Still 3.49 by me. The GDI turbo Optima actually gets 26 mpg around town when driven like an extreme miser and obeying all speed limits! Best I ever experienced in a 1.75 ton vehicle. Most I got on the hwy is 37 mpg but only hwy. As soon as the stop and go starts the mpg drops fast.
Most I got combined with 50/50 is 27 tank to tank. Not too bad for the added performance of the turbo. Yo get real good staying out of the turbo with these prices which looks like they will rise to 4.50 easy.
Looks like the upcoming Malibu T-4 will also be pretty popular and I expect similar mileage to my ride.
Yeah, log in issues this last week, with a different "technical issues" message than usual. Clicking through it a few times usually gets you on and it works fine then. If you still can't get on to post, you can shoot an email to Help and someone on the tech side will check it out for you.
Lemko, a buddy of mine just bought a 2004 Cadillac DHS with 60k miles for $8k. It's like new. Old guy had it and took exceptional care of it. What a car for $8k. Smooth, quiet, and comfortable.
According to ratings, the V6 malibu gets 26 hwy. My SC 3.8 is rated 26 hwy by today's stds. The V6 Malibu is slower, lighter, much smaller, 50% more tranny gears and yet rated the same mpgs after 16 yrs of tech improvements?
Though the EPA says 6 more mpgs for the 4 cylMy 4 cyl 3450 lb Malibu actually gets 1-2 mpg more than the 3650 lb pushrod powered Riv.
For $8K, that is an exceptional car! Wonder why the old guy wanted to sell it? Was he too ill to drive? I figure if I had something like that in my old age, I might as well keep it until I pass.
For $8K, that is an exceptional car! Wonder why the old guy wanted to sell it? Was he too ill to drive? I figure if I had something like that in my old age, I might as well keep it until I pass.
Yeah, from what I understand he had to sell it due to not being able to drive anymore.
Man is it in good shape, like going back in time to 1994 and buying it new. Hopefully it will be decently reliable.
I'm starting to think the reason GM sales gains are lagging the competition is not the gov BK, because then Chrysler would be having the same problem, but because GM has too many average vehicles at above average prices. We really liked the Acadia's we've rented, so we went and looked at them. On closer inspection we found the 2nd row seats were like the Impala, kind if tight and they made your knees stick up in the air. While the 3rd row is relatively roomy, put down those seats and while it is a big area, it is not really all that efficiently laid out space. Quality and reliability appear mediocre whether you look at CU, JD Powers or just read blogs such as those posted on Edmunds. Seems like more than a few engine and tranny rants. Then there is the matter of price. Get one with leather and after discounts and rebates you seem to be looking at the low to mid 40's. The Chevy Traverse is a bit cheaper, but the interior really looks it. Similar Explorer's seemed about 4 or 5 grand cheaper out the door, but they have that kind of weird behind the steering wheel feel like the other Volvo chassis products they've put out. The Toyota Highlander is noticeably smaller, but pretty efficient in space usability. The leather interior SE is around $33K and the Limited about $37K out the door. The Honda Pilot is similar. That's a big price differential to pay for a little bit larger (usable space) GM. The Equinox also seems to have a price and usable space disadvantage compared to CRV and RAV4 and that 2.4 cylinder engine doesn't seem to work too well in it. The new Malibu e-assist has a sticker over $25K, but the mileage isn't all that much improved over a Camry SE that is several grand less, or an LE which drops it over a grand further down (and you don't see a lot of postings on Toyota claiming they are not getting anywhere near the EPA estimate). Plus the e-assist results in a puny trunk. I'm hoping GM is getting some better engineers on board because they really need to do better than the '13 Malibu, and do it at more competitive prices. The competition isn't sitting still and many of their models are made right here in the USA also. I know the GM CUV's are selling (although the Acadia depreciation rate seems a bit poor), but I think that is attributable to the general demand in this area. As other model output increases and new models keep coming out, the sales picture may not stay as rosy for GM in this segment.
Excellent post. Your logic reflects why I have 3 non-GM vehicles. Simply too many excellent choices that are arguably better for a better price as well.
Here is another reason GM might do poorly in 2012 sales. As I've pointed out, they are behind the competition in many areas.
Some automakers have cars that get a stupendous mileage, but they are priced or built so that nobody wants them. We won’t name names, draw your own conclusions. A much better metric than the mileage of a car is the mileage of all cars you sell. The combined mileage of all cars sold by a manufacturer or brand used to be a top secret document. Manufacturers with stellar averages sometimes leaked theirs. But what good are these statistics if manufacturers with mediocre averages hide their data? Thankfully, last year TrueCar started tracking the MPG averages of cars sold in the U.S. And it is coming to surprising results.
Not surprisingly, the most fuel efficient cars are sold by smart and MINI. Duh, all they have are small cars.
Once the offerings get a bit more diverse, Hyundai emerges as a clear winner with an average MPG of 27.8 in February 2012. Hyundai is closely followed by Volkswagen with 27.4 MPG. JLR can boast that it affords the luxury of absolutely atrocious mileage, a label Jaguar and Land Rover share with truck-heavy Ram.
With one narrow exception, Detroit cars are below average when it comes to combined mileage. A Volt doesn’t do anything to the environment if people don’t buy it. The only Detroit brand above average is Buick. The German and Chinese influenced brand is a tenth of a mile better than run-of-the-mill.
Just received this month's Motor Trend and saw a short blurb that GM is putting all body styles of the ATS, other than the 4-door on "hold", maybe never.
If true, how can GM expect the ATS to really be competitive against the BMW 3-series?
Just days ago Motor Trend issued a report that Cadillac has placed the long-speculated coupe version of their new ATS "on hold." The report cited the shelving as a move to cut costs in an effort to assist in boosting General Motors stock price. Since the report surfaced, GMI has been contacting sources to get to the bottom of the issue. Multiple sources have now confirmed to GMI that ATS Coupe development has not been halted.
According to the sources, who asked to remain anonymous, ATS Coupe development was still ongoing as late as this week. A program that was supposedly placed into a hold status certainly would not be ongoing. In fact, one source stated that documents relating to the car were updated just a few days ago with no status changes on the program. All clear signs that the coupe is still a go, at least for now. So why did the original report surface?
Well, the ATS Coupe has seen development delays, however they are not very recent delays. The ATS Coupe was originally going to launch as a mid-2014 model year vehicle, but months ago it was pushed back to late-2015 model year. Again, this launch delay is fairly "old news." GMI sources have not been able to confirm the reason for the delay, though it is speculated that Cadillac is wanting to cease production of the current, larger CTS Coupe before the ATS Coupe launches and potentially cannibalizes the CTS.
A Cadillac spokesperson even publicly denied the report, an unusual reaction regarding a report about an unannounced future product.
Despite GM's historical reservations to producing coupe variants, their recent reactions to the success of the CTS Coupe suggests that the fear of coupe failure is coming to an end. Back in October 2011 Cadillac announced that the CTS Coupe is now the best-selling midsize luxury coupe on the market and, at the time, was accounting for about 27-percent of CTS sales. The industry average for that coupe segment is about nine-percent.
The ATS Coupe, like the recently revealed sedan, will be based on GM's all-new Alpha rear-wheel drive platform. GMI has not been able to confirm powertrain information for the car, but it's likely a safe bet that it will share the sedan's 2.0-turbo and 3.6-liter V-6. As of this week, expect the coupe to launch in late 2014 or early 2015 as a 2015 model.
As usual, GM is taking it's sweet time but looks like the coupe will go forward.
Still, I would like to see the ATS made in the full range to match up against the 3-series. That's the only way to really tell exactly how competitive the ATS is, or will be, compared to the 3-series.
In all fairness though, GM and Ford put out a lot of large pickup trucks and SUVs which drive their overall mileage figures down. Toyota and Nissan don't do all that well in mileage for that segment either, but it constitutes a far smaller share of their sales volume.
CAFE doesn't look at sales volume but only models for sale. You are correct that the "Former Big 3" are heavier weighted in truck/large SUV's. Trouble is, the energy situation is only getting tighter and the changes at our domestic manufacturers take eons and bankruptcy but still they are heavier into trucks. On the upside, it will force efficiency in the trucks that people still desire.
CAFE doesn't look at sales volume but only models for sale. You are correct that the "Former Big 3" are heavier weighted in truck/large SUV's.
Actually, CAFE is a weighted average, so it does take sales into account. And it also uses a harmonic mean, which takes into account actual fuel usage, rather than just the average of all the numbers. For instance, if one vehicle gets 10 mpg and another gets 30, the average (mean) is 20, but the harmonic mean is only 15 mpg.
GM has traditionally been strongest in trucks and mid/full-sized cars, and less so in compacts and subcompacts, so often their CAFE figures lagged behind Ford and Chrysler. And once upon a time, the Japanese offered nothing in this country bigger than a subcompact, so naturally their averages were higher. I think the first Japanese car that was bigger than a subcompact, by EPA standards at least, was the 1982 Datsun Stanza.
I think 1975 was the first year they started calculating CAFE figures. IIRC, GM's 1975 fleet came in at something like 11.8 mpg combined (cars only, trucks were either counted separately, or not at all). I think Chrysler came in the best, at around 14.8. That didn't mean that GM's cars were less fuel efficient than Chrysler's, model for model. But that year, Chrysler was mainly selling compact Darts and Valiant/Dusters, and their larger cars sold poorly. The only larger model that was somewhat popular was the Cordoba, a midsize that sold about 150,000 units. Their other mid- and full-sized cars sold very poorly. Meanwhile, at GM, while the compact Nova sold fairly well, and even the Vega was still turning in decent numbers, they were still churning out tons of mid- and full-sized cars, across all divisions.
Did anyone her watch Sun. nights Celebrity Apprentice. That's Trump's show on NBC. Well what happened seems to be - Buick was out for some inexpensive advertising, and setting up the Andretti's to give gushing recommendation of the Buick Verano.
If you've seen the show, you know that the teams are given projects, which Trump arranges (and probably benefits from). So Buick made an agreement with Trump to be 1 of the projects. The project is a surprise to the celebrities on the team. And Trump arranges to get 1 of the Andretti's on the team, setting him up to be the project leader, which would thus lead to the promotion of the Buick brand and model.
So you can watch the show on NBC, but in summary, Michael Andretti doesn't take the project leader position. This despite some comments from Trump beforehand that Michael should take this as project leader. He does drive the Buick, and gets on stage and gives a thumbs-up. The 2 execs. from Buick though are quite disappointed by this whole turn of events, stating that Andretti wasn't vocal enough, wasn't gung-ho ... and the Buick execs give the "win" to the other team. In the ensuing who's fired, Trump changes his rules, and Fires 2 people - the project leader and then Andretti. Andretti gets fired for not being the spokesperson that Buick wanted. I'm guessing that Andretti might have other business contracts that could conflict with being too close to GM.
So Buick was going to donate $30,000 to charity, and expected to get Andretti's endorsement in return. When that didn't occur with great fervor, Buick said Andretti's team lost, and Andretti was told - go home, we don't need you anymore.
It turns out to be a pretty sleazy example of doing business.
BTW - if you watch the show, don't miss near the beginning, when Buick's execs are explaining what the Buick brand stands for, and Adam Carolla says something like - yeah, that whole Tiger Woods image, right? The Buick execs. just sat silent.
To get back on topic, um, I wish GM still made a minivan...
Aren't the Buick Enclave, Chevy Travese, GM Arcadia essentially minivans with FWD but without sliding side doors? Anyway, Honda Odyssey, Toyota Siennna and Chrysler minivans own that market segment. GM could not compete. They were a total failure with their vacuum cleaner snout front end minivans of about a decade ago or more and kind of came back with Enclave, Traverse, Arcadia.
They were a total failure with their vacuum cleaner snout front end minivans of about a decade ago or more and kind of came back with Enclave, Traverse, Arcadia.
You forgot the other failed incarnation which included the Uplander (with apologies to uplanderguy).
Seems that they are more successful with SUVs; they just couldn't make the minivans competitive.
Yeah, I can't imagine GM competing against the Dodge Grand Caravan, 6-cyl at a price point around $21K. Look at what GM is asking for a 4 cyl Malibu!
GM should be lowering prices to get some marketshare. I see a local dealer is knocking $3,000 off the sticker on a Volt. Maybe if they take another $5K - $10K off, they can get their sales going, at least to those who qualify for the tax credit. Meanwhile Toyota has come out with their smaller, less costly Prius C.
Seems that they are more successful with SUVs; they just couldn't make the minivans competitive.
Yeah, GM just took too long to actually go head to head with Chrysler on minivans. Their first attempt, the Astro, was more miniature van than "minivan"...good for towing, cargo hauling, small businesses, etc, and more rugged than something like a Voyager or Caravan, but much less car like.
Then, the dustbuster just went too radical, with that snout and rakish windshield that probably wasted a lot of space. IIRC, the dustbusters were about 14" longer than the short wheelbase Mopar minivans, yet had much less cargo capacity.
By the time the Chevy Venture came around for 1997 or so, it was too late. And, IIRC, one big complaint about those Ventures and their offshoots was that they were narrower inside than most other minivans and came up a bit short in cargo capacity. I guess the upside of that was perhaps a more maneuverable vehicle, but most buyers probably focused on the lack of space.
That Pontiac TranSport test is pretty scary looking. Didn't GM revise their minivans after a few years though, and greatly improve the crash test scores? It may have been when it was revised into the Uplander/Terraza/Relay/etc.
This is meaningless because it doesn't compare cars in the same class, for example:
smart 36.2 36.2 0.0 MINI 30.3 30.0 0.3 Ram 15.6 15.6 0.0 Land Rover 15.0 14.0 1.0
It's stupid to even compare a brand that only sells teeny cars to brands that sell only large trucks.
It would be much more meaningful to compare within a certain class. Or even a brand's relative score.
For instance, a small car may do poorly in its segment, but it would still help an average score. Conversely, there may be an efficient pickup (EcoBoost for example), but it would still hurt that brand's score.
Without categorizing, the data is pretty meaningless.
Also, note that the top 2, Smart and MINI, both use PREMIUM fuel. So much for economy....
Yes Andre, that very footage has been posted here previously, and we posted then that the body was stiffened for the 2005 updates. I had two Ventures and while the crash tests weren't great, at least the offset, that is not a sole deciding factor for me in a purchase. Both mine were good vehicles. I had my Uplander longer than either Venture, and it was an inexpensive to operate vehicle that I thought looked better than the Venture, and other minivans for that matter. I think the stiffening made it ride stiffer than Ventures, though.
A few things nobody mentions about the 'Dustbusters' is, to me they looked somewhat sportier than other vans, had no-rust and dent-resistant bodies (which I might add seemed to hold paint better than the others...when you see them today, they still look 'newer' than other vehicles of the same years), plus they pioneered automatic sliding doors and modular seating. But I know how it is..if people write about it enough, the negatives are all anybody remembers.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Andres3, your post reminded me that today is the anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima.
Not car-related, but I have recently seen two things I think are really neat on youtube. One is footage from Stan Laurel's funeral, where Dick Van [non-permissible content removed] did the eulogy. His XK-E is shown. Second is a clip of "I've Got a Secret" from Feb. 1956, where the guest's secret is that he witnessed John Wilkes Booth assassinate Abraham Lincoln! That just blew my mind.
I suppose these belong in the classic car section where they might be better-received, I dunno.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
But I know how it is..if people write about it enough, the negatives are all anybody remembers.
On GM minivans, the marketplace decided that GM did not have a competitive product. In spite of decades of enormous mismanagement at GM, at least they got it right on their minivans. They pulled the plug.
I don't put much stock in "Best car" awards. For instance, almost every car in Car and Driver's list over the years has actually turned out to be a disaster or lemon. It's almost comical, how bad they are at choosing good vehicles, actually.
Also, the big problem with hybrids is that when (not if) the batteries go bad, it tanks the resale value by 4-6K and it's a huge potential expense later in the car's life. We're now seeing the first generation of hybrids having this problem, so it'll only get worse over time.
Also, the batteries are hugely damaging to the environment to produce.
Also, the big problem with hybrids is that when (not if) the batteries go bad, it tanks the resale value by 4-6K and it's a huge potential expense later in the car's life. We're now seeing the first generation of hybrids having this problem, so it'll only get worse over time.
Could re-write your paragraph as follows:
Also, a big problem with gasoline engines is that when (not if) the engine goes bad, it tanks resale value by 4-6K, and it's a huge potential expense later in a car's life.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
The average engine costs about 2-3K to replace if it goes bad. Since most engines these days have to be in the 15+ year old range to die, the cost on an old engine is minimal. Also, most don't need to be entirely replaced. Often a valve job or fixing the timing will make it run another 100K miles or more.
A battery pack, though, is something you have to replace all at once and at 6k+ for some of them, it's a huge problem. Or will be for some owner eventually.
You had reverse-rose-colored glasses when you had labelled the Camaro a failure (maybe not in so many words) shortly after its introduction. When it began to outsell Mustang, you became rather quiet. Now, best-selling doesn't mean 'best' to me (if that were the case, "Disco Duck" would be one of the best songs of the '70's!), but for all the talk of 'marketplace' here, the Camaro has been a success, and they must be anticipating the ZL1 to sell since they are not offering incentives on it.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
The mass market competitors finished even closer, with Mini leading at 809 points, followed closely by three General Motors brands: Buick (805), GMC (803) and Chevrolet (801).
Good sign because this is the face of the company when it comes to consumers.
The thing is needlessly complex and, well, GM isn't known for building the best vehicles when it comes to long-term reliability. But what does the maker care? They don't want old cars one the road as it is. Perhaps the move to essentially make all cars hybrids (how else are they going to meet those silly EPA numbers in a few years from now?) in the next decade is really just the ultimate in planned obsolescence.
Force everyone to essentially buy a new car every 10-12 years. And get a huge campaign donation for your superpac in the process from the battery companies.
Oh, a replacement battery pack for the first generation Insight costs between $3000 and $4000. Older examples with dead battery packs are often junked or sold for parts. This has to make Honda happy. Either you get rid of the car and buy something newer or you cough up more money than Honda made in profit on the original car for a OEM only replacement part.
Comments
True, but if you compare a 3.5 powered Fusion to a 3.5 Taurus, the Taurus is rated 1 mpg higher for FE despite being larger and heavier.
The Impala is rate 18/30 vs 17/26 for the Malibu. That's a fairly substantial difference.
The Fusion 3.5 is rated at 18/27 vs 18/28 for the Taurus, but they use the same engine. I'm guessing the gearing might be taller in the Taurus.
3.94 to 3.99 here, but I do recall paying over $4/gal during the previous gas price spike.
Most I got combined with 50/50 is 27 tank to tank. Not too bad for the added performance of the turbo. Yo get real good staying out of the turbo with these prices which looks like they will rise to 4.50 easy.
Looks like the upcoming Malibu T-4 will also be pretty popular and I expect similar mileage to my ride.
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
Lemko, a buddy of mine just bought a 2004 Cadillac DHS with 60k miles for $8k. It's like new. Old guy had it and took exceptional care of it. What a car for $8k. Smooth, quiet, and comfortable.
Though the EPA says 6 more mpgs for the 4 cylMy 4 cyl 3450 lb Malibu actually gets 1-2 mpg more than the 3650 lb pushrod powered Riv.
Yeah, from what I understand he had to sell it due to not being able to drive anymore.
Man is it in good shape, like going back in time to 1994 and buying it new. Hopefully it will be decently reliable.
I test drove it back to back with the Odyssey and the Toyota actually requires more effort.
The newer SE models have quicker ratios and supposedly more feel to them, though I haven't sampled them because I'm not car shopping.
To get back on topic, um, I wish GM still made a minivan...
Opel Zafira, anyone?
I can't, to let it go would mean to accept that I'm getting old! LOL
Gosh, seems like yesterday.
Here is another reason GM might do poorly in 2012 sales. As I've pointed out, they are behind the competition in many areas.
Some automakers have cars that get a stupendous mileage, but they are priced or built so that nobody wants them. We won’t name names, draw your own conclusions. A much better metric than the mileage of a car is the mileage of all cars you sell. The combined mileage of all cars sold by a manufacturer or brand used to be a top secret document. Manufacturers with stellar averages sometimes leaked theirs. But what good are these statistics if manufacturers with mediocre averages hide their data? Thankfully, last year TrueCar started tracking the MPG averages of cars sold in the U.S. And it is coming to surprising results.
Not surprisingly, the most fuel efficient cars are sold by smart and MINI. Duh, all they have are small cars.
Once the offerings get a bit more diverse, Hyundai emerges as a clear winner with an average MPG of 27.8 in February 2012. Hyundai is closely followed by Volkswagen with 27.4 MPG. JLR can boast that it affords the luxury of absolutely atrocious mileage, a label Jaguar and Land Rover share with truck-heavy Ram.
With one narrow exception, Detroit cars are below average when it comes to combined mileage. A Volt doesn’t do anything to the environment if people don’t buy it. The only Detroit brand above average is Buick. The German and Chinese influenced brand is a tenth of a mile better than run-of-the-mill.
TrueCar TrueMPG By Brand, February 2011
Brand Feb-12 Feb-11 YoY
smart 36.2 36.2 0.0
MINI 30.3 30.0 0.3
Hyundai 27.8 26.1 1.7
Volkswagen 27.4 25.5 1.9
Kia 26.1 25.8 0.3
Scion 26.0 25.6 0.4
Honda 24.7 24.6 0.1
Mazda 24.6 24.3 0.3
Toyota 24.5 25.0 -0.5
Mitsubishi 24.5 25.1 -0.6
Subaru 23.5 23.2 0.3
Nissan 23.4 22.8 0.6
Suzuki 23.4 23.2 0.2
Buick 22.4 20.3 2.1
Industry 22.3 21.4 0.9
Audi 22.2 22.0 0.2
Chevrolet 21.7 21.3 0.4
Ford 21.3 17.3 4.0
Lexus 21.2 21.2 0.0
Acura 21.1 19.9 1.2
Saab 20.9 22.4 -1.5
Chrysler 20.9 19.5 1.4
Volvo 20.9 21.2 -0.3
BMW 20.5 20.2 0.3
Mercedes 20.5 19.1 1.4
Dodge 20.3 19.8 0.5
Lincoln 19.7 18.8 0.9
Infiniti 19.6 19.7 -0.1
Porsche 19.4 21.0 -1.6
GMC 18.9 18.9 0.0
Jeep 18.6 17.6 1.0
Cadillac 18.4 18.8 -0.4
Jaguar 18.0 18.0 0.0
Ram 15.6 15.6 0.0
Land Rover 15.0 14.0 1.0
Regards,
OW
If true, how can GM expect the ATS to really be competitive against the BMW 3-series?
Thoughts???
Just days ago Motor Trend issued a report that Cadillac has placed the long-speculated coupe version of their new ATS "on hold." The report cited the shelving as a move to cut costs in an effort to assist in boosting General Motors stock price. Since the report surfaced, GMI has been contacting sources to get to the bottom of the issue. Multiple sources have now confirmed to GMI that ATS Coupe development has not been halted.
According to the sources, who asked to remain anonymous, ATS Coupe development was still ongoing as late as this week. A program that was supposedly placed into a hold status certainly would not be ongoing. In fact, one source stated that documents relating to the car were updated just a few days ago with no status changes on the program. All clear signs that the coupe is still a go, at least for now. So why did the original report surface?
Well, the ATS Coupe has seen development delays, however they are not very recent delays. The ATS Coupe was originally going to launch as a mid-2014 model year vehicle, but months ago it was pushed back to late-2015 model year. Again, this launch delay is fairly "old news." GMI sources have not been able to confirm the reason for the delay, though it is speculated that Cadillac is wanting to cease production of the current, larger CTS Coupe before the ATS Coupe launches and potentially cannibalizes the CTS.
A Cadillac spokesperson even publicly denied the report, an unusual reaction regarding a report about an unannounced future product.
Despite GM's historical reservations to producing coupe variants, their recent reactions to the success of the CTS Coupe suggests that the fear of coupe failure is coming to an end. Back in October 2011 Cadillac announced that the CTS Coupe is now the best-selling midsize luxury coupe on the market and, at the time, was accounting for about 27-percent of CTS sales. The industry average for that coupe segment is about nine-percent.
The ATS Coupe, like the recently revealed sedan, will be based on GM's all-new Alpha rear-wheel drive platform. GMI has not been able to confirm powertrain information for the car, but it's likely a safe bet that it will share the sedan's 2.0-turbo and 3.6-liter V-6. As of this week, expect the coupe to launch in late 2014 or early 2015 as a 2015 model.
As usual, GM is taking it's sweet time but looks like the coupe will go forward.
Regards,
OW
Still, I would like to see the ATS made in the full range to match up against the 3-series. That's the only way to really tell exactly how competitive the ATS is, or will be, compared to the 3-series.
Regards,
OW
Actually, CAFE is a weighted average, so it does take sales into account. And it also uses a harmonic mean, which takes into account actual fuel usage, rather than just the average of all the numbers. For instance, if one vehicle gets 10 mpg and another gets 30, the average (mean) is 20, but the harmonic mean is only 15 mpg.
GM has traditionally been strongest in trucks and mid/full-sized cars, and less so in compacts and subcompacts, so often their CAFE figures lagged behind Ford and Chrysler. And once upon a time, the Japanese offered nothing in this country bigger than a subcompact, so naturally their averages were higher. I think the first Japanese car that was bigger than a subcompact, by EPA standards at least, was the 1982 Datsun Stanza.
I think 1975 was the first year they started calculating CAFE figures. IIRC, GM's 1975 fleet came in at something like 11.8 mpg combined (cars only, trucks were either counted separately, or not at all). I think Chrysler came in the best, at around 14.8. That didn't mean that GM's cars were less fuel efficient than Chrysler's, model for model. But that year, Chrysler was mainly selling compact Darts and Valiant/Dusters, and their larger cars sold poorly. The only larger model that was somewhat popular was the Cordoba, a midsize that sold about 150,000 units. Their other mid- and full-sized cars sold very poorly. Meanwhile, at GM, while the compact Nova sold fairly well, and even the Vega was still turning in decent numbers, they were still churning out tons of mid- and full-sized cars, across all divisions.
If you've seen the show, you know that the teams are given projects, which Trump arranges (and probably benefits from). So Buick made an agreement with Trump to be 1 of the projects. The project is a surprise to the celebrities on the team. And Trump arranges to get 1 of the Andretti's on the team, setting him up to be the project leader, which would thus lead to the promotion of the Buick brand and model.
So you can watch the show on NBC, but in summary, Michael Andretti doesn't take the project leader position. This despite some comments from Trump beforehand that Michael should take this as project leader. He does drive the Buick, and gets on stage and gives a thumbs-up. The 2 execs. from Buick though are quite disappointed by this whole turn of events, stating that Andretti wasn't vocal enough, wasn't gung-ho ... and the Buick execs give the "win" to the other team. In the ensuing who's fired, Trump changes his rules, and Fires 2 people - the project leader and then Andretti. Andretti gets fired for not being the spokesperson that Buick wanted. I'm guessing that Andretti might have other business contracts that could conflict with being too close to GM.
So Buick was going to donate $30,000 to charity, and expected to get Andretti's endorsement in return. When that didn't occur with great fervor, Buick said Andretti's team lost, and Andretti was told - go home, we don't need you anymore.
It turns out to be a pretty sleazy example of doing business.
BTW - if you watch the show, don't miss near the beginning, when Buick's execs are explaining what the Buick brand stands for, and Adam Carolla says something like - yeah, that whole Tiger Woods image, right? The Buick execs. just sat silent.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Aren't the Buick Enclave, Chevy Travese, GM Arcadia essentially minivans with FWD but without sliding side doors? Anyway, Honda Odyssey, Toyota Siennna and Chrysler minivans own that market segment. GM could not compete. They were a total failure with their vacuum cleaner snout front end minivans of about a decade ago or more and kind of came back with Enclave, Traverse, Arcadia.
You forgot the other failed incarnation which included the Uplander (with apologies to uplanderguy).
Seems that they are more successful with SUVs; they just couldn't make the minivans competitive.
Regards,
OW
GM should be lowering prices to get some marketshare. I see a local dealer is knocking $3,000 off the sticker on a Volt. Maybe if they take another $5K - $10K off, they can get their sales going, at least to those who qualify for the tax credit. Meanwhile Toyota has come out with their smaller, less costly Prius C.
Go Toyota! With mileage and power like that, I just might want a boring car with gas prices around $4.50 here.
Yeah, GM just took too long to actually go head to head with Chrysler on minivans. Their first attempt, the Astro, was more miniature van than "minivan"...good for towing, cargo hauling, small businesses, etc, and more rugged than something like a Voyager or Caravan, but much less car like.
Then, the dustbuster just went too radical, with that snout and rakish windshield that probably wasted a lot of space. IIRC, the dustbusters were about 14" longer than the short wheelbase Mopar minivans, yet had much less cargo capacity.
By the time the Chevy Venture came around for 1997 or so, it was too late. And, IIRC, one big complaint about those Ventures and their offshoots was that they were narrower inside than most other minivans and came up a bit short in cargo capacity. I guess the upside of that was perhaps a more maneuverable vehicle, but most buyers probably focused on the lack of space.
1998 Grand Caravan
1999 Honda Odyssey
Then there this: :surprise:
Ouch
smart 36.2 36.2 0.0
MINI 30.3 30.0 0.3
Ram 15.6 15.6 0.0
Land Rover 15.0 14.0 1.0
It's stupid to even compare a brand that only sells teeny cars to brands that sell only large trucks.
It would be much more meaningful to compare within a certain class. Or even a brand's relative score.
For instance, a small car may do poorly in its segment, but it would still help an average score. Conversely, there may be an efficient pickup (EcoBoost for example), but it would still hurt that brand's score.
Without categorizing, the data is pretty meaningless.
Also, note that the top 2, Smart and MINI, both use PREMIUM fuel. So much for economy....
Keep in mind this is Korean designed and built, by the former Daewoo, basically.
A few things nobody mentions about the 'Dustbusters' is, to me they looked somewhat sportier than other vans, had no-rust and dent-resistant bodies (which I might add seemed to hold paint better than the others...when you see them today, they still look 'newer' than other vehicles of the same years), plus they pioneered automatic sliding doors and modular seating. But I know how it is..if people write about it enough, the negatives are all anybody remembers.
Not car-related, but I have recently seen two things I think are really neat on youtube. One is footage from Stan Laurel's funeral, where Dick Van [non-permissible content removed] did the eulogy. His XK-E is shown. Second is a clip of "I've Got a Secret" from Feb. 1956, where the guest's secret is that he witnessed John Wilkes Booth assassinate Abraham Lincoln! That just blew my mind.
I suppose these belong in the classic car section where they might be better-received, I dunno.
On GM minivans, the marketplace decided that GM did not have a competitive product. In spite of decades of enormous mismanagement at GM, at least they got it right on their minivans. They pulled the plug.
Also, the big problem with hybrids is that when (not if) the batteries go bad, it tanks the resale value by 4-6K and it's a huge potential expense later in the car's life. We're now seeing the first generation of hybrids having this problem, so it'll only get worse over time.
Also, the batteries are hugely damaging to the environment to produce.
I always thought the idea of "dent resistant" bodies fit in nicely with minivans, as the primary audience would usually be families with small kids.
Average Fuel Economy for New Cars Sold In February 2012 Rises To 23.2 MPG According to TrueCar.com’s TrueMPG
At the end of the day, GM is NOT a leader in fuel economy Volt or no Volt.
Regards,
Wayne
Could re-write your paragraph as follows:
Also, a big problem with gasoline engines is that when (not if) the engine goes bad, it tanks resale value by 4-6K, and it's a huge potential expense later in a car's life.
A battery pack, though, is something you have to replace all at once and at 6k+ for some of them, it's a huge problem. Or will be for some owner eventually.
Point is, GM sales will suffer as gas prices rise and restrictions are considered. Only the rose-colored set can't see that.
EPA rates Hyundai and Kia most efficient and cleanest automakers
Regards,
OW
Still, PZEV warranty is what, 10 years? Not a concern, short-term at least.
The mass market competitors finished even closer, with Mini leading at 809 points, followed closely by three General Motors brands: Buick (805), GMC (803) and Chevrolet (801).
Good sign because this is the face of the company when it comes to consumers.
Force everyone to essentially buy a new car every 10-12 years. And get a huge campaign donation for your superpac in the process from the battery companies.
Oh, a replacement battery pack for the first generation Insight costs between $3000 and $4000. Older examples with dead battery packs are often junked or sold for parts. This has to make Honda happy. Either you get rid of the car and buy something newer or you cough up more money than Honda made in profit on the original car for a OEM only replacement part.