Grab our RSS Feed

AND

No to Beat But Yes to Trax or Groove: GM US Subcompact Within 2 Years

July 28th, 2008 | Posted in: Efficiency

Since the massive gas price and economy fueled shift started in the North American auto market, all the automakers are scrambling to stop building trucks and start building fuel efficient cars.

The Chevy Beat approved for oversees production seemed like it would be a good fit for this new US market, but couldn’t make it here because it wasn’t built to US crash and safety standards.

Today, Chevy Brand Manager Ed Peper told Automotive News, that GM will be bringing one of the Beat’s two sister cars to North America.

The other two siblings are called Trax and Groove, and per Mr. Peper, "of the triplets, we will get one of those variants." As to which of the two would come he said "I don’t want to say at this point."

To meet US requirements the mini car would have to be a bit longer that the Beat is, and will arrive here "in the next couple of years."

If this car is to replace the Aveo, it will be more stylish says GM VP of design Ed Wellburn.

Source (Automotive News subscription)

Posted by: Lyle

119 Responses to “No to Beat But Yes to Trax or Groove: GM US Subcompact Within 2 Years”

Jason C Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 7:56 pm

Does it mention anything about the propulsion system? Is it going to be e-flex with a possible BEV in the future?

(Quote)
Marcus Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 8:08 pm

I could see myself driving the black one, looks kinda neat.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 8:11 pm

I think I mentioned this in the last thread but the article I read from the Automotive news I think said by 2011, not within 2 years. I could be in error…I used a cache site to read it and it is offline now…maybe we are looking at different articles? Can someone clarify?

Other related news: You won’t be able to lease this car…or a Volt..or any other GM product.

You CAN NO LONGER LEASE A GM VECHICLE! Cerberus and GMAC shareholders are petrified of the car (truck) market and residuals. Chrysler was first to announce a couple days ago…GM is sending out notes quietly today.

Canadian dealers all got faxes today saying July 31st is last day to get a GMAC lease. US counterparts should get the bad news tomorrow. How is this Volt related? I guess we know you won’t be leasing the battery.

/wonder what this does to sales projections?

Alot harder to sell a Tahoe…or a 45K Volt without low lease payments.

(Quote)
jes Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 8:21 pm

Man, I haven’t had a Tyco since the early 80’s

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 8:27 pm

Heck, Statik,

Not being able to lease a vehicle will really hurt a lot of folks, who will be forced to buy second hand.

I think, the second hand market for Volts would hold up quite well, and would, make excellent candidates for leasing.

/So who wants to sell me their Version one Volt after three years?

(Quote)
canehdian Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 8:31 pm

Personally, I think the back two look very ugly.
The front one isn’t as bad, but I still wouldn’t buy it. :p
(that was the Beat, right?)

Though, the front one (Beat?) looks better than the aveo hatchback, to me.

(Quote)
vincent Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 8:40 pm

Where is the remote?
At least they are very cool looking econo-boxes. Better put a roll cage in those suckers for oncoming SUV’s
I’ll take one for a grocery getter.

(Quote)
kent beuchert Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 8:46 pm

GM could pull the same trick that the Aptera folks with Google’s help are doing – make the vehcile with three wheels, making it a motorcycle, whcih doesn’t have to pass any crash tests or meet other automotive safety regulations. None of the enviornmentalists
seem concerned about the Aptera – want to bet how loud they would scream if GM atttempted such a stunt.

(Quote)
Dave99 Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 8:55 pm

8. kent beuchert

… it may not have to pass crash tests, but people see GM as a corporation with deep pockets and I can just imagine the lawsuits that would ensue. this is also why GM can’t do many of the things other small companies can, they can’t afford to make a mistake and re-start their business under a new name.

oh yeah, and I liked the beat the best, but the rear left one in black could be cool.

(Quote)
Stew Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 9:03 pm

#5 NZDavid – “Not being able to lease a vehicle will really hurt a lot of folks, who will be forced to buy second hand”
———————————————————————-

Not trying to start something, but when did buying a new car become a right? If you can’t afford it, then you can’t afford it.

I can’t afford most new cars, that doesn’t mean I would be forced to do anything, it means I would need to save longer. Putting flame suit on now.

(Quote)
George K Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 9:07 pm

My pick would be the Trax ( upper right ), as long as we can’t have the Beat, which would have been very cool!

But I don’t see why the Beat can’t be converted. It’s ashame for GM to give away a big winner.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 9:08 pm

We need all the help in efficient vehicles as we can get as soon as we can get it. I don’t know how these vehicles will stack up, but if they can help Americans save money, I’m all for them. We will just have to wait and see.

(Quote)
Morgan Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 9:09 pm

Statik:

Did the article mention anything about floorplanning?

(Quote)
jcook341 Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 9:17 pm

The black one is very similar to my Scion Xd, GM should have figured out there was going to be a market for these years ago. The styling of the aveo is very cheap. GM was just focused on the huge profits of the SUV’s, I guess karma is a bi*ch. Someone should be held responsible, like say maybe the CEO. Other companies were able to see this coming i.e. Toyota, Honda, Nissan. Hopefully GM pulls there head out of there butt before it is to late. I am very sad to say all this about GM because my father has been a GM service manager my whole life.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 9:18 pm

Well, the one in the foreground is the best looking one, except it is a two door and I do not want a two door unless it is a sports car. The front end on the foreground car just looks better than the snub noses on the other two. I hope GM’s design team will do some work on the one that gets selected for the American market and make it look really sharp. Either one of the three would make a good commuter or short distance car. We need a car like this with a quality engine, drive train and body with a really sharp interior. It needs to have very high mileage (45+) and be inexpensive ($15,000 or less with all the trim).

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 9:21 pm

Does any one have any more information about these vehicles? Mileage, engine, layout and such? Is it available somewhere on a web-site?

GM really needs to get one of these to us early next year, but no later than next fall. Come on, GM.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 9:24 pm

Found some info at: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/car_shopping/micro_machines/chevrolet_trax_beat_and_groove_concepts_auto_shows

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/04/04/new-york-auto-show-chevy-groove-concept/

From looking at the pictures, I would be willing to bet the Groove would be chosen by GM to come to our shores.

(Quote)
vincent Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 9:26 pm

These were introduced aver a year ago and the public was asked to vote on their favorite style. I did.
Big companies inherently are slow movers….unfortunately.
Could have been here already.

(Quote)
nuclearboy Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 9:29 pm

It seems a shame that GM cannot get a vehicle like this to market sooner. They need a cool small car in the showrooms. It will bring in more people. People may look at it and find that they can get an impala with just 10 less mpg and decide on the real car but that is up to them. I just think this would help the GM (Green Motors) image that they need to develp.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 9:34 pm

I just wish GM had made the decision 2 years ago to bring one of these to America. We could be driving one of them this fall. But, that is the way of it.

Well, I’m done for the night. Catch up with the comments tomorrow, God willing. Night all……..

(Quote)
Jim I Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 9:45 pm

I just wish that any of the pictures of these vehicles had a person standing beside it to give it some scale. It is almost impossible to get a sense of the size of these cars……….

(Quote)
GM Volt Fan Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 9:51 pm

I guess I like the Chevy Groove a little better than Chevy Trax. I agree with Ed Wellburn about making the design more stylish for both of them. GM makes their grille too big on the front end of the Groove. It’s not the right proportion or something. They ought to make it more aerodynamic looking.

Here’s some more pictures of the Groove and Trax:

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/07/28/u-s-to-get-chevy-groove-or-trax-in-2011/

I think GM ought to not worry too much about “creatively emulating” other company’s cars. GM needs to find a “popular style” and just tweak it in a few areas to make it look a bit more original. I wouldn’t mind if GM started emulating some of Mazda’s new designs. Mazdas are looking pretty good these days. Like the CX-7.

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2007/10/12/066691.8-lg.jpg

and the CX-9

http://www.webwombat.com.au/motoring/news_reports/mazda-cx-9.htm

I like GMs Saturn Outlook and the GMC Acadia too. Just make the Chevy Groove look like the little brother of these cars.

http://www.edmunds.com/pictures/VEHICLE/2008/Saturn/2008.saturn.outlook.20124421-396×249.jpg

http://image.automobilemag.com/f/features/news/6695360/0607_z+2007_gmc_acadia+front_corner.jpg

(Quote)
canehdian Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 9:58 pm

“I just think this would help the GM (Green Motors) image that they need to develp.”

If the volt lives, GM might use that in their marketing.. I’d be wanting a cut of the profits for that idea, if I were you..
(I’m sure someone @ GM has already said it though.)

(Quote)
Bailers Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 10:06 pm

Statik,
Say goodbye to GM and Chrysler. When 2 of the American companies stop leasing, more market share will go to Toyota and Honda (that still are leasing I believe.)

I’m willing to bet that GM won’t survive to release the Volt.

(Quote)
mike jacobs Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 10:15 pm

they are already making the corsa-just send it to the usa.with a 3 cyl. use the metro name again. my 99 metro gets 55 mpg doing pulse and glide.

(Quote)
Paul-R Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 11:05 pm

jcook341 you said…

“GM was just focused on the huge profits of the SUV’s, I guess karma is a bi*ch. Someone should be held responsible, like say maybe the CEO. Other companies were able to see this coming i.e. Toyota, Honda, Nissan. Hopefully GM pulls there head out of there butt before it is to late.”

Your statement sounds like a bit of a double standard to me.

Sure, Toyota has the Prius, as we all know. But other than that…

GM has the Cobalt XFE, Astra, Matrix, and Aveo which get almost the same mileage as their Japanese equivalents. Shouldn’t GM get credit for those? Seems like it to me.

And Toyota/Nissan make their share of gas guzzlers: Titan, Armada, Tundra, Land Cruiser, and Sequoia. All 13MPG city and not selling. Should their CEOs be fired for these vehicles? Probably not, since all were selling pretty well until $4 gasoline hit the fan.

GM has made plenty of mistakes, but they have also done a lot right. And the Japanese make a fine vehicle, but they are not perfect nor clairvoyant. Lets try to keep a little balance please.

(Quote)
Mike D Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 11:24 pm

Make a 2 mode hybrid version that costs under 20k. I’m guessing 37ish city and 45ish highway for a non hybrid. What then, like 55 or 60 combined MPG for a hybrid?

(Quote)
canehdian Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 12:02 am

Mike,
the problem with that is, people will just say “Oh, for $3,000 more I can get a prius.”
And they will, because it’s “proven” tech.
Now if they came out with a hybrid for $15,000 they could appeal to the masses.
It’s a stretch, but possible. An Aveo’s what, 12k in the States?
3k premium for hybrid seems to be true for some. So who knows

(Quote)
Lurtz Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 12:46 am

Those little things? Ridiculous.

I’m 6 foot tall, and have two kids to put in child seats to take to preschool/daycare every morning.

It couldn’t POSSIBLY work – my Mini Cooper would get *so* jealous.

(Quote)
TinKeR ToYZ Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 12:56 am

Those rear wheels are back, I mean waaaaay back. Are they even inside the body ?

(Quote)
ghost Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 12:57 am

Haha

The beat was the ONLY car I liked..

…sigh….

(Quote)
Ryan P Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 2:10 am

I could see myself driving the red one, or maybe the black one, but ONLY if they make it a battery only plug in. The ICE is dead to me.

(Quote)
Eric E Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 2:50 am

E-Flex please…

No substitutes!

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 6:35 am

Like Marcus # 2, I like the black one the best.
But I will still hold out for some kind of hybrid before I buy one of these.

(Quote)
jabroni Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 6:41 am

Wow, those three vehicles are simply butt ugly! Let them stay overseas!

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 6:46 am

#10 Stew

I agree with you, however GM’s model requires it to sell new cars. If people have trouble leasing, they, in some cases, will go elsewhere.

On a personal note, I am certainly saving for my Volt, had a bit of bad luck with a friend getting sick, and giving her my deposit, so far, to cover some medical expenses. Still we start over again. At least she is doing OK, and therapy is keeping her pain free. Darn drunk drivers.

(Quote)
Gsned57 Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 6:55 am

eh, none of em get me excited. I’m not buying anything new until I can plug it in. Why do the back two look like dwarfed SUV’s? No thanks, just bring me my volt or Vue PHEV (the one nasaman is advocating with the 16kwh battery). I’m nearly to the point of converting my own car to a PEV, hurry up and build em GM!

(Quote)
Cire Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 7:03 am

Aww look at the cute lil cars!

I wonder what these are running, 4cyl?

(Quote)
Aspherical Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 7:21 am

These cars are by no means a long term solution for GM. They are only trying to take the market share from Scion. That’s it.

(Quote)
Tom M Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 7:25 am

Statik #3

Good Morning !

What is this going to do to their Smart Buy Program ??

We have a leasing company and GM is not the only game in town when it comes to leasing. I think you will still be able to lease but not from GM. They want their cash up front. I think with this mortgage shake out we are going to go back to basic financing programs of old. This also makes good sense because we have been skating on thin ice for years when it comes to credit. My first new car in 1957 was a shiny red Chevy convertible, 20% down max of 36 months.
We are going to have to be more responsible in our money management in the future which in turn should result in a more stable economy.
Now if we could get Congress to apply the same principals of not spending more that we earn, things will really look bright.

Tom

(Quote)
brandon Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 7:55 am

I don’t think any of those cars are going to be a hit in the US. I am guilty of this too, but most of us American do not like small little cars that look akward. If they can make a small car that looks cool then that would be great. Why can’t they make a small car that looks like a porsche or a ferrari or somthing like that? Those are small cars, but they look cool. I doubt the body is that much more expensive to build. To me I think the corvette makes GM alot of money because it can not be that much more than some of the other cars they build but they sell for much more because they can get people to pay that much for it.

(Quote)
Tim Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 8:09 am

No plug?

NO PLAY!

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 8:09 am

#40 Tom M

“Statik #3
Good Morning !
What is this going to do to their Smart Buy Program ??”

Basically GMAC will no longer assume the risk. I’m in Canada, so I assumed ‘SmartBuy’ (in it’s original form) died in the states the same way it did in Canada many years ago. Perhaps they still call leases ‘SmartBuy’ in the US.

I would assume it would make a return to the market. In a new iteration. Basically the ‘old SmartBuy’ was a 3-5 year loan to the consumer directly with a ‘balance due’ at the end. ie) $25,000 = 48 payments of $299 + balance payment of $8,000 at terms end. No liability is to GM, essentially it is just a fancy car loan.

The product never really had the impact of the ‘lease’ we know today, because it doesn’t really matter how you creatively finance it…the car is still yours. As a financing vehicle, it is just…well, dumb. Who gets a loan with a backended amount so they can afford a car today? You get a ton of interest on your head and if you can’t afford the full payment today…you probably can’t tomorrow. I’m sure the same people who got into sub-prime will get into this…something for nothing.

Additionally with the ‘payments + ballon at term’s end’ structure, a greater number of people continue to own the car rather than trade it in…generally because of the same reason people stay in their houses now, they refuse to take a loss, and/or the car is perceived as ‘owned’ rather than ‘borrowed’

Programs like this inspire ZERO customer loyalty. If you choose to finance like this, there is no where near the draw to trade it in on another GM vehicle. Consumers once again return to ‘who will give me the most on my trade-in’ thinking.

The current leasing program generates a very high turnover into another GM vehicle at lease’s end.

I’m sure as you say there wil be ‘other’ leasing companies getting into the game…but none will have the drive to sell a GM car. In other words, they will be ‘looking to get paid’ for their risk. The lease will certainly not be at 0% for 48 months with a early exit to get into another new car. They make their revenue solely on the ‘lease premium’ and nothing on the car.

Factoid:
43% of all GM cars in Canada are leased
21% of all GM cars in the US are leased

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 9:12 am

The reason we have news about small cars like this on a Volt fan site is to support the contention that GM can survive long enough to produce the Volt.

These sound dangerously like “too little, too late.” Or possibly, just “too little.”

In light of GM’s survival, this “no lease” stuff sounds like a serious blow. I would never lease a car unless I had no choice, but the question is how many others will pass on GM without this option? Has anybody got a link to a story?

(Quote)
Rudy Z Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 9:40 am

I think that all three cars are ugly. Not that it matters much, since all automakers seem to be engaging in an ugly car contest.

They all make my 1995 Escort look good.

(Quote)
THOM Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 9:43 am

Whats this doing on the volt website???

Subcompact, economy cars have been around for years and depend on oil??

Now get the volt off the drawing board and actually build one!

(Quote)
Len Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 9:44 am

The green one looks kinda like the Subaru that is targeted for less than 20k as a PEV.

I wanted a Volt, but right now it is looking like I may have to settle for a Subaru. I hope not. Sure would like to buy U.S. but can’t afford the penalty.

(Quote)
Jay Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 9:45 am

The problem with GM is they never listen to the customer like Toyota. Case in point, a four place cheap car with all the amenities, which will be at their dealers soon. Toyota’s answer to the Fortwo, the Q!

(Quote)
Dave B Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 9:48 am

Jason C @ 1 wins IMO with the first comment about GM focusing on a BEV. Let’s keep pushing towards a pure electric vehicle, especially a subcompact. Makes perfect sense, as most of the consumers in this class wouldn’t be buying it for family cars or for distance (trips)… It’s a commuter to save on gas. What’s that?–40 miles range is what commuters need? crank that up to 100 miles and this is a winner. No range extender to weigh it down either. At least have an OPTION for an all-electric version.

(Quote)
Chris Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 9:50 am

Hey folks,

Thought I should share this snippet about Zenn Motor Co.

Ont. wants further studies into electric car safety

Last Updated: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 | 8:28 AM ET
CBC News

Ontario’s Ministry of Transportation is studying the safety of the Zenn Motor a low speed electric vehicle, built by a Toronto company. According to a promotional video it costs about a penny a mile to operate the car.

“The Zenn requires no gas and is as simple as plugging in a cellphone to recharge,” says the video.

But unlike in British Columbia and Quebec, the Toronto-based company’s cars are still not street legal. The Ontario Transportation Ministry is examining whether the cars are safe to drive.

“Transport Canada certified that the vehicle met or exceeded all the safety requirements of the class, so we are a little confused as to why an additional safety requirement is required,” said Catherine Scrimgeour, spokeswoman for Zenn.

It’s that kind of red tape that prompted electric vehicle entrepreneur Monte Gisborne to move to New York state. He can’t believe electric car safety is still an issue in Ontario when it has been cleared by other states and provinces.

“You know, what’s so unique about Ontario? That we need our own study? Just get these things on the road now.” said Gisborne.

Gisborne believes Ontario is choking its homegrown green industry in red tape.

Scrimgeour said that despite the frustrations, they’re not planning on relocating the company.

“We are proudly Canadian and plan on staying here,” she said.

But Scrimgeour said Zenn is looking to Europe as a test market for its next generation of electric vehicle.

Chris

(Quote)
#DA Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 9:56 am

#5 NZDavid

“Not being able to lease a vehicle will really hurt a lot of folks, who will be forced to buy second hand.
I think, the second hand market for Volts would hold up quite well, and would, make excellent candidates for leasing.”

I disagree David (does NZ mean your in New Zealand?). Truth is the only real motivation for leasing in the US is if you run a business and its easier to deduct the lease payment as an expense as opposed to depreciating an owned vehicle. Perpetually leasing a vehicle is really a luxury. You pay up to get a ‘brand new car’ every 3 years.

I am convinced this is bad for the industry. The shameless promotions of leasing vehicles, means that during a downturn, GMAC gets hit on resale, and having trouble to move the new production. Leasing is just another paper finance scheme. People who lease don’t pay as much attention to value, fuel economy, or reliability. Just initial styling and initial quality. As a result they drive their vehicles harder, are lax on service, and buys stuff that’s not a good fit for the value buyer looking for a quality off-lease vehicle.

I think it will ultimately be a healthier car market, when people walk in and start buying to own, as opposed to being habitual renters. We’ll get better vehicle in terms of real sustance instead of over-powered ‘image’ vehicles. GMAC is learning that with the new more ‘frugal’ buyer mentality, a lot of those ’splurge’ off lease vehicles have lost their appeal.

–
#DA

(Quote)
DonC Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 9:58 am

#43 Statik

Much as I hate to say this, I think you are understating the problem GM faces on the leasing front. (Chrysler is worse but that’s another story).

GM is on the hook for about $1B of the difference between the actual and real residual value of the vehicle at the end of the lease and the estimated value of the vehicle at the of the lease as laid out in the lease document. Normally this is no big deal, but as you know the huge drop in resale value of the big SUVs and trucks makes this a yawning gap. Estimates are that the gap will be $3.5B for GMAC. On top of this, GM owns 49% of GMAC (Chrylser and Cerebus own the other 51%) so that’s a hit as well.

GM could probably weather this. They do have 10-15% of this amount set aside in a reserve, and as others suggest another lessor will probably step in.

The big problem is that if a car company declares bankruptcy, even the Chapter 11 variety, the filing craters the value of the company’s vehicles. A lessor will need to be compensated for this risk, and/or the value at the end of the lease will be set much lower than for competing vehicles from other companies. This means higher interest rates on GM vehicles and more amortization during the lease, both of which will contribute a price disadvantage vis-a-vis companies like Toyota and Honda, guaranteeing a lower market share.

(Quote)
Mike Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 9:58 am

I read a story about this yesterday and it was stating, as was stated in this post by Lyle, that this might become a replacement for the Aveo. I had also read that the Aveo is supposed to get a complete make-over for 2010 (actually I believe the European Aveo is supposed to come to NA but it’s still a new design for NA.) Something doesn’t really add up, why would GM want to update the Aveo only to replace it shortly there after.

My personal favourite of this bunch is the Beat. It would work great as a commuter car especially with it’s international A class designation. What concerns me is the talk about these cars getting bigger when and if they come to NA. Why can’t GM leave the vehicle the size it is? It should remain A class and a new market segment for GM. They should try to compete with Smart. I don’t fully believe statements like “we have to make it bigger to meet NA safety standards.” If Smart can develop their Tridion safety cell and sell their vehicle here in NA, GM could do the same, but they don’t want to.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 10:09 am

Statik shows some pretty startling figures on the percentage of leased cars in Canada and the U.S. I am surprised it is that high. But, why should I when we are faced with a housing problem caused by the same type of people and lenders who “purchase” things like houses that everyone concerned knows they cannot afford. When it comes time to pay the bill, we the people get stuck once again by the lenders and banks. I am getting pretty damn tired of that. I keep my accounts in order and I expect everyone else to do the same.

As far as these cars are concerned, I like the comment that jabroni (#35) said: These cars are butt ugly. I agree. If GM’s designers can’t do some serious improvements, they will pretty well sit on the dealers’ lot. We all want efficient vehicles. I am not alone in my thinking that efficiency and ugly does not go hand in hand. Efficiency and style can be the hallmark of a car like the Mazda examples given to us by GM Volt Fan (#22). GM needs to take a serious look around at the competition and come up with one better. Hell, steal some ideas here and there. Mesh this with that. Put together a car that will appeal to people. One that screams “Come buy me. Come drive me.”

You can do much better than this GM. You designed the Volt concept, the Camaro Concept and many others too numerous to name.

(Quote)
Jay Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 10:12 am

Sorry it’s called the Toyota iQ and here is a description and picture location: http://www.seriouswheels.com/cars/2007/top-2007-Toyota-iQ-Concept.htm The problem with GM is they never listen to the customer like Toyota. Case in point, a four place cheap car with all the amenities, which will be at their dealers soon. Toyota’s answer to the Fortwo, the iQ!

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 10:13 am

Re: to THOM regarding the fact that these cars still use oil…

I think you forget the Volt is designed to use oil as well… unless GM now plans to sell the Volt with out the “range extender”….

While I hope we get off oil completely (for general transportation), in practice that is not going to happen overnight. That’s why the Volt is a hybrid (series design) and not a pure battery EV. You also have to remember that not everyone can afford a Volt (US$40,000 for a 4 seater) or any of the other EV’s we’ll likely see over at least the next 5 years. Those that can’t afford the Volt are also the ones who are hurting the most with high energy costs… so having choices of high mileage and affordable vehicles is still an important path to getting off oil.

(Quote)
CDAVIS Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 10:25 am

__________________________________________________
Make it EV/EREV/E85:

Whatever form factor GM’s future cars take (be it Beat, Groove, Trax, etc…), EV those form factors as much as possible then make E85 capable whatever fuel input is not electrical (without exception).

If GM made this a publicly stated corporate policy, GM could unequivocally hold itself out as 100% committed to American Energy Independence & Environmentally Friendly.
_______

“I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.”: Wayne Gretzky

Battery Technology is rapidly improving. Example:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Nanotech/21141/?nlid=1238&a=f

Ethanol Technology is rapidly improving: Example:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/21134/?nlid=1233

Improved Nuclear technology is the future:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17059/
__________________________________________________

(Quote)
Cire Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 10:26 am

Jay,

Toyota listen to the customers? When was the last time they changed anything, 30 years ago? They werent listening to the customers when everyone wanted a SUV, they dont listen to anyone they just keep on doing what they are doing. They pretty much lucked out. GM is listening, they are bringing out more small cars, it just takes about 2 years to get an operation going.

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 10:28 am

From Lyle’s base posts: “The Chevy Beat approved for oversees production seemed like it would be a good fit for this new US market, but couldn’t make it here because it wasn’t built to US crash and safety standards.”

This came up in the other thread about the Beat… sorry if someone answered this in the other thread and I missed it, but….

1. specifically what crash/safety standards does the Beat not meet?

2. does that mean GM is making unsafe cars that are being sold in the European (and other) markets? This sounds hard (though not impossible) to believe… that the Europeans have more lax safety standards than the USA when they are known to be much more government regulated markets than the USA.

3. Can the US D.O.T. give GM (and other car makers) an exemption or in general relax the standards to European levels at least for a couple years so… (a) we can help our domestic auto makers, (b) more quickly get the most fuel efficient vehicles that the US automakers are already making in Europe onto our roads… which would help reduce our oil consumption even quicker, which may help reduce oil prices (prices which seem to already be responding to the millions of miles less we are driving this year hence reducing demand)

Out of curiosity, would GM’s Geo Metro from 20 years ago that got 50+ mpg highway on it’s 1L 3-cyclinder engine (and sat 5) not meet today’s safety standards? And if not, would that much weight need to be added to the vehicle in order to meet the standards substantially reduce the fuel economy?

(Quote)
noel park Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 10:36 am

Statik said it best yesterday. 2011 is so far out that it’s irrelevant

(Quote)
Chris Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 10:39 am

Hot off the presses:

http://money.canoe.ca/News/Other/2008/07/29/6295886-sun.html

Quick efforts to help stop the bleeding.

Chris

(Quote)
Gsned57 Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 10:40 am

#45 Rudy Z, a 1995 ford escort will never look good. But then again neither will my prius. Oh well

(Quote)
GM Volt Fan Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 10:47 am

I think GM ought to highly consider bringing the Opel small cars over to America. Opel is a GM subsidiary. I think this Opel Corsa OPC looks alright. Maybe they can make it a 4 door and it’ll still look ok. The front end of this Corsa OPC looks way better than the Beat, Trax or the Groove.

http://jalopnik.com/cars/news/hot-hatch-report-opel-corsa-opc-225629.php

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 10:52 am

“…the mini car…will arrive here ‘in the next couple of years.’”

A lot of things will arrive here in the next couple of years, including BEVs and the Volt. Some mini-cars are even here today. In the next couple of years, we are going to have more choices. The competiton will be fierce.

#56 Jeff M

My Volt won’t use much oil, compared to my current car. I travel less than 40 miles per day. I’ll be using AER almost all the time.

(Quote)
Tom M Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:05 am

DA #51

I have no problem with people buying their autos or trucks outright, however, you are right to point out the tax advantages to business owners when a vehicle is leased. Buying is not for everyone and leasing is not for everyone. You and your accountant will have to make that decision. I believe this will come down to a personal preference in most cases, like do I own a home or do I rent.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:08 am

#52 DonC

“#43 Statik: Much as I hate to say this, I think you are understating the problem GM faces on the leasing front. (Chrysler is worse but that’s another story).”

Actually, I have gone out of my way to not give a direct opinion on the effect this will have on GM. I am merely presenting the issue because I am in front of the news on this one.

I think all of your points are accurate and valid.

The faxes were sent out over the weekend to Canadian dealers. The US counterparts, while unofficially informed, are being given 72 hours (from Monday) to get their house in order before the rug is yanked.

This was not GM’s call at all, and is something they are being forced to deal with very quickly, although they have realized this was coming when the Chrysler ‘no lease ‘rumoUrs started a couple weeks ago (then enacted), it was still very much unexpected and is not reflected in any forward looking numbers.

Internally, the decision now is not whether to offer more cash rebates across the brands or to offer 0% for 6 years immediately…but rather for how long. GM needs to clear out the old product in a timely fashion for the new, higher priced 2009 lineup, unfortunately this development has made it virtually impossible to do so, and has made the 3.3% price bump not palpable by the average consumer.

I would further suggest that GM is looking at drawing down production across the company by at minimum a million units if they are looking to sustain their pricing structure on the 2009s

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:08 am

We do indeed live in a fast changing world. One that is wonderful and scary at the same time. Exciting and exhilarating for us car enthusiasts who seem to live and breath cars.

It will be even more exciting next year as the Chevy Camaro makes its entrance on the world stage. If gasoline was not so high, I would buy one just to tool around in. It is a beautiful car. A true muscle car. But, are we ready for another muscle car? I would be willing to bet it sells good, ready or not.

(Quote)
George K Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:09 am

#55 Jay

Good link. That’s why I favor the Beat, which could compete against these kinds of cars.

Ok, the Beat wasn’t designed for US crash requirements. In hind sight that was a bad decision. So, why can’t GM put a Beat body over a Trax assembly? Ala, putting an old Malibu body over E-Flex?

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:11 am

Something I keep hearing on this site are folks refering to E85 capable vehicles… and it seeming folks think it’s the best thing since sliced bread….

From my understanding it only costs an automaker $100-200 difference to make a vehicle E85 capable, and probably a lot less if they made every vehicle that way… it’s really just using different part materials I believe that stand up to the more corrosive nature of ethanol, and some software changes to the ECS. See more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85_in_standard_engines

Also keep in mind that ethanol contains less energy per gallon than gasoline… so E85 gives you a reduction of about 25% in miles/gallon. So unless you are paying 25% less for E85 compared to gasoline, it’s going to cost you more to go the same distance…

… and cost could be less… but the US ethanol lobby won’t let congress get rid of the 53 cents/gallon import tarrif on ethanol. Imported ethanol is mainly made from very much (by many magnitutes) more energy efficient sugar cane than US ethanol made mostly from corn. Corn which is displacing other now less profitable food crops.

(Quote)
Kent Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:12 am

Can someone give me the names of these cars? I know it’s listed in the article, but which one is which? Please state Black = , Orange =, Green = .

Also, to those of you who think this is butt-ugly, keep in mind that these are meant to compete against the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris and Scion, cars you probably also think are butt-ugly but is intended for the “kids”.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:15 am

Statik,

As usual you seem to be completely on beam with your comments. I trust your judgment on these matters. You have proven yourself many times over. As much as I hate to hear some of your comments, I find myself compelled to read them and to think on the significance of what you are saying.

Keep giving us the straight scoop. Sometimes it may seem like bitter medicine, but you just have to get it down anyway.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:17 am

Fitch downgraded Chrysler to ‘CCC’ based off of extrapolating loss of sales from the financing wing of Chrysler

“The higher costs associated with any renewal will make it more challenging to provide competitive and economic financing of retail sales. Given the challenges in the bank, auto and capital markets, it is unlikely that third-party financing will step in to fully replace lost volumes. Higher sales incentives are also unlikely to close this gap, resulting in lower production volumes at Chrysler. ”

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/fitch-downgrades-chrysler-ccc-outlook/story.aspx?guid=%7B22E08961-16E1-4BC0-81D5-CC86139D7954%7D&dist=hppr

For those who don’t follow the meanings of ratings:

CCC: High default risk. Default is a real possibility. Capacity for meeting financial commitments is solely reliant upon sustained, favourable business or economic developments

GM is currently ‘B-’, one level higher.

Link to ratings explained:
http://www.mergentonline.com/Help/RatingDef.htm

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:19 am

Kent,

The car in the foreground is the Beat (green). The black car is the Groove. Leaving the Trax as the last car (orange).

The Honda Fit is a very nice car inside and out. Especially in red. The Fit is a car GM should be studying very closely. It may show up as a hybrid model in the next couple of years. GM could do very well just copying it as much as possible. I certainly like it for its mileage figures and dependability. If only GM could have made it with the same style, quality and economy and dependability.

(Quote)
Anthony BC Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:30 am

Nice cars, but only the VOLT for me!

GO GM, GO VOLT for 2010!

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:30 am

#71 N Riley

“Statik,
Keep giving us the straight scoop. Sometimes it may seem like bitter medicine, but you just have to get it down anyway.”

I was doing so well keeping a low profile the last week or so? I hesitate to bring topics like this into the forum, as you say, ‘you hate to hear them’ and it’s not really a ‘rally the troops’ kind of topic, but this was a big one, so I did.

(Just to show that I am trying to hold back a bit, while at the same time…not holding back at all. I totally didn’t comment at all on the Saab warranty going from 100K to 50K, or the Saturn Aura Hybrid going up in price $3,000 to 25.5K or GM trying to buyout Hummer dealers on the downlow…speculating there is no buyer to take over the infrastructure and we are going to have a Oldsmobile scenario again. Can I use example of not saying something, by saying them? Probably not. I’m a hypocrit I guess.)

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:31 am

ThombDbhomb… you are missing the whole point of my post… of course lots of folks who buy a Volt will use zero gallons of gasoline a day, and even those that exceed the range will get effective (combined) miles/gallon that shoot skyward…

…. however MOST folks can NOT afford a $40,000 Volt, never mind the original $30,000 volt. And you’ve heard the news that you may not even be able to “lease” the Volt. Even if everyone could afford it… GM only plans to make 10,000 the 1st year, 60,000 the 2nd year… that is a drop in the bucket.

So whatever it takes to reduce oil consumption…. keep in mind that cars bought today are likely to be on the roads for at least a decade (I read somewhere that the average age of all the cars on the road today is 8 years). It’s going to take a long time to phase out ICE’s and have EV’s be the king of the road.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:33 am

Speaking of the Honda Fit and these three “entries” from GM. Just take a close look at the Fit on Honda’s web-site. The 2009 Fit is previewed on their future car page. When compared to the three cars pictured above, there is no comparison. The Honda Fit is by far the best car. It is going to be very hard for GM to compete against Honda’s cars unless GM can match them in price, styling, quality, dependability, gas mileage and marketing. It is a pretty high hill to climb. But, climb it GM has to. If they are to succeed and be a viable company in the next 3 to 5 years, they have to start now. They are pretty well on the road to having some cars that are classed as best in their class (2008 Malibu). They must build on that success. The 2010 Camaro will be the best in its class, if I don’t miss my guess. I don’t think I will. The Volt will be the best in its class simply because there will be no other in its class. But, it will eclipse many others not in its class if GM can get it to market early and with a much lower price point and a larger production figure.

What say you, GM?

(Quote)
GM Volt Fan Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:35 am

GM better get its act together in a hurry and come out with some hit cars in the next few years or Toyota just might have them for breakfast in 5 years or so. GM better get the best exterior/interior designers they can get their hands on and get those quality and reliability ratings up in the car magazines, Consumer Reports, JD Power, etc.

You know GM is in trouble when Toyota engines are consistently winning in NASCAR. NASCAR racing is about at all-American as it gets. This is really starting to bum me out.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121684748975778407.html?mod=AutosChannelMain_Review

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-AQ758B_NASCA_20080723214817.gif

GM needs to get DEAD SERIOUS about this latest reorganization. They need to come back stronger than ever and have LOTS of their vehicles get rave reviews and sell well. Toyota is a very tough competitor. GM is simply going to have to get even tougher …. very soon. American pride is on the line these days.

You know what the coaches in high school sports say … “when the going gets tough, the tough get going”. GM definitely needs to get going. Get it in high gear and keep it there. Forget about the past, throw out the rear view mirror and put the pedal to the metal.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:37 am

#75 Statik

We need to remember that life, like the car business, is no bed of roses and that once in a while you are going to get stuck with a thorn or two. Someone has to be the bearer of bad news. Why not you, Statik? You do it so well. And I mean that in the nicest way possible. You provide the bitter pill and I will try to “rally the troops” on occasion.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:44 am

#76 Jeff M

You are correct. I have been following your comments and can find no real areas where I disagree. The Volt will not be for everyone. They just will not be able to afford it. And not everyone will want one even if they could afford it. The vehicles driven by an ICE will be just as important over the next two decades as they are today. Even more so, if they can be made more efficient and economical. And ICE vehicles will be with us for decades beyond that. The question is just how fast can we convert our vehicle fleets to electricity or some other fuel not based on crude oil? The Volt and the others vehicles being announced are a good start.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:51 am

#78 GM Volt Fan

“You know what the coaches in high school sports say … “when the going gets tough, the tough get going”. GM definitely needs to get going. Get it in high gear and keep it there. Forget about the past, throw out the rear view mirror and put the pedal to the metal. ”

_________________________________________________________

My sentiments, exactly. Thanks for stating it so clearly.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:52 am

Maybe this is a good place to use the left over 3 cyl 1.0 turbos, LOL. Actually, these two are much more viable for our family than the Beat. My wife will not even look at a 2 door. Note that the Fit is a 4 door.

Maybe these could be a platform for some of the advanced technology available from GM Europe. I have commented before about the 1.0 3cyl Vauxhall which gets 56 mpg. There is also some sort of “Easy-tronic” or some such auto trans used in same. Does anyone know anything about it? Diesel???

Warning, warning – here’s a positive suggestion. Tweak this thing up, maybe even with BAS, and get sub-compact mileage bragging rights over the Yaris, Fit, Versa, et al. It will sell like hot cakes.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:56 am

#82 Noel Park

You are right on there, Noel. Just think what GM could sell if they had a car that looked as good as the Fit with a hybrid engine (even a BAS+). The economy side of it would be great. If the quality side was a good as the Fit, they could beat Honda and Toyota coming and going. Heck, I’d buy one.

(Quote)
THOM Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:58 am

GM has never been able to compete in the compact auto market…they been trying for 30 yrs.

The profit margiins on these small vehicles are really low / non existant. With GM reputation of low quality and high depreciation they are going to have a hard time making ANY PROFIT.

GM , put your resources in something that may have some potential and give yourself a chance.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 12:02 pm

For those interested in a comparison of the Honda Fit versus the above GM cars, please follow the below link.

http://automobiles.honda.com/2009-fit/

If only GM could do one as good. I know the Fit is not going to answer everyone’s needs. No one car will. But, a car like the Fit, whether offered by Honda or GM, will be a great car to own and drive. I have friends who dearly love their 2008 Honda Fit. And the mileage is very good. Plus all the other good things about having a Honda. Now, if only GM could do one as good. Oh, yeah, I already said that, didn’t I. Well, it is worth repeating again and again, GM. Maybe you will get the message.

(Quote)
RB Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Today’s (7/29) WSJ has an article on Fuel Economy standards for 2015. The article contains the sentence

“Even as GM has promoted its Chevy Volt electric concept car — showing the vehicle to Republican presidential candidate John McCain earlier this month — the company has told the Department of Transportation that the Volt won’t do much to boost GM’s fleetwide fuel efficiency before 2015.”

That comment seems to me to mean that GM is arguing the following: There will not be many Volts made through 2015, at least as a fraction of the total GM numbers in the USA.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 12:16 pm

56 Jeff M says,
While I hope we get off oil completely (for general transportation), in practice that is not going to happen overnight. That’s why the Volt is a hybrid (series design) and not a pure battery EV. You also have to remember that not everyone can afford a Volt (US$40,000 for a 4 seater) or any of the other EV’s we’ll likely see over at least the next 5 years. Those that can’t afford the Volt are also the ones who are hurting the most with high energy costs… so having choices of high mileage and affordable vehicles is still an important path to getting off oil.

————–
Well said. The Prius is a well priced car and that is the one people will gravitate towards. It is going to end up being price. I don’t believe the Volt will sell in any great numbers because the price is too high.

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 12:22 pm

N Riley, I agree with you too… the Volt is indeed a very good start, and does appear it’s still going to be the 1st mass produced (even at only 10,000 units in the 1st year, 60,000 the 2nd) battery EV.

I would love it if we could indeed replace every vehicle on the road over a much shorter (10 year) time frame with BEV’s, but logistically it’s just not viable w/out a massive government intervention***. I don’t believe in the hydrogen “highway”, and corn based ethanol is a boondoggle for the farm lobby (and we don’t have the climate to grow sugar cane and would still run into the problem of displacing food crops if we could grow it). Algae farms look interesting but that may be a better long term solution for aviation and other tranportation where BEV is not currently viable as well as to be used to displace oil in non-transportation uses.

*** Imagine what could have been done with that $1T+ we’ve spent on the decision to invade Iraq…. we could have subsidized 100 million BEV’s with $10,000 each. Or we could have implemented the part of the Picken’s Plan to replace 20% of our electric power generation with wind power. Or…

(Quote)
Tom M Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Last night on the John Hannidy show they interviewed T. Boone Pickens. He was driving his Honda NGV vehicle and he said he really likes it. All he has to do is go home at night and plug it in. Cost about $1.50 gal and the car gets 36 mpg highway, 26 in town. Very clean burning. GM needs to let us purchase some of their NGV autos. Natural gas is produced here so the money stays here. It’s not the total answer, but every little bit helps to get us off foreign oil.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 12:43 pm

#76 Jeff M

WADR, your post seemed mostly clear to me. I don’t think I missed the main point; most folks cannot afford expensive BEVs and E-REVs.

But, let’s not downplay the Volt’s oil dependency reduction to make your point about high mileage, affordable vehicles. Your, “the Volt is designed to use oil as well” seemed to equate the Volt with ICEs wrt oil requirements. I thought that distinction that needed elaboration. So I commented.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 1:04 pm

#84 THOM:

Well that’s where the market’s going, so I guess they can either figure out a way to do it or close the doors.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 1:08 pm

#88 Jeff M

Well, I agree we could have used the hundreds of billions spent in Iraq for better purposes, although if Iraq ends up as a “free” democracy in the middle east and remains a good friend of ours, the money will be better spent. I am not at all convinced the Iraqi people will ever see any real freedom. But, George W Bush will be judged by history, not by us in our current time. We can try to place blame and make judgments, some of which are based on half truths and lies, but eventually history will be the final judge of Bush and Iraq.

Having said that, we have mis-spent so much money in this country on one fool thing or another that we could have plastered the world in dollar bills. Our congress continues its spending ways whether under Republican or Democratic control. There is no immediate answer to the fix we are in, unless we are willing to pick up our guns and enforce some sense in congress. If we do that we had better be willing to start with our city, county and state governments, also. They are the training grounds for our congress. They are just as wrong headed about trying to solve problems by throwing more money at the problem.

Even with all of these problems, we as Americans still have enough spending power to change our lives if we control our spending and make the right decisions. We, ourselves, you and I, must be an example of conservative spending habits. The word conservative does not imply a political party in any sense of the word. Neither of our political parties could be called conservative by any stretch of the imagination. But, we should strive to be conservative in our spending habits. Being conservative in spending does not mean not spending, but does mean making the right decisions. Not being wasteful with our resources, both physical and monetary. Even political liberals can lead conservative principled lives. It is the best way to insure American prosperity now and in the future.

OK, I am getting off my high horse now.

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Tom M… more info on the Pickens plan can be found at http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

While I like the part about tapping our nations vast wind power and spending $1.2T to make 20% of our electricity come from wind… I currently disagree with what he seems to be proposing… that is that the wind power displace electricity generated from natural gas so it is freed up to be used in general transportation. Natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels… why displace the NG power plants… it makes much more sense to displace the coal fired power plants with the wind power!

Also I have to wonder if NG was widely used for general transportation, wouldn’t that drive up the price of NG? So home heating costs will rise (just like they are for those who heat w/oil now), but also due to the rising NG costs, more NG fired power plants are shutdown than just those being displaced by wind power and replaced with even more coal fired power plants.

We also need to keep in mind that natural gas, like oil, is a fossil fuel that is not renewable, hence is a limited resource.

Lastly you have some misinformation… it’s true that we produce natural gas domestically…. but we don’t produce enough to meet demand so like for oil, we are a net importer and it’s getting to be a bigger and bigger percentage is imported. Guess you don’t live on a coast and haven’t seen those LNG (liquidfied natural gas) tankers with those big domes? After 9/11 they drew a lot of attention around here because they sail those tankers right into Boston habor to unload them at storage facilities here, and needless to say there was concern what would happen if they were targeted by terrorists.

In any case it’s currently 18% of our natural gas demand that we import, info coming from the Dept. of Energy website at http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngpipeline/impex.html

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 2:28 pm

#93 Jeff M

Your concerns about natural gas are well founded. It is a fossil fuel and we are importing more and more annually. T Boone Pickens has considerable interest in natural gas supplies. I leave the rest to speculation. Whether his plan has other motives, I don’t know. I do agree he is correct that it is in our national interest to stop sending so much money to our enemies. I do not agree with removing natural gas as a power plant fuel either. I would rather see it used to offset coal until we develop cleaner coal systems. Coal is a viable resource for our power generation facilities for many years to come. We just need to speed development of the clean coal technology everyone in government and the coal industry keeps talking about.

We need to conserve all of the natural gas supplies for use as home heating supplies. We need to curtail its use else where in our industrial plants and supplement its use with electricity, where possible. Natural gas is too important for our future home use to be wasted in any manner.

We need to consider the other costs associated with Mr Pickens’ wind generation plan. Building the wind farms will only be a small matter when we consider the problem of building the electrical distribution lines to deliver the newly generated power. He will be up against every environmental group in the country fighting every step of the way. The same for any type of power generating plant. Doesn’t matter the type, it will be a fight, no matter what. It is also a fight we must win if we are to gain more power for our growing economy and cities, not to speak of the demand of our electrical cars and trucks.

(Quote)
Fahrvergnugen Fanboy Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 2:47 pm

#67 N Riley

“But, are we ready for another muscle car?”

Just being an advocatus diaboli*, but if oil keeps sliding all the way down to $100, does the auto market go back to “normal”? Does that Camaro come with a 454?

Will we repeat this crisis in five years, starting from even deeper in trouble? When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?

* Italian for “troublemaker”

(Quote)
Tom M Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Jeff M #93
I agree that we do not need to shut down our gas fired power plants.
I am not saying we all need to switch to NGV autos. It is going to take a mix of all kinds of energy to get us out of this fix. In Texas our company has about 1500 wells and most of those are gas. At present we have a good supply of natural gas and it would make sense to use some of that for the NGV’s. All forms of energy will be costly both in exploration and to build infrastructure to the end user.
We are planning on meeting with Gov. Schweitzer and his energy group of Montana in Sept. We are looking at coal derived synthetic fuel production that uses coal to liquids and gasification technologies. We can and will break our dependence on foreign oil.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 3:22 pm

#95 Fahrvergnugen Fanboy

History proves we are doomed to repeat our mistakes much more often than our successes. That does not leave much hope for us, does it?

The 2009 Camaro will be a classical muscle car in the sense that it can do everything the 1960’s Camaro did, but it will do it much better and more efficiently. But it will be a “gas guzzler” when compared to a Toyota Prius. But it would be a wonderful car to own, if you could afford to purchase one and keep it fueled.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 3:24 pm

#96 Tom M

“We can and will break our dependence on foreign oil.”

And we pray for this to happen. But, it takes a lot of hard work. We can do it. We must do it.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Satik at#3 and later,

In a really left handed way (like Moi) isn’t the idea that they can’t lease a GOOD thing so that they would SELL us our Volts? Just a thought

And I DID notice your low profile the last week or so. Two hypothesis jumped to mind – A) you were on vacation, B) You felt bad about my insensitive remarks or C) Both A & B. My guess was C just because I think I know how hard not chiming in would be (for both of us). PLEASE keep informing us. If only for personal reaasons, what would my Yinn be without your Yang (g)????
Did you see my planet analogy in the last thread? I kinda liked it.
Be well and vocal.
Tag

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 3:32 pm

forgot to check the “box” please disregard THIS post.
Tag

(Quote)
SamH Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Take a good look at these goofy little cars; they’re the future, like it or not. Europe has been getting smacked around with high gas prices a lot longer than North America and they’ve long since adapted to these cars. I spent 10 days over there 2 years ago, about half in the country-side and half in Paris and Brussels and noted a few things: the entire time I saw 0 pickup trucks, less than 10 SUV’s, and millions of cars that looked just like the 3 above. There’s a lot of pie-in-the sky wishful thinking on this site, but lets face it, it will be many years before the Volt and its like will be mass produced and affordable. We’ll see the golf carts above in large quantities much sooner. I’ll probably get slammed by some for being negative. I want a Volt just as badly as the next guy, but I’m trying to be realistic too.

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Re: Tom M …. as long as you understand I quoted from above, that we are already importing 18% of the NG we use and it’s growing, never mind using it for general transportation (your original post implied we produced all our own NG)

But arghh on the synthetic fuels, especially coal to liquids (CTL)! That is an environmental disaster in the making! CTL releases double the carbon dioxide from producing and burning it than does refining and burning oil (gasoline)! Replacing oil with something twice as bad is just a bad idea. We have to stop using our air like an open sewer like we used to do with rivers and then the ocean. We used to think they could handle it, and especially the ocean because it’s so “vast”. Just because CO2 is colorless and oderless does not mean it’s harmless. Think how long it took plant life on this planet to absorb and capture all that carbon (hint: think millions of years) out of the air… rereleasing it in a matter of only a couple hundred years….

CTL is also a desparate measure… the Nazi’s used in in WW2 because they had to for their war effort. And it’s use hasn’t been widespread because it’s also expensive… it’s not going to reduce energy prices.

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 4:21 pm

…before we all go off mooning for tiny little cars, take a look at these links:

http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2008/05/worlds-smallest-cars-part-2.html

http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/08/worlds-smallest-vehicles.html

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 4:27 pm

SamH… we are just going back to the future with smaller cars. When I started driving there were no SUV’s yet… there were pick up trucks, but they weren’t huge like today, and most were by folks who really used them for their original purpose (contractors and such). The biggest cars on the roads were station wagons. I remember that you could be in relatively heavy traffic and still see the guy 10 cars in front of you start to break, so I felt a lot safer that way.

Just remember that battery EV’s are also going back to the future… BEV’s ruled 100 years ago before the invention of the ICE and cheap gas to fuel it. Even “range extended” BEV’s is almost just as old technology.

The “Back to the Future” triology was pretty good so I’m ready and happy!

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 4:30 pm

#99 Tag

Big hugs all around my friend! (=

“Satik at#3 and later. In a really left handed way (like Moi) isn’t the idea that they can’t lease a GOOD thing so that they would SELL us our Volts? Just a thought”

Yes indeed. I don’t know if you are inferring we will be able to buy them because they have no facility to lease it to us anymore….or that demand will be that much lower because they will be thinning the amount of people that can access this much money.

Either way…good for us. Yin and Yang.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 5:13 pm

#92 N Riley
That is the best high horse talk I’ve heard from you yet. The only thing I’d add to your comment is that, although “all politics are local,” it is hard to get locals to agree on solutions. That reminds me of the phrase, “good fences make good neighbors.” People argue and fight. I don’t see that changing. That is why we need government. Government attempts to make everybody happy, but can’t.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 5:50 pm

#3 & #72 Statik:

Do you have any sense of how Cerberus managed to get itself mixed up with Chrysler and GMAC at the same time? Do you think that they have some clever evil plan, or have they just stepped on a giant land mine(s)?

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 6:33 pm

#107 noel park

“Do you have any sense of how Cerberus managed to get itself mixed up with Chrysler and GMAC at the same time? Do you think that they have some clever evil plan, or have they just stepped on a giant land mine(s)?”

The takeover of GMAC seemed like a good call at the time. GMAC was GM’s ‘cash cow’ putting about a billion and a half profit into GM’s bottom line on a pretty consistant basis. Unfortunately for GM, as we know now, they were about to burn through the most cash in the history of modern day corporate America…and they knew it too. So they had to sell the future to pay for today…and Cerberus was there to cough up the 14-odd billion.

This should have been a great deal for Cerberus. I don’t know if it was through Cerberus that GMAC got involved with Rescap, housing etc. or they just ignored it, but the was the first shoe to drop…now residuals are hitting it up probably to the tune of 2.5 to 3.5 billlion before it is all said and done. GMAC is probably still more than viable in the long run…but certainly not worth the 14 billion they paid.

The Chrysler acquisition on the other hand…I’m not sure what went through their minds on this one. On paper, it looked like a fire sale from Mercedes. In exchange for about 7 billion, they got Chrysler and its divisions (including the future Chrysler Financial Services LLC). On top of this the sale was ‘free of incumberances,’ meaning that the company was to be delievered to Cerberus ‘completely free of debt’ (to quote the agreement). Cereberus may have thought if the market stabilized not only would they have the monetary clout to back Chrysler financially, but it would also be in the best position of the ‘Big 3′ to return to profitability because it would be making no ‘legacy payments’ on massive debt loads.

Here is the quote form John W. Snow, Chairman of Cerberus at the time, “Cerberus believes in the inherent strength of U.S. manufacturing and of the U.S. auto industry. Most importantly, we believe in Chrysler”

Personally, the belief in the ‘inherent strength of the US auto industry’ by the CEO is how they “they just stepped on a giant land mine”

Sorry noel, that got kind of long. It could have been worse, lol.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 7:31 pm

#108 Statik:

Thanks. Sorry to put you through all that work.

As to GMAC, I always saw it as you say. It was the only part of the US operation that seemed to make money. I was shocked when it turned upside down. I had no idea it was so exposed in the housing market. I then wondered if Cerberus had just not done enough due diligence. Your idea that Cerberus may have been involved in creating the exposure is really interesting.

As to Chrysler, I guess many thought that their intent was to somehow liquidate it for the value of the assets. If they got it “free of incumberances”, that would seem to have been one of the options. Maybe events have overtaken them to the point where there are no takers for the assets.

Interesting how these “asset management”, “LBO” and “hedge fund” wizards seem to have descended to the plane of ordinary humans in the last few months. I think that Cerberus’ reaching back into mythology for its name is particularly telling. Chalmers Johnson reached back into mythology for the title of his third book of the “Blowback Trilogy”. “Nemesis” was the god whose mission it was to travel the world seeking out and punishing arrogance and hubris.

(Quote)
Craig Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 8:04 pm

This is crap. The Beat is the only cute are out of the three. Bad choice GM. It’s time to make some good choices. Bring on the Beat!

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 11:16 pm

Statik,
Big hugs right back at ya (lol).
Be well and vocal
(it moves you down the list)(g) I’ve heard that they are adding spots to the bottom, just to accomodate you (lol)
Tag

(Quote)
Tom M Says:
July 30th, 2008 at 7:39 am

Jeff M 93

You are way behind in your technology . I wish I could share some information with you, but you will just have to wait We are looking at several reclamation projects that will astound you. Their are several patients that have been granted that place the info I gave you at near zero emission.
Sorry but I do disagree with you because we need the energy and it is better produced here than purchasing it from the middle east. I take it from the way you are writing you are from the San Francisco area, nothing against that but you need to get down in the trenches with us producers, it will give you whole different perspective. In any case there are many new technologies on the horizon so we will have to just wait and see what shakes out.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
July 30th, 2008 at 8:41 am

#92 N Riley

As a followup to my #106, I think we need to get away from pitting conservativsm against liberalism. I’m all for making the “correct” decisions and not being wasteful with our resources, both physical and monetary. But, as you pointed out, sometimes you have to invest to create wealth. Even political conservatives can lead principled liberal lives. Usually, there is no obvious correct decision. There is only the gamble.

(Quote)
Eddie C Says:
July 31st, 2008 at 2:18 pm

“but couldn’t make it here because it wasn’t built to US crash and safety standards.”

Is it safer than a motorcycle? Then sell to those who don’t mind the compromise (like me). Can’t do that? ah – meddlesome government. Thats what we need. Its not safe to do ______. Lets create laws to prevent everyone from doing it.

I think (sarcastically spoken) that we ought to ban motorcycles, parachuting, beer, depression, heck, cars aren’t safe. more people die from car wrecks than from anything else. We should ban them altogether (sorry for the sarcasm, but the oxymoron of government “protecting us from ourselves” needs to be seen for what it is: government overstepping its bounds again, and meddling into everyday affairs).

We are frogs in warm pots.

Speaking of resources: We have all these vehicles all over the world. The Lupo gets 75mpg, and runs on clean diesel.
Does ANY American vehicle come close? Ford claims that their Mustang is one of their “fuel-efficient” vehicles – Clearly, they’ve NOT “driven a ford lately to the gas pump”

(Quote)
Eddie C Says:
July 31st, 2008 at 2:27 pm

We’ve had “hybrids” in America for 60+ years.
Diesel Trains, and the huge dump trucks (the ones that are used in mines) have electric-powered drive trains, with diesel motors running generators. Diesel Submarines anyone? They’ve been around for quite a while as well. Hybrids are not new… we just like the throaty roar of gasoline motors.

Tune the motor to run at its most efficient rpm, and leave it there, rather than have it range from 1500-6000 rpm. Think that’ll help? Then, disconnect the gas motor from the drive train, and let the electric motor (which has 100% torque at 0 rpm, unlike ICEs) fill that gap. Pad the difference with high-capicity capacitors or batteries, and you’ll have an efficient vehicle.

I’m a right-wing nut, and I drive a 1986 Mazda pickup that I converted to battery electric. It’ll go 70mph, with a range of 30 miles (higher, if I slow down).

It wasn’t cheap (about $8,000), but then, if every salvage yard had controllers and electric motors on even 1/4 the cars, it wouldn’t cost nearly as much… I’d be able to rebuild/convert nearly any vehicle from parts in the salvage yard.

Where is the American Ingenuity? Its been outsourced and regulated out of business.

(Quote)
stas peterson Says:
July 31st, 2008 at 11:34 pm

Thse are really not subcompacts. These are micro-cars and sized like an Aveo. That’s really what they are, new Aveo replacements.

Nobody sells very many of them. Not Toyota, Not Nissan, Not VW, Not Honda and GM and Ford will not either.

I suspect most Americans will consider the next models up the size scale. The Cruze Corrola, Civic, Focus type vehicles. But the real market is one size up from that bunch and two sizes up from these micros. The Accord, Camry, Malibu, Altima, Fusion, Sebring family sedans are the volumeleaders of the sedan market. When an Accord sized vehicles is achieving 30-40 mpg as that family will soon do, who really wants something smaller, for more mileage. Volts’ wil be in the Cruze sized group of cars like the Civic and Corolla and it will get to over 100mpge, so who cares about mileage then?

(Quote)
mitch Says:
August 1st, 2008 at 10:16 am

Leasing

Leasing si NOT ending, the INCENTIVES for leasing is ending. GM is no longer going to subsidize lease rates. Leasing was popular because the cost of cars was rising faster than the income rates. Now costs are dropping and incomes are still rising making purchasing a better bet for incentives.

You can still lease cars, but the RATE will be market driven and not subsidized.

(Quote)
Daphne Marshall Says:
January 9th, 2009 at 11:30 pm

hi
0y2iuu7ey8g5530g
good luck

(Quote)
Michael Johnson Says:
March 21st, 2009 at 6:45 pm

lil wayne was gangsta back den. now hes a lazy bum!

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Chrysler dismantles electric car plans under Fiat November 7, 2009
DETROIT (Reuters) - Chrysler has disbanded a team of engineers dedicated to rushing a range of electric vehicles to showrooms and dropped ambitious... […]
Texas
First Solar buys 117 MW project from solar startup Ausra November 7, 2009
First Solar buys 117 MW project from solar startup Ausra: _Link_ (http://www.reuters.com/article/mergersNews/idUSN046821420091105) Given that water... […]
Jason M. Hendler
True believers swamp Fisker opening November 7, 2009
True believers swamp Fisker opening _Link_ (http://www.autonews.com/article/20091106/ANA05/911069996/1137) Can you imagine what the roll-out of the... […]
Jason M. Hendler
Zero Motorcycles Announces Consumer Financing November 7, 2009
Zero Motorcycles Announces Consumer Financing: _Link_ (http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1037942_zero-motorcycles-announces-consumer-financing) […]
Jason M. Hendler
LeRoy1974 November 6, 2009
Does the Volt have a trunk in which we can put groceries or a couple of golf bags? All the photos and drawings of the Volt look like it was in an... […]
LeRoy1974
Embrace technology to turn nuclear energy into environmental solution November 6, 2009
From the Seattle Times: "STEWART Brand, author of "The Whole Earth Catalog," visited Seattle last week, promoting his latest environmental manifesto... […]
misslexi
Lutz to Head Opel November 6, 2009
Der Spiegel reports that Lutz is going to head up Opel: Spiegel Online(link)... […]
dagwood55

No to Beat But Yes to Trax or Groove: GM US Subcompact Within 2 Years

119 Responses to “No to Beat But Yes to Trax or Groove: GM US Subcompact Within 2 Years”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts