GXT

Progress to date: 1) PR statements. 2) PR statements. 3) Sign a couple of unproven (in this area) battery makers. 4) PR statements. 5) PR statements. 6) PR statements. 7) Repeat... Does anyone know if GM's deal with A123 deal is exclusive? Apparently they already have a Prius solution that will be on the market shortly. So if the battery for the Volt is possible, then the plug-in Prius is pretty much done. In that case, there is no real reason for GM to be quiet... especially when PR and distraction are the major features of the volt.

I like the products of the highest ranked automaker in terms of safety, fuel economy, and resale. It is also one of the best in terms of reliability, quality, and fuel economy vs performance. On the other hand, you hate and deride them with almost entirely baseless comments. If one of us is drinking the 'kool aid', it isn't me.

What? You were actually positive on a Honda product on hour ago??? I don't believe it. This accord is a upgrade in every way from the previous. I am not to excited about the increase in size... next thing you know they will put in a bench seat. But as a 3.2 TL owner, I am excited to see the 3.5 offering more power and better fuel economy while not requiring premium gas. Too bad there is no 6MT sedan with VCM. Hopefully I will be able to cross-shop with a 300+ HP AVtec SH-AWD TL 6MT in the near future. For the V6's: The 3.6 in the Malibu should be similar to that in the Aura. It gets 17/26 compared to the Accord's 19/29. HP is 16 less in the Malibu. Torque is 4(?) more. For the 4 cyls: According to the EPA the 2.4 in the Aura gets 22/30 compared (though I'm not sure if that is the 6AT) to 21/31 in the Accord. HP in the Malibu will be 164(?) compared to 177 or 190 in the Accord. Aside from the similar fuel economy numbers, the performance most likely won't be comparable. Stats from here: http://media.gm.com/ca/gm/en/releases/2007...et%20Malibu.htm and here: http://www.fueleconomy.gov

I had the same problem with an Eagle Talon. Around were I live there seems to be a lot of Buicks going through fences, houses, stores, etc. I don't think Buick has a problem with run-away acceleration. I think they have a problem with old buyers.

Well they are due. They killed the EV1 and did not provide a follow-up when they were in the lead, they ignored hybrids for too long, then they put out hybrids that were nothing more than an idle shut off and a plug, their hybrid buses ended up being a bust once they put in an engine that could meet emission standards, currently they are making hybrids with fuel economy comparable to their competitor's 4cyls (but with lower performance... their marketing campaign should be "None of the benefits, but only 1/2 the cost"), and they will soon put out a two-mode which will be too expensive for most. Based on their track record, we really shouldn't expect GM to succeed. But now wonder they want to distract people. It is possible that GM has some sort of ace in the hole with A123. But it is also possible that the other automakers are correct in their caution and the GM big-wigs sitting around a table and eating up every bit of promise and progress that A123 offers. Considering Toyota's head start in this area as well as the fact that there are already plug-in Priuses with A123 batteries (just don't try to buy one as an individual... for some reason they won't be available until 2008), it is likely that Toyota actually turned down the A123 technology (rightly or wrongly). I can't imagine that Hymotion (owned by A123) wasn't doing everything in their power to pitch their solution to Toyota. GM might do it, but odds are their will be a compromise (timing/price/range/availability).

Do you work for Kia??? J/K. A number of automaker have choosen at one time or another to "save money" by building vehicles of lower quality. Maybe it is the buyer's fault for being stupid enough to buy them. Perhaps they were even stupid enough to go by the JD IQS. But often you just don't know what they've done beneath the surface. I'm willing to pay for the security. That's why I have house insurance even though I will likely never need it. For those automakers who build a better product the cost of the warranty is relatively low anyways.

Even if so, how much more? Another 5-10K miles over 5 years? What are the odds of a major powertrain problem during that time. Don't get me wrong, I'd take it. I'd never use it, but I'd take it. But overall, it is more flash than substance. The 50-100K doesn't tell the whole story. It would have had to have failed within 5 years as well for this GM-style warranty to have helped. I imagine much less than 22% failed at <5 years >60K miles. And that is a special case in that the Honda 5AT appears very problematic in certain applications. For the average GM owner I'd imagine the comprehensive warranty would be much more important than the powertrain. At least that has been my experience, and everyone always talks about how bullet-proof the GM drivetrains are.

As for the person who commented about the deck being stacked with olde people... I saw a study that showed that old and young people typically repair their cars less. Makes sense. That is one reason why some of these "old person" brands (Buick, Oldsmobile, Cadillac, Lexus) do so well on this study. It might also explain why BMW and Mercedes do so well even though they are not really reliable vehicles. Finally, it might also explain why the Oldsmobile Silhouette made number 1 (19/20) but the near identical Venture (15/20) and Montana (14/20) didn't manage to make 2 or 3. Still, it is strange that the Silhouette was some 35% "more dependable" than the Montana. In fact, the Montana was one of the worst. Anybody have a link to JD Power's methodology for this study? Is it as bogus as the IQS?

Agreed. But they know very well they couldn't afford it. This warranty is better than GM's, but both are a bit of a crock. GM knows very well that the average person will only drive 60Kish mile in 5 years, so to extend the warranty from 60K to 100K has a small incremental cost. Those who do drive more than 60K are likely putting on a lot of highway miles which are easy on the vehicle. Nice to have the 100K, but an 80K with an extra couple of years would have been better. Chrysler knows very well that most of their customers won't keep a new car for more than 7 years (the length of their old powertrain warranty) so this warranty might even be less expensive for them than their old warranty. Anyone who does keep their Chrysler for more than 7 years is going to be paying through the nose for the comprehensive items that are breaking. I think Chrysler was lost for ideas as to how to make their cars depreciate even faster. Problem solved. My last car I just paid the ~$1200 for a from-the-dealership comprehensive 7yr/80Kish 0-deductible comprehensive with roadside. Haven't had the chance to use it, but it is nice to know it is there and transferrable. Edit: I should mention that was $1,200 CDN on a $48K car... so I didn't get hosed like it initially seems.

I'm trying to base my examples on what is available today. We all can't make PR statements of production costs, ranges, and timeframes based on theoretical batteries (let alone be applauded as "brilliant" for doing so). It goes without saying that if GM manages to create and mass produce the battery then the price would come down. But unless they get the cost down to an absolutely trivial amount (which isn't going to happen) the principal still applies. Perhaps an example will help. I'll leave Toyota out of it so that you can just consider the actual economics of it. Imagine that GM actually manages to hit their Volt targets. That should result in a battery that costs ~$10,000 for 40 miles, or ~$250/mile. The batteries for a Volt with an 8 mile range might cost $2,000. Therefore a 40 mile Volt would be $8,000 wasted for me. Even if we they do TWICE as well as they themselves are wildly hoping, that is still $4,000 wasted for me.

Much of the cost of these cars will come from increased range. Saying "20 miles electric range VS 40 miles electric range" is perhaps equivalent to saying a "$20K car VS $30K car" or a "car that can exist next year VS a car that we hope will exist in a couple of years". Toyota's solution seems a bit closer to reality. GM may find themselves at 20 miles (or less) as well when they get that close to reality. I would do fine with a 8 mile range and therefore the increased cost of the Volt over the plug-in Prius would be wasted money for me. For example, based on the current Prius Li-ion conversion kits you are paying ~$500 per additional mile of electric range. If I were to buy the Volt at today's prices I would be paying ~$16,000 for batteries I would almost never use. A plug-inPrius with a 20 mile range would be ~$6,000 wasted. Therefore because of the range I would have a tough time justifying the Prius and the Volt wouldn't even be a consideration. Longer range may be fine for hypothetical pissing contests. But in reality it may be a detriment. I think the correct solution would be a modular design where the buyer decides how much range they would like to buy. Then you can ask yourself, "Do I want to pay $500 for 1 extra mile of electric range?".

Heh. I hear you. But it is actually quite brilliant. GM can sell a car that offers a smaller trunk, less performance, is more complicated, and costs more compared to a 4cyl Accord. And even though the fuel economy is only comparable, GM can pretend that they are in the "eco game". (Did someone mention the Volt?) Plus is helps bolster the GM argument that hybrid cars don't make sense. And all they have to rely on is that their consumers aren't doing their research (which is a pretty safe bet).

My mother's brother's uncle got 1/2 MPG in the aztek, so the CR-V is way better. As far as more standardized testing goes (from CR): Aztek 0-60: 11.3 City MPG: 12 Highway MPG: 24 150 Mile Trip: 20 CR-V: 0-60: 10.6 City MPG: 15 Highway MPG: 29 150 Mile Trip: 25 Faster 0-60 and better fuel economy. The CR-V doesn't look so pathetic to me. But yes, the RAV4 V6 puts up pretty much identical fuel economy numbers to the CR-V while offering a 0-60 of 6.7. You are correct that that new V6 from Toyota is amazing.

Cobalt down from 23,961 to 15,850 (-30% DSR). Aura sold 5,827 for the month (just a few less than the Grand Prix). 33,056 for the year. http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/...7Deliveries.xls

I, for one, wouldn't enjoy paying 40% more for everything made in China. Thanks for helping to degrade my quality of life. Well done. Nor would I want other countries to tell the US that the Fed isn't allowed to change interest rates, or that they aren't allowed to run irresponsible deficits to fund tax cuts and wars as it seriously devalues the US dollar. CARBIZ, you as a Canadian should recognize this as yet another heavy-handed move by the US to bully other countries into playing the game by THEIR rules.

The two-mode and Toyota hybrids operate differently. While I don't know enough about the two systems to know if it will be the case, the EPA tests may react differently to them.

Nice gains, but $10K (or whatever GM subsidizes it to) will keep this from being popular until the prices comes down. FYI, hybrids don't "suffer" on the highway. They offer very good fuel economy on the highway as they have smaller gas engines. They simply don't get the huge increases like they do in the city. That being said, from my (very limited) understanding of the two-mode system there is a chance of some sustained electronic assist at highway speeds that is not possible with Toyota/Honda's system. This is because the two-mode can generate electricity (i.e. without having to brake). What will be interesting to see is if the two-modes have artificially high EPA highway numbers as a result. This will be a danger if it can travel quite some time on electricity without having to generate any. Personally, I would find it strangely amusing to hear about two-mode hybrids that get 35 MPG highway, yet are derided as "useless" and "a scam" because their EPA rating is 50MPG.

If you have a limited market and production capacity for something you will offer it only on the highest trim to maximize your profits. While I suspect that what you wrote might be true, I don't think it is safe to make an assumption on the cost of the system due to the trim level it is offered on. Unfortunately there is so much misinformation that is hard to tell what the true cost is. Going from 16 to 28 MPG saves ~400 gallons/year at 15,000 miles/year. At $3.5/gallon that is a savings of $1,400/year. Even if I had to pay $3,000 I would find it compelling.

Compared to the base Camry, yes. But the hybrid has most of the features in the more loaded trims. I don't recall where I read it, but the incremental cost was supposedly only $1,500 for the hybrid functionality of the Camry. If Toyota offered it, you would probably be able to buy a base Camry with a hybrid option for only $2,000 more. That is compelling to me. And just imagine in a couple years, as the volume rises and the batteries become less expensive going from 16 -> 28 MPG may be a thousand dollar option.

Yes, but it has "existence" standard. That isn't even an option on the current Volt. :AH-HA_wink:

"The Plug-in HV displayed yesterday runs on the same nickel metal hydride battery as the Prius and has a cruising range of 8 miles on electricity. The maximum speed of Plug-in HV as an electric vehicle is 62 miles an hour. The batteries require about 1.5 hours to recharge at 200 volts and three or four hours at 100 volts. The more common hybrids such as Toyota's Prius have a cruising range of 1.9 miles as an electric vehicle, according to Toyota." (From http://www.boston.com/business/globe/artic..._hits_the_road/ ) 8 miles would get me to work. I could plug it in and have a full charge for the drive home. But what is the incremental cost of the extra batteries? I think GM is over-complicating things by trying to make the Volt's range so long. Until batteries come down in price a short range is a necessity. But perhaps the difference in philosophy comes down to Toyota being able to leverage what they have and to actually be able to put out a product in a relatively short time whereas GM's poor postitioning in hybrids is forcing them to start pretty much from scratch and do PR until they can put out a product years from now.

The 3.5 in the Malibu? Rated 24/34, CR got 15/36. 0-60 8.1s. Those are some pretty good numbers for fuel economy. The performance is a bit off. I drove that car, it feels like it pulls pretty hard but it sucks wind at the top end. For comparison, the 3.2 TL AT is rated at 20/28 and CR got 16/35 with a 0-60 of 6.7s. I don't agree that the TL's engine is more likely to have future problems than the GM 3.5. It is more complex, but the J series is old and has had no major problems. But it isn't an "extra few mpg". People twist and manipulate it to appear that way (i.e. comparing highway mpg of a non-hybrid to the city mpg of a hybrid), but it isn't. Lets compare the Malibu V6, which does have fairly good fuel economy, to the Camry Hybrid. Malibu V6: CR got 15/36. 0-60 8.1s Camry Hybrid: CR got 28/41 with a 0-60 8.5s So the performance is similar, but the hybrid gives 86% better city fuel economy. Those kinds of gains are huge. To put that 86% gain into perspective, a Corvette Z06 with the V8 gets 13 MPG city. i.e. The efficient Malibu V6 gets only 15% better city fuel economy than the V8 in the corvette. Or, to put it another way, the hybrid yeilds an increase in fuel economy over the Malibu V6 5.7 times the size of the difference of the V6 over the V8.

Fair enough on the rebate amounts (but the 0% financing is, at least at some level, real money lost). Let me put it this way instead. Whether GM is selling a car they are making a 1K profit or 3K profit on, the labour costs are relatively the same. It sounds like if they could charge another 0.5 - 1K per vehicle they would make up this <massive> difference that seems to have paralyzed them. It was management's decisions that put GM in this place where the Honda's/Toyota's/etc. seem able to charge that premium and more (at least it wasn't the hourly workers' fault). "Cheap interiors? Our costs would go down a couple hundred per car? Let's do it!"

That is one of the reason I would like to see a side by side break down instead of these anecdotal numbers. The $25/hour difference includes "health care, pension, retiree and other costs", which should cover the "GM's $6 billion per year fixed medical cost". At least that is what is implied. I would agree that the idle workers and job banks are an issue. They should be the focus of the cuts. I agree. But the price problem is management's fault. And the price problem seems to outweigh the labour cost issues. I am trying to relate the $25/hour wage difference to an actual cost per vehicle. In comparison to the rebates, it seems paltry. However we don't seem to have enough information.

How many hours of labour does it take to build a car? I recall another thread that talked about how GM was within minutes of Toyota's assembly time at certain plants. As I recall, it was less than two hours to assemble a car. I also believe it was less than an hour to assemble the engine. So what does it take? 10 hours? If so, taking the $25/hour difference given by management including "health care, pension, retiree and other costs" that is $250 more per vehicle. How does that compare to 0% financing and $4,000+ rebates that are being offered on many models? Even if it takes 20 hours to build, the $500 seems trivial next to the incentives that the domestics are offering to make up for management's horrible execution. e.g. Honda builds an Odyssey and sells it for $28K. Dodge builds a $28K Caravan for $250-$500(?) extra labour and then offers $4K off. And the labour cost is the problem? I'd love to see a complete side-by-side breakdown of the costs instead of these random "$25/hour" and "1,200 - 1,500 more in health care costs" numbers.