Now that we've got your attention

Chevrolet Aveo

Cool dude!

Customer participation and input. What a brave new concept!

You can't pay enough for feedback like this.

Great job GM on seeking out the consumer's thoughts. Every one of them will prove to be valuable in your marketing strategy.

Now you know exactly what the silent majority is thinking.

Kudos.

I've seen some of the not so flattering videos people have posted in various automotive forums. I even found some of them quite hilarious. However, I don't think that most of the negative comments were warranted. If the videos were referring to the last generation Tahoe, I probably would have agreed, but this new model has nothing to be ashamed of. There is no reason why it shouldn't be able to hang with the best. I think people's perception of GM is that of its cars from the last 10 years. You need to start getting them to look at your cars of now and the next 10 years. I think a straightforward ad campaign by Lutz would do the job. Tell the public that in the past you've made mistakes, but now your back on track, and your going to be around for the long run take care of them. People are very receptive to honesty and will repect the fact that a upper member of GM management has taken the time to speak to the American people.

Thanks for the explanation, when I started seeing stories about the parody ads I was surprised that we didn't see as much as a statement on the issue, a message like this one, issued last week would have effectively countered the accusations that Chevy was "asleep at the wheeel" in not quelling the parody ads.

A couple of comments regarding your statements regarding Chevy's (and GMs as a whole) model lineup.

Frankly I think that all the talk about E85 and how it will save the planet are bordering on insult, the fact is that E85 is so rare as to be effectively pointless. I've never even seen a station that offers E85. The fact is that at least 99.99% of the fuel burned by E85 capable vehicles will be gasoline.

As for the number of cars that get good mileage, I don't see a lot of choice, even as you mentioned the Aveo, which gets decent (but not fantastic) mileage is a $10,000 car. Where is the car with good mileage for someone like me, who wants a nicer than $10,000 car, and is willing to spend $25,000 or more to get it but still wants to get good mileage. I drove a cheap car for a while, a Geo Metro in fact, and while it got over 40Mpg (real world) I was driven crazy by just how cheap the car is. Now I drive a Mazda3, the largest and most fuel inefficient car I've ever owned, but at least it has nice features, unfortunatly it only gets about 28Mpg real world.

We are looking to replace my wifes minivan this year, we want something with better mileage ideally >25Mpg real world, we also need more than 5 passenger seating and a good amount of cargo space, finally we demand safety that simply can't be found in even modern SUVs (ABS and traction control, no matter how advanced, can't completely compensate for >5000lbs and a high center of gravity). We are willing to spend $35,000 or more for such a vehicle though as far as we can tell it doesn't currently exist, it sertianly doesn't exist with a Chevy badge on it (the closest would be the minivan you are about to discontinue that hasn't bee updated in close to a decade).

GM's incessant references to E85 ethanol powered vehicles as being environmentally friendly is insulting to anyone who takes the time to learn the entire story. The majority of E85 ethanol in the US is produced from corn. Fertilizer, herbicides, insecticides and other petrochemicals are used to produce these products. The amount of oil used in the production of these products, in addition to the oil used to fuel the harvesting, transportation and processing of the corn all adds up to make ehtanol a very oil intensive process. As far as I understand it, a more efficient use of the oil would simply be to convert it into gasoline for direct use in vehicles as oppsed to the indirect use in ethanol.

GM never mentions the amount petrochemicals used to make ethanol and how the process is a remarkably inefficient use of oil.

Then, GM talks about Hydrogen powered vehicles as being the way of the future. How is Hydrogen produced? You guessed it, by using oil in the production process!

Additionally, where does GM suggest I fuel up my E85 powered vehicle? How many E85 fuel stations are there in most communities? What is the fuel efficiency and power of E85 when compared to gasoline?

Why does GM get so agressive in defending SUV's? I like large luxury vehicles as well, but I am not living in denial that they are environmentally unfriendly and inefficient.

When I was a child, my parents had a station wagon to carry the entire family. (In fact it was a very nice Chevy Impala wagon) The average number of children in a family has decreased in the past 30 years, so why does GM insist on pushing SUV's as the family solution and not more responsible vehicles such as the station wagon?

Until GM let's go of the fantasy that SUV's will make a comeback and until the company adjusts to the long term paradigm shift away from large vehicles, the company will continue to suffer.

The greatest kindness that we can offer to each other is the truth. GM needs to be more truthful about the realities of E85, Hydrogen and the move away from SUV's. If GM does not address this paradigm shift, it will only hurt the company more.

I support GM and I think you make some fantastic cars. I love what you have done with SAAB and Saturn. I wish you the best of luck, but you guys have got to start being more open with yourselves and the consumer.

Ed: Defending the Tahoe after the fact is not exactly an indication of awareness.

And what will GM do to show that you are listening to the many people who created anti-SUV ads?
B.L. Ochman
What's Next Blog

haha i posted mine a month or so ago...

it was a fun activity...

An excellent solution to alternative fuel might be to sell diesels to everyone and have many filling stations offering biodiesel.

However, creating the biodiesel might be too expensive, but wouldn't that be an awesome option if it worked?!!

In response to Robert's post, all of Chevy's cars (not just Aveo) get over 30 mpg. That includes Malibu, Malibu Maxx (the most fuel efficient vehicle in its class according to 2005 E.P.A. fuel economy guide), Cobalt, Impala, Monte Carlo and yes, the spirited Aveo.

If you're willing to come down to 28 mpg, spend a little more money and enjoy a manual transmission, then the 2005, 400 hp Corvette would be a fun option ; )

By the way, as a whole, 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 in line with 14 and 13 models, respectively...

I think to say that people are no longer interested in large SUV's is crazy. I work at a dealership and we have people come in all the time looking for them. When you try to suggest that they consider a minivan that has as much if not more space and gets 20-25% better fuel economy, you should see the reaction of most. As much as we kid ourselves that we are concerned with fuel effeciency, most people are more concerned with the image of what they are driving.
In Illinois, there are E85 stations popping up weekly, there was one opened yesterday and were selling E85 for $1.85 per gallon. From my calculation that is about 45% less than the $2.69 that regular unleaded is currently selling for. I will be more than happy to take a 5-10% lower MPG to save that much and be supporting our farmers as well.

You all have to remember, what are the top selling vehicles, especially for GM? The SUVs. People want those cars, and obviously they will drive them EVEN if they get 15mpg. Do a lot of these people really need such big trucks? No.

There ARE a lot of options for good MPG cars from GM. Look at Chevy alone - you can get the cobalt coupe/sedan which gets between 25 and 40mpg (I get these facts from forums I visit).

You have the Impala and Monte Carlo that get about 30 mpg. These cars are more upper class type cars but still get excellent mileage.

Don't forget, GM has many different car companies under its umbrella, all with great cars that are economical.

Ed, I have been the proud owner of a 2007 Chevy Tahoe LT for a month now. I have owned over 28 new GM Vehicles. from a Chevette to a Corvette. I have to say my Tahoe is the best yet! It does everything I want, from taking my family to Dinner, to pulling my snowmobiles to northern Michigan. And yes, my boat this summer to the lake. I realize there are a lot of people out there that can get by with a small vehicle but have you ever tried to take a family from Michigan to Florida during spring break? I realize that I am burning fuel, that the price of buying that fuel is a little more expensive. That just means this year in the comfort of our Tahoe we might be eating fast food more often on the drive down to Florida. The other comment on this Blog about families getting smaller maybe true, but look at the size of these children now a days, my 10 year old daughter is 5'1" and her 9 year old brother is just a little shorter. Put them in something like a Prius?? Yeah, right! See the USA in your Chevrolet. Keep up the good work! Continue making vehicles like the Tahoe, Camaro and Chevrolet will continue to be USA-1!

Nicholas Davis: "The majority of E85 ethanol in the US is produced from corn. Fertilizer, herbicides, insecticides and other petrochemicals are used to produce these products. The amount of oil used in the production of these products, in addition to the oil used to fuel the harvesting, transportation and processing of the corn all adds up to make ehtanol a very oil intensive process."

Yes, this is a true statement, and one that I used to use all the time when saying that E85 was a bad idea and that it wouldn't save us. I am in no way disputing what you say about how much energy it takes to grow corn and turn it into ethanol. I do have two thoughts that I'd like people to consider:

1 - How much energy does it take to turn crude oil into gasoline compared to how much crude oil it takes to make ethanol (remember tractors and such can run on diesel which is both easier to make from crude and is more efficient). You won't find a straight answer on this anywhere. The corn lobby (ADM and such) say one thing, the renewable energy scientists (NREL for example) say another, and the oil industry says yet another. I don't think there's a consensus. My feeling is that in the end it'll be about equal.

2 - This is my main point: Due to the farm lobby, we (the US government) already buys corn from farmers and dumps it in the ocean. This is to keep supply down and the price high. So here's corn that we already spent all the oil to plant and fertilize and harvest and we're just throwing it away. If we start to get (unsubsidized) E85 online then the demand for the corn will be such that we don't have to waste resources and just throw the corn away. We can actually turn it into fuel.

Over all it may be a net negative in energy to turn corn into ethanol, but it's also a net negative to turn crude oil into gasoline (don't know which is less of a negative though), either way it's less of a negative than we're at right now by dumping corn (and wheat and potatoes and ...) into the ocean.

Brazil will be free of importing Middle East Oil not in ten,twenty years but THIS YEAR!!!E85 can work!!!It starts off with a few stations to tens of thousands of them.Our Farmers can feed the world now lets put them to work in feeding our cars and trucks.If Ethanol didnt work then Brazils consumption of Middle East Oil should have stayed the same or increased.They will be FREE of Middle East oil this year.If that doesnt speak volumes about E85 then I dont know what does.The new Tahoe.Saw one near were I live.HOT TO TROT!!!!GUCCI!!!!

After having been believing for years that GM just doesn't "get it" and is incapable of "getting it" as they are not aware enough of the values and principles and conduct that make a company (or an individual) successful in achieving their own dreams & goals, I am beginning to see evidence to the contrary.

And I am very glad.

Willingness to open up to criticism and be transparent and honest about it is one of the essential steps to fixing the errors that are preventing success.

I am also very glad to see the gorgeous new models coming out, the new very modern direct injection 2.0 liter engine (GM took more than 2 yrs after the Japanese to come out with a Variable Timing engine), and especially the new apparently genuine impulse to do what's right.

Very well done.... so far.

And also well done to me for taking off the "filter" that made me only see the negative things about GM.

Regards,

Luis

Duh. The fact that this post exists shows that GM is already listening.

Here in Minnesota E85 is readily available and makes quite a bit of sense.

It's great that the new Tahoe uses E85 but what I would like is a small car closer to my Saturn SL1 that runs on E85. I know the Chevrolet Impala uses E85 but I would like something smaller for commuting.

Speaking of Saturn, the VUE is nice but Saturn's car line really needs some sprucing up. The ION alone isn't enough. Bring out an E85 compatible small Saturn car.

I will admit, I've always thought that the Tahoe looked great, but this latest version is superb. The only problem I see is in the price tag $$$.

Speaking of trucks, there is an interesting article in AutoWeek showing how the Ridgeline was created, and the difference between GM and Honda. After reading this article, I actually feel sorry for any engineer employed by GM.

It goes a long way explaining why Honda builds far more exciting vehicles.

Here it is:

" At Honda, if you can build the business plan, you can build the vehicle

By LINDSAY CHAPPELL | AUTOMOTIVE NEWS

AutoWeek | Published 04/03/06, 2:36 pm et

RAYMOND, Ohio - One of the most momentous decisions in Honda Motor Co.'s recent history - whether to sell pickups in the United States - basically was decided by two guys in a meeting room.

Gary Flint, a former General Motors engineer who left GM after having three projects canceled, boarded an airplane in Columbus, Ohio, and flew to Tokyo. There, he walked into a meeting with Honda's director for North American sales, Michiyoshi Hagino, and presented a business plan for building Honda's first U.S. pickup.

Field research
Back in 1999, the home office in Japan had asked Flint and a group of 36 engineers at its U.S. development arm, Honda R&D Americas Inc., to "learn more about" the U.S. pickup market. From their offices in Raymond, Ohio, amid a sea of cornfields, the group did as instructed. They conducted field research.

They brought together consumer focus groups in places like Texas and Montana. They studied frames. They studied cargo beds. But they also created - on their own initiative - a prototype truck in 2002.

Amazed by how well it drove, Flint and his colleagues then built another prototype.

They then put together a business plan to mass-produce the trucks. Again, this was on their own initiative.

In 2003, Flint found himself - yet again, on his own initiative - sitting with Hagino, proposing a plan that would thrust the Japanese automaker into a new product segment.

"Seven minutes into my presentation, he grabbed the paper out of my hand," Flint recalls of Hagino. "He says, 'You can stop reading now. The answer is yes.' And then he sent me home to do it."

That's how they do things at Honda.

No big committees. No bureaucracies. No layers of decision makers reviewing the decisions of the previous layer of decision makers, who in turn, reviewed the decisions handed up from the previous layer.

"We empower people to make good decisions," says Flint, who was chief engineer on the Ridgeline pickup. "If you can build the business case for something, you can pretty much run with it here."

As Flint speaks, other Honda engineers sitting around a table in Raymond nod in agreement. There is Ken Lantz, who decided how the Ridgeline's engine should perform. There is one of Honda's executive engineers, Erik Berkman, who led the development of the 2006 Honda Accord and the 2004 Acura TL.

There is Kevin Thelen, an ex-GM test engineer who was put in charge of the Ridgeline's overall performance. There is Mark Pafumi, whose ideas influenced the performance of the new Civic Si, a vehicle that the guys in the cornfield took over from Japan.
GM had layers
"At GM," Flint recalls of his previous employer, "there were several layers just between a designer and the chief engineer. There were certain things a chief engineer just would never have done. As chief engineer on the Ridgeline, I used to come in here and dust."

Honda's lean approach to product development - relying on individuals to both conceive and implement their own product ideas - does not make it faster than everyone else. Toyota Motor Corp. leads the industry in speed to market, developing new models in under 24 months. Honda's approach does not earn its vehicles billions of dollars in additional profit.

The beauty of Honda's system is best appreciated by other engineers.

"The way we do things ensures that people get their ideas across," Pafumi explains. "We're all pretty much enthusiasts here. If we think something should be changed on a vehicle, we can build the case for why it should be changed. We like to think that our mission is building a great car. If you turn enthusiasts loose on a car and give them real input, you're going to get a car that enthusiasts like."

Pafumi's ideas began to churn in 2004, when he began thinking about the 2006 Civic Si, a car that was supposed to rekindle youthful enthusiasm for the Civic.

The model had been under development in Japan, even though its largest production center is in East Liberty, Ohio, just a few miles from Raymond. But then Honda pivoted.
New product
While Japan was developing the Civic Si and the 2006 Accord - also built a short drive from Raymond, in Marysville, Ohio, - the U.S. team in Raymond was developing a new product, called the Acura RDX. The RDX will be a sport wagon, built in Marysville.

Midway through the RDX project, Honda began to think more broadly about what the model would be and what derivatives it might yield. Early in 2004, Honda swapped all three projects.

The U.S. team took over the Civic Si and the nearly finished Accord from Japan. Japan would take over the RDX from Ohio.

The Ohio team immediately pounced on the Civic. Instead of executing the car as it stood on the blueprints, Ohio engineers began putting their own fingerprints on it. They compiled a list of changes, including a redesigned suspension with a stabilizer bar, changes to the instrument panel and the additions of a spoiler, a limited slip differential, seat stitching and a power trunk release.
Make your case
Pafumi, who held the title of "assistant large project leader" on the Si, also believed it needed a more commanding engine sound and began changing its air intake and creating a resonator system. He also thought the car needed high-performance summer tires.

That decision, though, would need approval by the U.S. sales company - and specifically by Tom Elliott, American Honda Motor Co.'s executive vice president in Torrance, Calif., now retired.

"The word I got was there was no way Tom Elliott would sign off on summer tires," Pafumi recalls. "Everybody said Tom didn't like that sort of feature."

Pafumi put together a business plan for the tires and flew out to spend the day with Elliott in California.

The Ohio engineer arranged to have cars fitted with the tires waiting for the two of them at Honda's Mojave Desert proving grounds. He spent the day making his case to Elliott, demonstrating his reasoning for the tires, then drove Elliott back to his office and flew home with his approval.

"It's a flat organization here," says Pafumi, who spent his college years vying for a job at the company that built his Honda Civic.

"Anyone at any level can present a new idea to the president. Anyone who touches the car has the power to influence it."

Some people might call that chaos.

After all, large organizations have procedures and lines of reporting in order to keep well-meaning people from destroying the product.

"To some extent, it may be chaos," Pafumi reflects. "But there's always a plan. And that plan is to build the best car we can build." "

(end of article)

GM, get rid of the bureaucracy impeding the creative juices of your best engineers, or you might as well get rid of them and just have your accountants draw cars on a napkin.

Ed,

I think what you all did with the Tahoe ad was great. Now, you should take the next step. The people who made the ant-SUV ads weren't your target market anyway - at least not for the Tahoe. Why not allow Tahoe / SUV advocates to defend themselves? Create a contest that allows people to respond to the negative ads. Allow your supporters - the people who've bought a tremendous number of your automobiles - to rally around you and to defend their point of view. I think it would be a great thing to give your customers a focal point and a voice in this debate.

Ed, you wouldn't bore us at all with the details. It would be refreshing, actually.

The environmentalists will agitate,

The skeptics will hesitate,

Wall Street will speculate,

Detractors will irate,

Studies will rate,

The competition will imitate,

Floggers will inundate,

Doubters will postulate,

But the consumer still dictates,

And their preferences you will satiate.

Yeah I know you are on a low carb south beach diet but this is America, where the supersize and big gulps await hungry citizens coming off their new diet they started this afternoon.

Ed you have got to tell me how Jack Smith is doing. His dream after all is coming true, to bring the design flare of Europe to America. I was happy when he brought his successful European team to America. With Opel finally coming to America as Saturn both our dreams are coming true.

Oh, tell him I am still doing the warrior diet.

The debate over ethanol is over. Right now there are 100 ethanol factories under construction or expanding adding to the 100 already in existence. In addition there are over 200 on the drawing board. Ethanol builders, those that build the plants said they are turning business down because of the backlog.

Read Environmental News Service. Their article titled "...Beyond Corn" stated we can increase ethanol production by four times to 14 billion by using just the agricultural residues that is either thrown out or burned.

In addition ethanol production can be made with coal, hydrogen can be made from ethanol. That process can be done using solar power. Switchgrass can increase acreage yield 2-3 times more than corn.

The bottom line is ethanol is in its infancy but it is the way to go because the fuel we can grow. Gasoline E85 will no longer be a non-renewable resource but an eternal wellspring. Those ethanol factories unlike the oil wells in the gulf will never go dry, nope not in a thousand years and their yield will continue to go up.

Hay NJ is going to be making ethanol from old scrap tires.

Ethanol is a fate-accompli a battle already won, for GM, for Brazil, and from the sales so is the Chevy Tahoe.

Heres a tagline!

Ethanol = Eternal

Unfortunately, Ed's comments illustrate that he is hopelessly out of touch with reality. For that, I feel for GM and for its workers. It is a company that America needs to be successful, but to do so, they need to go back to basics. Get the products right, and then make the marketing authentic.

That's a very different modus operandi for GM, and a big risk, but trying to be overly slick by partnering with The Apprentice is not going to solve the fundamental problems.

For a detailed alternative viewpoint, I suggest going to Heather's "Marketing at Microsoft" Blog post on the subject. http://blogs.msdn.com/heatherleigh/archive/2006/04/04/568332.aspx#comments

In response to Melisa's response to my original comment.

I was very clear that I was talking about "real world" economy as opposed to the meaningless EPA economy ratings.

For the record I really like the Malibu Maxx, partially because of my fondness for station wagons and partially because of it's roominess. Unfortunately it only seats 5.

Concerning the Chevrolet Aveo: The all-new model will arrive at European dealerships very soon (http://www.chevrolet.de/aveo/aveo-index.html).
I think it will prove as a very nice entry-level-car here, but I still urgently would like to suggest, also to offer a hatchback-version of the all-new Aveo very soon. So far that model is just the successor of the 4-door Kalos, but over here in Europe in my opinion it's more necessary, because of the customer's request, to offer hatchbacks, than 4-door sedans, especially as far as compact cars are concerned. Chevrolet Deutschland GmbH informed me, that there are no plans for a hatchback-version of the all-new Aveo yet. I really think, this should be changed. Thanks for paying attention.

FWIW-
There is but ONE 4 cylinder GM diesel roaming in NA...and it rocks!...hopefully GMDetroit will dummy-up. Do ya need a test-drive?

Ed,

Put content back into the trucks and you can one again own the segment. Time to stand up to the bean counters that insist on cheapening the product. To name a few, removal of sound deadening, articulating headrests, lower oz. carpet weight - these have all gone down in quality or have been removed. What's next?

Build it right and you won't have to worry about blogs...

I think it would be cool if GM let us make commercials for more products as well.

E85 may not be readily available everywhere yet (only 4 stations in Michigan where GM is based), however, more discussion and promotion is essential. E85 vehicles are the chickens, E85 stations are the eggs. We all know which comes first!

I think the campaign is a great initiative, exactly because it gives more "power to the people" and because the GM brand, regardless of the message those ads have.

Unfortunately the real information about the Tahoe are discussed here among us, but we should also try to communicate them to those who are not aware of the new features and are being strumentalised by the environmentalist lobby. As far as I'm concerned, I've already gave my opinion here.

I can't believe the postings complaining about E85 fuel pollution during the growing and manufacturing process of corn ! Don't they realize there is NO free fuel ? Every type of fuel devised will pollute or require energy to create. Gasoline requires energy to create in the drilling and refining process, as does natual gas or propane. The batteries in Hybrids require energy to produce and create their contents, plus they still burn gas on top of that. Even an all-solar car requires energy to build the solar panels in the first place ! The great thing about a corn-based fuel is that its a RENEWABLE resource. Oil will run out eventually, but you can always grow more corn. We could always all just walk, but that of course would require more shoes, which would pollute either through the increased manufacturing of plastics or the raising of more cattle, so someone would complain about that too !

After viewing many Tahoe clips, I'm awed at their passion and wit! And anger.

For its future and our country's, I genuinely hope GM will comprehend how so many people feel about its SUVs.

I'm an extremely-satisfied owner of a Prius, not just for its real-world 42 mpg in the city. They are all around here in Los Angeles. Where is GM's competing vehicle?

I just read that GM is proud to have 30 mpg cars. Correct me if I am wrong, but 30 mpg is a ridiculously low 1 liter per 12.8 kilometers. A 1985 Honda Civic Coupe got 51 mpg on average according to www.fueleconomy.gov. Yes a modern car is far safer than that Honda, but still you're loosing big time from a 2 decades old car!

In response to Richard Atkinson's comments about fuel economy and quality:I own a '99 Buick Ultra. The long trips I have taken with this car From R.I. To N.H. or Pa. have gotten me 31 to 33.5 mpg. on a car that could fit your Mazda in the trunk. Epa estimates for my car are 27 or 28 mpg hwy. Now, I admit, I'm driving 60-70 mph to satisfy my wife, but my uncle, who owned a '97 Ultra and routinely drove it to Fla. from R.I. got 29-30 mpg going 75-80. On a trip to California, I rented a 2003 Lesabre and got 34 mpg on the highway, and 25 for the mixed driving on the trip. By the way, My Ultra routinly averages 23-25 mpg in mixed driving back and forth to work (a 50/50 mix of city and hwy) , and thats doing 75 on the hwy. Nobody can question the quality of these Buicks as compared to your old Metro. To paraphrase the old golf adage, "It's not how you arrive, but how you DRIVE"!!!

Ed,
I hope you guys don't only listen to the anti-SUV side of things, which seems to be increasingly loud and in vogue these days. SUVs are important to many people for many reasons, and I won't be one to try to score cheap brownie points by bashing a vehicle that I may not own. The smugness of hybrid owners can be really overbearing at times.
Hybrids do not make money for a car company--no matter how much they sell. neither are they practical in the real world. You never make back your gas savings over the life of the vehicle.
Diesel cars get far better mileage with proven technology--as does driving slowly.

Mr. Peper: The Colorado and Canyon are losing market share because there is no V6 option. I have driven a 3.5L I-5 Colorado and found it to have good power but could use more torque. I hear that the engine will be enlarged to 3.7L which will improve the power, but will not improve the customer “perception” that they need a V-6. GM complains about poor “perception” in the market versus the “reality” of their products, there is no way anyone is going to convince someone shopping on the internet that a I-5 engine is as good as a V-6. Most importantly you will never get them to the dealer for a test-drive.

Since the 4.2L I-6 is not offered on the Colorado or H-3, it must not fit. What options are there for V-6 power?

GM offers the 3.6L V6 in the Holden Rodeo (same platform as the Colorado), why is it not offered here? This 270 HP DOHC V6 mated to a 6-speed automatic would make the Colorado power-train the class leader. Another option would be the 270 HP 3.9L V-6 with variable valve timing mated to a 6-speed automatic. A Colorado SS with a 300 HP/300 ft/lbs supercharged 3800 V6 is yet another. The 3800 can be easily modified for large power gains and even the import tuners respect this engine.

Of course (if they fit) there are 4.8L or 5.3L V8 engines, the 320 HP 5.3L with AFM could deliver over 25 MPG on the highway or a 300 HP 4.8L version may provide up to 30 MPG. If a Corvette can get over 30 MPG highway with a 5.7L V8 without AFM there is no reason a smaller 4.8L in a 2WD Colorado with AFM couldn’t. Both engines are E-85 capable and put out more power than any other mid-size truck. If it would fit the Tahoe Hybrid system could be a segment first and like the Silverado Hybrid, provide electric power at the campsite or worksite.

On the other economy side GM could offer EPA ratings of 22/30 MPG with a 190 HP gasoline direct injection 2.4L I-4 version of the 2.2L D.I. engine offered in Europe. Or a top economy model with a 150 HP/230 ft/lb 1.9L Turbo-Diesel rated at least 25/35 or as high as 25/38 MPG. At the very minimum the 2.8L I-4 should have a 5-speed automatic in place of the current 4-speed.

Hybrid options would be the VUE 2.4L Hybrid drive system or the new SAAB 260 HP 2.0L Direct Injection Turbo BioPower system that combines hybrid drive with E-85 compatibility and can even run on E-100. Even without the Hybrid system the 260 HP/290 Ft/Lb. Direct Injection Turbo 2.0L with E-85 capability is an attractive option.

These same engine options also apply to the H-3 which needs more power to stay competitive.

A higher mileage version must be offered to improve the “public perception” of the H-3. The Turbo Diesel is going to be offered in the export markets of the H-3 anyway and with low sulfur fuel available in 2007, there are no excuses for most of the U.S. market.

The interior of the Colorado/Canyon needs a major upgrade to be competitive. The gauge cluster, center HVAC and seat fabrics are not class competitive. Copy the new GMT 900 center stack and offer a top line LT/SLT package with 10-way heated leather bucket seats. These are the best seats available on the truck market and would be terrific in the H-3 and broaden its market appeal.

Exterior styling needs to be changed to entice buyers to give the Colorado/Canyon a look. You must change the appearance of the vehicle if you are going to change the “perception”. Take the Holden Rodeo front styling; add a chrome grille surround with “GMC” in place of the Holden badge for the Canyon. Colorado models could use a variation of the new Tahoe front styling. Both models would have optional chrome mirrors with turn indicators and other chrome trim offered on the Rodeo.

Sales would be increased with a 6 foot bed Crew Cab model on a 135” WB. The Rodeo offers a 7.5 foot bed Regular cab model which could be offered along with an Extended Cab model on the 6 foot bed Crew Cab 135” WB Frame. A 7.5 foot bed extended cab with H-3 suspension and tires would be perfect for dirt bike riders and sell well.

The H3-T is the model many are waiting for, and with V-8 or Turbo-Diesel power would be a sellout hit with serious off-road buyers. If the H-3T is not offered at least have a Colorado model with lifted suspension, larger tires and V-6 power.

GM can do quite a bit to help the Colorado/Canyon “perception” problems and without a complete redesign – the only question is will it.

I wonder if those E85 / GM "forward-thinking" naysayers bother to consider that:
1) That's what the government has given GM to work with.
2) GM IS working with it.

/a little cheese on the side, maybe?

22 mpg is not bad for a humongous vehicle like this. But when will you start actually trying to create vehicles with higher mileage? As Matthew Wald noted in this article ---http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30D15F93E540C738FDDAA0894DE404482 --- car companies have created more efficient engines in order to pack more power and greater acceleration into smaller engeines. If you really wanted to you could turn your technology to imporving mileage and create SUVs with 40 mpg. As a start, work with the Union of Concerned Scientists -- http://www.suvsolutions.org/blueprint.html -- the way McDonald's worked with NRDC to find waste reduction solutions.
In short -- GET SERIOUS, and stop claiming this vehicle is "responsible" just because it is no worse that other SUVs.

Tranquility Base. Can you read me General?

I'm glad you guys welcome the dialogue.

If you're serious about what the public (probably the public that is in the backlash part)

I invite you and all your employees and co-workers to visit

Heavy on the Chevy Where you can see a constantly updated ranked list of the best commercials with an environmental spin.

I respect how you guys have handled the whole situation, and I hope we can have serious dialogue over this issue. We want to be proud of our car companies.

I respect GM's response to this issue. It's commendable that they're not afraid to let people speak their minds, and for that should be commended.

The association between SUVs and the public isn't as cut-and-dry as "people want SUVs" or "the car companies are forcing them on us." However, they are wasteful when considering which car to purchase, just like choosing a Big Mac over a salad is wasteful, or choosing a conventional light bulb over a compact flourescent. We live in a nation where we have the freedom to be wasteful. But I don't think we have a right to be wasteful.

Hopefully, this controversy will raise conciousness about the issue of climate change and get people to think, for once, about what they really need and how their actions affect those around them.

The Aveo is on our short list of cars to consider because it gets fairly good mileage for its size and is small enough to park easily in the city. However, I don't think GM is doing enough to make high mileage cars. And I think producing E85 cars is a token effort that ignores a lot of the problems with ethanol production.

Of course, this is coming from someone who walks to work and looks down even on owners of hybrids.

So if 6 environmentalists want to go to a protest do they pile on to each other in a Prius?

Ed,
Thank you for opening your site up to us. I really respect your team’s interest in getting community feedback and I hope our ads helped.

I want to see GM really succeed. For a lot of us it was not so much about going after the Chevy Tahoe or GM particularly. It was more of an issue with what the Tahoe and other SUVs leave in their wake.

I know what's good for General Motors is good for the country. But the point I was trying to make on Nightline was what if GM does well by selling a line of cars that leave such a large footprint… does that mean a better quality of life for people living in the country?

We have friends in Iraq now and know some of the largest oil providers have sponsored terrorism. We don’t want to support cars that help these bad people make more money. Larger cars that don’t get great gas mileage directly cause us to use more oil.

Hurricane Katrina caused us to see the effects of global warming in a new light. Warming waters create more powerful hurricanes and higher gas consuming cars means more CO2 emissions that can cause global warming to warm up the water.

Ed, tell me how I can be a proud GM supporter and buy your cars yet still have these concerns… and maybe my next car will be a GM. Seriously- I want to be sold.

22MPG is not acceptable for a company "the cares"

Mr. Pepper,

All Hollywood appearances of GM products are successful, keep it up. This is a highly effective way to promote GM and overcome media bias. The other side doesn't like successful GM promotions, they attack. The Matrix was highly successful, and your adversaries tried unsuccessfully to discredit it with surveys of which Matrix series people liked more. Your adversaries actively employ guerilla marketing tactics against GM.

Your adversaries made 2Fast2Furious to attack the US auto industry. The other side coordinates import hot rod shows in movie theater parking lots during their 2Fast2Furious promotions to undercut the US auto industry. The other side promotes toys like zip zap cars to influence the youth and undercut GM influence. GM toys seem to lack significant distribution in major malls in major tourism areas and during the holidays compared with your foreign competition. There are few small GM toys. There may be a Hummer toy or two, or a Hummer back to school folder, but GM products are underrepresented. GM could work more with stores stores like the Disney store, ToysRus, Radio Shack, and Mall Kiosks to promote small toy cars and trucks. It seems GM once had a stronger presence, what happened there?

Certain media pundits and outlets almost automatically issue negative press whenever the US Auto industry issues a positive. They presumably do this to sell news, the media likes red meat, so give it to them with both barrels. Stop the silent diplomatic corporate yes mans routine, its ruining GM. When the media ask for a response, take the bait and through them off balance for a change. Watch what happens. Hit back for a change quit taking the all the punches. It makes you look weak.

When they parrot false dribble like GM doesn't have any cars people want, tell them GM sells as much or more than they do, GM sells more of what people want than the imports. Remember the media wants red meat, so give it to them every week. GM has been number one much longer than they have. Shut them up, keep slamming them until they tuck in their tales. Don't just tell them the Tahoe is nice, tell them the Tahoe rocks, it beats the competitors.

When they ask about quality, tell them GM has many models that outrank the foreign competitors. GM is a fierce competitor, they are scared of GM could say if GM started saying it. So start. GM doesn't have to have everything or be evertything to say it is the best, so don't fall for that.

GM's promotions should include follow through and effective response. A perception not denied is a perception believed. Online stock market websites issue multiple press releases of the same story if it is negative for the US auto industry. Your adversaries are sophisticated and organized, and GM enthusiasts notice the bias. Potentially positive headlines like Chevy being the best selling brand are diminished with negative spin. The way for GM to reverse negative media spin is to couple many positives with some red meat for the press such as GM's intention to beat the competition. For example instead of just saying Chevy is the best selling brand, openly declare that Chevy outsells Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. Brag whenever you can, the other side does it. Did you watch the ads over and over again of the new Toyota and Hyundai facilities. Why doesn't GM show a modernized/remodeled plant and declare it as a Billion dollar facitlity with highly skilled workers?

Continously respond to their propaganda, don't let the other side get a word in edgewise. That is what they are doing to you. How much longer will you take it?

Chevy dealers should have updated signage in place, it seems many don't. Chevy should give its cars like the Impala front and center display room on lots and not have them walled in by trucks that can be seen in the second row.

Chevy should be prepare grille and headlamp updates to continously TRANCEND the Toyota Camry and the Honda Civic and not just respond to them on styling.

Chevy should maxmimize ad coverage on TV and in print by including the Impala in ads with trucks and SUV's. GM owners often have 2 or more GM vehicles. Chevy's flagship cars helped build Chevrolet's universal reputation for all types of vehicles, promote the flag ship sedans. Sedan owners are often professionals and have more income during economic times when truck owners are struggling. GM families often select a college car or light pick-up based on ownership of another GM vehicle.

I find it quite amusing that Edwin thinks GM's competitors are afraid of them. Toyota could buy GM with cash left over if they wanted to.

Just y'all wait till the '07 Tundra hits the dealers. The last area of the market Toyota doesn't own GM on is trucks. When the new Tundra hits, kiss the Silverado (and F-150 for that matter) adios.

Will it improve sales of the Tahoe? I don't think it will. Although, I do think it gives valuable feedback. Hopefully, you'll use this information to make improvements to your whole line of vehicles, and I beleive that fuel economy is number one on the list.
Best of luck.

I must admit that I was impressed with GM's allowance of the parody ads, and with their response, though I still think that some of the parody is warranted -- maybe not so much of the manufacturers as of the people who demand and drive such cars.

I would be interested to see a listing of the most popular ads created -- the ones with the most links and the most traffic.

We've enjoyed the contest, hosting some very clever ads on our ad feature page.

I was one of those people that saw the Apprentice tie in site and immediatley made a parody ad and posted it on my blog. While I don't think its a bad idea to try a campaign like this, I think you guys left yourself wide open for backlash. The only way to salvage the public's opinion of your company in this situation is to acknowledge the faults that your products have and make corrections. Seriously, regardless of profit, make the corrections.

I don't think people were making fun of the Tahoe because it was awful. They were using it as a platform to say it should be better, especially when new cars/trucks cost as much or more than a down payment on a house. I also think that there are people frustrated with your other models that channeled their anger into these ads. If you were able to offer a fuel efficient (25%-50% more mpg than the avg sedan now) that had comfort and features (luxury)that people want they wouldn't come after you at the first chance they get.

I am personally frustrated that I can't get a GM luxury (ish) car with 40 or 50 mpg. Even people who like comfortable seats and navigation systems want to buy and use less gas. Its time to make a fuel efficient model for every one of the GM brands and it shouldn't be any different from the regular cars except how it uses gas. And please start wth Saab.

Also, as a part of a family that has been loyal to GM for 40 years I hope you take my comments seriously. Since 1965 my immediate family has owned 2 Pontiacs, 4 Chevys, 12 Buicks and my 1 current Saab. All GM. In the current climate of car buying that's unheard of. Please respect your customers or you will continue to loose them.

Also...here's another marketing idea: start funding Terra Pass. http://www.terrapass.com/

I'm surprised you aren't putting up the 20 finalists and allowing the public to vote - or at least watch, speculate and wonder who will win.

Imagine the marketing opportunity that would bring!!

My next vehicle will be a Tahoe!

Last one was an Envoy XL and current one is a Volvo XC90 (7 seater), both nice but too small. Lots of driving trips with 3 kids, luggage and a dog, I hope the Tahoe will be the ticket.

Life is way too short to be negative all the time.

Tony,
How often do you go driving with all three kids, the dog, and luggage? And how often is it just you, sitting in traffic, going to and from work?

All those times you're sitting in traffic, with eight cylinders humming, spewing emissions, the rest of society is picking up the tab for you to be able to have such a large vehicle, even if you use it for road trips with a large family.

I'm allowed to be negative because SUV owners, among others, push their economic externalities on everyone else. Including me.

Hey Paul, not that I want to get too personal with a negative personality but…..

My daily work car is a 4 banger, the family car is the SUV so it’s full a lot of the time. Yeah, yeah, except when the wife goes to the supermarket right…. but wait have you ever fed three kids?? Picture an SUV with the trunk and all seats full of grocery bags! I’m telling you it happens twice a week like clockwork.

Anyway, three kids equal heaps of friends. When our SUV is full of half the soccer/hockey team (kids love to pile in) the other parents drive up with 2 people (driver and kid) in their 4 or 6 banger. 1 SUV for 1 driver and 6 kids compared to 6 cars for 6 drivers and 6 kids. Have a look at a sporting events parking lot sometime. Emissions wise it probably all washes out in the end.

Shut one coal fired plant and we could all drive SUV’s, there are so many big items to worry about, SUV’s are the least of our issues.

Cheer up and take one for a test drive it’s a sweet vehicle. Remember, the glass is half full buddy and now 4 of the cylinders can be turned off!

Have a great day.

You can't compare SUVs and the smaller, more "gas saving" vehicles in a straight up fashion. Obviously the bigger vehicle can carry more cargo and passengers, but yes, occasionally they'll be driven with no cargo.

But on those days when you do need to haul something, your economy vehicle is worthless. What do you expect? Families to buy an extra vehicle? So they can have one to commute, and another to haul. That's obviously more wasteful. Or, as Tony said, we could drive three (or more) economy vehicles at the same time to accomplish what one SUV can do.

I know, I've been there. Pre-family, when me and some friends would go somewhere, we'd all show up separately, each in his own small "non family" kind of car.

How did we survive before the advent of the SUV? Oh, yeah - we actually rented a truck on the one or two days a year we needed to haul stuff. Come on, you whining gas guzzlers, a family of four can fit comfortably in a Honda Civic. I hope gas prices hit $5.00/gal! That would help the environment much more than all those photo ops that GMC is so proud of.

I have to say that I like wht chevy did with the tahoe and suburban, but the down fall comes in the suburban 2500. I know a lot of busniesses who are looking for the diesel in the 2500, but its limited even more now with the deletion of the Vortec 8100 V8. The only thing I see now is a 1/2 ton and a rough riding 1/2 ton. Can someone tell me when you plan on putting the brute force back in the burban?

You can squalk about MPG all you want.

THE CHEVY AVEO GETS HORRIBLE MILEAGE FOR IT'S CLASS, WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO GET THE INDUSTRY'S BEST MILEAGE!!!

DO SOMETHING...

I LOVE MY NEW 2007 AMBER BRONZE TAHOE, sweettttttttttttttttttttttt.

I remember the days the only time you saw Suburbans on the road was when a school district used them in place of school buses if the student load wasn't enough to take a bus. So I am talking up to 8 high school aged students in a Suburban. Now people think they need them if they have 2 kids. Seriously- how often do Suburban/Tahoe drivers they actually carry all that cargo to justify driving a gas guzzler like that. I think they are whiners, SUVs should be banned and people should only drive cars or small trucks like the Ford Ranger. Large trucks like the Silverado should only be used for industrial reasons, as the Suburban should only be used in places such as schools if a small number of students are taking a trip. If no one drove SUVs/large trucks, I guarantee we wouldn't have a fuel crisis. Thanks.

I own a chevy impala and a gmc envoy and I am really happy with them both. I love the 06 tahoes and plain to get one very soon, but know looking at the 07 I'm debateing on that one. I will not get anything else, but a GM product. I feel more better driving it, and even if GM was to go out of business I will still keep mines and buy a tahoe. But is Chevy going to come out with an 08 in 07.I really love the work GM, forget the critics they just hate what is good.

I have been buying Tahoes since the first one came out. I use them commercially and with every consecutive model year I buy,they get smaller,have less power for the load I carry and use more gas. They have shrunk to the point that what used to nicely store in the cargo area now has to stay on the folded down back seat, ruining my passenger space. My strongest criticism of them is in their evolution. Quit making sissy cars out of them!!! Enough with the fluff already.Bring back my tailgate and return the ability to slow the vehicle using the transmission. Don't ignore the business buyers.

We have just launched a new film about SUV and their drivers, trying to get their opinions on their part in climate change.

http://www.conscience-uk.com/poorvehiclechoice.htm

I have heard that the Tahoe's navigation systems will be discontinued for problems with updating the dvds and that it's affecting the On Star subscriptions/use....any truth to this???

Any idea when the Z71 package will be offered? Other than aesthetics, any differences there?

Thanks!

WARNING: 2007 LTZ Tahoe has Design Defect.

OK...now that I've got your attention, let me explain.

I've been a loyal Chevy/GM owner for 30yrs. I currently own 2 Chevy/GM trucks and just recently purchased a 2007 Tahoe, LTZ in March.

My issue: I recently took a 2500 mile round trip pulling an enclosed Utility Trailer which is approx 14' H, 8’W, 16' L. The window seal on the real hatch was compromised by the air flow over the roof and hitting the face of the trailer (assume vacuum). As a result, EXCESS wind/road noise was experienced and you could actually see daylight between the window and seal. This condition only happens when pulling the trailer either loaded or empty.

I have contacted our local dealer and his research thru GM's data base does not show this as a problem...am I the first? And the response he's gotten from GM technical is: We're not fixing the problem...have the customer consider buying a roof mounted wind deflector. Good idea for 2 reasons....gas mileage improvement and now...hopefully a reduction in road noise.

Now….my issue….I just paid over $45,000 dollars for a vehicle that is supposedly designed for both luxury and functionality (actually working the 4X4, pulling trailers, etc). Wouldn’t one expect that under these conditions, the proud owner would still have the quite ride of luxury? Especially since GM did such an excellent job on the “Trailer/Towing” package features. Is this a detailed missed or is my Tahoe the lone exception?

So, besides this issue....I'm very happy with my new 2007 Tahoe LTZ and it performed fairly well pulling the trailer (1000 lb tongue weight, 5000 lb total weight). I pulled the trailer from Southern Cal to North East Wyo and normally ran 70-75mph on open semi flat roads. Overall trip MPG was 8.6.

In closing....next trip home I’ll shelve the Tahoe luxury if I need to pull the trailer and will use our 2001 3/4 ton Duramax Diesel. Can’t beat the power and the trip home is uphill all the way.

I like GM products but there are some things that I got a problem with. Why was the Colorado, Canyon and H-3 not fitted with the 4.2 inline 6 instead of the inline 5? Could the Inline 6 fit in those vehicles and if not , why weren't they designed from the beginning to use the Inline-6? When will the Eqinox receive the 248 hp V6 used in the Saturn Vue Redline or the 260 hp 3.6 V6 used in a number of GM products?

@Wallace:

Agree...

-Ames

I haven't been up to much today. I've just been letting everything happen without me. Basically nothing seems worth bothering with. I've just been hanging out doing nothing. I just don't have anything to say right now. More or less nothing happening.

I think you should make a new Chevy Nova that has the same body as the 1970 Novas

The problem that I have with GM is that they look for the big profit and not the long term solution. For example when gas prices were cheep GM built the Hummer. Toyota on the other hand introduced the Prius at this time. GM sold a lot of Hummers because gas prices were low. But gas prices couldn't stay cheap forever and GM wasn't making an effort to bring a hybrid to the market, even though they had all of the technology to do it. Remember GM built the EV-1. If they could build a car that could perform at highway speeds and use pure electricity, it couldn't be that hard for them to take that technology and use it in a hybrid vehicle. But GM didn't introduce a hybrid until recently, and still they don't have their hybrid technology in any cars. And the point that GM has more cars that get over 30 MPG is only because they have more vehicles than any other car company. If you take all of the vehicles that the car company makes GM is ranked 4th in fuel economy behind Toyota, Honda, and Nissan (2006). See http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=fuel&story=cafe&subject=fuelList

Burning E85 is just like burning our food supply.

Sure ethanol is a renewable fuel source, but at the cost of less food for the rest of the world, It is a bad idea.

As we burn more food to power our cars the food we eat will cost more. There will also be less food available.

So let’s all buy a big E85 ethanol guzzler and we can all starve to death.

It looks like this conversation has grown stale. As gas prices reach 3.50 a gallon here in Florida, people are still buying these gas hogs. They are beautiful vehicles but people aren't really concerned about it. No many people are asking for hybrids either.

I praise God for answering my prayers. God, you are so wonderful, majestic. Jesus Christ, I adore Your Sacred Heart.

I purchased an 05 silverado 2500 duramax/allison Crew Cab LT trimline. It is the best purchase I have mad to date. 49,000 and absolutely not problems to date even on delivery it was perfect. Thanks for making a world class truck!!

In response to Lott Mather: Regardless of what gas prices are doing (and hopefully they will be going down soon! lol) America will always love it's V8 cars and trucks. I very happily switched back from a V6 to a good ole V8 and man am I glad I did. I missed it. I don't mind driving a little less to enjoy my drive when I do.