Checking Back In: Fuel Economy vs Fuel Efficiency

My comment is on the recent E.P.A. ruling:

"E.P.A. Says 17 States Can’t Set Emission Rules" NYT 12/20/2007.

"The emissions standards California proposed in 2004 — but never approved by the federal government — would have forced automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016, with the cutbacks to begin in 2009 models.

That would have translated into roughly 43 miles per gallon for cars and some light trucks and about 27 miles per gallon for heavier trucks and sport utility vehicles.

The new federal law will require automakers to meet a 35-mile-per-gallon fleetwide standard for cars and trucks sold in the United States by 2020. It does not address carbon dioxide emissions, but such emissions would be reduced as cars were forced to become more fuel efficient.

California’s proposed rules had sought to address the impact of carbon dioxide and other pollutants from cars and trucks that scientists say contribute to the warming of the planet."

My question is How Proactive Will GM Be To Meet CA Emission Requirements? Meaning will the 2009 MY GM Model lineup meet CA requirements or not?

It would be great to see GM take the lead on this this important issue and receive the support of a majority of the population of the United States! Imagine being the only manufacturer to meet these standards. That would give GM a lot of clout - even without being forced to meet these standards.

Dear Mr. Lancaster,

I have a question, concerning a topical issue, discussed in Germany since a few weeks. As you may know, there are existing certain plans, to increasing the portion of ethanol for regular gasoline up to 10% over here. Only exception: "Super Plus", our premium gasoline. What about the US-made GM-vehicles sold over here in recent years? Are they already able to running on E10 without any risk of damage? Referring to my information, E10 had been introduced in the USA already decades ago. So I would presume, that your vehicles, sold over here, are E10-capable. This would mean a significant advantage vs. some competitors. Drivers who are not owning an E10-capable car, otherwise would have to use "Super Plus" later, meaning, this fuel is significantly more expensive than the other sorts (in the average 15 Euro-Cents more per Liter). I am driving a 2001 Alero, running on LPG, but nevertheless, the engine is using gasoline (for a minute) after a cold start, before it switches to LPG-use automatically. An answer to this question would be most appreciated. Thank you and Merry Christmas everybody!

Fuel Economy, fuel efficiency. Well Something I would like to add a bit here. I have always liked the LSx engine for its fuel economy, netting the millennium motor is something great. I have heard the LS7 will be phased out due to cost/performance ratio. If the LS3 costs a lot less, gets 436HP it would be easy to assume that getting 436/6.2 x 7L = 492HP. Why go with a smaller engine and not give the corvette a 7L w/o the luxuries of titanium everything? I find it fascinating the 7L and the fact that such big engines that do not pay gas guzzler tax are around just be phased out again.

Count me among the unimpressed.

E-85 capability is hardly noteworthy; components that ethanol won't attack and new computer settings.

E-85 itself is problematic. All E-85 production has accomplished so far is to drive up food prices. I live in the state with the most E-85 pumps and there still isn't one convenient to me. I've checked with friends who have E-85 capable vehicles and not one has actually used the stuff.

The US was rocked by OPEC back in 1973. It became painfully obvious that our oil dependence was a strategic problem for us (and it turns out oil consumption is a big part of a global environmental problem, too) and in the 34 years since, domestic auto manufacturers have not risen to the challenge of significantly driving down fuel consumption. You've spent the better part of the last 20 years in a horsepower and cylinder count race. And you've spent oodles of money advertising trucks (many of which are parked outside my office building having done their heavy lifting for the day by bringing the driver to work through stop-and-go traffic).

I vote for the production of high mileage cars by buying them. Unfortunately, after 34 years, I still have to go to Japanese manufacturers to get such cars.

While you were sleeping, Toyota and Hond busted their butts and delivered cars that get phenomenal city fuel economy and impressive highway economy, too. One of those is a market winner, too, to the tune of 20K sales/month.

And props to Ford for the hybrid Escape, too.

I love every bit of this post.

Keep up this blogging, GM! Absolutely fantastic.

I said this before but it still needs attention. GM does not offer a 4 cylinder 4 wheel drive vehicle this year except the mid size trucks. I can't beleive this is not important now. I and many others don't need V6 power we just want the economy you can only get from 2 less cylinders. Why does GM force shoppers away to every other manufacturer that will give the buyer what he wants? Shoppers cannot wait for future products on the drawing board.

The point is that if you are looking for fuel economy, there are many GM vehicles that deliver good fuel economy. - Editor

And if you want great fuel economy, don't go to a GM dealership.

For some of us, "good" fuel economy doesn't cut it.

"And if you want great fuel economy, don't go to a GM dealership." - Paul

Hi Paul,

I think you are pointing to the supposedly great fuel-efficiency of the Japanese. You should have had the opportunity to reading a report about an investigation, conducted by one of Germany's largest car-magazines. As they figured out at their test-cycles, some of these vehicles, especially from Toyota and Honda, missed their official fuel-economy ratings by roughly 40 to 50%. In contrast, for example, Opel-cars missed their ratings in the average just by about 3% during that examination. Well, Christmas-time is also a time for fairy-tales, but some people are simply tired to listening to certain fairy-tales any longer. A friend of us bought a Toyota Corolla Verso D-Cat, which should use about 6.5 liters/100km (=36 mpg). Actually the consumption is close to 9 liters/100km (26 mpg). A former co-worker made a pretty similar experience with his Nissan X-Trail. To me this looks like a perfect confirmation of this story, released by "Auto-Bild"-magazine recently.

"While you were sleeping, Toyota and Hond busted their butts and delivered cars that get phenomenal city fuel economy and impressive highway economy, too. One of those is a market winner, too, to the tune of 20K sales/month."

that statement is outrageous to say the least. The fuel economy of GM's four cylinder midsize sedans is just as good as the Accord and Camry four cylinder. The Civic and Corolla get better mileage than the Cobalt largely dut to their small engine sizes. Both of those cars have less powere and far less torque than the 2.2L Cobalt.

Comments by people like yourself and Paul are always focused on compact cars and hybrids but never crossovers and SUVs. Why is that? Probably because the mileage of import trucks and SUVs is below average. GM's trucks and crossovers get better mileage than their Toyota counterparts and yet that goes unmentioned from the GM bashers who spend countless hours reading and posting on this blog.

Furthermore, Honda has dropped its hybrid accord for 2008 and thus the Malibu/Aura hybrids get better mileage than ANY Accord you can buy today. Yes they cant match the CAmry hybrid for mileage but they are still superior to the Accord since it lacks any form of hybrid.

PAul,

If you want "great" fuel economy you shouldn't visit a Nissan, Ford, BMW, MB, Hyundai or Mazda dealership either. You continue to post here and make the same point over and over again. If you want a 45mpg car I suggest you get a Prius because its the only real choice you have in today's market. There is no need to berate GM in every blog entry about not making the Prius. conversely, if you want a large SUV with "great" mileage I suggest you avoid the Toyota dealership seeing as though the Sequoia gets about 13mpg vs 21 for the Tahoe hybrid.

Mr. Lancaster,

You have far more patience than I do to respond to some of the nonsense posted in the previous blog entry. Some questions are not worthy of answers but I understand why you are taking the time to respond.

paul the difference in cost between 30 MPG and 40 MPG if you drive 15,000 miles a year is $375 @ $3.00 a gallon which i do not think would ruin the budget of anyone who ownes and drive a car.

motorman,

Just so you know, Paul's only point is that if you don't make a 45mpg car you are doing nothing to address fuel efficiency in today's market. Hybrid SUVs, AFM, 6 speed automatics, mild hybrids, etc. do not interest Paul since they don't produce Prius matching mileage. He doesn't believe that there are people who have needs that are not satisfied by the Prius and may want other types of vehicles.

Comparing modern cars to those from the 1980's - hilarious! Do some research, please. Those economy cars from the 80's - sure they were rated past 40 mpg on the highway - at 55 mph. They also weighed around 2000 lbs, give or take. And had what, 70-90 horsepower? No ABS, no airbags. Would you rather get into a serious collision in a 1981 Chevette or a 2008 Cobalt? And have you actually *ridden* in one of those older cars? Try it. They're loud. Not that comfortable. Not very safe. And I'd love to see an emissions comparison too.

Yes, we could have carbon fiber bodied diesel compacts that weighed 2000 lbs and had 90 horsepower. But technology and advanced materials can only get you so far, particularly if you are a manufacturer trying to sell vehicles for a profit at certain price points. A $50,000 wonder car that nobody can afford doesn't do us any good. And Americans seem to want big, powerful, safe vehicles.

GM is doing the right thing by improving economy in the vehicles where it makes the most impact - trucks and suv's . The Volt will be another positive step.

If you want to see how far GM has come, go test a new 3.5 Impala. Take it out on the highway and set the cruise at 55 mph. Set the information display at MPG, and watch the numbers.

He doesn't believe that there are people who have needs that are not satisfied by the Prius and may want other types of vehicles. - sheth

Quite the opposite. I do realize that there are people who need the capabilities of an SUV. I, however, am not one of those people, and I am underserved by GM's current lineup.

If you want a 45mpg car I suggest you get a Prius because its the only real choice you have in today's market. There is no need to berate GM in every blog entry about not making the Prius. - sheth

I don't feel that I'm berating GM. I'm asking for what I want in a vehicle. In other posts people ask for engine options in the Camaro or features to be added to the Tahoe. I'm simply asking for what

Besides, I'm sure nobody at GM wants me to buy a Prius. Unfortunately, they don't yet make a car that I'm interested in. Well, not in the US at least.

Comments by people like yourself and Paul are always focused on compact cars and hybrids but never crossovers and SUVs. Why is that? - sheth

Because I'm in the market for a hybrid compact car that gets great fuel economy, not an SUV or a "crossover," which, by the way, is just marketspeak for a small SUV without good off-road characteristics.

If you want "great" fuel economy you shouldn't visit a Nissan, Ford, BMW, MB, Hyundai or Mazda dealership either. - sheth

This is sad but still quite true. However, this isn't Nissan's, Ford's, BMW's, Hyundai's or Mazda's blog. This is GM's blog, so I'm going to comment about GM's products.

Motorman,
Why won't GM bring back the battery powered electric car EV-1? It's fast, goes 120 miles between charges, can be charged at home, and meets the needs of 90% of the driving public. You better do it soon because the Japanese and others will in the next 2 years. I want to drive by a gas station and give them the bird.

Mr. Hancock,

I would like to applaud the responses I read in this part of the GM Blog. I am overjoyed to actually get to see real responses to my (and our) questions and comments. As a highly technical person, I often times am disapointed at the lack of discussion surrounding key issues like energy consumption.

As a potential GM customer I am also disapointed with the lack of knowing what GM is going to release next. It is frustrating to say the least in wondering if GM will have vehicles out to compete with the wave of 2008 Diesels that are rumored to be showing up. As a customer I would love to see GM offer the G8, CTS and other cars with diesels. The new 4.5 Turbo Diesel has me wondering if GM will put that in the cars mentioned above. As a customer I love the idea of 260+ HP and 32+ MPG highway. I have driven a Duramax and am fairly impressed with it, I can only imagine the 4.5L Turbo Diesel will perform wonderfuly in the CTS and G8. I just hope GM offers them for those of us who are willing to pay the premium. I realize that on a cost basis it doesn't quite make sense, but in the case of Diesel cars, you can have your (performance cake) and eat it to (fuel economy). This fact alone is something that makes me take a serious look at the new BMW 3 series diesels rumored to be crossing the pond. Since their priceis similar to the CTS, I hope GM thinks about dropping in a diesel.

Perhaps the more important question for current and potential customers of GM is much simpler. When will GM's next generation of fuel efficient engines be available (HCCI etc..). I myself am waiting to see if GM actualy has something thats competitive to offer thats worth waiting on.

As a side note, why can't the HCCI or even current Diesels and Gas engines be setup to run gaseous fuels? This seems to be the best solution for the long run (5-15 years). My current GM is a 1990, I expect that my next one will be run equally as long.

As to the cost factor in hybrids, I guess I'm not seeing why a small 60-100 HP diesel engine and hybrid system can't be manufactured cheaply. If such a system were to be made even at a slight premium cost, it surely could top 50 MPG on the highway (with proper drag reduction techniques). This being the case it would qualify for tax incentives and customers who were concerned about fuel usage would be willing to buy them. I have heard the Honda and Toyota Hybrids are selling out everywhere. Whether this is true or not I'm not sure. So, all this said why not introduce a small hybrid diesel to more directly compete with the upcomming wave of diesel cars?

As for flex fuel vehicles. From my understanding of ethanol fuels, the elastomers in engine components would need to be replaced with ethanol compatible parts (viton, teflon etc...), additionaly fuel and timing maps would have to be recalibrated as well as adding sensors to detect fuel composition. This being said, despite the cost, isn't the long term benefit of having all GM vehicles Flex Fuelable a worthwhile one? After all if the whole fleet runs Flex fuel, in 5 or 10 years if E85 becomes more popular the fleet can run it and any other mix; which socially and politically seems to be a very good thing.

Additionally it would be technically possible to convert older vehicles should E85 become a major fuel source. The concerns seem to come from the small car buyers, despite the fact that the larger cars would see a direct benefit with flex fuel since they seem to consume more fuel.

In my previous post I mention methane (CH4) as a good long term fuel since it can in theory be generated from hydrogen. Methane appears like it would be easier (safer) to store since it does not diffuse composite storage structures like pure hydrogen would. In theory some form of hydrogen generated fuel is probably the only solution, as hydrogen is "easy" to generate from water (assuming an energy input method such as fully renewable or nuclear fuel). The question seems to be centered around cost, efficiency and sustainability. The latter would appear to have the largest impact on infastructure.

As a closing remark, I would like to hear about how GM's stability mangement and AWD systems function in bad weather and for performance driving. I have read about the competition in several magazines, but never read a great review on GMs technology. They seem to be behind from the articles I have read in the past. I would love to hear other wise. That said can GM offer some more insight and information about what their stability systems can and can't do (compared to their competition).

As always keep up the good work. Its a great thing to be able to discuss and provide feedback to GM.

Charlie H,

What you say is true about E-85, its not "that" hard to run it as a fuel. But there are down sides to it, mainly in having a non optimized engine. BUT E-85 is extremely important as an infastructure technology. To have the US fleet of vehicles able to run large portions of ethanol is important. Not necissiarly from a cost standpoint, but if for some reason we HAD to run on ethanol, having cars that could becomes a very very convenient thing. At this stage in the game I'm not totally sold on E-85, but I know being able to run it makes A LOT of sense in more then just economic ways.

But in my opinion you are absolutely right GMs small car offering isn't what it could be, but I suspect that is because people aren't driving/buying them.

Jeff,

From an engineering point of view fuel economy and AWD aren't exactly directly compatibe. While I share your view and wish GM had some nice AWD cars. The reality of it is, if you think you need AWD for winter driving, you probably want the ground clearance of a SUV or crossover. And if you want performance and AWD, GM doesnt' have much. Not sure what to say there.

Sheth,

You make a good point to Paul. However I think personally think Paul is justified in his continued posts. He obviously is enough of a GM fan to want to buy another GM despite them not offering what he wants. If more people spoke up about what they really wanted maybe GM wouldn't be needing to make a comeback and discuss how their cars have improved, since they'd already be there.

I know sometimes take on a harsh way with words to make some of my points. But isn't that what this Blog site is for? It appears to me that most of my friends are significantly less car savvy, as such they aren't in tune or aware of what things are, and what they can be. If I extrapolate this small sample to a larger population. I would speculate that a lot of car buyers aren't really in the know. Which is why there are a small percentage of people that routinely post on this blog site. Apperently in the past GMs marketing reasearch was off, so maybe this blog site can help keep things on track by allowing us to directly communicate with GM.

Motorman,

You are absolutely right about cost savings of $375 per year. As a percentage of annual income this is minimal. But I always thought money saved is money earned. On an individual basis this isn't a big dea. But on a large scale such as GM deals with, scale becomes important. That fuel savings spread accross all GM cars means not only less money spent on fuel, but more importantly less energy. Of course this means less energy needed, more that can be directed to more important things. Personally I would incurr a small percentage of cost for efficiency any day since I know its helping more then myself. Maybe this is nieve of me, but whats 2-5% savings worth to you?

Sheth,

You are correct again. Though I point out, why shouldn't GM sell a prius like vehicle? Personally though I think the one to beat is the VW diesel, as it gets similar mileage without the problems and costs associated with producing batteries and electronics to control hybrid drive systems. I would challenge GM to drop a VW diesel into a Cobalt and see what the mileage is. The world isn't always about costs apperently.

Of course I think fuel should be priced in KW/dollar or BTU/dollar. This would sure make things a bit more clear (especially the KW method) for consumers.

I would like to make a comment on the new Silverado Hybrid dash. Please make sure all the gauges are numerical. The economy gauge should have either percentage or MPG readouts so it is immediatly clear whether you are in your target range.

As it happens, I've driven the Cobalt. The performance of the 2.2L was unimpressive. The Corolla's 1.8L manages peak torque just about equal to the Chevy 2.2L. I wouldn't be surprised to find the Corolla is quicker, as it weighs 400lbs less. Actual observations, reported on the EPA site, put the Corolla significantly ahead in fuel economy.

I rented a Cobalt a while back. In strictly highway driving at moderate, always legal speeds, it barely managed 30mpg in over 400 miles. People with Corollas routinely report highway fuel economy into the 40s.

I notice the 2.4 requires premium fuel; therefore, a Cobalt with a 2.4L engine is not an economy car.

GM is, ostensibly, an US company (let's leave the sourcing of the Aveo and Astra, etc, aside for the moment). Why hasn't GM put a real focus on fuel economy to help reduce our strategic vulnerability?

As for the mild hybrids - GM's mild hybrids are a start but they certainly don't fire the imagination or inspire admiration the way Toyota, Honda's and Ford's more sophisticated hybrids do. Nor do they make the same difference.

Sheth, tearing away at Honda or Toyota will not boost GM. Honda made a real misstep with the V6 hybrid accord. But Honda also went out on a limbe to offer the Insight and still offers a hybrid Civic.

As for the mpg of trucks, even the two-mode hybrid trucks and/or CUVs, that's irrelevant to me. Foreign or domestic, they're all wretched.

For me, the question is, where can I go to get superb fuel economy? GM? No. Honda? Yes. Toyota? Yes. I don't care what else they build, as long as they have something that meets my needs.

harry the electric car would be great BUT you would need 2 cars because what would you do if you had to go some place while your electric car was charging??? also most families with kids their cars run all the time they never rest so i would guess that maybe 10% of the car owners could use a single electric car but 90% of the rest need a car that can get going on a moments notice

"Quite the opposite. I do realize that there are people who need the capabilities of an SUV. I, however, am not one of those people, and I am underserved by GM's current lineup."

Paul this has been mentioned numerous times and we all get the message. The Volt is likely the first GM car you would be interested in and we all know it wont be here until 2010 at the earliest and although this may be hard to understand your posts here are not going to change that. Prior to the Volt you will see the Astra and possibly a new Cobalt that is likely to get better mileage than the current car but not 45mpg like the Prius. I think GM (and everyone else) knows Toyota beat them to the punch with the Prius but I wouldn't count on the rest of the industry not responding in due time.

Bottom line is that you should go buy a Prius or civic hybrid unless you cant wait until the Volt comes out. Its pretty simple actually. The horse is dead and does not need to be beat any further. Anyone who visits these blogs knows you are not pleased with GM's current offerings and want to buy a Prius. I suggets you do so and give GM (and the rest of us) a break.

"As for the mild hybrids - GM's mild hybrids are a start but they certainly don't fire the imagination or inspire admiration the way Toyota, Honda's and Ford's more sophisticated hybrids do. Nor do they make the same difference.

Sheth, tearing away at Honda or Toyota will not boost GM. Honda made a real misstep with the V6 hybrid accord. But Honda also went out on a limbe to offer the Insight and still offers a hybrid Civic."

Stating facts isnt "tearing down" as you state. Some people feel that fuel savings only count when you are speaking of a 45mpg hybrid car. The truth is ANY fuel savings is a positive things and GM's hybrid trucks will save a lot of fuel and meet the needs of those who need large SUVs.

You mention the Escape hybrid and I agree its mileage is impressive but its sales have not been for some reason. There will be a Vue two mode hybrid this year that will be able to run on electric power like the Escape. In one sentence you say the Escape is more compelling than GM's offerings but then you say you don't care for any hybrid SUVS since you dislike SUvs in general.

You say you get "superb" fuel economy by going to Honda and yet the only Honda model that gets appreciably better mileage than anything GM offers is the Fit and civic hybrid. The civic is about 10% more efficient than the Cobalt but this is due to it's weight, small engine and 5 speed automatic. The Pilot gets worse mileage than the heavier, more powerful Outlook. The Accord four cylinder gets the same overall mileage as the Malibu and Aura. The Ridgeline gets mileage similar to GM's V8 pickups with a weak V6. Not sure how you come to your conclusions. Toyota has more hybrids than GM and thus offers more options for those who want fuel efficiency.

The truth is your assertions that GM isnt doing anything to give customers better fuel efficiency don't stand up under scrutiny. They are launching 4 hybrids this year alone along with the Astra so its hard to believe your claims that GM has no interest in diversifying its lineup.

As a dedicated GM car fan, I have many of your cars which include a '70 442, '93 ZR-1, and a '96 Tahoe. I also on a list for the new C6 ZR-1. The Tahoe has had many hard miles and is ready to be replaced. In this time of high gas prices and middle east turmoil, my wife and I have decided that our replacement will need to get considerably better milage then our current guzzler. After doing our research we narrowed our list to two trucks: Mercedes GL diesel and the Tahoe hybrid. We then placed a deposit for the First Tahoe hybrid to arrive at our local dealership. I have recently been informed that roof racks won't even be an option! This is a real problem given our active lifestyles. I understand you offering the car without racks in an effort for reduced drag. But, why not make them an option. You are making other milage sacrifices such as a trailer package and 4 wheel drive. I am not willing to let the dealership drill holes in the roof of a new $50k truck, and without a change of heart from GM I am afraid I will have to cancel my order.

MOTORMAN,
I don't know a single family with kids that doesn't already have at least 2 cars. My wife and I raised 2 girls who were into everything (gymnastics, dance, softball, tennis, etc, etc). You're right, we drove them everywhere BUT it was all locale and a vehicle that would go 120 miles between charges would meet our needs. I've read where todays batteries can get up to 300 miles between charges. AND the cars would be charged during the middle of the night while everyone's asleep. If there was an emergency in the middle of the night then the combution engine vehicle would be used.

I would imagine that an electric vehicle that got 300 miles between charges would meet the needs of at least 90% of the driving public 99% of the time.

Today the cost of a barrel of oil reached a new all time high of $100. The average cost per gallon of gas is predicated to reach $3.40 by this Spring. The equivalent cost to run the battery powered electric car is less than $1.00 per gallon.

If GM reintroduced a battery powered electric vehicle that got at least 120 miles between charges, you couldn't make them fast enough because of the demand.

Charlie H.

I agree and disagree with you. The hybrids that GM offers are a good start. And total cost they make sense. But, you are right that GM needs to offer a real competitor to the Honda and Toyota. Though maybe direct competition with them isn't the greatest idea??

"But, you are right that GM needs to offer a real competitor to the Honda and Toyota. Though maybe direct competition with them isn't the greatest idea??"

GM doesnt have a Prius or civic hybrid competitor. Honda doesnt have a competitor for the Malibu/Aura hybrid, Vue hyrid, Tahoe hybrid or Tahoe hybrid. How isnt that GM is behind Honda in hybrids? Honda's next hybrid model isnt due until 2009. Where is Honda'a "real" competitor to GM's hybrid models?

Nate, you brought up an interesting point earlier...

One of the problems with ethanol as a Flex-Fuel is that engines aren't optimized for it. Ethanol would work more efficiently under higher compression, which it could stand without detonation. However, in a Flex-Fuel arrangement, it runs at lower efficiency in an engine designed for 87 octane gas.

That's a waste. It would make more sense to me to see ethanol burned in engines optimized for ethanol, possibly agricultural equipment (which makes a certain logistical sense).

As for whether or not direct competition with Toyota and Honda is a good idea; why shouldn't it be? I expect GM to compete and win; there is nothing inherently better about the people employed at Toyota or Honda.

GM's going to have to go head-to-head with the Toyota Prius to get my business.

Given $100/bbl oil as of yesterday, I think GM will have to go head-to-head with the Toyota Prius to STAY in business.

Sheth,

I don't think the Pilot gets good fuel economy, either, and I don't care. I want 40mpg. Does GM offer that?

As for the Civic overmatching the Cobalt, you listed exactly why; smaller engine, better transmission, lighter vehicle. Why is the Cobalt heavier? And, since it's heavier, it needs a bigger engine, doesn't it?

The Civic sedan weights 350lbs less than the Cobalt and only gives up 8 hp. Which is going to offer better performance?

harry ross that is my point,with a all electric car you NEED 2 cars if you want to be able to go someplace in a moments notice. i do not know what the cost of electric power is everywhere but some places it is very very expensive as i know people who have $500+ a month electric bills.

Living in Europe I know that GM,Ford have great sub 2.0l diesel engines. I know that these diesels are prohibited in the US because of emission standards.

But here is a thought. Would it be possible for the world automakers to petition congress for a waiver on sub 2.0l diesel engines? Surely the small engines (when CO2 is included)is less polluting than a completely legal 5.0l gas engine. The future diesel standards will be a death nail for diesel. But it seems that a small relatively unclean diesel engine,which by its nature could only be used in a small car, be as clean as the monsters on the road but with higher than Prius efficency. It could augment the missing piece in GMs line up; the decently priced super-economy small car.

Maybe congress and California would go for it.

GM does not offer a 4 cylinder 4 wheel drive vehicle this year except the mid size trucks. I can't beleive this is not important now. I and many others don't need V6 power we just want the economy you can only get from 2 less cylinders.

Why does the cylinder count have that much significance when you're asking for a 4WD vehicle? How can you be that concerned with fuel economy when you want to add the extra mass of a 4WD/AWD system? A big effect on fuel economy is at the driver's foot. When the AWD system kicks in the extra set a drive wheels, it's an indicator that the driver's foot is too heavy for the conditions.

Also, some of GM's HV V6's have cylinder deactivation so the driver has the torque/power reserve available in V6 mode but the fuel sipping qualities of a smaller engine when in 3-cylinder mode. Seems like that would be a good match for the AWD vehicle you're requesting. AWD+V6 mode for spirited driving and FWD Mode + V3 mode when you're driving for economy. Adding a 6 speed auto would be even more appealing

David,

It's not exactly what you suggest but implementing emissions standards on a sliding scale or in gm/km values might make a great deal of sense and do a lot for overall fuel economy. Done right, it might open the doors for some small engines that are great in one way but not so great in others (like diesel; really low CO2 but other emissions are not so good).

Sheth,

Respectfully I think you missed the point. The method of marketing to people who think Green is a bit different. They want to see GM make something that looks better from a green standpoint then GM's competitors. And rightly so. GM should at very least offer something that is direct competition just to win these people over.

Of course when the engineers run all the math, they no doubt find that the hybrids sound better then they really are. GM is faced with a ballancing act of meeting sales numbers, consumer demand, and cost and millage numbers. A hard act to ballance. The fact that Honda doesn't have a competitor for the Aura and Vue and Taho is irrelevant. We are talking about GM's offerings and their customers. There are people out there who will pay more for hyrbids on principle (s/p?) just to be more green, regardless of whether it is cheaper or not. And to me thats not a big deal, in fact I applaud it. Others however are more cost drivent. GM needs to cater to both, since if it does that it can bring more customers to its side.

My recommendation is to offer a Cobalt or G5 or smaller Saturn hybrid. Or better yet a diesel hybrid. The Current hybrids are no doubt in key markets with very key corporate strategy behind them. I see no problems except why not make more of them and make them better yet?

Charlie H,

One thing most people don't know is the effects of compression on emissions. One problem that has appeared to be causing diesel engine displacement to increase is the stricter limtations on NOx emissions. Higher compressions lend themselves to more readily forming NOx compounds, while at the same time reducing CO emissions. So GM has a ballancing act with ALL their engines to meet emissions and other goals as best as possible. This said:

If the compression ratio (C/R) of a Flex Fuel engine is increased the NOx will no doubt go up and thus it will not meet all of the 2008+ emissions regulations. There are ways around it but they aren't the best or easiest.

Technically speaking I see no reason that Flex Fuel running at current compressions is less efficient then 87 octane. In fact it might be slightly more efficient (thermodynamically) while being less fuel efficient. The main problem is ethanol contains less specific heat per pound mass. So in effect it takes more of it to make the same amount of heat (fire).

That isn't to say that GM couldn't take advantage of the fact that E85 is between 100 and 110 octane. They could raise the compression ratios (maybe 14:1??) and increase engine efficiency if they were able to control emissions.

There are other methods such as water injection that could potentially add more efficiency to a point. But this becomes a question of "ultimate efficiency" or "best cost" I have no doubt that best cost is what GM desings to.

Another issue that is rarely discussed is ethanol production and the cost benefit analysis associated with it.

I agree if we can get agricultural equipment to run on bio fuels... that is a first step. However not the only or best step (I'm thinking Nuclear-electrolysis hydrogen generation).

Direct competition with Toyota and Honda can be both a good thing and a bad thing. It depends on what economics class you took I guess...

On one hand GM needs to compete to get that segment of the market. But on the other hand direct competition is expensive and not very beneficial to any of the parties involved in the immediate future. Long term is a different story. GM of course would be better off with some product differentiation, and to bring out a similar but non competing product (which they have kind of done). But with this they have not addresssed the GM problems that lead people to buy Toyota and Honda. Mainly that this customer base is convinced that the hybrids are the best solution for the MPG problem. To which I disagree, since the overall cost and environmentlal impact is unclear at best. Correct me if I'm wrong, but how often do we hear about the environmental impacts of generating lithium based batteries and the control systems associated with hybrids. While the technology will get better and better, is it irresponsible to push and market these products as they are without making the public more aware of these things. In my experience such thinking is what GM's engineers probably go through in designing cars that don't compete. Keep in mind they have to develop cars at a cheaper cost and sell them for slightly more to keep the company a float. Having a flop in the market could be disasterous for GM.

You are right though, there is no technical reason GM couldn't produce a competitor to the Toyota and Hondas. It would take a decision and dedication to it and a time to market that is probalby uncharacteristic of GM to pull it off. But they COULD do it if they wanted to. My biggest frustration is GM's slow rate of reaction to market and consumer demand changes. It would appear they could be doing so much better. If it were only that easy for them.

I dont' think the price of oil effects people that directly yet. A tank of fuel for a lot of GMs car buyers is still a small percentage of their monthly earnings. Until the driver is faced with the question of "Do I pay my car payment or drive to work" you probably wont' see GM developing a version of the Prius. Which is in itself sad. But can you blame them, why reinvent the other guy's wheel. Maybe they should rebadge a Toyota Prius and sell that, they ARE afterall very good at rebadging.

From a technical standpoint what makes you think 40 MPG is really a reasonable number to aim for?

As to the Civic overmatching the Cobalt. I agree with you on most of them, engine size, transmission, weight etc.. but which of those factors really matter? What about engine efficiency and aerodnamics, or meeting market demmands?

Unfortunatly it is nearly impossible to compare the two cars without defininf your criteria better. One car might handle better, last longer, be faster, stop quicker and get better fuel economy (which one car are we talking about?).

After a stroll through the junkyard I noticed GMs are build heavier, and they seem to last longer with fewer replaced parts (in my experience). Though I have no idea how accurate my limited set of data really is.

Its not all about HP/Weight ratio. Though I would love to see a Cobalt on a diet. What would we have to give up though?

I think if every one of GMs cars got 30 MPG highway or better, all their Crossovers got 28 or better and all their SUV and Trucks got 25 or better it would be a HUGE step in the right direction. Take a look around, aside from super economy cars, like the Aveo, Toyota Echo, and other cars like it, how many cars are really getting better then 32-34 MPG? I can think of only a few right now, Toyota Prius, Lexus Hybrid (maybe), VW Diesel, Mercedes Diesel and the new BMW diesel. The rest of the US fleet of cars doesn't do that well from what I can tell. Again its a numbers game with the Fed Gov't, how do you get the best mileage out of the US fleet? My guess is make each vehicle use just a bit less.

Motorman,

I don't agree with you. You don't need two cars, you need proper power management and the proper batteries. With propper batteries you could increase range and recharge time. There are some batteries that can recharge in only a few minutes. The problem is more likely taking enough power off the grid to charge them fast (and that is a different problem of its own).

David,

The problem with your propsal, is that the quantity of sub 2.0L cars will cause more emissions then the big 5.0s they replace. If it were that easy I hope GM would have something in the works. Maybe a diesel hybrid. But even that has some limitaions.

Here's an idea: purchase some Priuses and some Insights from Toyota and Honda, rebadge them as Chevys...

Nate,

You've done some thinking.

One thing you mention though, "how often do we hear about the environmental impact of [new hi-tech components]?"

We hear quite a bit. However, most of what we hear is uneducated blather, sometimes with an agenda of its own. Start with the batteries; The Prius battery won't end up in landfills because Toyota will pay for their return. No one's going to drop a Toyota battery in the dumpster if it's worth $200 when driven across town and handed in at the parts counter. It might even be possible to repair a battery that only has a few damaged cells.

Going forward, why shouldn't the whole car be like that? Sure, all the steel's recylcable but why not:

1. Make an effort to build cars out of additional recyclable components and materials. Aluminum is great for this. If I understand correctly, Toyota paid a lot of attention to the environmental impact of all the materials used in the Prius, with an eye to sustainability.

and/or

2. Put a big recycling deposit down on the car when purchased. Prorate it by weight. If you bring back 100%, by weight, of the car, you get 100% of the deposit back.

As it is, cars rarely end up in landfills, anyway, they end up in scrap yards and the parts that can be recycled do get recycled. The electronics are probably getting to be more or a problem than previously but half of that is in the consumer electronics, rather than the vehicle control systems.

Charlie H.

When I discuss environmental impact of new technologies, I am more refering to the enviromental impact of the manufacturing process. The refining of raw materials and creating of the new technology. For instance electronics used to contain some (possibly) very nasty substances in the silicon. Additional processes for making new lithium batteries have me wondering also. Fortunatly though the EPA is keeping an eye on it despite how bad for business and profit it might seem. I think companies need to exhibit a certain social responsibility to not just make a great product but to create it without causing undue damage to the environment. How undue is defined is a huge question in my mind.

You also brought up an interesting concern of mine. The life cycle of an automobile (or any other consumer product for that matter). The front end of the process is pretty efficient these days compared to the back end. Front meaning start, and back meaning death of a car or product. The death of most cars is a loose recycling program, where to my (possibly somewhat limited) knowledge only a small percentage of the car is reclaimed directly. Much of the plastic and composites (refering to parts that are composed of multiple materials, not the carbon fiber that is in the current buz talk) are not recycled in a very efficient mannor.

I think the new term I've somewhere read called cradle to cradle is a long time needed product lifecycle concept.

My idea though impractical in the immediate future would make some sense in terms of resource efficiency. I envision a car being produced on an assembly line, run for its design life then brough back to the assembly line and disassembled in the exact reverse process. This in theory is a cool idea. Though I doubt it'd work very well in practice. But even so things need to be better recycled. I think its an intersting idea to hold the companies that produce the car to be reponsible for its proper disposal and recycling. Of course any engineer with half a brain would quickly realize that such a concept would probably double the cost of a car.

But all in all I personally sometimes wonder what happens to the high tech coatings, paints (base coat clear) and other complex components when they are end of lived. Does the pain get burned off during the remelt of steel? If so how do they contend with the contaminates and harmful fumes. Or is the organic structure of the material broken down in a safe way.

These of course are all things that should go into modern car designs in my opinion. I doubt some of them are since the cost would be rediculous. But how much energy and resources does it actually cost to make current cars and future technology cars, and how recyleable are they going to be. All very important questions in my opinion.

Nate,

You think much like me. My children would tell you this is a bad thing!

I think only a small percentage of each car is recycled as parts. It strikes me as likely that the vehicle carcasses almost always - eventually - get recycled for the scrap metal.

We scrapped a very old Volvo and the scrap yard was happy to come get it and haul it away and they were sending it right to a crusher. :-( But, if it has enough value to retrieve, I'm sure that they melt whatever they can get their hands on.

I would have thought the vehicle had higher value as a parts bin but apparently not high enough.

As for the paint, upholstery, etc... yes, I imagine it burns off. Compared to the lifetime tailpipe emissions, original manufacturing energy, etc, the mass of non-steel stuff burned off is probably no big deal. Maybe they recover glass. I'd agree that something should be done about this but it's probably OK to leave it further down the priority list for now.

Industry can and does respond... where I work, we went though a program to eliminate all solvents and go to entirely water-based manufacutirng processes. To the best of my knowledge, we finished this program up successfully a few years ago. I thought that was important. I'd like to see the auto industry - and all others - follow suit and use environmentally friendly processes and recyle materials fully.

I'm not sure why your kids think this thinking is a bad thing. Respectfully, perhaps they are young or nieve, then again who am I to judge.

The fact remains that resources (mainly energy) are becoming scarcer, or more correctly the demmand is continuing to rise, while supply seems to be rising at a slower rate. Anyone that says otherwise should take a closer look at it. The problem has been and still is one of energy use. Whether we burn off the plastics in the metal or we recycle them, the both take energy. It might be break even as mixing sufficient air with the vehicle could burn the platics and help raise the temperature of the metal to be melted. But, I would think there are better things to to with plastics then just burn them, especially the ones in cars of the past which tend to contain some compounds that aren't the best to be burned.

So despite what your kids may think... the future of cars will include a better way to recycle them, this may or maynot ever get to the point that they are disassembled on an assembly line....

I wouldn't be surprised to see Japan be the first to do this. Their auto industry from what I know, is driven by new cars. They apperently tax cars of a certain age or mileage (not sure which) and encourage replacing family cars every few years. Certainly this would make such a recycling plan easier.

I'm not saying your kids are totally wrong here, but as crazy as it sounds eventually something will have to be done. I'm certainly not saying it needs to be done right now... but its more or less an idealized concept of what the US is technologically capable of doing. It hasn't been untl recently that companies are held liable for their products, creation and disposal.

What I will say is that the current industry here is entirely driven on new products being released. Which in itself is fine. If it were not for new cars apperaing on dealer lots, the car you drive today would always be cheaper to fix and would run for a long long time. But as I have found with our small fleet of GM cars, after about 15 years parts become tough to find and the car starts to fall apart. Of course you and I know this is something the manufacturer could prevent, but with new cars to be sold why woul they support their old lines that long.

Just my thoughts.

How about a follow up to more of the questions asked? You cant only take the softball questions.

gtjeff- We're actually working on another post of answers right now. Thanks for asking.