Myths and Facts about Fuel Economy
Tom Stephens at the 2005 North American International Auto ShowBy Tom Stephens
Group Vice President, GM Powertrain
I’m going to jump into this blog from time to time as I see items that interest me.
Last week, someone posted: “In view of rising gas prices, when is GM going to get off the gas guzzler wagon and start building, promoting, and selling more fuel efficient vehicles?
Let’s explode that myth with some facts.
- GM leads the auto industry in providing the broadest array of
fuel-efficient cars, trucks, SUVs and vans — according to 2005 data from the
Environmental Protection Agency. GM makes 19 models that get 30 mpg or
better on the highway, more than any other automaker. Volkswagen and
DaimlerChrysler are next with 14 and 13 models, respectively. - Using 2005 EPA data, for trucks there are 69 unique model/powertrain combinations where the top six manufacturers compete. As a full line manufacturer, GM offers 66 of those combinations and is the fuel economy leader in 41 of them. The second place manufacturer has only nine fuel economy “wins.” On a percentage basis, GM wins 62 percent of these head-to-head comparisons (41 of 66) while the second place finisher wins 40 percent (6 of 15).
- Using 2005 EPA data, for cars there are 82 unique model/powertrain combinations where the top six manufacturers compete. GM offers 53 of those combinations and is the fuel economy leader in 28 of them. The second place manufacturer has only 18 fuel economy “wins.” On a percentage basis, GM wins 53 percent of these head-to-head comparisons (28 of 53) while the second place finisher wins 45 percent (9 of 20).
- Using 2005 EPA data across Ward’s Automotive segmentation, GM is the city fuel economy leader in 7 of 25 segments and the highway fuel economy leader in 8 of 25 segments.
What’s the bottom line? For a given segment of the market, it’s likely that GM sells the most fuel-efficient model available.
Here’s a shameless plug. Bob Lutz has been talking about brands, but none of these vehicles would move without engines and transmissions. While he’s been working on this “FastLane” blog, us engine people developed our own blog for the most popular engine ever made, the Smallblock Engine blog. This blog celebrates the 50th anniversary of the smallblock engine. We’ve made 90 million smallblock engines. The latest iteration produces 500 horsepower and 475 foot-pounds of torque and will propel the Corvette Z06 from zero-to-60 in well under four seconds.
GM is intent on satisfying the needs of buyers: small cars to heavy duty trucks, fuel-sipping vehicles for urban rush hours to performance vehicles for an adrenaline rush.
- Posted in Cars & Trucks
anon
In lawyer-like fashion, you parse out favorable car “categories” and not the actual environmental friendliness of your fleet.
You can’t spin GM into an green company.
On 9/11 oil consumption turned into a national security issue.
But the actions of GM — from opposing the increase of CAFE standards, to the actual mileage of its cars, to its heavy marketing of gas guzzlers, to the dearth of hybrid vehicles in its lineup — prove that GM doesn’t get it.
For the safety of our country and the health or our environment, I’m happy you’re losing market share.
Talk is cheap.
BillSaysThis
Anon is correct in pointing out the rhetoric of this post. Being better than the competition is good but not good enough in this situation. Beyond national security and environmental concerns, either of which is probably sufficient to improve fuel economy, your argument doesn’t meet the challenge of minimizing resource use simply to ensure as much of the limited supply remains for future needs.
When will GM show leadership to the industry and the buying public by addressing these concerns honestly and completely?
dean
Thank you Mr. Stephens. I appreciate the information.
Personal experience has shown that my 2000 Bonneville SSEi with power and luxury gives better fuel economy than my 1970 Opel Kadette, and is just under that of my 1974 Honda Civic. Both of which were small stripped out tin boxes that expired well under the age and miles of that Bonnneville. Amazing progress has been made over the years. It’s a shame some people don’t get it.
Keep up the good work.
The Anonymous Poster
Mr. Stephens,
I like small cars. My current set of wheels is a 2001 Honda Civic EX. Let’s compare my 4 year old ride to some current GM products:
2001 Honda Civic EX
HP - 127 (0-60 - about 8.8 sec)
FE - 31/38
2005 Chevrolet Aveo
HP - 103 (0-60 - about 10.5 sec)
FE - 26/34
2005 - Chevrolet Cobalt
HP - 145 (0-60 - about 8.2 sec)
FE - 24/32
(all figures from Edmunds.com)
The Aveo is smaller, lighter, and less powerful than my Civic, yet the Honda beats it in FE by 5 city/4 highway. The Cobalt is about the same size and slightly more powerful than the Civic, yet it has an FE deficit of 6 city/6 highway.
I’m looking for class-leading fuel economy (or something even close to it), but I’m not seeing it. Or are the above figures just a “myth”?
Mike
Thanks for posting.
I agree that some of your cars don’t have the best fuel economy, but some of them do pretty good. Our 2002 Buick Century seems to be amazing in fuel economy, even compared to our V4 car. Some engines are extremely advanced while others need improvement.
My suggestion is you need to improve your image, to make people think your cars are reliable and fuel efficient. You should especially get hybrids out. I know people that won’t touch a GM product because they think all of your cars are gas guzzlers and unreliable.
max banks
It’s incredible to me how brave some people can be when hiding behind the veil of anonymity. I admire what GM is doing here and think it is laudable that you are willing to accept comments from people who expect integrity and transparency from companies but obviously do not hold themselves to the same standards.
Josh S
The class leadership is frequently in things like midsized and luxury cars. “Save the planet” types thinks everyone should drive around in tiny tin cans for the sole purpose of saving as much fuel as possible, despite the safety and ride quality issues. GM’s low-end cars are safer in collisions and heavier than their Japanese counterparts as a result. Maybe Civic is faster off the line than Cobalt, but life isn’t the Fast & the Furious. Some of us don’t like riding around in tin cans with wheels. Comparing an Impala to a Camry is a bit more favorable.
Impala Sedan: Curb weight of 3400 lbs, 180hp/205 lb-ft engine, price of $23,000, and 21/32 mpg.
Toyota Camry XLE: 3200 lbs, 160hp/163 lb-ft engine, price of $22,000, 24/34 mpg,
Wow. You get a whopping 2 or 3 extra mpg, but you sacrifice 20 hp and 40 ft-lbs of torque. And that’s the highest-end Camry vs the lowest-end Impala. In fact, the Camry’s curb weight and hp/torque curves put it much closer to the cheaper and more fuel-efficient Cobalt than the Impala.
Or we could compare Camry XLE to the new Pontiac G6, which has a similar curb weight, only 2 mpg less, an extra 40 hp and 60 lb-ft of torque, costs about the same, and is a tad more luxurious.
But you’re right. The little tin cans on wheels that Honda offers are more efficient than the cars people actually like to drive.
Medicated Dad
Corporate BS Translation
You gotta love the most recent fastlane blog talking about fuel economy. Now scoot away and read the article, then come back here. (I’d cut -n- paste it, but does the phrase “chilling effects” mean anything to you?)
Okay. Ready for the translation:…
Okieboy
My 2001 Bonneville SSEI gets only about 12 - 13 mpg in the daily grind of around town cruising, but on the freeway it posts a solid 27-30 mpg. That’s increadible for a vehicle so large and powerful. It was my choice to have that drivetrain combination (I had previous experience with it in a ‘98 Buick Regal GS) and I don’t regret it.
I hope in the future some form of hybrid technology will allow the large GM sedans to deliver around-town economy with the best of them and still retain the superior power.
John
I fully agree with anon and billsaysthis, when will GM get the hint and start selling cars in North America that are more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly. I am mean pushing hydrogen technology is good but how many years away is it really?? We still don’t have the infrustructure to supply hydrogen at every gas station. We need more electric-hybrids and clean diesels now that will make an impact now and then carry us into the hydrogen economy. There are a whole bunch of great diesel Opel’s in Europe why not bring some of those engines here?? I’m sure there will be a big interest, look at what DiamlerChrysler is doing, a diesel option in their Jeep.
NSAP
Although Fuel Economy is a serious issue, just continue to build excellent, world-class powertrains that are problem free.
We are not going to run out of oil anytime soon.
NoGottaHaveIt
I must agree with Tom Stephens that GM is doing a great job with fuel economy, at least with large trucks. At 80MPH, my my 4×4 Suburban gets 18MPG; at 60MPH it gets 21MPG. This is outstanding for a vehicle that can haul enough stuff to replace 2-3 smaller cars on the road. However, GM needs to get a great 4, 6, and small 8 cylinder diesel program going, with a 5 or 6 speed automatic. For all the hoopla over China buying lots of cars, that spells “DOOMSDAY” for oil prices. Supply and Demand.
The Anonymous Poster
>>But you’re right. The little tin cans on wheels
>>that Honda offers are more efficient than the
>>cars people actually like to drive.
The Civic leads in North American sales in the compact class. It has the highest resale value in its class. It has 5-star crash ratings. And I (and many others) like driving them. Tin can? I think not.
What makes a car a tin can? As far as weight, a Cobalt weighs about 150 lbs more than a Civic. Is 150 lbs less than GM’s competitive product your cutoff for the derisive label? I could easily turn that around and say it’s not a tin can, the competition is simply overweight. Who’s right?
Another small car I like is the MINI Cooper. It’s a total blast to drive. It’s like a go-kart on steroids. It’s 3 feet shorter than a Cobalt. Is it a tin can? People like driving it though. Hmmm… this is confusing.
To end this, I like compact cars. This is the segment where I shop. I pointed out a deficiency in Mr. Stephen’s argument. A 6 MPG differential is not a small number.
Chris
This is good PR news for GM - so why isn’t this information marketed and advertised? I’ve always known the above facts, but the majority of consumers have an opposite mindset. Call me crazy, but this *might* be due to the face that every Honda/Toyota commercial I see (now) talks about what great fuel economy their respective cars get. Seems like they “get it” - advertise fuel economy in a time of high gas prices … maybe it’s GM’s marketing department that is missing the boat. I mean Nissan’s thirsty VQ sells and sells - their Shift_ campaign is very good.
Matt Cornell
Thanks for your post, Sir. I would like to purchase an American-made car, but I am concerned about the environmental impact of cars. (I seem to be in the minority in my SUV-crazy country.) In particular the Toyota Prius seems to be an excellent car, with great mileage and very low emissions. GM doesn’t have anything close, as near as I can tell. This is a good example of leadership, but from Toyota, not GM.
MavSS
Firstly, I am glad to see GM using these blogs to get immediate feedback from their current and future customers.
For those of you who do not believe GM are leading the world in alternative fuel technologies, refer to Drive Time 1/28 on http://gmtv.feedroom.com/iframeset.jsp?ord=767647 for the latest developments in the use of Hydrogen fuel.
I live in Australia where Holden is the local arm of GM and I’m a big fan of the local product, particularly the Gen III in the SS Commodore. It has reasonably good fuel economy for a V8 but above all, I enjoy the exhiliration I get from driving it.
However, I often think about what the cars will be like in 20-30 years time, particularly in terms of the power plant.
We’ve already seen that GM aren’t sitting on their behinds when it comes to researching alternative fuels (hydrogen & electricity) and as far as the current lineup of engines are concerned, technology such as Displacement on Demand is extending their long term viability and making the most of the resources we still have.
I just wish Holden would introduce some of this technology here in Australia a little quicker.
Scott
I hear the new PAX system from Michelin delivers 8% better rolling resistance than conventional tires of the same size. Are you considering adding PAX to your vehicles?
Craig
Right on Tom.
You can’t satisfy the greenies no matter what you do. As long as there are evil corporations that use fossil fuel, they will be carping about this or that. GM engines and transmissions are excellent products. That is why BMW has been using GM transmissions for years (yes, years people). GM has a bad image that needs lots of improving in the public eye. It’s time to state the facts and let the anonymous posters say what they will. GM does have some of the most economical cars, we just don’t go around preaching the tree hugging sermons….
Gosc
Facts:
1) GM’s perceived fuel economy sucks! People think GM makes gasguzzlers (it does, and Toyota does as well).
2) GM’s perceived quality sucks! People think GM doesn’t make reliable cars (sadly it’s not a myth - GM has to try harder). Quality is about culture. GM is going in the right direction with their’s quality but in my opinion too slow.
3) Does it pay to buy a hybrid? In my opinion, no, but it’s not important. What is important? Business! You have to offer people what they want! Now they want hybrids. People don’t sit down and calculate how much it costs to buy a car vs. how much they spend every month on gas. Toyota & Honda both successfully created a “green” image. Neither GM nor any other company is able in the long term dictate the market. Trying to leads to catastrophe.
Tom Guarriello
Mr. Stephens,
Welcome to the blogosphere. Like Waren Zevon once said, “it ain’t that pretty at all” out here, and corporate speak will be examined by a host of folks who want you to succeed, and a bunch more who want you to fail. Just keep making better engines and telling the truth about them.
And, what’s with the anonymous posts?
Timothy Gardner, Colorado Springs, CO
Our Saturn SL2 and L300 were very miserly on gas milage, especially when I wasn’t driving them (watch too much NASCAR). The polymer panels shaved hundreds of pounds off of the vehicle weight and it showed in milage and acceleration from a smaller engine that matched or beat most cars on the road.
Unfortunately, polymer doesn’t make much of a fashion statement. However, I do believe that GM should use their polymer expertise when they design their hybrid cars. It could increase milage by 10-15%.
Now to my favorite GRIPE about GM: 1. How come I can’t use my GM card for Saturn purchases (only special occaisions). 2. Why not allow unlimited GM Card earnings redemptions for slow selling GM models like the Aztek, Blazer, Rendevoux,Envoy XUV, Colorado, and ION. This would be a plus in many ways. First customers would be encouraged to use their GM cards more, even exclusively. GM could become the #1 credit card company in addition to the #1 mortgage company. Moreover, GM dealers could clear their lots of slow selling models, especially when trying to purge year-old models. Customers would enjoy getting a great deal and GM loyalty would rise significantly. Customers would be tempted to add another vehicle to their household whether it be a pickup truck, sports car conversion van or an econobox to save on fuel. Oh and by clearing out the lots of slow moving vehicles, GM could cut back on profit-draining, residual killing incentives. GM could also allow customers to use GM card earnings for servicing or parts/accessories, using a 2 for 1 formula for redemption as an example.
Please pass on my thanks for whoever fixed the GM.com website navigation flaw that I identified last week. That problem was there for months and I brought it up and it was fixed within a week. Someone is listening!
Stomaphagus
Josh. Honda has no trouble whatsoever selling its “tin cans” which, in Accord form, are quite large and solid.
And no one’s trying to take away your midsized car. Better a proper sedan than a badly packaged SUV!
Engine management does incredible things, but I’d still like to see the efficiency gains canted towards reduced consumption rather than increased power.
Regrettably, we don’t have a diesel option for our vehicles, which would preserve the torque you love, and give tremendous gains in economy.
Incidentally GM (if memory serves) has a good thing going with its combined starter/alternators, due in a few years, which should boost mpg by 3 or 4 points, with no drawbacks.
But I’m still waiting for one of the nice new common-rail turbodiesels. I’d run it on biodiesel and laugh at every gas station I drove by.
Wynn
A great combination of size, torque, and economy (for us trailer-pullers) was the GM Suburban/Tahoe/Yukon diesel. There are many of us out here who miss it, and eagerly await its return.
Casey
I think with the DOD they are heading in the right direction along with the 4, 5 and 6 speed automatics. On another note what happened to the manuals? I think they should offer more of those as Nissan does. The last manual transmission to be put on a FWD V6 was a 284 and the one before that a 282. You could squeak a little more fuel out with that I would assume.
The cars are all getting quick and not everyone wants an auto. Sorry, guess I’m a FWD kick cause a lot of the cars are FWD.
Alex Nunez
What I love about these “debates” on fuel economy is that the green side is so utterly intolerant of seemingly any motor that gets less than 25 MPG.
Here’s a newsflash: It’s America. People will buy what they are comfortable driving. The cost of gasoline isn’t some secret that jumps out from behind the couch only after you have taken delivery of your new car. If a person is comfortable with that expense for the particular car they chose, then so be it.
To get on GM’s case about not having the most fuel efficient lineup on earth is ridiculous. Car companies are entitled to make money for themselves. That means selling cars and trucks that may not satisfy the environmental set, in the short-term, at least. The companies, GM included, take a lot of that money and dump it into R&D. THAT’s where the next leaps forward are going to come from.
Look at this year’s GM Sequel concept car. That is a much more realistic and real-world workable vision of fuel-cell vehicle than any of its predecessors, and if it really is on track for a 2010 debut, then all the better.
At the end of the day, if the product is good, people are going to buy it, whether it’s a fuel-sipping hybrid, a big-displacement, gas-guzzling, torque/HP monster, or a zero-emissions FCV.
Ghost_In_The_Machine
More Flex Fuel,Clean Diesel and Hybrids
Bring ‘em on.
When the New Injectors come to market, Bring on The SIDI’s.
Love The Astra Hybrid
Kudo’s to Saab for The Upcoming Flex Fuel 9-5.
Wes Hagerty
First of all, I want it to be well known that no matter what is said here, I am a BIG GM fan!
The lastest published reports about GM (to include financial stability) are alarming! But, I do not know why the public view of GM is the way it is. We are talking about the Largest Corporation in the World! It is supposed to have the brightest minds, best products, and the ability to go Full Steam Ahead, no matter what! Sometimes I think it allows “trash talk” knowing it has an “Ace in the Hole” that it will play “At the Right Time”. Well, I am pretty sure of that!
I don’t understand all the emphasis on Power and Speed. Years ago, when the Japanese invasion began, it was humorous. But, as we see, that invasion has eroded Market Share. From the begining, every time a Toyota was bought, it was one less GM car that was bought. The Invaders did not bost power and speed, it was fuel economy. Those little “Tin Cans” began a revolution in the car buying experience in America. And it Sold, and the momentum continues in a Big Way! Some of those Brightest Minds are missing “Lessons Learned”. The Invaders did not miss any of their School Work(AND they even Learned from Prestion Tucker! Lexus(?) has headlamps that rotate with the steering wheels!).
Now then, you can design and build the Biggest and most Powerful and the Fastest, but if they are sitting on the Dealer’s lots… well, they just Sit! A lesson the Invaders took good notes on.
The “Tin Cans” were bought, in many cases, as a “Commuter Car”. Drive it to work for that long, time consuming commute, and perhaps to run errands. Then, take the Suburban out on the weekends for the long haul trips and vacations. Of course, the “Tin Cans” evolved into a more solid and more widely used Vehicle - and Market Share.
America still wants Fuel Economy. GM’s main line of products has never been concerned about Fuel Economy - Never. The Invaders’ main line of products IS Fuel Economy. And these perceptions continue.
Now then, “Change” is one thing that is constant. So, GM has got to change and realize those “Lessons Learned”. Even more so now, America wants the “Commuter Car”.
GM has the “Ace in the Hole” for the “Commuter Car”…….
It lies with the Sequel - Hydrogen Fuel(I would really like to see this thing show up at some of the NASCAR races this year and turn a few laps out there. Not for Speed and Brawn, but for show)
Creating the infrastructure is not that complex. Take into consideration that its main focus would be “Commuting” to work. It, like the original “Tin Cans”, would be of interest to those that drive a good distance to work. In the Metropalitian, Big City areas of the Country. And get into the “commuter Lanes”; maybe even tax incentives.
Re-fueling? In the begining, it would be done in “Home Delivery”. Just like the Old Days, with coal and ice delivery. Local Dealerships could be distribution points and provide re-fueling on a scheduled basis to the homes of Hydrogen Vehicle Owners. Then, of course, as popularity grew (like the “Tin Cans” did) and more and more Hydrogen Vehicles were on the road, this process would be transferred to the neighborhood Stations. Hydrogen is a hot idea, and it is Chic!
Hybrid Vehicles……
Come on now, Hybrid Technology has been around for eons. Every Train Locomotive you see out there is a Diesel/Electric Hybrid. So, why is GM so far behind the Invaders on this?
Now then, learn the Lessons, if not from your own mistakes, then take Lessons from the Invaders, who DID learn from YOUR Mistakes. Re-focus from the Biggest, Most Powerful, Fastest, to the “Commuter”, and the “Family” car that is used on the weekends for trips and Vacations.
America is, at least, a 2 car family, and in more and more cases Multiple Cars.
Division Lines are something of the past. When you see a Toyota or Honda on the road, the Name Plate emphasis IS NOT the car line. It is TOYOTA and HONDA.
I challenge you to do the same. Put that GM Badge on everything! The “lines” will follow - make a “GM chevrolet Corvette”, “GM pontiac G6″, etc. Make it known that “GM” IS everywhere and IS the Biggest and the BEST - WORLDWIDE!
Best regards.
Ming of GMI
The problem is more about perception.
Sure Pontiac’s base level Grand Prix gets 30mpg, and does it on regular fuel. But that fuel economy is coming from the “venerable” 3800 engine, not some modern marvel of hybrid engineering.
GM Powertrain’s problems are with image. Whether it is due to UAW contracts forcing GM to keep producing old engines like the 3800 ad infinitum, or unusual choices like sticking the yet to be released Torrent with a Chinese built, last generation 3400 after introducing the 3500 over a year ago….all of these things add up to a perception that GM just can’t move away from “old” technology and ancient engine designs.
I love the idea of the upcoming 3900, for instance - the first OHV V6 to be offered with variable valve timing - but we know it will get some bad press for being a “pushrod” design.
GM’s EV1 and Hydrogen plans didn’t and don’t take refueling into account, and the Hybrid Silverado and future Hybrid Malibu are too timid of an approach.
The key will be how truly effective the upcoming 2007 model year SUVs are with the fuel saving transmissions, and (hopefully) learned hybrid techniques from the Silverado Hybrid.
The public just won’t be wowed until you wow them with real, tangible results from recently engineered engine and transmission design.
BillSaysThis
For all of you who want to dismiss the concerns I’ve stated (and not anonymously, my user name is linked to my personal website) about the need for a huge change in oil consumption rather than just cars that are a little bit better than the competition, please read this NY Press article:
http://www.nypress.com/18/4/news&columns/AlexanderZaitchik.cfm
While the article’s main focus is on the short term political risk, specifically the increasing focus of terrorist activity in the Middle East on disrupting oil exports (a reality that is independent of your political views or mine), the author also describes the long term (by which I mean 10-20 years, not really that long) problem of Peak Oil.
What is Peak Oil? That’s the concept that we have, or are soon will, pull half the global oil reserves out of the ground. Dr. King Huppert, one of the first scientists to write about it way back in the 1950s, claimed we would reach this level in the 1970s and clearly he was overly pessimistic as significant additional sources were discovered in the 20 years after his initial publications but now that no major new oil fields have been discovered in more than a decade his idea is widely accepted on both the environmentalist left and in the industry. For a good example of the latter, I refer you to Texas oilman and Bush supporter Matthew Simmons who has given many speeches to try and bring this problem into the public debate (for instance: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/061203_simmons.html).
Can GM or the auto industry alone prevent the economic shock that will happen when declining oil supplies–for whatever reason–push prices up far above the recent $57/bbl? No. But building cars and trucks that use a different fuel source can make a huge difference in when the crisis happens and how big it impacts us.
GM has been showing the Hywire, a fuel cell-powered complete reimagining of the automobile, for several years now. In my opinion, Stephens and the other GM execs need to partner with their competitors, specialized manufacturers, academics and government to drive these new systems to commercial viability as quickly as possible.
rey
I tend to agree that the solution is not forced enviromentally consciousness (a moving target if there ever was one). Bio-diesels would be a better solution. Derived from farm crops, it would help US farmers and slow the stranglehold from the Sheiks while been available now, not 20 years from now (hydrogen, et al.).
motorman
I do not think a hybred will pull my race car trailer or my quad or snowmobile trailer like my 8.1 vortex.
If all the people who worry about other people’s gas milage would ride the bus, they would save the gasoline for people like me who have things to do. I notice all the big greens from Hollywood have 40,000 sq. ft. mansions that they heat a cool plus their own personal jets. If these people would cut back even to my livestyle, look how much energy we would save.
Veedubber
“GM makes 19 models that get 30 mpg or better on the highway, more than any other automaker. Volkswagen and DaimlerChrysler are next with 14 and 13 models, respectively.” Does anyone realise those 19 GM models come from about 19 brands? VW’s 14 models come from a maximum of 7 brands, but is most likely from only 4 brands (Volkswagen, Audi, Seat and Skoda). I doubt any cars made by Bentley, Lamborghini or Bugatti get 30mpg out on the highway.
My point? Most GM’s aren’t fuel efficient. Sure, Aveos and Vibes (equipped with re-badged Toyota engines) may be fuel efficient, the number of cars they have that are fuel efficient versus the total number of vehicles they produce is extremely low.
lifelongresearch
While I am very critical of GM, they need a break on the gas mileage issue. A Chevy Impala with the standard rental car engine gets better gas mileage than a similar Ford Taurus. The GM car has better acceleration but the execution of the car seems like it was done by a committee that never met at the same time or place. The car looks good but does not come together as a quality unit. In my humble opinion, GM just needs to get some minor details right that might cost the consumer a few hundred bucks on most models. I applaud GM for at least making an attempt.
Ben Hawkins
I would like to applaud GM for the quality and for the engineering that your automobiles posess. Disappointed in the removal of the f-body, as I own one. However you must go with the market. The market is trucks,suvs, and fuel economy.However performance is making its way back. My 99 f-body can get up to 30 mpg on the highway. I couldnt get but 8 mpg with my 78 f-body. The improvement is there period. People who want outrageous fuel economy need to understand the majority of people are tired of tin cans without any power. We do not want to be a society of people driving yugos. Americans want to enjoy their driving experience and GM understands that and is doing excellent at fullfilling Americas wants.If its 500 horsepower with 2mpg I’ll buy it over a 140 horse 35mpg anyday.
arnie
Get serious- 30 mpg- big deal. Most people want 45-60 mpg in a commuter car. Market segment?- how about comparing the cars sold
in Europe. Let’s compare the design leaders.
GM will continue to lose market share unless the company moves way forward; introduces a smart car for urban travel- a 2 seater- with air bags all around-Standard, that gets 60-70 mpg.
Gm still sells ancient vehicles- look at the Astro van! Compare it with the Odessey or Sienna. GM has a nice “normal size” Opel van sold in Europe-they also sell a sweet small pickup in Mexico.Toyota still has a big waitting list on the Prius,and now they are comming out with a HYBIRD HIGHLANDER.The Ford ESCAPE uses the Toyota system.GM needs to get radical; as it is common for people in Southern California to drive 100 miles to work. But they are not buying GM.
Hyundai has surpassed GM in quality, and has widespread acceptance in California. For 2006- the Sonata will have a EPA large car designation, get 30+ mpg; with auto, air, 6 airbags, and a 100k warranty; Standard- for under 20k. Not side airbags- optional like in your Malibu. Will you GM executives put your kids in a vehicle without side door and side curtain airbags? Look at the
Mercedes ML 350 suv, made in Alabama– 10 airbags.
Ralph
Bob I hope You read GMi forums from time to time if not read this discussion about GM DAT :
http://forums.gminsidenews.com/showthread.php?t=10852
http://forums.gminsidenews.com/showthread.php?t=10883
Doug
I will say this, my 2004 Oldsmobile Bravada gets great gas mileage for a 270HP truck based SUV. In fact, my new 2005 Honda Odyssey with VCM seems to be getting worse “real world” fuel economy.
Unfortunately, I bought my first foreign car because I didn’t like the new changes in the GM minivans (long nose, lacked modern engine, was rated lower in fuel economy and power).
That being said, I still say GM is underated. Although some designers should be put out to pasture (Aztec, new GM vans, Trailblazer, etc.). Their is still a lot of promise (Corvette, G6, Solstice, STS, etc.)
Iscream
The justification for buying a car with “2 or 3 fewer MPG” might work on an individual basis, but not as a responsible corporation.
Here’s why..
Say you buy a car that gets 25 MPG instead of the competitor with 27 because you like it better. Assuming you drive 15K a year, you’ll use an additional 45 gallons/year.
As a corporation, you sell but 100,000 cars that each get 2 MPG less. This fleet uses an additional 4.5 million gallons of gas. If these cars last for 5 years, this totals 22.5 million extra gallons of gas.
Using a 3 MPG spread between cars, the numbers go up… an extra 6.5 million per year or 32.5 million galls of gas over a 5 year time span.
Now do the math over a 4 year span between changes in the model discussed, and we’re talking between 90 - 130 million extra gallons of gas!
The does not serve GM’s (or any other companies) better interests for two reasons.
1. GM should never settle for being #2, (which could be a subject of a whole different Blog) and more selfishly…
2. Assuming there is a finite amount of gas in the world, using it more quickly will mean that they supply runs out sooner and you either have to radically change cars or go out of business.
Veedubb
This is response to Ben Hawkin’s post. If Americans really do enjoy their driving experience at 16mpg combined fuel economy, I wonder how Americans will feel with ever-rising gas prices (let’s face it, they’re not going back down) and the eventual run out of fossil fuels? Contrary to popular belief, fossil fuels aren’t an endless supply. At present consumption, the world will run out of most of its fossil fuel sources in approx. 50 years. Think about that next time you take out your Grand Prix’s and Impalas out for a drive to bring the kids to school at 16mpg. I’ll happily drive 700 miles on a single tank of diesel, at a leisurely 60mph on the highway.
Wes Hagerty
I am still a BIG GM FAN!
You, whoever “you” may be, can argue and state facts, wherever they come from, to justify any and all of your positions. I admire the “Big Guys” of GM for makeing themselves quasi public with these Blogs - still waiting on Rick Wagoner.
But, here is the Bottom Line:
GM is in BIG trouble!!! If they do not use this median to make a turn and CHANGE; realize that every time a Buyer buys a COMPETITOR’S vehicle, that is ONE LESS that they are selling, their Market Share is going to CONTINUE TO SHRINK and their expenses are going to continue to grow, and the RED ink is going to contiue to run!!
The Exec’s need to get rid of their “‘Yes’ Guys” and take notes here; we will ALWAYS tell them the TRUTH, but NEVER just what they WANT TO HEAR.
I know they have that “Ace in the Hole”, I just wish they would play it and get on with the Gentlemen’s fight to regain the Lead…. AGAIN please!!! I am still a BIG GM Fan!!
Best regards.
Daniel Scopes
“GM Powertrain’s problems are with image. Whether it is due to UAW contracts forcing GM to keep producing old engines like the 3800 ad infinitum, or unusual choices like sticking the yet to be released Torrent with a Chinese built, last generation 3400 after introducing the 3500 over a year ago….all of these things add up to a perception that GM just can’t move away from “old” technology and ancient engine designs.”
Exactly. Just look at the Pontiac G6 for a perfect example. Here is how Edmunds’ describes the engine’s refinement:
“The pushrod 3.5-liter V6 is as close to cutting-edge technology as a Commodore 64… Don’t expect to hear a refined hum of a Camry’s motor when you get on the gas. The G6 sounds more like a restroom exhaust fan about to give up the ghost.”
Do you really expect anyone to trade in a Camry or Accord for this?
tim
GM, as a major manufacturer, has a responsibility to be environmentally aware. Toyota has shown that a corporation can produce safe, economical and fuel efficient quality vehicles while turning a profit. GM’s insistence on producing a hydrogen or electric vehicle, while ignoring the potential market for hybrids, shows how inept the corporation is at making smart business decisions.
How long has it taken them to realize that Saturn would be better off with rebranded Opel products… something that has been floated around in the press for several years now?
The problem is more than perception. The problem is that the corporate culture resists change and is completely stagnant. GM needs to become more efficient… not only with it’s vehicles, but with it’s business decisions.
NevOn
GM executive blog and the role of PR
General Motors’ Vice Chairman, Bob Lutz, is not the only one blogging The FastLane Blog, GM’s executive blog. Last Friday, Tom Stephens, Group Vice President, GM Powertrain, joined Lutz as another senior GM executive blogger. This fits with the intent
Anonymous Two
Who will be the first kid on the block with an E85 Hybrid?
Why an E85 Hybrid? Why Not?
E85 vehicles primarily use a renewable fuel and produce lower emissions than their gas only counterparts. Although they would reduce our countries dependency on foreign oil, they get lower mileage that results in higher driving cost for the consumer.
Hybrids get higher mileage and produced lower emissions. Yet, combined with their electric engine, they still have a gas only engine.
Combining the two would result in a technological ‘double dip’ for low emissions while increasing the mileage for E85.
If these two technologies were combined in a mid size SUV, there’s a good chance that the resulting emissions would be less than or equal to some of the hybrid import cars.
Now that GM and Chrysler are in joint development of a hybrid transmission, why not go for it all in an E85 Hybrid?
By the way, do you think Toyota and Honda are monitoring this blog?
V-Spice
I do not agree with the manipulative stats that are being put out about fuel economy. I was able to attend the NAIAS this year and listened to the GM presentation on concepts. The stat that really got on my nerves was that GM sells more car with 30mpg or higher than any other company. While this maybe true it tricks the customer into thinking GM cars have good fuel economy. GM sells a lot more cars than any other company, this is how they can sell more cars with 30mpg or greater. There is no way the average fuel economy of GM’s cars is better than that of Honda, Toyota, or other fuel efficient companies. You can say the same thing about the stats listed in this article. GM sells more cars, allowing them to compete in more of those combinations, some of which Honda and Toyota may not even have a car. How about instead of trying to trick the customer into buying your product that is of less quality, you build a better product and sell it for what it truly is.
Dan Bokros
Does anyone make better engine than this?
LS2
6.0-liter, V8, 400-horsepower engine that achieves 18-mpg in the city and 28-mpg on the highway.
How is that for a antique pushrod? I will take this any day of the week. There is not a Japanese production engine that comes even comes close.
Martin
What percentage of GMs total global production has a fuel economy 30mpg or better?
Andrew
Mark Twain popularized in the U.S. Benjamin Disraeli’s statement, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.” Bottom line: you can make stats say almost anything you want.
When GM boasts of the models that they sell, do they include the Cobalt Base, Cobalt LS and Cobalt LT as three models or as one? If you throw in two and four door derivative, this could be as many as 6 different models that GM offers. In my mind this should be one model.
Two questions GM and the others should answer are…
What PERCENTAGE of cars sold has over 30MPG?
What PERCENTAGE of models offered has over 30MPG?
John
Hey “Dan Bokros”
BMW M5 V10
507 h.p. and 383 lb of torque
23 mpg highway, i think i will sacrifice the extra 5 mpg that the LS2 gives for performance like this.
Don’t forget about those Germans, they are just as ahead as the Japanese.
Veedubb
A 6.0L V8 with only 400 horsepower? I’m not much of a Japanese car fan, but I do know liter for liter, most German-made V8’s put out way more horsepower per liter than the ‘vette engine.
Some simple numbers come to mind: the Audi 4.2L V8 that puts out 335 HP (that’s only 65 less than a ‘vette engine and 1.8 liters smaller). Hmm. which other ones? The BMW 4.4 liter V8 with an output of 325 HP. Oh, and to Dan Brokos, next time you think of putting GM engine figures in your posts, try this one on for size: the new 3.9L V6 in the G6 only puts out 240 HP. Something a VW V6 can do with a 3.2L. How’s that for antique pushrod technology?
Veedubb
The only GM models that get 30 mpg or more on the highway are the re-badged Daewoo engine (Aveo and other such cars), the Vibe (re-badged Toyota engines) and the Ecotec family of engines. A select few V6’s get 30 mpg on the highway. But compare how many Vibes GM sells to the number of Escalades and Hummers and other such urban eyesores they sell every year.
I also give my kudos to GM on equipping the new SAAB with a pushrod V6 engine. Before you know it, GM will force FIAT to tell Ferrari to use Corvette engines in the next Maranello.
The Intuitive Life
GM VP Tom Stephens on Business Blogging
Tom Stephens, Group VP for GM’s Powertrain division, isn’t writing about business blogging, per se, he’s just posting a note about fuel economy on GM’s brand new Fastlane weblog from their executive team, but since it’s a controversial topic, it’s dar…
Russ
As you are from the powertrain division, I have to commend you on the engines you have manufactured. Refined hum of a Camry…I think not. This is the whirring of a sewing machine and the journalism of a sheep, not the sound of an auto engine. There is an engine in my ION Red Line, I can tell when I push on the right pedal.
Hondas and Toyotas do not have the durability, the ease of repair and the low cost of maintenance that MOST GM’s have. I have owned both and these people can babble “statistics” all they want, they are not fact. That said, the GM cars themselves could be better.
If pushrods do the job as well or better and have better durability, then do that. This is not a fashion show. “Everybody else has VVT, you need that too” - bull. I had a VTEC Honda and the dealer killed it dead when American Honda and the dealer refused to honor their work or their warranty. I came real close to setting it on fire in their lot just to watch it burn. Only good thing about the fanatics is the resale value on a useless broken Honda - surprisingly good. I guess that’s where they are leading the class.
We now have an Impala that gets 10 mpg less on the highway but at least it will still be running when it gets off warranty.
Here’s my short list. I’ve had several GM vans go >200K, still running when parted ways, several Oldsmobiles go >200K, same, 1 Oldsmobile went >300,000, ex-wife killed that one. I got rid of a Mitsubishi because it needed $2000 in normal maintenance at just 50,000 miles, Toyota that was undriveable at just over 100k, Dealer maintained and documented Honda that died at 70K, Toyota Camry burning oil fiercely at a little >100k.
The only cars on this list that were neglected or abused were the GM cars. I drove them hard and only fixed things that broke. All the others were dealer maintained at great expense and driven mildly by women. I drove the Mitsubishi for 6 months, found out how much brakes and exhaust cost, and traded it on an S-10. They were not cost effective. But a couple of the tin cans got good mileage. Whoopee.
Ghost_In_The_Machine
I’ll give another kudos for the LVE 3.5 liter flex fuel V6.
BuffaloPundit
If GM can bring the Astra diesel hybrid to Detroit, it can build diesels and diesel hybrids in the USA.
Who wouldn’t want a 60 MPG Opel Astra (badged as a Saturn)?
Dan Bokros
Hey veedubb, According to yahoo.com/newcars, the Audi 4.2L V8 (in the 2005 Audi S4) puts out 340 HP and gets 15/21 mpg. Decent numbers, but nowhere near the L2’s 400 HP 18/28 MPG. Not only does the L2 put out 15 percent more HP, it does it while getting 22 percent better gas mileage. The L2 is better on both counts. Please explain to me again why the Audi is a better engine.
Greg Wuellner
Andrew: Have you forgotten how capitalism works? Customers choose what they want to buy from among what is offered from various manufacturers. GM’s point is they offer 19 vehicles that get more than 30 mpg on the highway. They can’t force customers to choose those models. I assume GM is talking only about models in the U.S. and not what they offer in Europe, Asia, South America, etc.
Veedubb: What’s your point? Are you taking a slap at GM’s engineering? At the Detroit Auto Show, GM announced an engine that gets 100 hp/liter of displacement. I don’t think it’s a matter of engineering capability, but what is the right engine at the right cost. Pushrod engines are inexpensive and reliable — just what most people want.
Andrew
Greg
I know how capitalism works, and based on the fact that GM has gone from the point in the ’60s where they would stop making cars to avoid anti-trust lawsuits (their market share would be too high) to the sub 30 percent point where they are today, GM understands this, too.
I am not asking that anyone to be forced to buy any car, and not suggesting that GM should be forced to make any car, although I do believe that CAFE standards should remain.
If GM chooses to settle for 2 or 3 mpg less than their Honda or Toyota (or DCX or Ford) competitors, it is their choice…it is also our choice whether to buy their cars. That is capitalism, right?
My comments have to do with keeping GM straight with their numbers…you say in your post that (you) “assume GM is talking only about models in the U.S. and not what they offer in Europe, Asia, South America, etc.”
I was just confirming this. As I said, statistics can be manipulated. GM offers more models than anyone else, because they make more overall cars, and offer more overall model lines then anyone else.
The Anonymous Poster
Russ,
I had a Chevy Malibu whose transmission self destructed at less than 80,000 miles. It also ate thermostats like they were chocolate chip cookies. And I don’t know why they spent money putting gaskets in the engine, because they never did any good anyway. Either oil or radiator coolant was leaking out of it depending upon what day of the week it was.
My father had a Cadillac DeVille. Every power gadget died at least once. The paint started flaking less than two years after he bought it. The engined dieseled often and no one could cure it. The GM-engined Jeep Comanche pickup that he bought next had similar powertrain afflictions.
I took my last Honda (an Accord LXi) to 180,000 miles before I decided to buy another. That car was sold by the dealer and it’s still on the road 4 years later because I see it every once in a while. I have personally seen Hondas with 300,000 miles+ and still going strong.
So who’s personal anecdotes are we going to believe?
cmattson
As for the quote:
[quote]
“If GM chooses to settle for 2 or 3 mpg less than their Honda or Toyota (or DCX or Ford) competitors, it is their choice…”
[endquote]
What vehicles are you looking at? Take the Chevy Malibu: the 200 hp 3.5l gets 23/32 mpg. A 3.0l Camry puts out 210 hp (5%) more and gets marketably less gas mileage: 20/28 — and the Camry has 5 forward gears to the Chevy’s 4.
How about one of Chevy’s “antique” pushrods: A Chev 4.8l Silverado has 285 hp and gets 16/21 mpg. A “high tech,” just-freshened for 2005 Toyota Tundra 4.7l delivers 282 hp and gets only 15/19 mpg. The 4.8l debuted in 2000; so GM’s 5-year old engine is better than one of Toyota’s latest and greatest. Geez, what happens next year when it gets variable displacement? In your mind, will it still be “2 or 3 mpg less than Toyota” then, too?
Listen, both manufacturers have a variety of powertrains that fall all over the spectrum of gas mileage, performance, and technology featuresets. Painting all GM engines with the broad brush of “low tech” or “2 or 3 mpg” worse is just wholely inaccurate. This is a public perception that GM must address.
That being said, I’m not a complete GM apologist either; there is plenty of work that GM still must do if it wants to be industry-average or industry-leading. Best wishes to everyone.
gtjeff
Why isnt GM using its space frame technology with plastic panels on trucks and more SUVs? This would reduce vehicle weight and increase fuel economy with the added bonus of higher crash safety ratings.
fiziklytired
Who remembers the stovebolt six? Back before the small block, GM’s staple engine was an inline six. How about the 3/4 block? It’s better known as the 4.3L V6, which we all know is nothing but a 350 with two cylinders cut off. Six bangers have always been used as economy engines in full-size trucks. If GM is concerned with fuel economy in its 1/2 ton trucks, why isn’t the 4.2L inline six offered as the base level engine? 275hp 275lb-ft out of 4.2 liters. Not bad.
But what do I care about gas mileage? I’m hoping to find enough spare change under the sofa cushions to buy a ZZ572 to put in my K5. As it is, I plan to burn a few dinosaurs in my 350. It’s a gas-guzzling, oil-slurping Detroit dinosaur.
Veedubb
Dan Bokros: The Audi S4, rated at 340HP, gets 15% less horsepower than the LS2 engine. I agree. I can’t deny that. But you keep forgetting the fact it’s also 1.8 liters smaller. And also, being that the S4 is a full-time all wheel drive sedan, and not a rear-wheel drive 2 door coupe, and that the S4 also weighs around 2800 pounds, it’s not really surprising that it gets less gas mileage. I’d love to see how “good” the figures would be on an all-wheel drive 2800 pound Corvette with a 6L V8.\
Greg: I’m not saying GM’s engineers are idiots. I applaud them for releasing the concept to a 100 hp per liter engine. However, will they ever release it? GM’s been releasing concepts of hybrid vehicles for years and we’ve yet to see any in production.
And also, “inexpensive and reliable” doesn’t mean you have to buy a car with engine technlogy fromn the 1950’s. I can’t see myself buying a Camry for 32 grand while being equipped with a Pushrod engine (Think Grand Prix, Century etc.) GM has the resources and the money to get some modern engines. Tried and true is a good concept, but if everyone did that VW would still be using air-cooled engines.
MemoBoy
I remember…a wonder called the “Impact”
At the beginning of the ’90s, GM unveiled with a lot of hoopla a green electric car, and said “it’s going to come before 2000.” Where is my Impact today? All the electric cars made by GM are in a nice lot, waiting for the crusher because they are not in GM’s plans.
From that experience, I can safely predict the same fate for the hydrogen car: a nice way to get fat subsidies and look green while you do nothing.
At least Honda and Toyota made their green cars a reality I can buy. Used. Now. That is the extent of their lead over you, GM. They never make excuses for being “almost as good,” they get cracking and work to be the best.
As for the paragraph about the Corvette, what is the connection with fuel economy? It does better than 7 liters per 100 km?? Ridiculous spin.
Russ
I agree that Honda has made huge leaps in efficiency. The R&D they have spent far exceeds reason on this earth as far as I know. For all intents an exemplary company. The standards Mr. Honda held to his company have yet to be rivaled. I have a specific problem with them.
But we are talking about an American company. Turning one of those things around has to be akin to parallel parking the Queen Mary (the ship-geez).
One answer I’d like answered is “What happens to the batteries”? Seriously, I have not heard a satisfactory answer to the cost of replacing the batteries in these hybrid cars — the cost of ownership, the real cost of manufacturing and distributing. How much of it is “cost shifting”? If you don’t know what that is, stop reading now.
I think GM couldn’t answer that question and decided to lease and pull the EV1s. I have not seen anyone “answer” that question. When they found out how much it would cost to maintain, most owners would freak, the ones that don’t understand all the implications.
Thanks for listening, I am impressed with this forum. - Russ.
Greg Wuellner
Veedubb: The 100 hp/liter engine is not a concept engine. It’s going into the STSv this fall. With significantly fewer parts, OHV engines are certainly less costly to build but — as you imply — not necessarily less reliable.
Steven
diesel.
diseel hybrid.
turbos.
ellis
whats all this talk about antique pushrod motors?
anyone who knows engine history knows that the overhead valve pushrod engine is the newest engine design out there short of the rotary, and that was conceived at the turn of the century!!
also stop with the stupid liter per horse power argument. it means NOTHING!! if you put the biggest bmw, toyota, audi, v8 or even v6 beside any ls series v8 you would find that they have ridiculously larger exteriour dimensions and still make less power, are harder to maintain, and cost considerably more to manufacture! all because of the supposedly high tech and efficient design of over head cams. which i may remind everyone that without such they would make even less horsepower. i’ve been to japan and europe, and in both places never heard any of the native go fast heads say, “wow that american v8 is so antiquated”, usually it’s “wow so much power and torque and so easy to work on”. the only reason the foreign engines are so small and efficient is because they HAVE to be. in japan gas is $5 a liter!! FIVE DOLLARS!! not to mention there’s a yearly tax paid on cars every year and anything over 2.5l cost $240 or more. in america gas is cheap and highways are straight and wide. we go through cars like underwear and hate to pay good money for anything. even if it’s worth it. so if GM is in a rut with supposedly mediocre, big, inefficient cars it’s our own fault for rewarding GM’s hubris with continuing to purchase these cars and shunning anything american car makers make that isn’t what we “think” we want from them. chevy sells the aveo and all you hear is “that’s not a real chevy what are they doing”, while we walk right over to honda or toyota and buy a slightly more refined version of the same thing for sometimes thousands more. so the american companies figure why bother and continue to make the same ole same ole.
Andrew Charles
I agree Stephens’ post is confusing. It’s easier to look at it by segment.
Subcompacts:
Toyota Echo 1.5 man: 33/42
Kia Rio 1.6 man: 25/31
Hyundai Accent 1.5 man: 28/36, 1.6 man: 29/33
Chevy Aveo 1.6 man: 27/35
Scion xA 1.5 man: 32/37
Aveo mileage is pretty good, but it needs a smaller engine to be best-in-class.
Compacts:
Honda Civic 2.0 Man: 26/31, 1.7 man: 32/38
Ford Focus 2.0 Man: 26/35
Dodge Neon 2.0 Man: 29/36
Mazda3 2.0 Man: 28/35
Toyota Corolla 1.8 Man: 32/41
Chevrolet Cobalt 2.2 man: 25/34
Cobalt’s 2.2 L is better than the Civic’s 2.0 L, but needs a smaller engine to be really competitive (European 1.6 or 1.8 L TwinPort).
Will look at further segments (where GM has relatively better economy) later.
Andrew Charles
Compact Coupes
Hyundai Tiburon 2.0 man: 24/30, 2.7 man: 19/26
Scion tC 2.4 auto: 23/30
Chevrolet Cobalt 2.2 man: 25/34, 2.0 SC man 23/29
Mitsubishi Eclipse 2.4 man: 23/31, 3.0 man 20/29
Acura RSX 2.4 man: 27/34, Type S: 23/31
Only Chevrolet comes close to the Acura in economy for both base and performance models, while it’s Toyota that offers the worst economy.
D/E-segment Midsize sedans:
Chevrolet Malibu 2.2 auto: 24/35, 3.5 auto: 22/32
Pontiac G6 3.5 auto: 22/32
Honda Accord 2.4 auto: 24/34, 3.0 auto: 21/30
Nissan Altima 2.4 auto: 24/31, 3.5 auto: 20/30
Toyota Camry 2.4 auto: 24/34, 3.3 auto: 21/29
Chevrolet and Pontiac 4-cyl and V6 models both offer better fuel economy than any other comparable midsize sedan.
Premium Midsize sedans
Lexus ES330 3.3 auto: 21/29
Nissan Maxima 3.5 auto: 20/28
Buick LaCrosse 3.8 auto: 20/29, 3.6 auto: 19/27
Pontiac Grand Prix 3.8 auto: 20/30, 3.8S auto: 19/28
Grand Prix and LaCross offer better economy than Maxima, and equal or better hwy economy than ES330.
Large sedans:
Toyota Avalon 3.5 auto: 22/31
Chevrolet Impala 3.4 auto: 21/32
Ford Five Hundred 3.0 auto: 21/29
Toyota’s brand new Avalon finally matches Chevrolet’s ancient pushrod for economy, but next year Chevy adds a new 3.5 L v6 with VVT.
Compact Pickups
Chevrolet Colorado 2.8 man: 21/27, 3.5 man: 19/25
Toyota Tacoma 2.7 man: 21/26, 4.0 man: 16/21
It seems Toyota builds the “Gas Guzzler”, not Chevrolet.
Fullsize pickups (2wd):
Nissan Titan 5.6 auto: 14/19
Toyota Tundra 4.0 man: 16/20, 4.7 auto: 16/18
Dodge Ram 3.7 man: 16/21, 4.7 auto: 14/19
GMC Sierra 4.3 man: 16/22, 4.8 auto: 16/21, 5.3 auto: 16/20, 5.3 hybrid 18/21
While Tundra is less economical than the GMC/Chevy, Nissan and Dodge V8s are the real gas-guzzlers.
Minivans:
Chevrolet Venture 3.4 auto: 19/26
Nissan Quest 3.5 auto: 19/26
Toyota Sienna 3.3: 19/26
Dodge Caravan 3.3: 19/26
Honda Odyssey 3.5: 19/25, 3.5 VCM 20/28
VCM in more expensive Odysseys puts Honda ahead, but Chevrolet is just as good as the rest.
Midsize Crossovers (awd):
Chevrolet Equinox 3.4 auto: 19/25
Buick Rendezvous 3.6 auto: 18/25
Nissan Murano 3.5 auto: 20/24
Toyota Highlander 3.3 auto: 18/24
Honda Pilot 3.5 auto: 17/22
Chevrolet and Buick offer the best hwy fuel economy, and are only beaten inthe city by the Murano. Honda’s Pilot really needs VCM to be competitive.
Midsize SUVs (awd)
Nissan Pathfinder 4.0 auto: 15/21
Buick Rainier 4.2 auto: 15/20, 5.3 auto: 15/19
Toyota 4Runner 4.0 auto: 17/21
Lexus GX470 4.7 auto: 13/17
Toyota’s 4.0 L V6 is the clear leader, but the 4.7 L V8 is again a gas guzzler, despite producing less power than the Nissan and GM 6s.
Large SUVs (2wd)
Toyota Sequoia 4.7 auto: 15/18
Nissan Armada 5.6 auto: 13/19
Chevrolet Tahoe 4.8 auto: 16/20, 5.3 auto: 15/20
Toyota’s 4.7 L offers better economy in thew Sequoia, but still can’t match either V8 in the Tahoe/Yukon for either economy or power, perhaps one reason sales are steadily falling.
These are EPA figures (or Toyota’s estimates for the Avalon). This is what Stephens means by “For a given segment of the market, it’s likely that GM sells the most fuel-efficient model available.”
Re-evaluate your pre-conceptions - Toyota is not the fuel-economy leader they pretend to be.
noel park
When the Impala SS showed up at the 1992 Palm Springs vintage races, I told Jim Perkins that, if he built it, we would buy one. He did, and we still have our ‘95. We just bought a C3500 to tow our corvette vintage race cars (a 58 and a 55). We also own a C1500 and an S10, which we use every day in our business. I think that we qualify as part of the faithful.
Having said all that, you need a real hybrid Prius fighter. They are going to sell every one they
can make this year, over 100,000, and they are making us look like technical chumps. As a previous poster correctly said, the “hybrid” Silverado and soon to come Malibu are too timid (a very generous characterization).
Build a real hybrid and we’ll buy one of those too.
Jay Miller
Whether or not GMs claims regarding fuel economy are true, the undeniable truth remains that it’s far easier to retain customers than it is to win them back.
The more I see of this blog, the more convinced I have become that it’s merely a marketing exercise and not a valid attempt to reconnect with consumers.
Where’s the beef? Rather than simply citing statistics, show us the cut-away views of your engines. Show us the features that make them more reliable and fuel efficient. Show us how you are building your cars lighter, while not compromising safety or reliability. Proof, not spin!
You can cry about misperceptions regarding quality or fuel economy all you like. But as the song goes, “You just haven’t earned it yet baby!”.
USA
Mr. Lutz:
I hope you’ll get a chance to read this question.
GM has been steadily losing market share, yet you just introduced new minivans which seem mediocre, at best. This is not just my opinion, but also that of publications varied as the Detroit News and Consumer Reports.
Decisions that produce such mediocre vehicles in an environment of intense competition could only result in GM losing more market share, and the potential loss of thousands of American jobs at GM and its suppliers.
So with its vast talent and resource pool, where is the accountability at GM for decisions that deliver vehicles that are mediocre, and NOT the best in class?
AliasX1
From John:
” ‘BMW M5 V10
507 h.p. and 383 lb of torque
23 mpg highway, i think i will sacrifice the extra 5 mpg that the LS2 gives for performance like this.”
Wasn’t aware the new M5 has an EPA rating yet. Do you have a source for this data?
FWIW. Auto Motor und Sport in Germany tested the new M5 and found it consumed 19.7 liters per 100 km on average. That’s worse than the Viper SRT-10 they tested. In its recent head-to-head test against the 997 and Jaguar XKR, the C6 returned 14.1 L/100 km, only slightly worse than the Porsche 997 in the same test (13.9) and better than the Jag (16.9; saddled with too much weight and an auto tranny among this trio), both of which were tested under identical conditions over the same roads with the same drivers. The Corvette’s consumption is on a par with the BMW 545i (14.9 L/100 km), not the M5.
Mike Griffin
I think you should make a (turbo) 3.0L VVT I5 or I6 diesel ECOTEC or Vortec with a 6-speed manual or auto and make it an option on all of your smaller cars and trucks. With the added HP and TQ as well as the efficiency of a deisel, it could really sway a lot of import buyers over to the General. If you want to be really efficient with it, make a hybrid version.
Fizikly Tired
Hybrid Deisel? No. A hybrid powertrain is a costly option, as is a deisel engine. A turbo-charged (might as well make it intercoolled, propane and alcohol-injected) deisel hybrid would be the start of a very expensive powertrain. I am quite certain the “General” isn’t going absorb that cost increase and will pass it on to the consumer. The owner of a deisel hybrid would have to own it and drive it a very long time to make up the addition expense of the powertrain in fuel savings. Might as well order the base level small displacement gas motor and use the thousands of dollars saved on the powertrain to offset fuel costs over the vehicle’s life span.
Roland Tanglao's Weblog
Today’s Links
as simple as possible, but no simpler: Mapping Google cool ‘behind the curtain’ look - "By now, many of you will have gone and tried out the new Google Maps application. By and large, you have to admit that…
Russ
I have not heard a good answer as to the production and maintenance costs of the battery and propulsion systems for these type of hybrid cars. What about disposal or recycling costs?
Are the purchasers of these cars covering the costs or are they being absorbed elsewhere as “marketing”? What’s the resale value on a limping hybrid?
I find it hard to believe the car will make it past a certain point without major investment in this area. One bad battery in a typical vehicle does not work out well.
Nobody ever came out and said “these are the costs.” I’m not sure they know. I believe that’s why the EV-1 or Impact was called back. There would not have been good press. Whatever happens with the others will probably go unnoticed by most.
I’d be interested in knowing at what mileage and what cost replacing the batteries or electric drivetrain of these vehicles takes place.
Ghost_In_The_Machine
Hopefully 2-stage turbocharging is the solution for nox reduction America needs. If it works, the grail is there — downsized high performance engines with great fuel economy.
Ideally, a spray-guided direct injection, 2-stage turbo version of the Ecotec 2.4 liter gasoline. And a 2-stage turbo version of the multi jet 2.4 liter diesel. Throw in an 18-valve 3.5 liter LZE, with displacement on demand. Then we are talking about where volume powertrains should be going.
John
Hey AliasX1
I do have a source — I got the info from Car and Driver Magazine.
Here is the link, http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=19&article_id=8782&page_number=2
In there you will see the posting for extra-urban cycle which means highway driving but in European terms. Which does put the M5 in par with the Corvette, plus just to let you kno,w the M5 V10 is only a 5L compared to the 6L Vette engine.
lmsport
You guys kill me. The idea that oil is a non-renewable resource is no longer accepted as fact by anyone other than the mideast oil conspiracy. See
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf124/sf124p10.htm
Mark Walsh
Regarding fuel economy (or in GM’s case, lack thereof), Tom Stephens writes, “Let’s explode that myth with some facts,” then presents an amusing view of the data, and then drifts off into some worship over the half-century old small-block V8. The sad truth is that GM has not done much more than give lip service to fuel economy concerns and fights “tooth and nail” any reasonable improvements to the CAFE standards; instead, opting to promote these huge barns on wheels that seem to be popping up everywhere.
When I bought my 1999 Chevy S-10, it was the most efficient truck money could buy; sadly, GM has neutered its small truck line in favor of these huge cash cows that are solely designed to appeal to the reptilian brain. Don’t get me wrong, I would love to buy American, but I just can’t as long as the choices provided are so dismally poor. I once had an early ’80s Japanese truck whose gas mileage was in the mid-30s. Surely GM could at least come close with 2005 technology.
Mr. Lutz, if you are reading, don’t waste your time on those who will unconditionally buy from GM, please listen to those who are fence sitters and those who are mildly loyal to other brands. Only then can GM rise above its present mediocrity.
Veedubb
OK, let’s amuse the fact that oil is renewable — it still costs an arm and a leg to buy. And unless they do figure out for sure that it is in fact renewable, the price will not go back down. I hope that more people start using bio-diesel when possible. I have been using a half and half mixture of diesel and bio-diesel for some time now and I love it.
AliasX1
John:
That C&D source is quoting only mfr’s estimate. That’s not the same as using EPA numbers (EPA tests all cars under identical laboratory conditions; even if they might not reflect 100% real-world figures, at least no car can claim to have an advantage over any other; all are on equal footing). Fact of the matter is, when AMS tested the M5, it fell far short of BMW’s claims, and puts it in a category of vehicles with much higher consumption than the Corvette (think 550 Maranello or Murcielago).
On the other hand, here are real-world driving tests indicating the Corvette’s V8 is not far off the consumption of Porsche’s flat-six:
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/d/74907
http://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/roadtests/pdf/2002_03_mixing_matching.pdf
In R&T’s C6 vs. 997 comparison, the Corvette actually consumed slightly less fuel:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/0412_comparo_data.pdf
Yes, I know the BMW’s is a 5-liter V10. It’s also got the latest technology (not “antiquated” pushrods, but DOHC, Double VANOS, etc.) and a 7-speed gearbox. Yet it still consumes more than the GM’s dinosaur V8, which has an extra liter of displacement (which by most people’s erroneous thinking should automatically make the Corvette the more serious gas guzzler). Sure, it has 507 hp, but it’s probably maxxed out. Meanwhile, the Corvette’s is hardly taxed at 400, and there’s plenty left in the block to take it out to 7.0 liters and well over 500 hp (easy). Not to mention the little matter of torque. The standard C6 already beats the M5 in that regard, and the Z06 takes it even further; no doubt this affects the gearing choices. Corvettes can be and are geared very lazily yet still offer awesome pulling power from just about any point off idle. The same cannot be said of many other cars discussed thus far.
Let’s not forget price: you can get the LS2 crate motor for $6K. I’ve seen Porsche flat-6’s for 2-3 times that price. The old BMW M5 V8 was in the $30K region.
Weight? BMW claims 240kg. That’s 529 lbs., or roughly 130 lbs. heavier than the LS2 (180kg).
Emissions? In Europe, the LS2 is rated at 310 g/km of C02. The BMW V10 emits 357 g/km.
So, the M5’s V10 wins in power/liter. It loses in:
Power density (hp/lb)
Emissions
Cost (by at least a 3:1 margin) & complexity
Economy
All of this against an ancient PUSHROD engine (which is also likely to be dimensionally more compact; most definitely so in dry-sumped LS7 form). How unimpressive is the Chevy engine again?
not so fast
When adjusted for inflation, gasoline has never been cheaper than the current range it is now. I hope everyone goes out and buys a super-efficent car so the prices drop and I can save money when I fill my ‘06 Z06. Then, the Feds will figure out the per-gallon gas tax revenue is decreasing so they will enact laws to put GPS on every car and tax you per mile driven.
Andre Ervin
It’s rather amusing that most of the responses to this particular blog completely disregard fact for perception. Even after someone posts actual data for specific cars, there’s all this bluster about engine displacement, hybrids and gas-guzzling trucks. The odd thing is that almost all so-called “modern” OHC engines are physically bigger, heavier, and less fuel-efficient than “archaic” OHV engines of similar displacement (sometimes by a wide margin), and GM is one of the first to offer hybrid trucks of any kind!
Maybe some of you should keep in mind the old story about the tortoise and the hare.
Mark Walsh
Andre writes that, “The odd thing is that almost all so-called ‘modern’ OHC engines are physically bigger, heavier, and less fuel-efficient than ‘archaic’ OHV engines of similar displacement.”
While that may be a semantically correct statement, it ignores the fact that HP per liter and HP per Kg have improved dramatically over the years. My own all-time low was a mid-’70s International truck that had a huge lump of V-8 pig iron that was rated at 175 HP; today there are good engines with less than two liters of displacement (and lots of aluminum) that generate comparable torque and much more horsepower.
The OHC engine isn’t modern, it has been around for decades, it’s just that Americans are sometimes slow to catch on. True, it is not the end-all, but it does benefit from fewer moving parts. If you have a thing for engines that are more compact, check out VW’s “VR6″ and its derivatives.
Veedubb
I was just doing some quick numbers, if the Vette engine were to be a VW VR engine (I know an 8 cylinder VR6 doesn’t exist) it’d push 428 horses out of a displacement of 6L, and I’m almost positive would weigh a lot less and arguably last a lot longer.
Andre Ervin
Mark,
I was taking a dig at those who think that OHV tech is outdated, not saying that OHV engines from the past were more efficient. In reality, there have been plenty of OHC American pre-war cars; but when OHV tech was perfected, it was cheaper, simpler, and easier to get power from. Having said that, I feel that GM has dropped the ball somewhat on keeping its mainstream OHV engines up-to-date. Perhaps it is time for Chevys and Pontiacs to get the “High-Feature” V6s too; I don’t foresee any drop in premium car sales because the nicer engines show up in GM’s mainstream product.
As for the VR6, it is indeed an incredibly small package, but it has its deficiencies too, and I believe that VW has stopped developing new VR engines.
Vette Fan
Let’s face facts greenies, you are not the ones buying cars. My Corvette with 350 H/P get better than 30 MPG on the road, but the reason I own it is because it’s COOL. GM please keep building COOL cars.
AliasX1
Mark:
It makes little sense to compare an old TRUCK engine designed for torque and reliability against engines from today that aren’t designed for that application at all. One should hope that the modern one should do as well. How many VR6s are being employed for truck applications? (Think: V10 turbodiesel for higher end Touaregs; the VR6 has a steel block and weighs ~420 lbs with accessories, seriously lacking in the power density department against GM’s LS2). One should also think about where OHV engines would be today if the manufacturers (GM included) spent as much time and money developing them as much as they do for OHC engines…
Anonymous
Andrew, GM has been sending ringers for EPA gas mileage testing for years. This is why TRUE MPG tests on magazines reflect most GM cars as having worse MPG ratings than Toyota.
Veedubb
VW still produces 3.2L VR6 engines in the Audi TT V6 and the Touareg V6. There are plans to put that engine into the upcoming 2006 Jetta, as well as a 3.6L version of the VR6.
Veedubb
I believe “Vette Fan”’s comment should have ended with “hyuck hyuck” rather than a period.
bobboli
OK, here we go on EPA fuel economy. The EPA sticker on the new car or truck is is misleading. Let’s say the same six cyl. engine is used in 10 different car and truck models. The auto companies will take the best mileage ratings of all 10 models and place the best rating on the EPA sticker of all 10 models.
ash
First of all, thanks for the post Tom. Hope it changes how some people percieve GM.
Second, quite a few posts here mentioned about how a Honda, or a Hyundai, or a VW, or someone else makes a more fuel efficient engine than GM. All I would like to mention is that GM makes quite a few different kinds of cars and trucks. Some of them have great gas mileage, some don’t. But when comparing model to model, GM is pretty close. There was a lot of mention about a Civic getting 2mpg more than a Cobalt, etc. but I did not see any comparison of the fuel mileage between Escalades (or Yukons / Tahoes), and the competitors in that segment.
As already pointed out, GM is way under-rated when it comes to vehicle fuel economy.
JMHO
Mark Walsh
AxiasX1, you make a good point about my comparison of apples and oranges, but as you point out, even GM has spent more money in recent decades on OHC. Some might say that is because of power-density issues, while others suggest few parts and lower production costs.
Vette Fan, the modern Corvette gets such good fuel economy because of its aerodynamic profile, and kudos to GM for that. If they were to put an Aveo engine in that car, it would probably beat the Prius’ numbers.
Veedub, be careful not to confuse VW’s VR6 with the VW/Porsche/Audi V6, they are entirely different beasts. And yes, they are continuing work on this platform with a four valve per cylinder head, and strange creations like the W12. I have heard that they are going to quietly let the VR8 die.
Ash, it is funny to see “gas mileage” and Escalade in the same paragraph. Yes indeed, GM is way under-rated when it comes to concerns about fuel economy, but you can’t blame them as these over-prices barns on wheels have proven to be a wonderful cash cow. If it weren’t for the SUV, GM would be in some very serious trouble right now.
Veedubb
Escalades, Yukons and Tahoes? Only GM and Ford make monstrosities that big. I know European and Asian car companies have SUVs but seriously, how many of those are as big as an Escalade? Or a Ford Excursion?
Hmm let’s see. Touareg/upcoming Audi Q7/Porsche Cayenne aren’t that big. BMW’s X5 is smaller than those too. Mercedes-Benz makes something almost as big but it’s a military vehicle. Hm who else. Oh well I guess GM and Ford are the only ones who feel the need to make gas guzzling urban eyesores. And even if someone else made something that big/useless, I’m sure they’d choose better engines to put in them. And lest we forget Hummers. The worst offender of them all. I hope all cities in the world follow Paris’s lead and ban SUVs everywhere. No matter the brand, SUVs are useless.
Veedubb
The V6 found in the Touareg and the Audi TT are VR6 engines. They’re all the same as the R32 3.2L VR6. They may not be called VR6 but they’re nonetheless 15 degree engines.
Japcarhater
Who can explain to me the rationale behind the alleged fuel economy of hybrids. The energy they ultimately depend on is the same “old” combustion engine in their engine bay. That’s the one that powers the generator to load their batteries who drive the electric motors.
A generator has an efficiency ratio of say max 40%. Throw in efficiency ratio’s of 80% and 40% for the batteries and the electric motors. …. And count your gains by having an auxiliary electric power propellent in your car.
True, there is some benefit from the regeneration of brake energy and the avoidance of the suboptimal rev zone of the combustion engine. I find it hard to believe, however, that that will compensate for the incredible inefficiency of the electric power line.
How, do they get those excellent EPA numbers? … I suspect that they come with fully loaded batteries to the test station to perform the 20 minute (or so) run.
Am I talking nonsense or is it about time to expose the hype around hybrids for what it is. A FRAUD !!!!
Mark Walsh
Jay, there are real gains, but as with most cars, it is not a fraud, but the EPA numbers are rather optimistic. I know several Prius owners, and they have had good results. My neighbor, Dann, gets 53 MPG in combined city and highway driving. There are plenty of websites that can provide you with the information that you need.
philippe boucher
Why are you crushing the EV1s?
Nicolas Lehotzky
Whether GM products are relatively fuel efficient or not, the problem is, if asked the question about what grade they would give GM for environment friendliness, most people would give it a very low grade. When you say GM, you first think of the big gaz guzzling, high emissions GMC Yukon SUV and likes. This is mainly an image problem that GM should maybe focus a bit more on, and improving it would help more than continiously mentioning that this and that organization gave GM the best grade. Same applies for quality, even though a GM truck starts every time you turn the key, people would never compare it to a BMW for example.
Larry J
I would really like to hear more about the EV1 program, seems to be a lot going on right now. The whole world seems to think GM had the best thing out there, hands down.
Ghost_In_The_Machine
Ten Questions For Tom Stephens
1 What’s The Status On 2 Step Valve Lift For The OHC Engines, And The 3 Valve Per Cylinder OHV Architecture?
2 How Promising is Direct Injection Spark Ignition with Direct Start/Stop?
3 What’s The Status on The Duramax V6?
4 If The EPA’s Clean Diesel Combustion system pans out? Will GM be on Board, with a Clean Diesel Engine Range?
5 Will there be an X22F transmission Variant For Longitudinal Engine/Front Wheel Drive/All wheel Drive?
6 Will Versatrak Be the AWD System Mated to The X22F? Will there be a new sytem For Mating to the X13-X16R Transmissions?
7 Do the GME F40-6, And The Developing GMDAT Six Speeds Have North American Futures?
8 Whats The Status on the OHC V12 and Rumored OHV V10?
9 What is The Expected Volume of The 2 mode Hybrid System?
10 Is there a Next Generation Northstar V8 in the Works?
Thanks
Kevin Rypstra
“Fuel Economy and low-tech engines, GM deserves more credit”
Many people out there INCORRECTLY critize GM’s low-tech approach to engine design and selection. Almost all of what I have read are ONE DIMENSIONAL COMPARISONS, they do not consider the big picture, AND THEREFORE ARE MISLEADING.
People rave about foreign automakers’ 4-valve per cylinder, DOHC V6’s while bashing GM’s age old 2-valve per cylinder OHV V6’s.
Consider the following the next time someone is bashing this a low-tech approach just because its low-tech:
GM’s “2V/cyl OHV 3.7L V6″ vs. a “DOHC 4V/cyl 27L V6″ (Ref. Ward’s World Engines Database)
1) Engine mass: OHV-2V slighty lighter. Simpler valve train.
Packaging size: similar.
2) Specific power: DOHC-4V 50% better. Based on engine displacement.
3) Low speed BMEP (low rpm specific torque, i.e. off-the-line accel.): OHV-2V ~40% better. Engine power is most strongly correlated to total piston area.
4) BSHC (hydrocarbon emissions) DOHC-4V slightly lower.
5) BSNOx (NOx emissions) OHV-2V ~20% lower.
6) Engine NHV (noise): similar.
7) Friction: OHV-2V 30% lower. Lower engine rpm = low piston velocity = less friction.
9) Quality: similar.
10) Cost: OHV-2V 50% cheaper, the primary benefit of being low-tech.
11) BSFC (fuel consumption): DOHC-4V 15% better.
As you can see, each engines has its advantages. Give credit where credit is due. GM’s 3.8L V6 is an impressive engine, dispute is low technology content.
As a final statement, one can planly see GM also understands that if you can improve engine’s breathing (as with DOHC, VVT, 4V/cylinder), engine performance can be approved. Look up GM’s HF 3.6V, its all there.
Christopher Clai
I would have to say I like what I am seeing with GM’s actions in the fuel economy sector. Many factors do affect fuel economy, the most being how we drive.
My ‘04 Trailblazer gets 18 MPG - 26 MPG depending on the conditions, length of driving, amount of idling, and some other things.
My other GM I had prior to the Trailblazer, my ‘02 Monte Carlo did above the EPA claims.
While I like the gas mileage of my GM vehicles, I do agree that GM needs to become heavily agressive in the next coming months to start moving to alternative fuels. For the sake of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and slowing down global warming before it’s too late.
Mark
GM cars are fuel efficient or gas guzzler, reliable or not? There are surely no short of feedbacks. It looks like everybody has his own opinion backed up by his own facts. Can GM leaders objectively read these inputs and benefit from them?
Toyota made this Prius and the sale went up n% compare to same month last year (n is 3 digit number). Let alone whether this Prius is good or bad, it is sucessful in helping Toyota gaining market share and emphazising its leadership position. Is GM better off with or without a model that fills this market niche? If it is better off with it, why can’t GM, this auto industry leader, market a hybrid ahead or at the same time as Toyota? If GM is better off without it, why not? Is there a flaw on hybrid cars or is there a better alternative?
In terms of market share, right or wrong the following is my view.
First of all it is hard to make a buck so most people will look for a cars just enough to fill their needs plus a little option to make them feel good. 0 to 60mph in less than 4 sec is great but how many people needs it to get a job done? 2nd to look for is the re-sale value. This leads to the view of the used car buyers.
Hard to make a buck right? Most people who look for a used car want to pay less, not just the cost of buying but including the cost of repair and maintenance. How is GM cars doing in the used car lots? Is GM designing new cars with used car buyers in mind?
I only have one thing to say about reliability. Make sure your most popular car is your most reliable car. It is simply because you have more satisfied owners to spread around the words. Toyota sells not because of better ads but because they have more satisfied owners who spread the words for years. That’s how I bought my first Corolla. Can GM do the same?
Here is my personal stat: I had 2 GM cars, not happy with them; 2 corolla, 1st one not too happy, 2nd ok. Now I have 1 1991 Izusu, happy and 1 1990 Saab (the real thing), very happy. I can replace my Saab now but replace with what is my problem. Wish me luck!
Steve Mattis
Mr. Stephens:
As the current owner of a GMC Denali XL I would like to encourage you to offer the 6.6 Duramax in the 3/4 ton GM SUVs. I have heard many rumors about the standard 4L65-E transmission not being able to cope with the torque the Duramax produces. It has been internet fodder that the Allison transmission will not fit the current configuration of the 3/4 ton GM SUVs. Is there any hope of a 6.6 Duramax being part of the GM SUV product mix? I can assure you there are many people similiar to myself that want to stay away from the poorly engineered Ford Excursion and would buy the GM SUVs with a 6.6 Duramax [versus the rumored V-6 Duramax that has GM has been testing] in considerable numbers. I find it difficult to believe that the margins from such a vehicle would not be attractive for GM. Thank you in advance for your comments and take care. Steve Mattis.
Scot Alan
I would like to point out a few things about the 3800 engine. First, it was redesigned in 1995 (1996 for s/c) as the Series II. It has basically been carried over since then. Clearly another redesign would improve its power, emmissions and fuel economy. What other engine has been built for 10 years without any major changes? I have heard that it is the highest ranked domestic engine GM has for quality. I think it was the first GM engine to pass the tougher California emmissions (ULEV)years ago right after GM announced plans to quit building the “obselete” engine. Most owners seem to get about 30 mpg highway with them, better than most cars this size. The S/C version, along with the SBC, is a favorite of hotrodders (see the many 3800 performance web sites). The Buick LaCross is offered with this “old” motor and a new 3.6 V-6 with overhead cams and cam phasers. A high dollar motor with lots of hight tech features. Wonder why is it rated lower in gas milage the the 3800? Might be due to the 3.69 final drive used to give it better acceleration the the “old” 3800! GM needs to build good engines and not worry about whether it is high tech or not.
mike
what will it take to get a mid size turbo diesel suv out of gm,or out of isuzu ?
Tom Read
Steve,
I appreciate your comments and enthusiasm for our products.
The Duramax diesel has been an amazing success for us, driving our HD truck market share to nearly 30 percent. As a result, we sell every Duramax we can produce, and are in the process of adding capacity to increase our annual volume of HD trucks.
Our goal is to deliver products with powertrain combinations that customers want to buy. We are looking at all of the options for our future HD sport utility vehicles and continue to monitor the market and make adjustments as necessary. Of course, there are packaging constraints and our goal is to provide a quality engineered product, rather than try to force a powertrain into a vehicle in which it would not deliver the quality and performance customers deserve.
We will continue to look at all the diesel options for our future portfolio. In the meantime, feedback like yours is critical to helping us determine future product and powertrain combinations, so thank you.
– Tom Read
GM Powertrain Communications
Bob Kirby
My last 5 cars were GM olds and buicks, but I just switched to a Toyota Prius. Why? GM is missing the boat on hybrids. I couldn’t wait any longer. Hydrogen sounds good, but the public isn’t buying your ads for the far future.
I am a stockholder and am shocked by GM’s lack of vision. People may want power, but they also want to feel good about fuel conservation. Forget the break even analysis. More people than you think are willing to pay extra to feel good about this, including me.
Bob Wheatley
Please, please, please manufacture a true hydrid sedan so my next car can be a GM product
Peter
Mr. Stephens and Mr. Lutz
Many of the above messages say GM is seen as a few miles per gallon behind Honda and Toyota. It does not help GM for a buyer to shop for a car with such thoughts in his or her mind. GM is scouring the world in search of a magic formula that solves its problems. No amount of low cost labor will make GM vehicles get more miles per gallon. The poor fuel economy perception will die when GM cars consistently get the best gas mileage.
The solution to GM’s problems is to make cars and trucks that make their owners proud. GM needs to be known for outstanding products. Many factors including having the best fuel economy contribute to pride of ownership. Oil coming to an end makes having much better fuel economy than its competitors an achievement that would make GM stand out. Making products people truly want is the way to overcome high labor and benefits costs.
Many of my fellow bloggers state their love for their GM products. Many have strong feelings about buying American. By offering products buyers can take pride in, GM supports them and many others in their desires to buy American (i.e. GM) products.
Some want GM to follow Europe and transition to diesel engines. A year ago I agreed but recent studies tell me diesels are wrong. Truck engine makers are finding they can make a gasoline engine that is about as fuel efficient as a diesel without the emissions issues. This achievement did not result from shutting down a US facility and investing in China or India.
GM is fortunate it has not made a huge investment in diesel engines. The new gasoline engine technology gives GM an opportunity to step out in front of competitors with products that truly lead the industry.
To do this GM needs all the help it can get. For years, as has been widely reported, GM has had a policy that discourages suppliers and inventors from showing GM their ideas. It is unreasonable to expect people to give GM their best efforts while the present policies are in effect. This policy is one of the things that have gotten GM to where it is now.
To be the technology leader GM needs to recognize that America offers a reservoir of creative talent second to none, talent that wants to help GM. GM needs that talent. By nurturing the very best talent GM could become the acknowledged leader. It is talent, not cheap labor that makes companies like Microsoft into the world leaders they are and makes them very pofitable.
GM needs to clean its attic of many cobwebs and find ways to take advantage of the resources available here in the US. Marshalling the talent reservoir to make new and technically superior products is the way for GM to make the profits it needs to make. Matching its competitors is not enough. GM should not be satisfied until it offers the best fuel economy.
truckguy
I know that with the high price of fuel these days that mileage is a hot topic. I’m a truck guy and I’ve driven some kind of truck ever since I got my drivers license over thirty years ago. So, for me, buying a Hummer was a natural evolution. I guess that I’m not all that upset about the mileage because it gets the kind of mileage that all of my trucks have gotten. After all, it’s a truck and gets truck mileage.
I am less concerned about the mileage than I am about the annual operating cost. My wife has a Land Rover that does get a mile or two per gallon better than my H2. However, it runs on premium. So it actually costs about $300 dollars a year more to operate. And it’s uncomfortable to drive to boot!
In the latest issue of HMR magazine (which is a great Hummer lifestyle magazine. BTW: This is the kind of magazine GM should be sending to Hummer owners instead of that infomercial Hummer Adventures) they rack and stack all of the SUV’s by mileage, fuel type, and annual operating cost. I was stunned to find out that the Volkswagen Touareg with its “green” reputation costs more to operate than my H2. In fact, the H2 came in around the middle of the pack, behind some big names like Range Rover, Mercedes, Porsche, and…yes…Volkswagen.
Personally, I’ll give up a mile or two per gallon for the ability to run on regular fuel and save a few hundred dollars a year.
Thomas A. Bonfils
MY NEXT CAR…..My last two automobiles have been GM products. My next vehicle will be hydrogen or a hybrid vehicle. A hybrid looks more practical at this point, hopefully a GM hybrid. I am hoping to purchase a small/medium hybrid Van with fuel economy in the 35-40 mpg range.
FUEL CELL VEHICLES…..Why do only the Governor of California and delivery companies get hydrogen vehicles? Why not a consumer based program for interested participants…like me! The Hydrogen Economy must be seeded. The more hydrogen vehicles on the road, the greater the interest and the faster the pace of innovation and adaptation. GM cannot wait for the perfect hydrogen storage mechanism and/or a widespread distribution infrastructure. Use what is available today…improvise…there are tens of thousands of early adapters hoping that GM (or someone) will take the first steps. If GM will not lead, it will find itself in the same position it is today with hybrid vehicles…playing catch-up.
LEGACY COSTS…..I have read much from GM management recently regarding health care and pension costs. GM’s uncompetitive legacy costs are the result of many decades of policy choices. Only a chapter 11 can solve this relatively quickly. There is a less drastic though longer term alternative. GM could migrate its retirement benefits to 401k type programs, and migrate its health care benefits to Health-Savings-Account type programs. 401k’s and HSA’s properly return responsibility for retirement and healthcare to employees, while allowing GM to assist their employees with matching contributions and administrative coordination. GM will then have millions of employees as partners in cost control and asset optimization. All stakeholders will benefit. These new programs should apply eventually to all existing, retired and future employees. While this change cannot be implemented quickly, it should be immediately implemented where possible. I would start with executive and senior management. Lead by example.
Leonard Reitz
Time out guys. With the increase in fuel to over $2.00 a new product has come to the US and been granted a patent.It increases fuel mileage in all gas and diesel engines(cars, SUV’s, semi’s) by reducing friction. 20-25% highway and 15+ percent city are normal. It lasts 100,000 miles. Not expensive. I went from 15.5 in my 4 wheel drive p/u to almost 19.
I fixed my mileage problem and you can too, but you won’t find it at Wally World. If you want more info. reply.
Chris B
What’s the ‘party line’ on biodiesel? From the little I’v heard, it seems like a good idea. I know it could never be a complete replacement for all internal combustion engines so please don’t tell me what a small effect it would have. Tell me how you plan to use the technology for the joint benefit of you as a company (and your shareholders, since I’m one) as well as society at large.
Thanks - Chris B
Mr. S
I own a 1987 Buick Regal and it is much better than any modern car on the road today. Older cars are better made and can be modified to use less gas while producing more power due to less strict low emissions laws for them. New cars can not be modified as much because of more strict low emissions laws for them.
AndrewG
I have read probably more than half of the comments here and it seems like people have lots of misconceptions about the EPA ratings.
Keep in mind all these so-called ‘tests’ are done on a dyno, not a real road. Wind drag is a huge factor in gas mileage especially on the highway and it pretty much makes most of the EPA ratings way off.
As for the new M5….Do you guys really expect a v10 powered, heavy, 4-door, super-sedan to get the same mileage as a 2-seat, fiberglass-bodied, lightweight, low wind-drag, sports car? If the M5 engine was in the corvette I’m sure it would be a totally different story…
Also, in the past BMW has always posted their economy numbers factoring in one passenger and a trunk full of luggage, so probably an extra 300lbs or so. I’m pretty sure they still do that but I’m not certain.
Regardless of anything anyone has said on here, it is still really stupid that any country but the US has lots of economic diesel cars that get 40-50mpg+, that’s even more than the hybrids here in America. Especially since the EPA numbers for hybrids are based off the same testing procedures as gas engines and it’s just not the same in real world conditions. Diesels have come a really long way since the beginning and run forever. They are a ton cleaner and efficient. There is also so much torque at low RPMs you could probably drive around town in last gear and still have plenty of power.
BMW had the low revving ‘ETA’ engine in the 80’s which behaved similarly but was gasoline. It made only 120hp but yet cranked out 170ft/lbs of torque! Redline was at 4800rpms and most of your power was around 2k-4k rpms. It got about 28mpg highway and 23 or so around town. I just wish they still made some engines like that today. I know plenty of people with those old ETA engines with well over 300,000miles just on regular maintenance and the engine internals still show no major signs of wear. Most of them if maintained are pretty much guaranteed to go more than 250k and one of the oil companies back in the 80’s ran one for a million miles. If we could just make bulletproof engines like that and maybe even in diesel form, it would be awesome. I for one would get one and run it 50/50 diesel and veg oil. Americans have a misconception that diesels are slow and dirty but hopefully BMW introducing the diesel Mini and diesel 3-series in America will change that.
JCW
Hybrid cars like the Prius are a marketing hoax plain and simple. Economically, if you consider the increased initial cost and long term maintenance costs (I can’t imagine what 200lbs of NiCads cost, and will probably need replaced every few years), you will never make that up in gasoline savings. Environmentally if you consider the extra materials in the manufacture of the car and the long term effect of all the batteries, the environmental benefits are hard to see. I don’t think GM should go down this route. GM could pick up on some key aspects of the Prius phenomenon though. Mainly that people will pay more for a car that is completely inferior in almost every category if they perceive it to be environmentally friendly and / or very economical in the long term. That is not to say that GM shouldn’t come up with a vehicle to compete directly with cars like the Prius. All the technology is within GM’s massive corporate umbrella for the most part, it just has to be put together. The platform could potentially be that of the Aveo, but it is just plain ugly, and good way to beat cars like the Prius is to start with a platform that just looks better and is larger making it more usable in the real world. I personally would build a very aerodynamic sedan about the size of the Cobalt designed specifically for light weight. Keep in mind that you are competing with a Prius, so high power and chassis rigidity aren’t paramount. Some weight could be shed using composite body and floor panels such as on the Corvette. Again, since this is a car designed for high efficiency, the additional cost can be passed on to the customer. The car should incorporate a body pan to reduce drag on the underside of the car and narrower tires to minimize rolling resistance. Maybe the rear windows could be made of polycarbonate. There are some that are quite resistant to scratches. The power steering would ideally be the electric power assist like in all the newer GM vehicles. The engine could be a small turbo-diesel such as the ones available in the Opels. Or it could be a gasoline engine designed for maximum efficiency. My first car was a Pontiac 6000 with a 2.5L engine. At a whopping 98 hp it didn’t break any performance records but it averaged about 36 mpg in a car with a 3 speed automatic transmission (probably not the most efficient) and that was as aerodynamic as a brick. Imagine if that engine was made of aluminum and had plastic intake manifolds along with a modern fuel injection setup like in the LS engines. I would go with a continuously variable transmission like in the Saturn vehicles. Add to that the hybrid system in the Sierra. Instead of using the 48V battery, it might be better to look into the new high capacity capacitors such as nanogate capacitors. The capacitors would probably last forever. A traditional 12V battery could be used as the bulk of the energy storage. You would just need enough capacitor storage to get the starter to turn the engine a few times. When all these technologies are put together, 60mpg doesn’t seem that far away and at a very competitive price when compared to the current hybrid cars on the market.
Ian
Most fuel efficient GM vehicle is a TOYOTA!
Yes, Pontiac Vibe (rebadged Matrix) is the most fuel-efficient vehicle GM sells in north America. Enough said.
Calvin
Why is GM not offering real practicle affordable mini suv’s?
Look at the Hyundai Tucson-Kia sportage…folding rear glass, lock-up four wheels drive push button, four wheel disk brake, abs, traction control, ESC , five years bumber to bumber…WHY? The Equinox comes close but still short compare to the Koreans.
Dont they get it! Ownage to the Koreans…Smart in up GM or ELSE!
Aaron from Kentucky
More diesels and hybrids!
Honda is already proving you can have your cake and eat it too, with the Accord Hybrid. It has a better 0-60 time than the V6 Gasser and gets 25% better economy!
My family of 5 is looking for an SUV and we are a traditional Chevy family, but Fords Hybrid Escape is looking really good.
Vernon
GM trys to make the most short term profit possible. They do this by building the vehichles that cost the least to build but can be sold for the most. It is realitively easy and cheap to build big vehichles with high horsepower and advertise to the masses that they should pay extra or buy from GM because they have 300 HP in their pickups. It takes a lot more effort and development expense to build high economy cars and convince the american people that the should pay extra for them.
If the american people would refuse to buy GM cars because they do not offer adequate fuel economy, GM would first try to advertize their way out of it. If that did not work, they may improve their vehichles or give up and accept loosing another 10% of the U.S. market. My guess is that they would accept loosing another 10% or the U.S. market.
Now some questions for GM.
1. Why is flexible fuel only offered on vehichles with large engines? Why the 5.3 L engine instead of 4.8. Why not the Malibu or Cavalier. If a cusomer is interested in flexible fuel to save natural resources, the first step is to use the smallest engine. This makes no sense.
2. Why not offer a small diesel in the 3/4 ton truck market. OK, the U.S. emmision rules allow current diesels in heavy pickups, but why not offer a high economy engine as well as high horsepower. Why not offer a 2.5 liter 150 HP diesel that can produce 30+ MPG is a lighly loaded or empty 3/4 ton truck. I don’t want 300 HP, I want very high economy in my 3/4 ton truck. If you offer a new diesel please buy it from somebody, everyone knows how bad GM is at building their own (350,V-6, 6.2, 6.5)
Rick Fita
I need a truck to deliver weight in the 1500lb.-2500lb.
range. So I bought a GMC 1500HD. with a 6.0 v-8. I never thought with today’s technology the fuel economy would be so bad.13MPG (empty)(hwy) and babying it is just not good enough. Can you suggest some way to improve this by computer manipulation or by supercharging? Why not build an inline six cylinder diesel
C.I.?
Rick
Skip Rye
I have a 1998 Deville and drive in Atlanta and the least I get is 21 MPG city 28 highway. Thats AC, Hills and agressive driving. If I take is easy I can get 23 city and 30 Highway. When I go to Florida I can get up to 32 or 33 MPG on trips. I looked up the EPA stats for that year model and they list it as 17/26. No way! Is the EPA driver a gorilla that drives with two feet, one on the brake and one on the gas using both at the same time? Are they on a 1/4 mile short track doing speed test? Who knows I just wish they could get the testing more accurate 4 or 5 MPG off makes it 23 to 29% off. Close enough for government work its paid for you know! Maybe they could spend more time helping Atlanta optimize traffic signal timing and save a load of gas for all of us!!
Rick Gellert
IF mean effective brake pressure is the key indicator of thermodynamic efficiency,then would all vehicles benefit by cruising at the lowest rpm that allows near full throttle operation? Where can I find studies on this?
Larry Farrell
a mere 57 years young, with average number of vehicles to my past. Every single one a GM and 80 percent Chevy. Recent pickup is 2004 2500HD Vortec 600. Super vehicle as expected and brings me much joy and pride, not to mention towing our 5th wheel camper, like it was not even there. BUT BUT and But the gas mileage is now killing me. Instrumentation indicates 15.8. I am not unreasonable with this big of a Chev, but would 18 mph be to much to hope for, with some sort of after market help?
Dave in Rochester, NY
I admit GM is trying harder these days. The Aveo and Cobalt are good examples. Keep trying GM. I just bought a Japanese hybrid. It is sporty, comfortable and quiet and gets 50 mpg. If GM built a car like that I would have bought it, but they don’t so I didn’t. I am curious to see the new Ford Fusion Hybrid sedan offering. Maybe I will get one of those too. I don’t think I will see a real production model fuel cell passenger car on the market anytime soon. It is pie in the sky. Now if I can only get my hybrid to run on E85 I would be really happy. I don’t like to buy petrolium products from the Middle East. I would prefer Iowa grown.
ps, Yeh, GM why don’t you market Opel in the USA? I don’t understand you guys at all.
echo7
I believe we should consider not only the gas mileage but also the maintenance cost. There are lots on complaints against GM, most of them are loyal GM owners for years that turned foreign. GM claimed to be improving quality but this is just a joke, a marketing scheme to steal your money. They havent changed a bit.
automotivebreath
Mr Stephens,
It appears that the automakers assume that the people don’t realize what is being done. GM builds an amazingly efficient engine for the Corvette, powerful yet fuel efficient. Using the same foundation they build an amazingly inefficient engine for the 6.0L Truck. I realize the Corvette has advantages like aerodynamics and power to weight ratio but the difference is unjustified. Especially when you consider that any above average gear head can take the production Truck engine and with little time and money turn it into a powerful efficient wonder. I have a good friend that owns two Trucks, one a 2005 6.0L GM the other a late eighties Chevy. Lately with the gas prices on the rise the 2005 stays parked and the carbureted antique technology goes to work. Why you ask? Because the modified dinosaur is more efficient and cost less to drive! This is no myth, it’s is a fact.
I have a need for a Truck that can pull a heavy trailer. Many options are available including a new factory fresh Chevy Truck that will meet the need for many trouble free miles to come. This comes at a price, the initial sticker can be justified, the fuel economy cannot. I choose to modify my mid 90s Chevy Truck and make it the fuel efficient vehicle we desire. I can think of many things to do with the money I save mile after mile.
Wallace
Here’s my take from experience:
Durability= GM unsurpassed
Reliability= GM reliabilty very good
Initial quality= GM getting better, might not be as high as a few other manufacturers.
Now I have some criticism for GM but also for all other manufacturers. Why not make all your engines capable of using E85? Yes you have the most E85 vehicles, but that’s no excuse for not making them all E85, why not lead rather than follow. Screw big oil, they need you more than you need them. Also, (and a very big ALSO) I am hugely disappointed on how you cancelled the EV1 electric car which can make oil obsolete now. Current new tech batteries can go 300 miles and recharge in one minute, it takes me longer to fill my tank with gas. Electricity is 98% cleaner than gasoline and if used with a solar panel on the roof it can be recharged 100% cleaner. Only 2% of electricity is made with oil. Why not go with this technology? Anyway I will do my part and only buy either a E85 vehicle or hybrid or full EV. As much as I like GM, I would suggest people buy any hybrid from wherever you can get one which will help develop batteries cheaper and better and may bring back the EV.
http://www.kingoftheroad.net/charge_across_america/charge_html/nimh_test2.html
John Barnes
Simple fact is Chevy stopped selling the 3 door Geo Metro. Probably due to it’s “you can’t break ‘em” service record, which dealers HATED since it didnt’ rack up any mechanical work for them. I owned 2, and each got very good mileage over a period of years, with no fancy tricks, no hybrid technology, just small engine and light weight. My first, an “ER” model got 54 mpg over a 2 year period, on a daily 86 mile commute (Highway driving - I used a GPS receiver to double check my distance and speed). My second, a “peppier” model, got 48 mpg in the same drive. They both cost less than $10,000.
Later I owned a Honda Insight for 33,000 miles. It’s computer reported 59.3 mpg for that distance. This mileage was GREAT! But at $22,000, it is impossible to justify the additional capitol expense by fuel savings…
Point is, American auto industry designers have been pushing the price of cars up and up with complexity and innovation. They do NOT sell a cost effective car like the Geo any more. The alternatives, imports by Chevy and Ford, get only 30-35 mpg and have troubling safety and mechanical repair records.
Clearly this is a cynics game. If GM wanted to sell inexpensive cars which ran 40,000 miles between medial repair intervals, and got over 40 miles per gallon. They could do so. They just don’t see the profit profile that they find attractive.
Unable to find a good car like the Geo Metro (also called the Suziki Swift) I have adopted a “wait ‘em out” strategy. I have a 6 cylinder Jeep which gets 21 mpg on the highway at 65 miles per hour, a 4wd truck which does 18 mpg in the same circumstances and a Yamaha Virago 250 motorcycle, which gets 74 mpg on the highway and 68 in town. This bike cost $3,400 BRAND NEW! For each 1,000 miles that I drive it rather than one of the other vehicles, brings my fleet fuel mileage on the other 2 vehicles UP by 1 mpg. Sure it is inconvenient when I get caught in the rain, but until a smarter, fair priced, fuel efficient, robust little car hits the market, I’ll just watch the cynical auto executives from a distance, and keep MY MONEY in MY POCKET. My money is my only vote in this arena, and I take it seriously. So GM, if you want my $$$, either upgrade the mileage and quality on the Daewoo (Aveo) models, or release some of your buried pattent portfolio. These are your only chance.
-jb
mike k
Well guys I am a little dissapointed in GM because lots of there engines are made in mexico…don’t have to say any thing else do I? but to top it reports of the old 60 degree v6 is now going to be made…guess where…CHINA!!! SO for our great GM that is a great american company, who makes engines in mexico. this is why I think people will buy japanese of your cars…they are made in…guess where… America!!! funny huh? but all of that being said you guys are still number one in my book for the BIG 3.
Erik M
I think some of the posts here have hit the nail on the head when they ask you to assess the real-world cost of owning a vehicle, including not just purchase price and fuel economy but very importantly, cost of mechanical maintenance. GM cars are a relative breeze to maintain. Less time required to remove and replace parts, and parts that cost less. I’ve had several GM’s and several imports, and I can tell you that it’s a real headache to work on foreign cars (only exception-RWD Volvo 240).
The problem I have with “old” GM designs like the 3800 is that they sound terrible when pushed hard. They don’t break, they just sound like they will. So why can’t you guys at GM do some tweaking to bring these old, profitable, reliable engines into the modern world where people like their engines to make horsepower, not sound?
Brett
Can an LS2 engine be swapped fairly easily into a 2001 Chev Tahoe with a 5.4L engine?
Jack Tors
The bottom line is for years and years American vehicles were built for power and toughness. Foreign vehicles were built for reliability. Remember the Toyota truck commercials where they advertised vehicles with 200,000 to 300,000 miles and still going strong?? Part of that was very true and Toyota used that campaign to sell their reliability. Look at GM and Ford…. all about toughness and power… doesn’t mean they aren’t reliable. I guess the perfect mixture of reliability and toughness is where the American makers need to take themselves.
For years and years Toyota didn’t even build a powerful truck so of course those modified cars they called trucks would run forever. That is the way they were built. Meanwhile GM and Ford continued making all purpose tough trucks that served the needs of their owners very well.
Cudos to foreign manufacturers for selling reliability because the look and feel of their cars have lagged behind their American counterparts since day 1.
I seriously think that with marketing overhauls both GM and Ford will thrive again because it is all about customer perception and that perception has been stolen by foreigners.
azoidX
Finally Some Sense About Corporate Welfare
President Bush is offering no encouragement to any U.S. automobile companies that might be thinking about turning to the federal government for a financial bailout.
J D
Medicated dad.
What source of statistical information in your opinion qualifies as reliable and not subject to corp spin and or “cherry picking “?
Would it not be reasonable to assume that the EPA, Wards and Edmunds provide accurate and quantifiable information.
If not of what use are these services and in the case of the EPA govt entities in providing statistical information.
The facts are these cars produced by GM do exist and the fuel efficiency numbers are accurate and are available for anyone to see as posted on the EPA web site. The only disclaimer should be that these are only estimates and not respesentative of real life driving conditions.
Every car company selling cars in this country uses the same numbers entities that provide them.
Where were the complaints when Japanese automakers were manipulating their horsepower numbers ?
Getting back to the crux of the matter, the “myth ” is that GM does not produce fuel efficient cars but the actual facts do not back up this “myth”
So accept the fact that we are buying cars based on perception and not reality and aknowledge the fact that as a consumer you believe what you hear and not what you read.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK GM !
J D
I will never understand why we hold domestic manufacturers of all things big and small to a higher standard than those of their foreign based competitors.
Better is better period. At what point to we get past saying things like “being better is good but not good enough in this case ”
If you are better than the competition in business that is the goal and if you are better than you are supposed to win.
Why the double standard ?
Why would any one buy a lesser product if admittedly product A is better ?
This behaviour defies logic !
If GM is building a better product than why would any one ever buy something else ?
I do not own any GM cars but I am a beliver in what they are doing and struggling against with consumers and the media.
There is no shortage of cheap plastic in any Toyota or Honda I have ever driven, so lets keep the playing field level.
I tell you this if that Camaro was on sale today I would own one !
Jaime Iglesias
Everyone says that this report said this. Fact I am a GM and Toyota owning person. Fact my Toy Tacoma and 4-runner, btoh 4×4 and both 2002 models with v6’s get around 17-20 mpg on the highway, put anything in them and they go down to around 12-16 mpg. My 1991 Chevy V2500 suburban get 15-17 mpg on the highway load it with the same load as the toys and 12-15 mpg. So my statement is this why one company says there cars get better fuel economy, this is at a track with an empty payload, add a family and a few toys and the economy of those Lighter vehicle drop drasticly. Plus I am more likely to wear out the drivetrain on my toys before the Burbs even has a hick-up.
Chris Sloan
I love the statement “GM makes 19 models that get 30 mpg or better on the highway, more than any other automaker.” A whopping 20% when you consider what I counted as 92 cars in their lineup. Compaired to Toyota with only 14 vehicles out of 37 but that’s 38%. As Toyota’s line continues to expand, and GM’s continues to shrink (Oldsmobile) those numbers won’t look so good.
BTY
I am a motorcycle rider. Still You need a vehicle to go to the grocery store.
I used to drive an 84 Jimmy. Dude that truck was cool. It had more than 200K on the odometer. No matter what I drove it all over the world and with great pride. That “Blazer” had an inspring sprit.
Now I am driving a 94 Corolla. Dude that car is a little thin can on wheels. It is very reliable, it has more than 250K on the odometer and that’s all what this ca”n” is all about. I drove it all over the world, too - coast to coast. No sprit, no enthusiasm.
Look around You and You will notice people driving a Corolla just to survive the road. No smile on their faces. They drive miserably just for the sake of their wallets. Look around and You will see dudes driving a “Blazer” just for the fun of it - with enthusiasm and sprit.
Like that guy missing his (Pepsi) machine: “I miss Jimmy!”
Next car I am going to get will be definetly a Pontiac - G6 or Solstice - high on sprit and I do not believe the myth of fuel or quality or anything else. I have my total trust in GM.
All the GM cars have a great SPRIT and therefore: Thank You GM!
Frank
I’ll remain loyal to the car company building the best autos with the best fuel economy - like the year 2000 Mercedes 220 CDI - 47 mpg at 70 mph and able to cruise at 150 mph. You will not see this technology in America.
Frank Akins
Mr. Stephens,
I’ve enjoyed your GM Opel automobiles while working in Europe - particulary the mileage and power options. My 1986 Opel Ascona got 53 miles per gallon at 70 miles per hour. Your more modern high tech diesels are much quieter and still attain 50 mpg. I now understand that you will have these engines in some of your American sedans year 2006! That is good news. Frank Akins
jim telzrow
dear mr stephens why make a flex fuel vehical that won’t accept all types of alcohol ie methanol. i believe i’ll wait for the next generation.
Frank
Mr. Stephens,
Caterpillar turned themselves around. I hope your corporation can do the same. I wish you great success in your endeavors.
Tony Abber
GM have a good position at the moment to start build new fuel efficient cars. Look at fuel prices -they keep changing and energy reserves keep decreasing, efficient methods of energy conversion and utilization should be used .All new designs are really going to cut pollution. And all the car giants will have to start use alternative engines . If overall energy utilization at the national level has the priority, driving a heat pump by an electric motor is not the best method, due to the inefficient conversion of fossil fuel into electricity at the power station. Therefore, engine-driven heat pumps have been preferred using gas engines, diesel engines or gas turbines. The output of the heat pump is expected to be about 65% higher than electrically driven systems, based on the same amount of fuel used. The advantages of these systems are mainly due to local generation of shaft power and providing engine heat that can be usefully employed , by recovering part of the waste energy of the gases and engine coolant. Such systems can operate continuously in comparison with solar systems.Primary energy was found to be saved by about 50% when using engine-driven heat pumps. The superiority of the gas turbine system was quite clear. This would be a kind of alternative to fuel engines on strong point of CO2 emission and global warming ,don’t you think? All that and some more I have pointed in my dissertation for Thermodynamic analysis of exhaust gas. In case some one interested or may need information for your researches ,you may look in here:http://www.coursework4you.co.uk/sprtengi3.htm.
Derick Trammell
The problem with GM is not the number of vehicles that get 30 mpg. Its the fact that there are no vehicles that get more than 40, 50 , or 60 mpg. The fact that when we could have improved fuel economy they didn’t, opting instead to sell 10-15 mpg SUV’s, and lobbying to keep the CORP fuel numbers set at 27 mpg. In fact all vehicles by all manufactures have dropped in fuel economy including HONDA, NISSAN, TOYOTA. No the problem is not GM, it is US. We wanted big vehicles and with it comes big gas tanks and big fuel cost. Even motorcycles are not as efficient as they once were.
David Hoskins
GM needs to produce a midsize truck with a small diesel engine. The Jeep Liberty offers a diesel power plant that boasts 26 mpg and around 300 ft-lbs of torque. A simmilar engine in the Canyon/Calorado would be a match made in heaven. Also why not offer the midsize trucks with the 5.3L V8 with displacement on demand. Just imagine that much power in 3500 lb vehical while acheaving 20-25 mpg. They have the technology so why not use it?
T brzezinski
G.M.has made strides in fuel economy and quality.
Unfortionately the image of their lack there of from the past still haunts them, as the American auto industry as a whole. G.M needs to hit A home run by getting a jump on the Asian and Europian auto companies by investing heavily into what is the
inevidable future,fuel cell vehicles.If G.M.is truly serious about this,not only will they survive,but they will be on top once again. Please Mr.Lutz, for the sake of G.M.,and the country persue this path agressivly.
Frank Akins
Tom,
Your United States fuel economy is pathetic. Your European fuel economy is OK. Bruce Brower as well as BMW’s fuel economy concepts and applications, with power, appear superior to yours. Give me power, economy, durability, luxury and I’ll purchase your product. In essence, there is a portion of the blood of my comtrades in every tank of fuel I burn now. I am reducing the amount of fuel I consume, and I am not going to wait on your corporation to finally respond with a suitable product. You are a “day late and a dollar short”. Have a nice day.
Alain Ducatel
Sir,
My 2005 Malibu LS helps me switch smoothly to retirement mode.
Purchase price was low, and fuel counsumption is outstanding.
I never thought a vehicle this size, equipped with a 3.5 L engine, could consume so little fuel (~6L/100KM on highway).
Good bang for the buck!
AD - Calgary
Alain Ducatel
Sir,
I really like this blog.
It exposes diverse opinions, even when they are not favorable to GM.
Having, lived, worked, and driven about a million kms, in over thirty countries, in diverse and extreme environments , for 46 years, i would like to share some experiences and ideas to help promote a pragmatic sustainable future for the generations to come.
AD-Calgary
John S.
If you are 50 + you will remember the Honda Dream & the Honda scrambler motocycle in the early 60s. First Honda cars were rear engined motocycle power plants. We had the R & D in the big three then. With overhead cam olds and chevy mtrs. Even Ford had one ! Inches to hp great designs. But oh no we’re the big three we make what we want ! Look at the 70s & 80s junk that cost Americans billions of dollars in gas & repairs. The oil crunch was correctly forcast thirty years ago by a geologist. Guess what Big Three… we’re there! You had knowlege in the vaults of the R&D community to be efficient! Pioneers like Duntov could have saved the industry. But you elected to make junk plain and simple. Now you can’t get the buck back because you waited too late ! As the Hondas, Nissans, and Toys go by you better get in bed with somebody or you will not have a job. Respects from an Angry American ( John )
ML
Why do we never see any manufacturers make vehicles running on natural gas, but we do see taxi fleet convert to natural gas fuel? Is it more difficult to make natural gas burning vehicles comparing to making hybrid and fuel cell vehicles?
jim s
great blog, chevy vet6L 400hp,
nissan 350z 3.5L 307hp. audi tt 3.2 250hp same peformance same economy the z is about 13,000 grand less but who cares just thought i should give nissan a thumbs up. drive a forunner, a explorer, a cherokee then drive a pathfinder and you will give fuel economy or any other issues the finger!! my altima gets 27-29mpg but my 6.6L blazer “makes up for it” with 8 and im smiling the whole time(even more so knowing a good push on the peddle to the right will send me over the top of that “tin can” civic in front of me”
Marcel
I’m an Aussie who loves his prius. At 58mpg it saves me $50 a week in juice which goes a long way to paying for the ride. It’s smooth, comfortable, has more leg room than a HJ60 Landcruiser
and does 170kmh. South Aussies might know Willunga Hill. The prius hits the top at 120k which is quicker than all the pre-86 6 cylinders i owned.
Sure I’d love to have a V8 to cruise around in on weekdays but it’s pretty silly driving a gas guzzler backwards and forwards to work ain’t it. And lets face it that’s where most of us do the miles. Duh
Tom W
I am a GM truck/car fan - owning a variety of GM cars and trucks over my life. Yet - due to a long commute I found myself trading in my 2005 Silverado crew cab, and buying my first foreign brand: a 2006 Honda Civic EX. I didn’t see a GM offering that compared in value (specifically in terms of fuel economy, HP, and safety). The AVEO and COBALT don’t really compare. People are willing to pay more for a small car - but the value has to be there. As far as trucks - I am looking for a hybrid with 5* safety, great fuel economy, and reliability is mandatory. I would like a manual engine override for power (towing situations), plus the other options we’ve come to expect in GM trucks. GM has a real perception problem out there. I am an easy sell, but many people I talk to will only consider Toyota/Honda, and KIA/Hyundai if they want something inexpensive.
Steve
Mr. Stephens,
Thank you for your informative post. A good part of GM’s problem is perception, not reality. It has been fashionable for a long time to portray American automobile manufacturers as bloated giants (e.g. dinosaurs) that can’t get out of their own way and adapt.
GM has built for sale in the U.S. what the American consumer wanted - big, heavy, powerful cars and trucks. With the gasoline price spike in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, the fickle American consumer screamed for high mileage vehicles and why don’t the U.S. companies build them. Easy answer to that, the dollars were in the big SUVs and pickup trucks because that is what the American consumers wanted/demanded.
I congratulate GM on its great strides forward in fuel economy and the number of vehicles that it produces that are rated at 30 mpg by the EPA standards. It’s no time to rest on your laurels though, the EPA standards are going to be tightened up in 2008 to more closely reflect current real world driving conditions.
In closing, I would like to say that I purchased a 2007 Aveo5 SVM back on 10/31/2006 and couldn’t be happier with it. It is the biggest bang for the buck available to the U.S. car buyer who is looking for no frills basic transportation. The build quality is excellent and the car is fun to drive; especially around town. Gas mileage is good - though it is not as good as some foreign manufacturers’ imports, the price differential more than makes up for that dollar wise for the forseeable future.
I realize that at 54 years of age I don’t fit into the intended marketing segment for the Aveo, but I couldn’t be happier with it.
Will
did you know that aproximatly 70-75 years that there will be no more oil left on this planet
Ken Bloom
GM has won me from VW since they stopped making cars that get 39mpg 89 Jetta. I must go to lowest cost of operation. I have owned Datsun 69 75, Nissan 96, toyota 85 92 95 , VW 85 89, Chrysler 92, Ford 80, American Motors 70 85, and GM 03.
If AM was around I would still go with them for economy but GM has exceeded them now. VW offered wonderful vehicles in the 70’s and 80’s but they cannot offer anything since the 39mpg of a Jetta 89. When I went to select a vehicle in 03 I had a MR2 (leaked oil like the other two toyotas that I have) and Dynasty 19mpg and Ford PU F100 good work horse. I combined all three into a 03 4.8L Silverado. More performance than the MR2 better mpg than the Dynasty, and more load capacity than the F100. Since I have retuned to be getting 22 mpg highway 70mph and 24mpg city. If I only drive to work 1.3 miles I get 14mpg aveage. To Tom Read, GM Powertrain Communications, Think out of the box, replace the energy loss of a rear axle. If you went to a inline driveshaft-axle the rear wheel drives economy would equal the front wheel drives. Since you ar going to an independent rear axle on most vehicles it is possible. If you do not want to then Nissan, Toyota, VW, etc take this idea and make it happen. There is no reason for a SUV or a Pickup to have the high loss axle. The design was to help in sedans of the 50’s but does not work for the SUVs or the pickups. Tom Read if I could buy a replacement of the axle today it would be worth the $1000 to get the higher performance and better economy part for my pickup.
Karl
You know, It’s ridiculous that you can’t buy a mid-sized pickup with a diesel engine in the U.S., yet they are common in every other part of the world.
I’m like so many people in America, where my pickup is also my car. I drive it to the office every weekday, and haul stuff with it on the weekends. I want creature comforts, and I also want power and ruggedness. And now I have another want: something green. By green I mean, something with a drastically reduced carbon footprint. I want to kick the gasoline habit, for SO many reasons. I looked carefully at all the options, and here is what I found:
-Forget flex-fuel; there is not a single E85 ethanol pump here in Washington State.
-Forget the Prius; They’re too wierd-looking, and I can’t haul a load of yard-waste in it. But if they made it plug-in, with a 9KW Li-Ion battery pack, so that I could get the equivalent of 100+ MPG, I would probably buy one.
-Forget the Electric Ford Ranger pickup. There’s two of them for sale locally, but they’re using OLD battery technology, and it’s a FORD.. I’m sorry, but I’m a lifetime GM guy, I don’t do Fords.
-It all comes down to biodiesel. It is readily available in my area, from many different sources: B20, B75, B99, and B100, at prices that are competitive with regular diesel. So last week I bought a used 2002 Silverado Duramax pickup.
-I can’t run more than 5% biodiesel YET, because I still have 7 months left on the Duramax 5 year engine warranty. Anything more than a 5% blend will void the warranty. But as soon as that warrany is up, I will be running mostly B99 around town. I will switch back to dino diesel only for long cross-country trips.
-Although I love my new truck (it is leather/loaded), this thing is HUGE. She is a long-bed extended-cab. She is a PITA to maneuver in and out of parking places. Granted there will be some hauling jobs where I can really use a 3/4 ton, but those are more the exception than the norm. The Duramax engine w/ Allison transmission is a truly amazing powertrain. Arguably the best in the light truck segment.
-Now if GM came out with a V6 version of the Duramax, and put it in a Colorado pickup, I would trade in my 3/4T beast for one in a heartbeat. America needs a V6 diesel option for the mid-size pickup market. Please don’t try to sell me a 4-banger diesel. I hate 4-bangers! It’s gotta have a leather trim option. It’s gotta have ample power, like you’d expect from 3/4 of a Duramax V8 (let’s see, .75 x 6.6 would make it 4.95 L, I like the sound of that!) And PLEASE make it approved for use with biodiesel right from the get-go, don’t make me wait 5 years until my warranty expires. New diesels sold in Europe are all approved for biodiesel, so don’t tell me it can’t be done. They’re already doing it. And if you are worried about the EPA, take a look at the Mercedes Blu-Tec.
I am a hard-core, V8-loving, buy-American, drive fast kinda guy. I never pictured myself falling in love with diesels, but it has happened. I’m here to tell you GM, American automotive culture can change, and is changing.
Ben Korman
I purchased a 2005 Ford Ranger two years ago, it is a V4,2.7L truck and it gets the best fuel economy/emissions of any truck I’ve ever driven.
Today I’m in the market for another truck. I want more cab room, and less truck bed. I want to be able to put a baby seat in the back of it. What I’ve discovered is that GM does not offer a product that can compete with the truck I have on gas mileage, even though almost 3 years have passed, and gas prices have risen, and the need for better fuel economy should have sparked better technologies. GM is sleeping on the job.
BF Weaver
I have a 2004 H2 Hummer and love it. Hummer needs a V6 or V8 Duramax w/Allison tansmission. (NOW,Yesterday) Many people like myself will buy (perches)a new H2 tomorrow. Oh by the way if Hummer won’t make this chang, I’m making the modification to install the Duramax with the Allison six speed. Is GM thinking of making this type of change 2008 or soon after?
George
Has anyone else had the new Duramax injectors installed only to have their fuel economy cut in half? Calss to GM result in answers of “all engin parameters are in spec”. What can be done?
Matthew
The biggest problem is not the manufacturers … it’s the consumer. We want “someone else” to solve the problem so that we’re not responsible. Huge fuel savings can be had for altering driving habits - yeah, everyone says it but nobody practices it. Look at the article “Improve MPG: The Factors Affecting Fuel Efficiency” and you can see on the graphs just how significant gas savings can be. So why should a manufacturer spend enormous amounts of capital producing a vehicle that will never meet performance expectations because the consumer just mashes the accelerator to the floor? Instead, they’ll produce the vehicle that matches the consumers driving style. So the blame lies with the driver … you’re not only driving poorly, your actions are driving the demand and the automakers ARE supplying it.
Don Winkler
I Just Purchased a new Chev Silvordo DuroMax Loaded,auto 4×4 2500 Lucky to get 10 Max of 16 mpg. I’am a Grand Pa, on Hwy. never go over 70 mph oh Gears rear end 373 now Have 6,000 miles on the truck I Love the truck But DISAPOINTED in The fuel milage. Next time I will Buy a DODGE. G.M calls this Progress.
JOHN STRINGFELLOW
Why did the big three build so much junk in the 70s through the 80s ? Answer profit people !!!!!!!! Now you have the big six !!!!!!!
OzoneLevel
Nice try with the 2008 Tahoe hybrid. Now give it a 40mi all-electric range, capability to connect the generator to provide house backup power, and I’ll pay $20,000 extra to buy one immediately, in fact, put me on the waiting list.
Bosephus
Well well well, what have we here? Its 2008 and gas prices are going up.
doug bartlett
Please consider producing a line of small (8 pass.) to medium (15)commuter electric mini-buses, using detachable, interchangeable, 2-wheel battery trailers, for use by municipal and commuter organizations. After 80+ miles (safely more than a 1-way commute or morning route), the depleted battery trailer would be exchanged for a freshly charged unit. Subsidize the purchase price of a second battery trailer, to get market acceptance. Offpeak battery recharging cost should be targeted.
Take control of this growing market need in urban, “green-minded” markets, and make my GM stock valuable again. Do it before Ford or Chrysler.
geofrey holmes
I say when the dealers get better about service on the vechiles, and they bring the jobs back to the U.S. will be the day i buy any knew american vechile. until then ill continue to buy any used vechile they need to come back and take care of home. When you put so many workers out of a job dont expect your cars and trucks to sell bring the jobs home and your sales will go threw the roof. Production quality was high when everything was made here, now that most of the major american automakers product are made in other country quality has went down.
Alain
Referring to the lines i wrote on Nov 19 and 20 of 2006.
Things have since worsened a bit:
Hundreds of Thousands of Workers, in the Americas, Europe, and Asia are/may loose their Job.
We are being confronted to the worst down turn, since that sinister Black October of 1929.
It took 25 years … and a World War to recover from it.
Many messages in this blog are relevant to the preservation of Energy.
Unfortunatly, none of them can tell me how long those fancy battery banks can last (we’re exposed here to temperature ranging from +40 to -40oC), how much it will cost to replace them, and how they are recycled.
Meanwhile, my 2005 V6 Malibu still covers over 47 Miles per Imperial Gallon (1)
Best Regards
AD - Calgary
(1) a pilot forced me to land on a Yukon highway, in the seventies, for having been confused with the USG
Jim
Who makes the most efficient cars?
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/the-american-gas-guzzler-myth.htm
This is called The American Gas Guzzler Myth
Al
I drive a 2005 Pontiac built GMC 3500 4wd dually with a Duramax diesel and auto transmission. I bought it new and I’m getting over 15mpg all the time, even trailering, and sometimes close to 20mpg. Not too bad for a dually. My guess is “Don Winkler” (from above) either had some mechanical issues with his 3/4 ton diesel or something else was going on. Regarding his threat to “buy a Dodge”? Try driving one first. My experience in a Dodge/Cummins truck is only with one and several years ago on a single trip but I couldn’t believe how poorly that one accelerated. Adequate torque for trailering once you were up to speed but no acceleration getting there. It’s driveability was thus, poor. That Dodge’s owner said he “bought the Cummins diesel and got the Dodge along with it”. When called on for acceleration, the Duramax/Allison performs.