By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Guess which one of the two cars down the same liine with the same parts was liked best by CR, for example!!! Do we have any guesses?
The difference is the dealers and the name plates.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Antbody Home at GM
Regards,
OW
“The eAssist system integrates regenerative braking with the latest lithium-ion battery technology, for significant fuel-efficiency gains customers will enjoy,” said Steve Poulos, global chief engineer of the eAssist system.
“Providing electric boost to the powertrain system during heavy acceleration and grade driving helps the transmission operate more efficiently. The engine start-stop and fuel shut-off during deceleration features add to the fuel savings.”
The 2012 Buick LaCrosse with eAssist delivers an estimated 36 mpg on the highway (PRWEB)
Regards,
OW
Recently, General Motors celebrated the launch of Phase 1 at its China Advanced Technical Center in Shanghai. The facility, which is adjacent to GM International Operations and GM China Headquarters
Go China! :sick:
Let's just say they are ready but not willing at the moment.
Regards,
OW
You mean like the Volt???
Next to the Leaf, the Volt’s closest competitor is the Toyota Prius. While the Prius can’t be plugged in for charging (though a plug-in version is on the way) or travel for long using electric power alone, it does get an EPA-estimated 50 miles per gallon combined city/highway gas mileage. Plus, the Prius costs nearly $10,000 less than the Volt does with the government tax credit. Without the tax credit, the Prius costs almost $20,000 less. Given the massive price difference, it’s unlikely that the Volt could pay for itself with fuel savings alone. At 15,000 miles driven per year, the EPA says the Prius will cost you $816 in fuel. Using only electric power, for the Volt to cover 15,000 miles would cost about $240 in electricity charges – which means that to offset the Volt’s price premium over the Prius would take over 17 years.
Now consider the Plug-In Prius vs. the Volt:
To date(6/27/11), the Prius Plug-in has been ignored by EV enthusiasts who are being revved up by the flood of favorable publicity coming out of Detroit, which for all its pretensions to global sophistication, remains a house of mirrors whose view of the outside world stops at Eight Mile Road.
Whenever somebody congratulates Volt for winning multiple car of the year awards, they should remind themselves that those same award-giving bodies passed over the original Prius hybrid in 2001 in favor of the PT Cruiser. Toyota has gone on to sell two million Priuses, the most revolutionary car of the last 75 years; the Cruiser, a novelty car with no technological pretensions, has since gone out of production.
The latest to fall victim to this tunnel vision is the New York Times, which kicked off its new Sunday Review section with a favorable review of the Volt and a big pat on the back for GM (GM, Fortune 500).
Even a Volt enthusiast like former GM vice chairman Bob Lutz admits that Toyota is probably making a profit on Prius, while GM loses money on every Volt and is unlikely ever to recover a penny of its estimated $1 billion development cost.
It's about making money and creating excellent products. Seems GM can't "drive and chew gum" at the same time!
Regards,
OW
I'm all for not supporting bailed out companies to teach our goverment bodies a lesson. A lesson they desperately need to learn; do not bail out failed companies!
However, that being said, I'm not sure how much of a pain it would be, but I imagine it wouldn't be that hard or costly to pay someone to yank out the OnStar equipment, tracking device, and brains.
You can throw it into a bottle and put it in the ocean; let them track the currents. :P
I wonder if several factors could be coming into play here? 1) small sample size errors, 2) age demographic. For example it always seems like Buick beats its identical twinns and the same for Mercury models vs. Ford. The Buick and Mercury tend to have older buyers who may be more accepting of some things?, 3) Poor quality control. I've personally experienced several cars that had huge quality discrepancies with identical models bought by co-workers, friends, etc.
Their reliability forecasts are often the same for twins. For reliability history they just report what was observed.
No need to guess, I will provide the FACTS from p. 132 of the CR Buying Guide 2009:
Vibe is listed BEFORE the Matrix even though the scores are exactly tied at 72 points. Both tie at 27mpg observed, and both are rated "Excellent" for ownership costs.
The fact that the Pontiac is listed higher proves an obvious bias on their part that is pro-domestic. LOL
Nah, it's just alphabetical order. "P" comes before "T" :P
Once again, they are tied in overall score, but Matrix is listed higher, first.
Without a doubt, proven and documented bias against Toyota, Consumer Reports is pro-GM for sure!
Then Lutz thinks the alphabet is backwards.
"OnStar announced today it is reversing its proposed Terms and Conditions policy changes and will not keep a data connection to customers' vehicles after the OnStar service is canceled," OnStar said in its Tuesday announcement.
OnStar's terms grant it the right to collect a variety of information about a subscriber's car, including its location and speed and whether or not a mobile device like a Bluetooth-enabled phone is connected to the car's systems.
OnStar also reserves the right to sell "anonymized" information collected from vehicles to outside companies. "Anonymized" data is aggregated and cannot be traced back to any individual vehicle or person.
General Motors has recently begun selling a boxed version of the technology called OnStar FMV that can be installed on non-GM vehicles. :shades:
Regards,
OW
That didn't take long!
That didn't take long!
Can you imagine the uproar on this board if Toyota had done that? Yet not a lot of complaints from the GM lovers... :surprise:
I wonder if different demographics for buying different brands might have something to do with it. The customer demographic for one might be older or higher income than the other, and one demo might be "pickier" about problems and reporting them than the other. Or perhaps one demo drives their cars harder than the other, or is less gentle with their interior than the other, etc.
I think there is a lot to be said about that. As a group an older demographic takes better care of things than a younger one.
I still think of the Enclave as being a twin - or actually a quadruplet. Just a matter of sheet metal and options. Underneath it's still a Traverse.
I would use the word "critical" of GM. To me "bashing" is unconstructive.
I would also agree with you that there are more on the board critical of GM than supportive. But many of those critical (even the most critical ones
I see the higher level of criticality as a mirror of GM's entire customer base - some still loyal, some willing to give them a chance, and a lot unhappy because they or a friend or family member were burned at some point or another, many multiple times. I can't imagine somebody coming and taking time in this forum if they've had no GM experiences. Everybody has SOME current or previous stake in GM, which more likely than not a mirror of GM's failures. And if GM does better over time, the tone will also improve.
"We’re going to export into China for probably a year or two and see if it gets a take if customers set the right usage patterns. If it does, we may manufacture it there."
The Pro-GM Train Leaving for China - ALL ABOARD!
Remember, GM is a corporation. Diehard connection will only continue to produce Continued PAIN!
GM considers building Volt in China
Actually, I like the strategy to bypass the UAW! It actually makes a ton of sense! Go GM!!!
Regards,
OW
But, yes, I have had a problem with that magazine for years as their raw data and their recommendations are often at direct odds with each other. In one instance, I remember them having a certain Jeep model with all average and above average marks for that year. Not one bad spot.
They gave it a black mark (worst possible reliability) at the top. So you see a solid back dot for overall and none of the data is even substandard. B.S. like that made me stop reading them more than a decade ago.
:sick:
I remember them doing that to the Crown Victoria once or twice. It scored well in all the various categories, but they still rated it "worse than average" overall, or something like that.
In one issue, they explained their rationale, because a lot of people were starting to question it. And it went something like this. In all the individual categories, such as cooling system, body integrity, engine, brakes, transmission, etc, the ratings are based on what percentage of their respondents have an issue. Something like 1-3% is much better than average, 3-5% is better than average, 5-9% is average, 9-14% is worse than average, and 14+ is much-worse than average. At least, that was their breakdown a few years ago. As cars have continued to improve, those margins might be even closer today. I do remember a few years back, CR changed their "worse than average" rating to "fair", probably an admission that a "worse than average" car really isn't that bad.
Anyway, the OVERALL rating is not a sum of those individual ratings, but rather how the car stacks up to other cars. It's kind of like having one A-minus student in a class where all the other students are getting A's and A-plusses. The A-minus student is at the bottom of the class, but overall, still doing pretty good!
You missed my post - Toyota was listed 2nd, not 1st. In both 2009 and back in 2006 as well.
If anything the clone should be listed 2nd, and the original should get top billing.
The Lambdas are pretty well differentiated. The Enclave tends to sell at higher prices than the Traverse, for instance.
I always thought it was the Outlook and Acadia that were the closest.
GM would build Volts in China FOR CHINA. Huge difference:
the automaker plans to export the vehicle to China from its Detroit Hamtramck Assembly plant and then decide whether to assemble it in China, where it would be eligible for up to $19,000 in Chinese government subsidies
Makes total sense, too.
Not really....
They use Fair or Poor in ratings. For reliability they still say "Worse than Average" or "Much Worse than Average".
That didn't change.
Red dot = Excellent or Much Better than Average
Half red = Very Good or Better than Average
White = Good or Average
Half black = Fair or Worse than Average
Black dot = Poor or Much Worse than Average
They use the former for ratings, the latter for reliability.
Of course there is this:
He said the Chinese government or GM's Chinese partner had not pressured the company to share the Volt technologies.
But call me skeptical of China's actions or intentions if it does make it into production on their home turf...
However, I also found the article a bit vague as to the future of the Volt. To me, I read it as a possiblity that production could shift out of America all together if the UAW agreements this time around don't work.
He said the recent labor talks could be "a blueprint for what America has to do."
Hmmmm...
Or this:
Michael Dunne's book sheds light on GM's Chinese ventures
The headline read: GM, SAIC Re-Shape Partnership.
"BEIJING — General Motors Co. announced plans Friday to cede control of its key Chinese joint venture to partner SAIC Motor Corp. SAIC's stake in Shanghai General Motors Corp. will rise to 51% from 50% at a time when China is overtaking the U.S. as the world's largest auto market, though GM described the move as a technicality. The Chinese group will have the right to approve budgets, strategy and senior management appointments."
This was startling news. No foreign car company had ever willingly given up control to its Chinese partner. Chinese and foreign shareholders had always clung tenaciously to their respective ownership in the joint venture, each aiming for control, profits, and dividends.
All production would have to be at a joint venture plant, so China would have their hands on ALL the technology. All of it.
Having said that, the Volt would have been on the market for quite a while by the time GM would be ready to build there, likely 5+ years. It likely would no longer be state of the art.
If you've noticed, they tend to copy the previous generation of cars, lagging a bit, naturally.