share or 9.4% unemployment. They both seem to be rather incomplete and undetailed numbers.
When GM is totally free of their government coddling, we'll see if they make profit. And if they can make enough profit, and not waste it on raises and bonuses and such, that when the next financial crisis hits, that GM won't be ready to sink. Because every few years or decade or 2 we're having major financial problems. The GM-ship needs to not just look okay when the skies are bright, but they better prepare for the next hurricane. I don't want to hear from GM and everyone else when the next economic storm hits, that "gee we can't survive this, who would have expected a financial crisis, bail us out!".
We might get to find out in a year or so.
"The U.S. Treasury could sell its remaining stake in General Motors Co. within the next year, an Obama administration official said Wednesday, signaling a much shorter time frame than the auto maker initially expected." (WSJ - may be a registration only link)
I disagree. Not only has GM held their market share, but their average transaction prices have gone up around $3,000 per vehicle recently.
They are actually making a profit.
As an example I bought a new 2006 Silverado base work truck for my business after rebates for about $14,000 plus tax. That was a ridiculously low price for a full size truck. I looked at the Edmunds TMV price for a 2011
base Silverado work truck and it was about $22,000. The F-150's and Silverados are selling like hotcakes as businesses replace their older fleets.
I can probably sell my 2006 for about $11,000 right now. That is a depreciation of about $3,000 over 4 years. Not bad.
The incentives of a few years ago are just not available anymore. Ford, Gm,
and Chrysler realize they cannot sell vehicles $5000 -or more below MSRP
and survive. Their problem was overproduction. Once production was reduced to match demand, profitablity went up.
That's a very good point. Hovever, I see cars like the Sonic (Yaris, Fit,etc)selling like hotcakes when gas is expensive, and not very well when gas is cheap. I think very few people in the US actually "want" these roller skates. The key is going to be getting mid sized sedans and CUV's to get the 35-40 mpg.
I think anything smaller than a compact or larger than full sized will only be a niche product, selling great only when they are "IN".
About 5 years ago, I thought about buying a new cheap Silverado truck to replace my '85, which is getting a bit tired and ragged, but just won't die, and without even batting an eye, the salesman said I could get one the way I wanted for around $17k. Which means I could have easily gone lower.
$14K is cheap as hell in my book! Just for reference, my Granddad originally paid $13,5K for the 85...TWENTY-ONE years earlier!
Now granted, the '85 was pretty nice for its time...15x8 sport wheels, 2-tone paint, sliding rear window, cruise, tilt, nice stereo, power windows and locks. Upgraded interior with cloth inserts on the doors, carpet, pull-straps, but oddly, vinyl seats!
I think anything smaller than a compact or larger than full sized will only be a niche product, selling great only when they are "IN".
The new Elantra gets 40MPG highway, and I suspect that other manufacturers will soon be getting 40+ out of their compact (C class) offerings.
I don't think that D class sedans (Fusion, Accord, etc.) or CUV's will get to 40MPG unless they are significantly lightened and/or get diesel or next gen hybrid technology.
The government seems to force carmakers into a Hobson's Choice - provide extra safety measures, which add weight, and, oh, by the way, we want you to get a fleet average of xxx MPG in the next yyy years. One or the other have to be sacrificed.
And something else to consider is that the CAFE averages that the car companies have to meet are NOT the same numbers as those EPA figures that get published on the cars. Rather, they're the raw laboratory numbers. So that Elantra that's getting 40 mpg on the highway is probably getting lower 50's in the raw laboratory numbers.
A 4-cyl Chevy Malibu, which is EPA-rated at 22/33, 26 combined, actually gets 27.8/46.8 and 34.0141 combined in the raw laboratory numbers.
Too bad none of us drive in a lab!
But, I see your point. What is measured for CAFE is not the same as what we'll get in real life.
That would be my best guess (diesel or hybrid) for them. The Elantra, Cruze, Focus, etc. do fine w/ their EPA #'s. Surprisingly, the smaller cars don't equal these highway #'s. As they do get better economy out of compacts (diesels and Hybrids can work in the too) I'd think that the subcompact cars will remain niche products, only selling during gas spikes.
The city mpg portion actually carries more weight than the highway portion, in the way they calculate those CAFE numbers. So, while on the highway, sometimes a compact or even a midsized car (and the hybrids) can beat out a subcompact, the subcompact still has its importance, because of that higher city figure.
I never realized that. Even the raw lab numbers. I think my point is moreso that the buying public won't ever embrace subcompacts like they do their mid sized sedans. They'll sell like they did in '08 when gas spikes, but people prefer a bigger car (and CUV). Even back in the day, it was the A body that ruled the roost, as opposed to the larger cars or the Corvair or Nova.
"On May 19, 2009, President Obama enacted even tougher standards. Under the new plan the corporate average fuel economy for cars will be raised to 39 MPG and 27 MPG for trucks. But wait, there's more. Instead of a 2020 deadline, President Obama set a 2016 deadline. In fact, the CAFE standard will increase by five percent each year, building on the new 2011 standard (27.3 MPG), until we get to 2016.
With such stringent fuel economy rules, one has to wonder if a car such as the Mustang can survive."
http://mustangs.about.com/od/fuelmileagestatistics/a/deathofmusclecar.htm
and Chrysler realize they cannot sell vehicles $5000 -or more below MSRP
and survive.
Well I looked at today's paper and I see ven the new Cruze has a $1,00 owner loyalty rebate. Some other Chevies have 0% + the rebate. The $30K PU trucks are selling for $7,000 off.
Here go take a look at how much you can get off on Chevy's halo-car. http://www.kerbeck.com/
And unless you are working for the government with GM or a high-ranking GM executive you don't know if the numbers are true or not right now. The numbers can be skewed to tell the story they want right now. The launch of the new-GM was too important to the vested interests to let reality get in the way. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying absolutely that the numbers are being played with, just that there's too much $ and co-mingling with government $ right now to tell 1 way or the other.
Link for proof of that allegation?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I've seen McDonalds closing locations while the other two are growing nicely. There is something to be said for making the cars that move people's hearts instead of their conscience.
GM simply can't play the game of trying to out-Toyota Toyota.
So long as GM doesn't have the number of recalls as Toyota has had, they should be fine.
Another several hundred thousand Lexus IS and GS models recalled in the US - and 1.7M worldwide.
In & Out will never be like McD's or Carl's Jr. - their business model is so different and won't grow beyond their ability to deliver fresh ground meat to their stores ... at the moment, no store is more than a day's drive from the mail processing facility in SoCal. There are plans to open up a second processing facility in Texas, so there may be more growth there in the future.
Remember, it is corporate AVERAGE FE. So, if they sell a million 4 cyl sedans, I can't see 20 or 30,000 V8 pony cars hurting.
Just a suspiscion, based on human-nature, greed, and all that goes along with the gos and desires of politicans and the wealthy. If you want the most obvious and worst example in recent history, consider the story on WMD in Iraq that the U.S. public and world were sold on, as a reason to invade Iraq. It sure looked like the truth at the time right? Do you believe any of the "optimistic" numbers the feds are feeding us on unemployment and inflation?
Now back to GM - do you not think there are billions of reasons (?) to make GM look good? There's a motive.
There is not going to be any move at GM to make large 190+", V-8 or large V-6 engine models. You're going to see many more Chevy Sonics and Sparks coming out to meet the new higher mpg figures. Even 4 cyl. Lacrosses will probably hurt GM's corporate mpg ratings. SUV's, PU's and such are going to be in the equation though at the lower number. I've heard most in the auto industry think those vehicles are going to have to lose at least 1,000 LB on average.
V6 engines will probably become rare in the midsize category as direct injected turbo 4's will become mainstream IMO.
Weight definitely needs to be reduced. 3,000lb compacts are way to heavy IMO.
I wonder what percentage of sales in midsized cars the V-6 accounts for these days, anyway? Every once in awhile I'll check our local www.fitzmall.com website, for new and used cars, and I notice in Altimas, it's very rare to see a new V-6 listed. Right now they have 36 4-cyl Altimas, and 2 V-6.
They have 13 Malibus listed, and every single one is a 4-cyl. Toyota Camry? 171 4-cyl models (including one stick shift), and 19 V-6. They don't have a Ford or Honda franchise.
So it looks like V-6 engines have all but disappeared from the mainstream midsize category, anyway. I guess in the premium midsize market, cars like the ES350, Acura TL, Nissan Maxima, etc, they'll persist awhile longer.
I'd guess less than 20%
I notice in Altimas, it's very rare to see a new V-6 listed. Right now they have 36 4-cyl Altimas, and 2 V-6.
They have 13 Malibus listed, and every single one is a 4-cyl. Toyota Camry? 171 4-cyl models (including one stick shift), and 19 V-6.
I'd guess fleet cars skew that some as they are generally ordered with the base engine and tend to end up on the used market sooner. Also most attractive lease deals are the same.
Regardless, no question the vast majority of Malibus, Camrys,Fusions, Altimas, etc are 4cyl.
But as we've just read in the link I posted last night, mpg must increase 5% for the next 5 model years. So if most mid-size vehicles already have 4 cyl. engines, that tells me that there's going to have to be some major changes coming thru. That tells me that there is not going to be (for example) a 6.2L gasoline Impala SS in 2014. So either GM will produce the majority of its vehicles as hybrids or diesels, or else you're going to see all almost all new vehicle models or redesigns be lighter, so that they can thus use smaller engines to provide adequate-acceptable acceleration.
I don't believe CAFE will affect the niche, exotic vehicle manufacturers too much other than a hit in the pocketbook. I don't see Ferrari, Lambo, Aston, Maserati, AMG, Bentley and such changing much. They'll either be exempt from the law because they don't manufacture enough, or they'll simply pay the fine/tax for not meeting the CAFE required average-mpg. GM will probably still offer the ZR-1 and the CTS-V in very limited quantities, as a status/marketing tool.
G.M. said that, even without the retooling loans, it had invested $3.4 billion in its American plants since emerging from bankruptcy, creating or retaining 11,000 jobs. Much of the upgrade was related to the manufacture of new high-mileage cars like the Chevrolet Cruze and Volt as well as batteries."
G.M. Withdraws Application for $14 Billion Energy Loan (NY Times)
I agree with that in the sense that I believe that to meet CAFE requirements, GM (as any other car company must) has to focus on the Cruze, Malibu, Impala, and Equinox (and their sister ships) as their "bread and butter" offerings, and make them as fuel efficient as possible. That may be why starting in 2012 all 4 cyl Lacrosses will come with e-assisit standard. A Caprice, XTS, ATS and even a Sonic I still see as niche products (just like a Camaro, or Vette). The larger cars will sell when gas is cheap, and the Sonic will sell when gas is expensive.
In 2008, a down year yet high gas prices, Toyota sold 102,328 Yaris'
For 2010, the Yaris sold only 40,076 units!!! While it's true that Toyota has it's problems, Honda sold 79,794 Fits in 2008, yet 2010 they dropped to 54,354.
I wonder if the gov knows that the current "good news" is illusory and it's better to get while the getting is good? Hope that's not the case, but it wouldn't surprise me, either.
The current types of vehicles with their current mpgs do not meet the new CAFE regs 5 years down the road. So it doesn't matter if there is $2/gal gas in 2016 and there are 500,000 people who want to buy a vehicle of the current size Impala with the current gasoline powertrain. GM is not going to be able to build them. GM is not going to be able to build many of the types of vehicles that only get 25-30 mpg highway. They would need to sell 4 or 5 Sparks, to sell each 28mpg vehicle.
Basically CAFE trumps whatever the consumer wants, no matter how low gas prices go.
The actions of the federal government are not much different than a football team's medical staff sending some player out to play each week with an injury - just shooting him up with more and more painkillers.
I hope I'm wrong, but I believe that this is "our recovery" before another economic setback/decline. If I were GM or other auto manufacturers, I would note that every government on every level will be cutting spending this year and probably next, so don't expect too many government sales.
And any consumer sales this year might be slightly higher because of the 2% SS tax cut we all received for 1 year. This goes away next year. And next year my company is paying a lower percentage of our health insurance on top of another 10% increase, which will probably be typical; well I just wouldn't plan on sales increasing, given these trends.
So, GM is saying 25,000 Volts for this yr and 100,000 next. Andy is right about raw lab #'s for CAFE. The article states that the Cruze's Cafe fig is 45 MPG, while the Volt's is approx 100!!! The Silverado Hybrid's # is 28
The whole point of his article? More Volt's = More V8 cars!!! Another thing we have been discussing.
I seriously question whether GM can sell 100k next year. That would be amazing considering there will be more EVs on the market too.
Be very weary of the facts..
Some people simply lack the ability to do the math. Government re-elects count on this all the time. That, and poor memories..
Years ago I tried (in vain) to help our area's local pizza delivery driver to dump the Cordoba, in favour of a more economical car. I showed him the numbers. He literally couldn't believe that he could drive a brand new car AND have smaller monthly fuel bills by just dumping the money-pit Chryco.
Simply couldn't do/believe the math.
You'd have to drive a lot (in electric mode) to actually save money with a Volt. How much do you think a payment is on a 40k vehicle? The credit won't be around forever. Most would be better off with a Cruze if you want cheap transportation.
Even if gas is $5 gallon it will cost me 400-500/mo in gas in my Expedition (15k/yr). How am I ahead by spending $600+/mo, plus insurance on a Volt?
I still need the Expedition for summer towing and family hauling duties.
Altho PowerStrokes are not known to sip oil..
I think there's also the concept of "one time pain" versus "ongoing pain" here. Buy a Volt or something else that's economical, but doesn't really make fiscal sense, and you'll feel that one time financial pain. But you'll feel the reward every time you fill up.
But, if you keep the gas guzzler around, you'll feel that pain every time you have to feed the sucker. I think in a lot of people's minds, the "pain" is the same, regardless of the actual $ amount. It's more of an emotional thing than it is a financial.
And would you rather give your money upfront to Chevy or those greedy, oil exporting Canadians?
If one is barely getting by, they have no business borrowing for a $30k+vehicle. Buy a nice used $10k econo-car that can average 25mpg. At $5/gal that's still only $250 month in gas. It will take over 10 years for the Volt to pay for itself and that's if you don't use any gas and it doesn't cost more to maintain. Yeah right.
I do think the Volt is pretty neat. But at this point, I'm not going to spend $40k on a vehicle that looks and drives like a $25k vehicle just to save a $100/mo on gas. That math doesn't add up...yet anyway.
OTOH, rarely is choosing a vehicle solely based on money, so if someone is willing to pay more to avoid buying fuel, I understand 100%
I put about 18k on the Expedition last year and spend $3034 in gas. That's $252/mo average. I need someone to explain to me that math involved that explains how a car like the Volt will pay for itself.
You can estimate those costs, but if the Suez Canal shuts down and hammers oil supplies, then you may really be looking at $5 a gallon gas. Or worse, a 70s style gas shortage. If the power grid stays up, you could at least recharge your Volt.
For some of us, mpg and requirements like premium gas are one of the factors we consider when buying a car.
That's simply not an option for many. The nearest bus stop from my house is about 8 miles away, so some type of transportation is necessary for those in less densely populated areas.
You can estimate those costs, but if the Suez Canal shuts down and hammers oil supplies, then you may really be looking at $5 a gallon gas. Or worse.
True, but that would most likely be temporary (if not, buying a vehicle like the volt would be the least of our worries). Though I'm sure people will be dumping their SUVs again while in panic mode. Just in time for me to replace my Expedition with a newer one (used) at a nice discount.
If the Suez canal shuts down and gas goes for $7 gal, the Volt won't be an option anyway, cause those with the means will be going nuts causing the price of a Volt to skyrocket. You'll probably see $10k+ over sticker easy.
For some of us, mpg and requirements like premium gas are one of the factors we consider when buying a car.
I understand, but you have to be able to afford the car first. Many can't afford a $40k vehicle even if it's 100% free to use, which the Volt will not be.
Shame most people don't think it through that completely. Heck, I'll even admit, sometimes when I stop at the gas station to fill up my Park Ave, and it gulps down $50 worth of gas, I wonder if I should get something more efficient. But then I stop and think wait...the car is paid off, insurance is dirt cheap (it actually went down when I replaced my Intrepid with this car), and that 50 bucks it just swallowed represented 2-3 weeks worth of driving. And that makes me happy. Until the next fill-up, that is!
I've done the same thing myself many times. When I had the Suburban with a 31 gallon tank and gas was over $4 gal, do the math, and it was over $100 to fill up. I often thought of buying a car to drive around. But the burb was paid for and insurance was cheep. The math doesn't add up to buy an additional car or even trade in the burb on something more fuel efficient. Every scenario I calculated equaled spending more money at the end of the month.
That will be the case until I don't need/want the utility of a full-size SUV.
My lifetime mpg is 21.4. Let's say it was an SUV and got 25% worst mpg (16 mpg in other words - not all that unusual). So I'd use 25% more gas or another 1654 gallons for a total of 8272 gallons. That's $21,508 at $2.60 a gallon.
The differential over ~10 years is $4300.
Figuring the usual twenty cent extra for running Premium, the difference in operation costs is $1,300.
New minivans can exceed the cost of a Volt. So if you have to buy new, the numbers start to get a bit interesting.
Usual disclaimers about my math. :-)
My '96 Riv was rated 18/27 in '96. It delivered 31 mpg for me on trips in Fall weather. It delivered 27-28 mpg for 4 yrs steadily on a 47 mile each way commute with regular, not premium, including in single digit weather and snow. The commute was 27 miles on the interstate. The most congested interstate in the state. By today's EPA #'s it would be rated maybe 21 or 22 combined? I got 27.5. I also rented some Grand Prix with 3800's and got 3-4 mpg less than the same engine as in a Buick. I just figured it was gearing.
Maybe I should have bought Oil stocks the first word about riots in Egypt. North Sea and Alaskan oil should become more valuable if the Suez canal is threatened. Last I heard, they were going to just shut down the Alaska pipeline. So little oil is flowing through it that it freezes up and doesn't flow. Thousands more jobs lost when it just shuts down from inactivity. What's another $28 Billion for unemployment compensation when we can keep a vast empty oil field pristine?
There'll be a flurry of sales to this group when first introduced, and then we'll see how many typical Americans with good incomes are going to pick a Volt, over the Cadillac CTs, BMW 3-series, Lexus, Infiniti, and Acura vehicles and such vehicles in this price range.
BTW - the Israelis will never allow a radical Egypt to control the Suez Canal, thus being in a position to threaten Israel. If Egypt goes radical, you'll see Israel take the canal.