My 1980 260 was slow because it had such a low rear axle ratio for mileage at speed and I only bought the 3-speed automatic. I believe the 4-speed was available as an option, but I didn't think the extra cost would be regained in mileage savings. I wonder if the 4-speed auto had a higher ratio axle for better performance and then the overdrive ratio compensated.
The 4-speed automatic didn't come out until 1981, and initially, it was only offered in the full-sized RWD B and C bodies that were equipped with the 252 Buick V-6, 305 Chevy V-8, or Olds 307. It wasn't a strong enough transmission to be used with the Caddy 368, which I think was still using a THM350 or even a 400 transmission.
I think it wasn't offered in the smaller engines for several reasons. First, a Chevy 229 or Buick 231 V-6 wasn't very strong to begin with, and in overdrive would probably have been TOO gutless. Second, the midsized cars, and larger cars with a 229 or 231 already got fairly good fuel economy by EPA standards, so there was little incentive to boost that. But with the bigger engines, the 4-speed automatic gave a nice boost to the EPA ratings.
You'd think that GM would've had the foresight to simply make that 4-speed more widely available, to help overall ratings even more, but they sort of picked and choosed the "worst offenders" to use it on initially.
For 1982, the 4-speed was used with the Caddy 249 V-8, and was offered in the 350 Diesel in full-size cars and the Eldo/Toro/etc. For 1983 it was used in the turbocharged Regal, but I don't think it made it to the midsized V-8's until 1984, and then in '85+, it was offered on the Chevy 4.3/262 V-6.
I don't think the 110 hp 231-2bbl V-6 ever got the 4-speed though. My guess is that GM never really bothered to change axle ratios too much, so that engine would have just been too weak in overdrive.
As for ratios, here's a sampling from my 1985 Consumer Guide:
I think that 3.42:1 axle is what they used in the police cars that had the 350. I wonder if you could get it, as an option, in any of the civilian models? Ford offered a 3.55:1 axle in the Crown Vic, and it made for a pretty good performer for the time. Standard was a 2.73:1, I believe. I know GM offered that F41 suspension that improved handling, but I dunno about axles. I'd guess they had to offer something shorter (numerically higher) for a trailer towing package?
And speaking of trailer towing...in the late 70's, that usually meant you got a 400 or 403 (or a 350 in the Chevy) mated to a sturdy THM400 transmission. Somehow, I can't see a 305 or 307, with the THM200-R4 being nearly as capable.
I just returned from a business trip where we rented a new Kia Soul with ten miles--we were obviously the first rental. While at nearly age 53 the "kiddie" styling of the Soul was a joke to me, it had a good seating position, but my gosh was that engine noisy and thrashy. My Cobalt never felt more quiet and refined when I got home to the airport...and that is no joke, although I know for sure it's not the conventional wisdom out there.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
My only experience with the Soul was sitting in them at the auto show. I was very impressed with the seating position and interior room. While this thing was obviously inspired by the Scion xB and the box that it comes in, it felt more substantial, roomy, and sturdy. Now, I'm thinking the original xB here, maybe the newer one is better in those regards?
As for the styling, as far as these things tend to go, I thought it was one of the better efforts.
I guess the closest GM competitor to something like this would be the Chevy HHR? The HHR seemed fairly comfy to me, but my issue with it was the small windows and thick pillars, which made it feel smaller inside than it really was. I've never driven an HHR either, though.
My Cobalt never felt more quiet and refined when I got home to the airport...and that is no joke, although I know for sure it's not the conventional wisdom out there.
That reminds me of when I went to California for Spring Break back in 1992. I had a 1991 Civic 4-door for a rental. Not a bad little car, actually, and it gave me a newfound respect for small cars. But when I got back home to my '69 Dart, well, it just felt good to be home again!
Analysts said it would take more than a government report to repair Toyota's once pristine image for producing quality vehicles. Toyota was the only major automaker to see a U.S. sales decline last year at 0.4 percent and saw its U.S. market share fall nearly 2 percentage points to 15.2 percent. The decline came even though total U.S. sales rose 11 percent for the year.
"This is really something that is going to take years and years to recover," said Rebecca Lindland, director of automotive research with consulting firm IHS Automotive.
Toyota has wrestled with recalls to fix sticking accelerator pedals, gas pedals that became trapped in floor mats and other safety issues, forcing the world's No. 1 automaker to scramble to protect its reputation. Toyota paid the U.S. government a record $48.8 million in fines for its handling of three recalls.
......so market share gains are available for awhile.....Go Hyundai! :shades:
"The bonuses to 76,000 American workers will probably total more than $400 million -- an amount that suggests executives have increasing confidence in the automaker's comeback."
I was in NC for a few days and had scheduled a rental for a compact car. We were given a Toyota Corolla. We went to the car, loaded it up, and then realized the power outlet wasn't working and we needed it for our GPS. So we went in to complain at the rental counter and they gave us a 1 year old Malibu.
Things I noticed:
- Trunk was similar size to Corolla but opening was actually smaller. We had to cram a bag down to get it into the trunk - Interior was nicer than the Corolla (expected), but not that nice compared to the competition IMHO. Big sea of black on doors, with varied colors and shine. - Engine and transmission seemed decent but not outstanding. Not too much NVH. - Tires were cupped and thus gave a noisy ride; not the fault of the car. - Seats were ROCK HARD and very uncomfortable. We used about 2 tanks of gas over 5 days. This alone would be a deal breaker. No lumbar adjustment.
My conclusion:
- The car is at least decent. I don't think it's ready to compete against the best out there (Accord, Sonata, Fusion). - I really don't know why GM puts out a fairly decent car but then screws up the seats so badly. They need to pay attention to the details. No reason why even the rental version has to be so uncomfortable.
I wonder if that includes the V-model as well? If so I would find it pretty disconcerting that a vehicle that's designed for very high speeds and commands a relatively high price, has such a flaw.
Vehicles are ranked according to a "Green Score," factoring fuel economy and emissions, including emissions from electric power plants. The relative impact of a vehicle's manufacture and disposal, based on the car's weight, was also considered.
If the diesel hits the states, it will be governed to about 111mph for it will be shod with $35 tires to keep your insurance company happy..and the costs down..The 260 hp-turbo 4 banger from the Cobalt SS would be a perfect fit..I imagine that engine was too expensive to produce and it doesn't fit the "Green Scene"..
As it sets with the Cruze it's underpowered, undersprung, and overpriced..Just another Govt vehicle, boring and shapeless..
There is no excitement in the GM lineup...Yep I have owned 35 GM creations and still have one + a Ford Mustang GT..
I'd wait to get the 2012 Nissan GT-R over the ZR-1, and with the savings have several years of free gas.
Plus I wouldn't need to be an expert shifter, to get the GT-R to beat that 0-60 time. Edmunds is quoting 3.1 sec. The 2012 GT-R is going to have a fairly big power increase, that it's AWD can make use of.
ZR-1's by the way are being offered by dealers with $15K or so off, to move them.
Did I mention speed????Don't think so!!!!!!Did I have to spend $50,000+ for a fiberglass creation that only holds two people??? The cute little GT is has an all clear title..The GT does very-well, for I know you care about us retired folks for we should be able have a swift car to pick up our medications quickly..
My Pontiac GT is not the greatest thing but the trunk holds 4 sets of golf clubs and with the S/C engine holds the load well...
My favorite old GM product was my 1971 Chev Camaro SS 350 that did 90k mi in 18 months and was run flat out daily on my way to work, weather permitting.. It was a 60 mile drive..
GM was also a great customer of mine..Vettes are nice but a waste of money..
Launch control was a 2009 problem. One of the reasons they always mention don't buy the 1st year of a model, until the kinks are worked out. Would you have a clutch left, and would you have burned off the rear-tires trying to get traction in a ZR-1 after 5 or 10 runs?
You can't argue though that AWD will provide a superior launch. Take a look at some testing that's been done between the Z06 and the ZR-1 both in 0-60 mph and in lap times on tracks. They are very, very close. The ZR-1 can't use all that power; it's traction limited. About the only advantage of a ZR-1 is if you have an old runway or the Bonneville Salt Flats.
My Blazer went nutso on me this past thursday. 97 Blazer. It was hard to get it into neutral coming off the bypass, then onto I-75. I wore out my brakes, fluid leaking out of the back now. I got it into neutral, but will tell you it was unnerving. I always tell everyone, "for pete's sake, put your runaway car into neutral." Well, it still is a crazy ordeal. I had a retired Chief of Police friend pick me up, then a friend that is transportation director for a school system run me back out to look at what could have happened. Not the pedal, linkage, or anything simple. Was in the fuel system, a part where a weld came apart and jammed things up, forcing fuel into the throttle body, so the car was getting full speed. As people in this country are driving older cars, I imagine I am not the first to have this happen. I can put into more detail later, but this is definitely a safety issue that most likely needs to have a recall on. Someone with little experience on the roads would have had a BAD experience.
So you're saying it's OK to screw over customers in the first year?
Yes, I know these things happen, but that doesn't excuse how Nissan reacted to the problem. Call me kooky, but if you're gonna brag about performance numbers, and require the use of launch control to get those numbers, it'd be nice if it worked without breaking the car. And if it doesn't work, you man up and fix it instead of telling the buyer, "well, we gave you launch control, we just didn't expect you to use it." Heck, even Ferrari replaced the 458s which burned.
"General Motors reported a $4.7-billion profit for 2010, its first year in the black since 2004. GM earnings were, at best, in line with some analysts' projections but shy of others who had GM profits pegged at $5 billion or better for the year."
GM also managed to Dodge a Big Tax Bill. "The U.S. Treasury is giving up $14 billion in tax revenue, because of a "sweetheart deal" it's giving U.S. automaker General Motors".
Naaah. The driver removes the power cord before driving. It has a motor to generate power for battery and propulsion, if needed. You're thinking of the Nissan Leaf that has battery only.
The initial press on the Volt now that some exist has been very good. They had to hit everything exactly right on this one and it appears they may well have done that.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Yes, they have. Other than kvetching from people who wouldn't have bought a GM Volt to begin with, the complaining seemed mostly intended to pile on to anything GM did because they had loans from the government. Compared to the benefits afford Wall Street and the banks with huge bonuses now, people should consider GM loans trivial compared to the cost of not helping GM and C, similarly to what other countries have done to their businesses.
I am hoping the early sales and experiences with the Volt in select areas will prove to validate the slot it fills.
The part I am waiting for is when they start selling enough of these that the price can come down - be it on the Volt of a later car. A cheaper super efficient car is the game changer.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
The amount of time that needs to tick off the clock before we (USA) borrow $9.1 Billion more from the world (China).
Isn't $9.1 Billion the amount that GM still has out on loan from the USA?
Can you imagine if the USA was held to the standard of not being allowed to borrow money from another entity? Many have NO problem holding a major job provider that was usually profitable to that standard (GM).
Yes, they have. Other than kvetching from people who wouldn't have bought a GM Volt to begin with, the complaining seemed mostly intended to pile on to anything GM did because they had loans from the government. Compared to the benefits afford Wall Street and the banks with huge bonuses now, people should consider GM loans trivial compared to the cost of not helping GM and C, similarly to what other countries have done to their businesses.
I don't consider $60Billion trivial. You just made the case why GM, C, AIG, and the five or six big banks should have been killed off or broken up.
And the Volt succeeded technically (a surprise for GM), but just not economically. Perhaps rev. 2 will be better in that regard.
Considering the financial proposition of the Volt, it is a failure out of the gate. It does nothing particularly well and costs twice as much as a Prius?
So you're saying it's OK to screw over customers in the first year?
I was giving the explanation that based on probabiity, the 1st year's and especially the 1st few months production is going to have more issues. Every auto manufacturer and most manufacturers of other complex devices. There are design and manufacturing problems that have bnot been found, when manufacturing begins.
Yes, I know these things happen, but that doesn't excuse how Nissan reacted to the problem.
I made no comment at all about how Nissan reacted. I didn't really follow it much.
Call me kooky, but if you're gonna brag about performance numbers,
How did I brag? I think my post was fairly unemotional. I quoted Edmund's review, and performance numbers. I simply stated that the GT-R has superior performance at a significantly lower price than a Corvette ZR-1. It may be you who has the emotional attachment to Chevrolet or Corvette, and think that anyone who mentions the facts is bragging. The ZR-1 would certainly be the winner of any rear-tire-smoking contest (at least until the next Viper comes out).
"the GT-R has superior performance at a significantly lower price than a Corvette ZR-1"
True, the GT-R can outrun the ZR1 0 to 60 and it is cheaper, but I have yet to see any test where a GT-R outruns a ZR1 at a track. So, which car has superior performance????? Drive what you like, but don't misrepresent the truth.
"the Volt, it is a failure out of the gate. It does nothing particularly well and costs twice as much as a Prius"
Every single test I have seen says the Volt handles and accelerates better than a Prius. If one keeps the volt on battery power as much as possible, it blows the Prius away when it comes to efficiency. If I had to drive 60 miles a day round trip, a Prius would be the better choice, but 30 miles a day round trip? I might use 1 tank of gas the whole year. Also, try optioning out a Prius to compare to a standard volt. You'll be paying a good deal more that 22K.
True, the GT-R can outrun the ZR1 0 to 60 and it is cheaper, but I have yet to see any test where a GT-R outruns a ZR1 at a track.
I was talking of the 2012 GT-R which is upgraded over the prior years. I also doub that a 2012 has been given to the auto. press to test extensively vs. other vehicles.
The truth is, or my point is that a fairly new model Chevrolet like the ZR-1 typically would have the best-bang-for-the-buck. It is $20K more than a Nissan, and is questionable whether it would have a faster track-time (again against the upgraded 2012 GT-R). Chevrolet has typically relied on having lower pricing vs. the competition.
Too funny. My original point was to motorcity who claimed that GM had nothing exciting to drive. If he gets a kick out of driving that "stang" I'm sure the ZR1 would cause the blood pressure to rise.
I did see something on the news a few days ago saying something about the Volt's battery not living up to the 40mile range it claimed to in the cold weather, and now GM coming out and saying that they had some problems with the battery in the cold weather. I think the report said people were only getting in the 20mile range with the battery.
Talk about a mis-representation. Notice how GM waited until after it went to market to let people know that they were having some issues with the battery in cold weather! Typical sales. They better get that resolved.
I did see something on the news a few days ago saying something about the Volt's battery not living up to the 40mile range it claimed to in the cold weather
I wouldn't expect the Volt to have the same efficiency when it's cold out vs warm.
I've owned a variety of vehicles and none have gotten the same mileage in the winter as summer.
I'm sure the Leaf will have the same issues. Heat doesn't come free (granted it's a by product of an ICE). So if your running the heater and seat warmers etc., along with the fact that the batteries, drive system, wheel bearings etc. all being cold, will affect efficiency.
That's right, blame GM for "misrepresentation" when it's otherwise known as "common sense".
Why do you think car batteries have a better chance at failing during below-freezing weather? Simple. Because it's cold, and batteries aren't nearly as efficient in colder weather.
Does ANY vehicle get optimum fuel economy in the winter? No car that I've owned/driven/rode in has ever done so, and I don't expect it to change with any EV or hybrid.
GM hasn't lied or misrepresented anything, it's just common sense.
The volt battery is in a temperature controlled environment. The battery output is not affected by weather. It takes energy to keep the battery at a constant temp. It also takes more energy to move a car on ice or to plow snow or heat a cabin in below zero weather. If you don't drive the Volt after charging it, the charge could run down just keeping the battery warm if it is parked outside in frigid weather. If I don't use my fully charged Ipod for 2 weeks, it's battery loses all it's charge.
last time I looked at a Prius, 4 years ago, it was $23k for a base level. It loses efficiency in cold weather also. I heard the Volt is $40k minus $7500 or $32,500. Sitting side by side with the Volt costing $12000 more, what would I choose?
What if my choice is between a $24000 Malibu and a $36000 G35, which do I choose?
What if my choice is between a $19000 Chevy W/T or a $31000 Silverado club cab HD?
How does the more expensive choice get called a flop? Not by factual basis.
Comments
The 4-speed automatic didn't come out until 1981, and initially, it was only offered in the full-sized RWD B and C bodies that were equipped with the 252 Buick V-6, 305 Chevy V-8, or Olds 307. It wasn't a strong enough transmission to be used with the Caddy 368, which I think was still using a THM350 or even a 400 transmission.
I think it wasn't offered in the smaller engines for several reasons. First, a Chevy 229 or Buick 231 V-6 wasn't very strong to begin with, and in overdrive would probably have been TOO gutless. Second, the midsized cars, and larger cars with a 229 or 231 already got fairly good fuel economy by EPA standards, so there was little incentive to boost that. But with the bigger engines, the 4-speed automatic gave a nice boost to the EPA ratings.
You'd think that GM would've had the foresight to simply make that 4-speed more widely available, to help overall ratings even more, but they sort of picked and choosed the "worst offenders" to use it on initially.
For 1982, the 4-speed was used with the Caddy 249 V-8, and was offered in the 350 Diesel in full-size cars and the Eldo/Toro/etc. For 1983 it was used in the turbocharged Regal, but I don't think it made it to the midsized V-8's until 1984, and then in '85+, it was offered on the Chevy 4.3/262 V-6.
I don't think the 110 hp 231-2bbl V-6 ever got the 4-speed though. My guess is that GM never really bothered to change axle ratios too much, so that engine would have just been too weak in overdrive.
As for ratios, here's a sampling from my 1985 Consumer Guide:
Cutlass Supreme, 307-4bbl, 3-speed: 2.14:1
Regal, 231-2bbl, 3-speed: 2.41:1
Caprice 262-TBI, Parisienne 305-4bbl, 4-speed: 2.56:1
LeSabre, Delta 88 307-4bbl, 4-speed: 2.73:1
Fleetwood Brougham, 249-FI, 4-speed: 3.42:1
I think that 3.42:1 axle is what they used in the police cars that had the 350. I wonder if you could get it, as an option, in any of the civilian models? Ford offered a 3.55:1 axle in the Crown Vic, and it made for a pretty good performer for the time. Standard was a 2.73:1, I believe. I know GM offered that F41 suspension that improved handling, but I dunno about axles. I'd guess they had to offer something shorter (numerically higher) for a trailer towing package?
And speaking of trailer towing...in the late 70's, that usually meant you got a 400 or 403 (or a 350 in the Chevy) mated to a sturdy THM400 transmission. Somehow, I can't see a 305 or 307, with the THM200-R4 being nearly as capable.
As for the styling, as far as these things tend to go, I thought it was one of the better efforts.
I guess the closest GM competitor to something like this would be the Chevy HHR? The HHR seemed fairly comfy to me, but my issue with it was the small windows and thick pillars, which made it feel smaller inside than it really was. I've never driven an HHR either, though.
My Cobalt never felt more quiet and refined when I got home to the airport...and that is no joke, although I know for sure it's not the conventional wisdom out there.
That reminds me of when I went to California for Spring Break back in 1992. I had a 1991 Civic 4-door for a rental. Not a bad little car, actually, and it gave me a newfound respect for small cars. But when I got back home to my '69 Dart, well, it just felt good to be home again!
Bonus - Taxpayer Portion?
AFAIC, Toyota is going to recover quite slowly...
Analysts said it would take more than a government report to repair Toyota's once pristine image for producing quality vehicles. Toyota was the only major automaker to see a U.S. sales decline last year at 0.4 percent and saw its U.S. market share fall nearly 2 percentage points to 15.2 percent. The decline came even though total U.S. sales rose 11 percent for the year.
"This is really something that is going to take years and years to recover," said Rebecca Lindland, director of automotive research with consulting firm IHS Automotive.
Toyota has wrestled with recalls to fix sticking accelerator pedals, gas pedals that became trapped in floor mats and other safety issues, forcing the world's No. 1 automaker to scramble to protect its reputation. Toyota paid the U.S. government a record $48.8 million in fines for its handling of three recalls.
......so market share gains are available for awhile.....Go Hyundai! :shades:
Regards,
OW
Hop in an old 1960s car and listen how noisy everything is. In a way I miss the ability to feel and hear the mechanical aspects of my car.
"The bonuses to 76,000 American workers will probably total more than $400 million -- an amount that suggests executives have increasing confidence in the automaker's comeback."
That pencils out to around $4,000 each.
GM to pay more than $400 million in worker bonuses (Yahoo Finance)
Things I noticed:
- Trunk was similar size to Corolla but opening was actually smaller. We had to cram a bag down to get it into the trunk
- Interior was nicer than the Corolla (expected), but not that nice compared to the competition IMHO. Big sea of black on doors, with varied colors and shine.
- Engine and transmission seemed decent but not outstanding. Not too much NVH.
- Tires were cupped and thus gave a noisy ride; not the fault of the car.
- Seats were ROCK HARD and very uncomfortable. We used about 2 tanks of gas over 5 days. This alone would be a deal breaker. No lumbar adjustment.
My conclusion:
- The car is at least decent. I don't think it's ready to compete against the best out there (Accord, Sonata, Fusion).
- I really don't know why GM puts out a fairly decent car but then screws up the seats so badly. They need to pay attention to the details. No reason why even the rental version has to be so uncomfortable.
How can you bonus workers at a bankrupted bailed out company? Theft and robbery are the only answers to that.
Vehicles are ranked according to a "Green Score," factoring fuel economy and emissions, including emissions from electric power plants. The relative impact of a vehicle's manufacture and disposal, based on the car's weight, was also considered.
As it sets with the Cruze it's underpowered, undersprung, and overpriced..Just another Govt vehicle, boring and shapeless..
There is no excitement in the GM lineup...Yep I have owned 35 GM creations and still have one + a Ford Mustang GT..
You get 0-60 in 3.8 seconds and a mortgage payment of $2100.
That would blow the doors off any Mustang GT. :shades:
Plus I wouldn't need to be an expert shifter, to get the GT-R to beat that 0-60 time. Edmunds is quoting 3.1 sec. The 2012 GT-R is going to have a fairly big power increase, that it's AWD can make use of.
ZR-1's by the way are being offered by dealers with $15K or so off, to move them.
My Pontiac GT is not the greatest thing but the trunk holds 4 sets of golf clubs and with the S/C engine holds the load well...
My favorite old GM product was my 1971 Chev Camaro SS 350 that did 90k mi in 18 months and was run flat out daily on my way to work, weather permitting.. It was a 60 mile drive..
GM was also a great customer of mine..Vettes are nice but a waste of money..
You can't argue though that AWD will provide a superior launch. Take a look at some testing that's been done between the Z06 and the ZR-1 both in 0-60 mph and in lap times on tracks. They are very, very close. The ZR-1 can't use all that power; it's traction limited. About the only advantage of a ZR-1 is if you have an old runway or the Bonneville Salt Flats.
I had a retired Chief of Police friend pick me up, then a friend that is transportation director for a school system run me back out to look at what could have happened. Not the pedal, linkage, or anything simple. Was in the fuel system, a part where a weld came apart and jammed things up, forcing fuel into the throttle body, so the car was getting full speed. As people in this country are driving older cars, I imagine I am not the first to have this happen. I can put into more detail later, but this is definitely a safety issue that most likely needs to have a recall on. Someone with little experience on the roads would have had a BAD experience.
Yes, I know these things happen, but that doesn't excuse how Nissan reacted to the problem. Call me kooky, but if you're gonna brag about performance numbers, and require the use of launch control to get those numbers, it'd be nice if it worked without breaking the car. And if it doesn't work, you man up and fix it instead of telling the buyer, "well, we gave you launch control, we just didn't expect you to use it." Heck, even Ferrari replaced the 458s which burned.
GM Earns $4.7 Billion; First Profit Since 2004
GM also managed to Dodge a Big Tax Bill. "The U.S. Treasury is giving up $14 billion in tax revenue, because of a "sweetheart deal" it's giving U.S. automaker General Motors".
Both links from AutoObserver.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Naaah. The driver removes the power cord before driving. It has a motor to generate power for battery and propulsion, if needed. You're thinking of the Nissan Leaf that has battery only.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The initial press on the Volt now that some exist has been very good. They had to hit everything exactly right on this one and it appears they may well have done that.
Yes, they have. Other than kvetching from people who wouldn't have bought a GM Volt to begin with, the complaining seemed mostly intended to pile on to anything GM did because they had loans from the government. Compared to the benefits afford Wall Street and the banks with huge bonuses now, people should consider GM loans trivial compared to the cost of not helping GM and C, similarly to what other countries have done to their businesses.
I am hoping the early sales and experiences with the Volt in select areas will prove to validate the slot it fills.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Isn't $9.1 Billion the amount that GM still has out on loan from the USA?
Can you imagine if the USA was held to the standard of not being allowed to borrow money from another entity? Many have NO problem holding a major job provider that was usually profitable to that standard (GM).
I don't consider $60Billion trivial. You just made the case why GM, C, AIG, and the five or six big banks should have been killed off or broken up.
And the Volt succeeded technically (a surprise for GM), but just not economically. Perhaps rev. 2 will be better in that regard.
Government Motors's attempt at "mild hybrids" ended up with ALL of them having their batteries replaced due to leakage...
Now, look at Reliability Report card:
Miles to go......GO HYUNDAI! :shades:
Regards,
OW
I was giving the explanation that based on probabiity, the 1st year's and especially the 1st few months production is going to have more issues. Every auto manufacturer and most manufacturers of other complex devices. There are design and manufacturing problems that have bnot been found, when manufacturing begins.
Yes, I know these things happen, but that doesn't excuse how Nissan reacted to the problem.
I made no comment at all about how Nissan reacted. I didn't really follow it much.
Call me kooky, but if you're gonna brag about performance numbers,
How did I brag? I think my post was fairly unemotional. I quoted Edmund's review, and performance numbers. I simply stated that the GT-R has superior performance at a significantly lower price than a Corvette ZR-1. It may be you who has the emotional attachment to Chevrolet or Corvette, and think that anyone who mentions the facts is bragging. The ZR-1 would certainly be the winner of any rear-tire-smoking contest (at least until the next Viper comes out).
IMVHO, it's not about smoking, it's about sticking! When are the yever going to add AWD to these babies?
Regards,
OW
T.I.C. btw...
True, the GT-R can outrun the ZR1 0 to 60 and it is cheaper, but I have yet to see any test where a GT-R outruns a ZR1 at a track. So, which car has superior performance????? Drive what you like, but don't misrepresent the truth.
Every single test I have seen says the Volt handles and accelerates better than a Prius. If one keeps the volt on battery power as much as possible, it blows the Prius away when it comes to efficiency. If I had to drive 60 miles a day round trip, a Prius would be the better choice, but 30 miles a day round trip? I might use 1 tank of gas the whole year. Also, try optioning out a Prius to compare to a standard volt. You'll be paying a good deal more that 22K.
I was talking of the 2012 GT-R which is upgraded over the prior years. I also doub that a 2012 has been given to the auto. press to test extensively vs. other vehicles.
The truth is, or my point is that a fairly new model Chevrolet like the ZR-1 typically would have the best-bang-for-the-buck. It is $20K more than a Nissan, and is questionable whether it would have a faster track-time (again against the upgraded 2012 GT-R). Chevrolet has typically relied on having lower pricing vs. the competition.
The Corvette is the longest running respectable GM of all time. Period.
link title
Regards,
OW
Maybe back when it was introduced, but that was a few years ago now.
According to Wikipedia, the 2011 Nissan GT-R lapped Nurburgring in 7:24.22. The ZR-1 lapped it at 7:26.4 which was only .3 seconds better than the 2009 GT-R.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrburgring_lap_times
Talk about a mis-representation. Notice how GM waited until after it went to market to let people know that they were having some issues with the battery in cold weather! Typical sales. They better get that resolved.
I wouldn't expect the Volt to have the same efficiency when it's cold out vs warm.
I've owned a variety of vehicles and none have gotten the same mileage in the winter as summer.
I'm sure the Leaf will have the same issues. Heat doesn't come free (granted it's a by product of an ICE). So if your running the heater and seat warmers etc., along with the fact that the batteries, drive system, wheel bearings etc. all being cold, will affect efficiency.
Why do you think car batteries have a better chance at failing during below-freezing weather? Simple. Because it's cold, and batteries aren't nearly as efficient in colder weather.
Does ANY vehicle get optimum fuel economy in the winter? No car that I've owned/driven/rode in has ever done so, and I don't expect it to change with any EV or hybrid.
GM hasn't lied or misrepresented anything, it's just common sense.
last time I looked at a Prius, 4 years ago, it was $23k for a base level. It loses efficiency in cold weather also. I heard the Volt is $40k minus $7500 or $32,500. Sitting side by side with the Volt costing $12000 more, what would I choose?
What if my choice is between a $24000 Malibu and a $36000 G35, which do I choose?
What if my choice is between a $19000 Chevy W/T or a $31000 Silverado club cab HD?
How does the more expensive choice get called a flop?
Not by factual basis.
Um, no. It's not even that now and the prices have gone up.