Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Are you looking to squeeze the most mileage from every gallon of gas? Then you will find much to appreciate with the new Chevy Cobalt XFE. It delivers a segment-best 36 mpg in highway driving, outdistancing competitors like the Honda Civic, Ford Focus and Toyota Corolla. The Cobalt XFE (for Xtra Fuel Economy) is on sale now and includes LS and 1LT coupe and sedan models with manual transmission. The Cobalt XFE gets 25 mpg in the city.
.
Shoppers are choosing the Pontiac G6 four-cylinder engine about half the time now, compared with 27% of the time in 2006, Mr. LaNeve said in an interview. The transaction price, however, has increased to $18,960 from $17,580 in 2006 as consumers add features.
He said the take rate on remote-controlled starters on the four-cylinder version of the G6 has doubled, heated seats has gone from 1% to 5% and leather steering wheels from 5% to 24%.
On the newly redesigned Chevrolet Malibu, the take rate on remote starters has gone from 10% to 50% and sunroofs from 1% to 18% on the four-cylinder version.
"It shows you that directionally, customers are opting for a four-cylinder but they're not opting to come down in specification," Mr. LaNeve said.
The trend doesn't come without challenges. Auto makers accustomed to building eight-cylinder cars loaded with options while sparsely equipping four-cylinder vehicles have to adjust their production. GM President Fritz Henderson said Wednesday that the company is trying to find more plant capacity to build more cars.
Mr. LaNeve said it is a trend GM saw coming and the auto maker worked with suppliers to add the features to more four-cylinder versions of the Malibu out of the gate.
"You used to pay for more cylinders and more horsepower," Mr. LaNeve said. "Now, environmental awareness has kind of negated that."
Shoot! I thought I found an acceptable hybrid as it is not a foreign nameplate nor some stupid cross-over. I'll wait until Chevrolet offers a true dual-mode hybrid like the Camry Hybrid before I jump in. Until then, I'll just keep puttering about in my '88 Park Ave.
The cost is just too high and would make them uncompetitive with the competition. Until cost is brought down by both system improvements and volume increases it will be too expensive to sell as standard. However in 5 years when everyone has to increase truck mpg at least 50% it will have to be standard.
Oh, wait, you mean the 2MH. Yeah, that one will have to be standard in the trucks and SUVs before long. The mild hybrid should be in everything going forward, though.
In the next 5 years this mild hybrid will have to become standard on every vehicle to meet CAFE. Hopefully the cost will come down.
Shoot! I thought I found an acceptable hybrid as it is not a foreign nameplate nor some stupid cross-over. I'll wait until Chevrolet offers a true dual-mode hybrid like the Camry Hybrid before I jump in. Until then, I'll just keep puttering about in my '88 Park Ave.
Camry hybrid is doing well as it should with $4 gas. Sales up 34% in March and they sold more hybrid Camrys than V6's but still only about 14% of total Camry sales. Even with $4 gas consumers are hesitant about spending the extra cash on hybrid equipment in a Camry.
I just wonder what the vehicles 5 years from now will have to have in them. Government says less than $1000 increase but the Camry Hybrid is at least a $4000 upcharge looking at comparable equipment. Does anyone have a more accurate number?
The last time the government tried to force economy standards on us, the public stopped buying the small downsized cars and found a new vehicle that met their needs. The SUV. If it was not for the CAFE of 30 years ago we would probably all be driving cars just like the Impala but a little bigger. Station wagons would be prevalant.
With the new CAFE rules I doubt that the public will stand for it. Once the vehicles we want to drive are priced out of our range and even the small cars get hugely expensive due to CAFE and gas prices stabalize I forsee the public demanding change. Look at E85! The governement tried to decrease our reliance on oil countries and lower global warming and at the first sign of trouble (food prices rising) all kinds of talk about dropping the requirement. Money makes people change their minds.
Due to the way we process oil, diesel here will always be more expensive than gas. Diesel has a good chance of increasing penetration but this demand would force up the price of diesel even higher. So I do not see it becoming a huge factor in this country in the next 15 years.
The near term future (5 years) will be cell. E85.
But the above is only my opinion based on past history.
The Camry Hybrid only gets 33/34 mpg even at a price increase of about $4000 (anybody got a better number?). With our 2015 average car CAFE requirement at 36 mpg a Camry sized vehicle will probably need to get about 34 mpg since it is based on footprint. I do not see any technology allowing this in 6 years w/o hybrid technology and massive weight reductions.
And again I do not see Americans trading in their SUV's for vehicles smaller than Camry's in 6 years. Heads will roll.
So now California is trying to get neighboring states to join them so Californians will keep their money in California. What will the states do that are on the regional CAFE border? They will lose out.
The head of California's Air Resources Board said she was willing to talk with automakers about modifying one aspect of the state's landmark tailpipe emissions regulations.
Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols, speaking to reporters at the SAE Government/Industry meetings on Monday, said she was open to discussing setting "regional" rather than state-by-state standards for tailpipe emissions.
The consideration comes after California auto dealers expressed concerns that automakers could be forced to stop selling larger less-efficient vehicles there because of the state's proposed strict regulations, which could encourage customers to buy larger vehicles in another state.
A regional approach would largely protect California from this issue.
Again not only large vehicles but also cheaper vehicles. There could easily be a $1000 difference from on state to the next due to the higher mpg level. I mean to go from 37 mpg for cars in 2016 (federal requirement) to 44 in California is quite a difference.
GM has said the California rules could force it to stop selling 80 percent of its vehicles in California and add thousands of dollars to the cost of every vehicle.
All three major presidential candidates have agreed to support California's request.
Underscoring the industry's willingness to compromise, McCurdy noted automakers met with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last week "to open a dialogue and find common ground."
AutoObserver in an exclusive interview Tuesday. "Today is the first day
it is running on the street on battery power."
Lutz said the Volt's powertrain, comprised of an advanced lithium-ion
battery and a small gasoline engine, was installed into a mule vehicle
and is being driven on public roads around the automaker's proving
grounds in Milford, Mich. More important, Lutz said, the battery is
hitting GM's goal of 40 miles on pure electric power.
An assumed risk of lithium-ion batteries is its thermal properties.
Frank Weber (FAY-ber), imported from GM's European operations to be
global vehicle line executive and chief engineer for of E-Flex Systems
Development Team (E-Flex is the GM word for the Volt's gas-electric
powertrain), told AutoObserver last august that the biggest challenge is
to manage the thermal dynamics of the batteries so that the batteries
are the same temperature.
And Lutz insists the lithium-ion battery on the road has passed that
test."Now if you ask him the same question, he's calm and relaxed and says
unless we encounter some completely unforeseen obstacle - November 2010
looks good."
http://www.autoobserver.com/2008/05/chevy_volt_traveling_public_ro.html#more
Even as fuel prices soar, General Motors Corp. continues to see high demand for diesel-powered trucks, says Charles Freese, GM Powertrain executive director-diesel engineering.
"We're still selling a high percentage of diesels in heavy-duty pickups," he says. "It's in the 60% range in the heavy-duty segment."
Freese speaks to reporters during a recent press conference here to unveil the new 4.5L V-8 Duramax turbodiesel that will power ‘10 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra light-duty pickups.
Diesel fuel is selling for more than $5 per gallon in some parts of the country, but GM is hoping to persuade consumers that oil burners are more fuel-efficient than comparable gasoline mills.
Freese says diesel-powered vehicles are at least 25% more fuel efficient, and that figure climbs to 40%-70% when hauling heavy loads or at high altitudes.
"That's why we see strong demand for (diesel) engines," he says, adding the same advantages apply to smaller diesels in smaller vehicles.
The larger 6.6L Duramax diesel currently available in GM’s heavy-duty pickups is an $8,000 option, but Freese says the premium for the smaller diesel could be less.
"There was an obvious gap in this (smaller) displacement (segment)," he adds. “It's compact because it was designed to occupy the same space as the GM small-block V-8 gasoline engine.”
The smaller size makes it adaptable to a wide range of other GM vehicles, including cross/utility vehicles, SUVs and even some cars, he says.
McVeigh told Automotive News that GM expects to sell 575,000 cars and trucks to rental companies in the 2008 model year, down from 700,000 in 2007. In the 2009 model year, GM plans to cut its rental sales to between 500,000 and 550,000 units, McVeigh said. Those projections aim at "equilibrium," he said.
GM has no plans to roll back the price increases it instituted last year on sales to rental companies, McVeigh said. But he added: "If I can sell an extra 5,000 (Chevrolet) Cobalts at my price, I will."
UAW members assigned to the remaining jobs bank will no longer need to clock in -- nor will they continue to receive 100% of their pay for jobs that GM has eliminated.
Workers who spoke to the Free Press on Tuesday said they were shocked by the move that cuts their pay by 15%.
"This was a surprise to all of us," said Larry Rector, 60, a skilled-trades electrician who has been in the jobs bank for the shuttered plant in Muncie, Ind., for two years. "Our chairman came in and said to go home."
The change spurred him to take an early-retirement offer, he said.
As of Monday, GM's jobs bank ceases to have physical locations, and the prospects of reassignment have been reduced.
I think they are now only going to get 75% of their pay?
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/17/A01-351179.htm
A tentative agreement in the strike at GM's Fairfax plant in Kansas City, Kan., was announced Tuesday night.
The automaker and UAW Local 5960 at the Orion Township plant were in talks about the Malibu, which accounts for about 220 of the 1,000 vehicles it produces daily, said Mike Dunn, the local's shop chairman. The factory predominantly makes Pontiac G6 cars.
* Sales of the Malibu have increased 125% in other key markets
* The average transaction price has increased by $4000! That's up from $16,800 for the previous model to $20,800 to the current model, which means that Chevrolet is making more sales at higher prices, to a higher-level buyer.
According to Peper, "the new Malibus are selling faster than we can put them on dealers' lots." Chevrolet estimated it would need to ship approximately 85,000 units, but dealers have requested nearly 200,000 units.
"Serious fuel economy issues" killed the rwd vehicles, which were expected to debut around 2011, says a GM source.
No other large-car programs are expected to be scrapped, says another GM source familiar with the programs.
The rwd Impala was about 3 inches longer than the fwd 2008 Impala and was styled with a long nose and short rear deck, according to industry sources.
The Impala SS was expected to offer a 350-plus hp V-8 engine and be positioned head-to-head against the Hemi-powered Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger.
But the federal fuel economy rules, unveiled last month by the Bush administration, persuaded GM to cancel the Chevrolet and Buick programs.
The law mandates a 40 percent increase in vehicle fuel economy by 2020, to an industry average of 35 mpg. Administration regulations anticipate a fast start, calling for 25 percent improvement in the 2011-2015 model years.
Does anybody have a picture of what this awesome RWD Impala was to look like? Good God, I can only imagine how awesome the Buick would've been!
Do you really think GM wants a volume vehicle like Impala that gets 22 MPG combined(V6) at best? It needs to get over 32 combined mpg to meet the new CAFE standards in 2015 (36mpg for cars).
Now perhaps they could get away with selling it for 4 years and take the profit and volume but it would be taking away MPG credits that GM needs. AND they would be developing both the product and branding for only one iteration. No way could they have the Impala as RWD for the next generation when the mpg would need to be around 38 combined.
I am really concerned the Camaro may never make the light of day. However perhaps it can be saved by making it a low volume vehicle and charging lots for it. I forsee the G8 being gone by 2013.
It is a new wold out there and GM is seeing the light as it is flooded into their eyes by both $4 gas and unbelieveable CAFE requirements.
What GM will really need is an electric drive train that is rechargable (Volt technology). Once GM has the technology, then we will see some serious new cars. All of you will need to rethink what makes sense for the next generation of cars. (the current generation dates back to the 50's?)
Why go larger? Well EPS ll may be close to full size(look at new Accord) but GM needs a full size low cost vehicle especially with the new CAFRE/fuel prices that are knocking out SUV sails. Who knows, we may get a full size station wagon again.
don't forget though, that for CAFE they use different, more optimistic numbers than what's on the window sticker. A V-6 RWD Impala would definitely get a better combined rating than 22. For instance, a 1996 Caprice/Roadmaster/Impala SS with the LT-1, has a combined rating of 23. Its raw city/highway numbers were 19/33, although the downrated published figures were 17/26, with a combined figure of 20.
The 1996 Buick Century, with the 4-cyl/3-speed automatic, actually achieved a combined rating of 32! Its raw city/highway numbers were 27/40. The published figures were 24/31, with a combined of 27.
If I were to venture a guess, I'd think that a RWD V-6 Impala would be able to pull down a combined raw rating of 25-27. The V-6 Lumina/Monte Carlo, and just about everything else that was using the 3.1 in 1996, had a combined rating of 27. Now 25-27 is still well south of 32, but if they sold enough smaller cars to offset that, they'd be okay.
Now, I can only find the raw data up through 1996, so I don't know the numbers for newer cars. However, I'd imagine a 4-cyl Malibu has a raw combined figure above 32 already. And the 3.5 Malibu, Aura, Impala, etc is probably not very far under that.
I think if GM does that, they might run into the same problem that Chrysler did with all of its K-car permutations. It's not hard to make a car longer to give it more legroom, or tack on a few inches in back to add trunk space, or even stretch it out up front to make it look more important. Where they run into problems is when they try to make it wider. IIRC, with Chrysler, just about everything they did that was based on the K-car was limited to about 56" of shoulder room, which is kind of on the cusp between compact and midsized.
Still, with some reworking, it can be done. After all, the first Mopar minivans were based on K-architecture, and they were about 60" wide inside. And even using a GM example, I think the Impala is an inch or two wider inside than the LaCrosse, or the older Century/Regal, Intrigue, Lumina, or Grand Prix.
I think the narrow width is a bit of an Achilles heel with the current Malibu and Aura. It's not so bad up front, because the cars have bucket seats and, well, nobody really does a bench in front these days, so it's not like anyone's trying to get 3 across seating up front. However, because of the way the car's body tapers, you have about two inches less shoulder room in back than in front. It basically cuts the car down to a 4-seater, where the Altima, Camry, and Accord could squeeze three in the back if you really had to.
EPSll is wider than the current EPS Malibu to compete with the wider Accord/Camry but not wide enough to be a true large car. Bench seating sells very well yet. Not huge numbers but enough to make it worth while offering in a couple models (currently Impala/LaCrosse).
If GM thinks the market is there it can just tool up new wider underbodies/cowls and use all the existing EPS ll components (front cradle/powertrain/suspension/etc.). With SUV's going down a large car market may very well develop.
This discussion sounds familiar. Seems like we discussed the same thing 2 years ago.
The 4 cyl Malibu is 33 while the 3.6 V6 is 26.
I finally went ahead and downloaded one, and yeah, it looks like those numbers you posted are correct. In raw numbers, my 2000 Intrepid 2.7 scored a combined rating of 27.3. The Impala 3.4 scored 27.5, which actually surprises me. I thought it would have done better. The EPA numbers on the window sticker for my Intrepid were 20/29, whereas the Impala 3.4 was 20/32. But in looking at their raw numbers, the Intrepid actually did slightly better in the city cycle (22.4 versus 21.7), although the Impala was considerably better on the highway simulation (40.7 versus 37.1). However, the EPA puts more weight on the city number, so maybe that's what got the averages so close?
Anyway, I don't think it'll be TOO hard for the auto makers to find a way to reach that 32 mpg combined figure. The Aveo, which isn't all that efficient for that class of car, already scores around 34 with the automatic, 36 with the stick. All of the Cobalts are already above 32, with an XFE version that pulls an impressive 38.6 combined! The Malibu 4-cyl gets 32.5-33.3 depending on transmission, while the 3.5 gets about 28 and the 3.6 gets 26.1. And the hybrid gets 35.7. The Impala ranges from 28.3 with the 3.5, down to 24.7 with the 5.3 V-8.
At the low end of the range, the Corvette with the monstrous 7.0 scores a 23.1.
Trucks are going to be where it hurts, though. The Silverado ranges from 21.9 with the 4.3 V-6, down to 18.7 with the 6.0 V-8. But then, there are HHR models that break the 32 mpg barrier.
The 4 cyl 4 speed auto 2007 Malibu gets 24/28/34 (using pre 2008 mpg methodology). Are you using the low volume stick version? That MPG is not going to help much in the overall picture. In 2008 numbers the same combo gets 22/25/30.
http://fueleconomy.weblite-dns.com/index.php?-action=list&year=2007&-sort=combin- ed_mpg+desc&-limit=10&-table=vehicles_summary&-cursor=0&-skip=0&-mode=list&make=- %3DCHEVROLET&model==MALIBU
The 3.6 w/ 6 speed gets 17/20/26 (2008 numbers) which should translate to about 19/23/30 in pre 2008 numbers. Now put that engine in a RWD Impala and the numbers will get worse. Now we can see why the RWD Impala was killed. 23 mpg is way below even the average of required 36.
http://fueleconomy.weblite-dns.com/index.php?-action=list&year=2008&-sort=combin- ed_mpg+desc&-limit=10&-table=vehicles_summary&-cursor=0&-skip=0&-mode=list&make=- %3DCHEVROLET&model==MALIBU
This is using the even older raw methodology, which is what they published for 1978-84 cars. Using those numbers, the 2008 Malibu, 4cyl/4pspeed auto gets 27.3 city/42.3 highway, with a combined rating of 32.48 mpg. That's the number they use for CAFE ratings and such, not the dumbed-down numbers. Or in the case of 2008, double-dumbed down numbers!
In the case of the G8, it scores 21.4/34.6 (25.83 combined) using raw numbers for the V-6, and 18.8/32.8 (23.29 combined), for the V-8.
Is it 32 they're required to get the average up to, or 36?
By 2015 the US average for cars is proposed to be 36 mpg. For trucks 29. I guess the total average would be around 33 mpg.
By 2020 the US average for all vehicles will be 36 mpg.
For the 2007 model year, cars sold in the U.S. averaged 31.3 mpg and light trucks averaged 23.1 mpg.Keep in mind that these numbers reflect a complex equation that takes a car or truck's "footprint" into account. Based on this equation, DOT says, Porsche will have to average 41.3 mpg by 2015 This is to prevent an automaker from simply switching to small cars.
http://blogs.trucktrend.com/6243458/ford/ambitious-achievable-interim-cafe-32-mp- g-by-2015/index.html
Well in the past, CAFE requirements didn't use the 1985-2007 numbers. That 27.5 average they've been making cars adhere to for eons now was the raw combined number. In essence, the number they used to publish back in 1978-84. The problem is that people whined about those numbers being unrealistic, so the EPA started using dumbed down numbers for the window stickers starting in 1985. And then they started dumbing them down again for 2007/2008. As far as I know, the CAFE requirements are based on the raw laboratory test numbers, and have not been dumbed down.
Back in 1985, for example, to get to 27.5 combined using the EPA published figures, in the GM ranks you'd have to move down to something like a Cavalier. The 2.0/automatic had a combined of 27 and the 2.0/4-speed had a combined of 30. But think about it...back then, there wasn't really that much in GM's ranks smaller or more fuel-efficient than a Cavalier. There was the Chevette, but they weren't selling a whole lot of those by 1985. The Spectrum/Sprint were considered imports, and counted separately. I'm not sure how the Nova was considered. It was built in California, but might not have had enough domestic content to be counted. FWIW the Nova had an EPA combined score of 28 with the automatic, 33 with the stick.
The Citation and Celebrity had a combined figure of 27 with the 2.5/automatic, which was the most popular choice. The only way to top 27.5 with either of those cars was to go with a 2.5/4-speed on the Citation (28 combined) or a Diesel 4.3 V-6 with the Celebrity (29 combined).
The Monte Carlo could only muster up 21 combined with the 4.3 or 19 with the 5.0 V-8. And the Impala/Caprice, which was still one of the top ten selling cars in 1985, would get 24 with the Diesel and overdrive automatic. The 4.3 V-6 scored 20 with overdrive, 19 with a 3-speed automatic, and the popular 5.0 V-8, offered only with the overdrive, scored 19 as well.
That year, the Olds Delta 88 and Cutlass Supreme, both of which would have similar economy to a Caprice and Monte, respectively, were also hot sellers. So were the Cutlass Ciera and Buick Century, which would be equivalent to the Celebrity. GM was definitely weighted towards larger, less efficient cars back then, and there's no way their combined EPA average broke 27.5 mpg. So that could not have been the number they were using. However, using the raw, unadjusted CAFE numbers, they probably broke 27.5 mpg easily, as suddenly even the Celebrity V-6 would come in at 25-26, with the 4-cyl coming in at 31. And even the V-6 Caprice, with the overdrive, would come in at 25. The V-8 came in at 23. Cavalier 4-cyl models were suddenly 32-35, although the V-6es were 25 for the auto, 23 for the stick.
I still don't understand, if (IF) the "RWD Impala" were of similar size and weight as the new "FWD Impala" how fuel economy would go down.
It would probably depend on the gearing, transmission, and even aspects such as the intake, how the car is cammed, etc. To use a Mopar example, the last year the Intrepid was offered 2004, the 2.7 V-6 was rated at 21/29 (my 2000 was rated at 20/29, so I dunno how they picked up another mpg on the city cycle?). There were two 3.5 V-6es offered. One was a 234 hp unit rated at 19/27, and the other was a 250 hp unit rated at 18/27.
In the RWD Charger, which is heavier, and has more powertrain loss due to the extra weight of the driveshaft and other components that RWD adds back in, the 2.7 is rated at 21/28. So it didn't give up much economy. However, they had to re-cam the thing to change its torque curve, and that made it lose a bit of horsepower. And in that heavier configuration, 0-60 comes up in around 11 seconds, versus around 9.5 for the Intrepid.
The 250 hp 3.5 in the Charger was rated at 19/27 for 2007, identical to what it put out in the Intrepid. However, in this case it was also mated to a 5-speed automatic transmission, which may have helped. I think the 0-60 time remained about the same, around 7.5-8 seconds for the Intrepid and the Charger. The 234 hp version was dropped.
So, a RWD Impala might be a bit thirstier than the FWD version. But they might also do a few tricks to it so that they're comparable.
I don't think it would be easy to have a RWD Impala be the same weight as an FWD version, simply because the drivetrain is more spread out. There's going to be more weight because of beefed up axles in the back, a separation of transmission and differential, and a driveshaft. I imagine they'd also have to beef up the rear structure of the car, now that you have power going back there. I guess some of that might be offset because they could lighten some of the components in the front suspension, which no longer has to transmit power to the ground.
Its about interior space efficiency to overall size. FWD uses transverse engines which allow shorter front of cowl distance. So a FWD car will have less mass up front. RWD cars need a larger tunnel for clearance than FWD (tunnel is for structure and exhaust) and therefore there is no large hump in the rear seat area. That long driveshaft and rear drivetrain also is heavier than the simple tranny up front with short shafts and built in diffy.
A few comments on the EPA fuel consumption numbers to remind everyone what they really are. The EPA started to include fuel consumption after the first oil crisis in the early 70's. The numbers were based on their emissions tests. The city number is a cold start, stop and go cycle and the "highway" number is a warm start with less stops and higher speeds. Both numbers are for local driving cycles. At some point, the EPA "adjusted" the numbers to make the city number closer to the average that consumers might expect. The basic problem is that each driver will get a different result depending on how they drive a particular car. The EPA can't predict this for anyone, except for someone who drives exactly like the test cycle.
The vehicle will be built on the Delta compact car architecture at GM’s plant in Lordstown, Ohio.
The car will use a new 1.4-liter global engine that GM developed and recently announced in Europe. The turbocharged four-cylinder engine will be used in several GM vehicles worldwide.
The Chevrolet compact will not be called the Cobalt, says one source familiar with the plans. GM will produce the current-generation Cobalt through June 2010 as a 2009 model. It was unclear from sources whether GM will continue to build the Cobalt after that.
Shared among five nameplates
The car’s engine will be capable of developing between 120 and 140 hp. Sources say mileage could easily exceed 40 mpg.
“It’s a pretty incredible engine; it’s direct-injected with great power,” the source says. “The small-displacement turbos make it possible to get great power so that GM might put it in the mid-sized products, too. It’s an extremely important engine and a very capable powertrain.”
The new engine will be shared among five nameplates: Chevrolet, Pontiac, Saturn, Opel and Daewoo, sources say. That means the Lordstown plant could build cars for export.
The engine continues the trend that GM started with such cars as the Pontiac Solstice GXP and Saturn Sky Red Line. Those cars use smaller engines and high-technology devices such as direct fuel injection and turbochargers to boost fuel economy and performance.
Lordstown plant retooling
GM is retooling its plant in Lordstown for a new vehicle, sources say. Lordstown union officials have heard that GM plans to add a shift.
GM now is building between 1,400 and 1,500 cars a day at Lordstown; adding a shift would increase that output to 2,100 cars a day. GM builds the Chevrolet Cobalt as well as the Pontiac G5 and its Canadian counterpart, the Pontiac Pursuit, at the Lordstown plant.
Meanwhile, GM is reconsidering bringing the Chevrolet minicar, the Beat, to the United States.
“The Beat for the U.S. is getting a pretty thorough examination now that you see what’s going on with fuel prices,” says a source close to GM’s product development. “It isn’t definitively on there as a go product, but there is a lot of inside chatter and it’s on the consideration list.”
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080602/FREE/516060181/1530/- FREE