Grab our RSS Feed

AND

Preview: 2010 Chevy Equinox Will Get 30 mpg Highway Even Without a Hybrid Drivetrain

December 22nd, 2008 | Posted in: Efficiency

GM just released pictures, video, and specifications on its newly designed 2010 Chevy Equinox. They plan to exhibit the car at the Detroit Auto Show in January. The car is a compact crossover expected to go on sale in mod 2009 and comes with two powertrain options.

The most most intriguing powertrain option is a “new 2.4L Ecotec direct injected I-4 engine estimated at 182 horsepower (135 kW), which delivers an estimated 30 mpg highway, 21 mpg city (EPA certification pending)”

The vehicle is re-designed to include the new signature double front grille and per Chevrolet manager Ed Peper, “At a time when customers are so concerned about the fuel efficiency of their vehicle, the Equinox delivers. It offers the roominess and capability of a crossover with great fuel economy. Equinox will provide customers a vehicle filled with refinement, comfort and great value.”

GM has not announced a hybrid version of this vehicle yet but considering its efficiency it would seem to be an ideal choice. The 2-mode Saturn VUE is similar in size and will get 55% improvement in fuel efficiency over its non-hybrid version. Also considering that Saturn could potentially be phased out per the new viability plan, this car could be next in line for that powertrain. The same might be true for a plugin version down the road, as a plugin Saturn VUE is far along in development and expected to go on sale in 2010.

Source (GM)

Posted by: Lyle

164 Responses to “Preview: 2010 Chevy Equinox Will Get 30 mpg Highway Even Without a Hybrid Drivetrain”

Brian Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:26 am

Hrmm, looks pretty good! Needs a built in navi.

(Quote)
RB Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:32 am

Outside looks attractive.
Inside is frightening.
21 mpg city is ho-hum for 2009 models.

(Quote)
Dave B Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:39 am

Boring… 31-30 mpg. Come on guys, I know oil is trading around the $40 mark, but let’s not fall into the same old trap again. And I wouldn’t put too much stock in up-coming Saturns, as we all know that brand may be sold, scaled-back, or just plain nixed. I want my electric car; no more gassers. Period.

(Quote)
BillR Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:03 am

All these developments are significant.

People (including me) like SUV’s. Although some people are migrating to sedans, the other trend will be for people to downsize to smaller SUV’s. At 21/30 mpg, this is a good mid-sized SUV. With 2-mode, it would likely be 30/36 (Saturn Vue projected to be 28/31, and that is with a V6 engine).

So if someone trades their gas guzzling Toymota Land Cruiser (13/18) for a this car, their gas consumption is reduced by 40%. If GM manufactures a 2-mode version, gas savings will be more than 50%!

These are all steps in the right direction.

(Quote)
BDP Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:13 am

It’s not big enough. Typical SUV owners cant get by with the smaller size. I can’t. Put volt technology into a full size SUV & I’ll buy it all day long.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:17 am

The mileage numbers are starting to fall into place
• Equinox will compete with RAV-4 & CR-V
• Cruze will compete with Corolla and Civic
• Malibu will compete with Camry and Accord

But how about the Prius and Insight? The Volt will compete with the Plug-In Prius, but the regular Prius and Honda Insight will be much cheaper. In order to compete here, the Volt’s price will have to come down.

Wagoner said the Volt will cost “mid-to-high 30s”, and there’s a $7500 rebate, so that puts the price of the Volt around $30K. Bob Lutz said that the price of the Volt had 2 batteries built into it, meaning that they expected to have to replace most of the batteries under the 10-year warranty. He also said each battery pack costs around $10K. I guess that’s how you turn a $15K Cobalt platform into a $37K Volt (before rebate).

But then later, Lutz said the battery stress testing for longevity was going better than expected, so 2 batteries per car may not be necessary. If most of the battery packs last the full 10 years, then maybe 1.1 or 1.2 batteries per car is more realistic, meaning that only 10-20% of the batteries would need to be replaced under warranty.

This implies that the price of the Volt could come down as much as $8000, or around $22K after rebate. Wouldn’t it be nice if the Volt was cost competitive with the Prius?

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:26 am

This implies that the price of the Volt could come down as much as $8000, or around $22K after rebate.
________________________________________

Only 250,000 tax credits are available industry wide. Phaseout will be complete long before any type of price drop like that could happen.

(Quote)
MarkinWI Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:27 am

At this point, there is no reason for Detroit to offer a new car that is NOT at least a hybrid. They got a few billion from Congress, and odds are they will need more before summer. They need to sell themselves to the incoming administration as helping the country’s basic economic structure by reducing dependence on foreign oil. A small SUV with 30 mpg does not cut it. Probably compares well to the Honda CRV (20/26 mpg for 2008 model year), but we need to see more than the usual.

Better still: “no plug, no sale.”

Dave G @6: You nailed it, Volt needs to be price competitive with the Prius. I think that they need to scrap the ultra-conservative “two batteries per vehicle” price structure. They will sell them by the tens of thousands if they bring the price down another $8K. In the alternative, selling Congress on the idea of funding the insurance of the batteries will be a much easier than justing asking for more operating capital.

(Quote)
Schmeltz Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:27 am

A plug-in version of this Equinox would definitely be a head-turner, IMO. This is the kind of stuff they need to be bringing to market. Nice job GM!

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:32 am

“new 2.4L Ecotec direct injected I-4 engine estimated at 182 horsepower (135 kW), which delivers an estimated 30 mpg highway, 21 mpg city (EPA certification pending)”
_____________________________________

Notice how there is no mention of emission rating.

That typically means no improvement or smog pollutants are even worse. Watch for this information.

(Quote)
DArtagnon Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:45 am

Let’s talk brass: How many passengers will this vehicle hold (comfortably), and at what price?

(Quote)
David L G Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:50 am

You guys are grumpy today! An XUV with mpg of a Camry (ish) is a pretty decent accomplishment – and the 4 cyl engine has roughly the same power of my Jeep’s 4.0 liter 6 cyl. It gets close to 2x the mileage of my Jeep and is similar in size. Sure we need to do even better, but thats a big step in the right direction! And pretty nice looking ride IMO.

(Quote)
r22wink Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:51 am

You people on here are UNBELIEVABLE, is the only way that I can describe it. You constantly either B**CH about the style not being perfect or the MPG not being skyhigh. Why dont we all just buy Japaneses’ perfectly designed skyhigh fuel mileage vehicle. Why dont some of you work on your complimentary skills. Nice work GM.

(Quote)
Arch Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:08 am

I do not understand what the big deal is here. I drive a 4 door 4 wheel drive Suzuki car. I get 24 -25 miles per gallon in town. On the road it gets 29-30 miles per gallon. What is the big deal here?

Take Care
Arch

(Quote)
Joe Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:28 am

Brian @1

Hrmm, looks pretty good! Needs a built in navi.

**************************************************************************

I agree. While you are on the subject of NAV’s, I wish GM would make their NAV removable. My vehicles have factory NAVs except for one so I bought a Garmin for it. Would you believe I like the Garmin better than the factory ones. The biggest reason is it’s portability. I can program it in the convenience of my home rather than inside the car.

(Quote)
Joe Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:34 am

Dave G Says:@6
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:17 am

The mileage numbers are starting to fall into place
• Equinox will compete with RAV-4 & CR-V
• Cruze will compete with Corolla and Civic
• Malibu will compete with Camry and Accord

*******************************************************************

I believe GM will eventually have the best gas mileage in all class of vehicles. They do have great engineers when their hands are not tied.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:43 am

Yippee, another whale from GM. They are saved. This will fit nicely into their current lineup of:

Vue
Torrent
Traverse
Trail Blazer
Outlook
Envoy
Acadia
Enclave
Avalanche
Tahoe
Yukon
Suburban
SRX
9-7x
Escalade
H2
H3
2010 Terrain

/lesson not learned

Slipping a 4 banger into a 30K SUV is not going to get it done. Don’t get me wrong it is nice. It looks nice…I really like the interior, but this is not going to turn the ship around at GM.

Note to GM: Under 20K, over 40MPG please…you got none of those. Heck you don’t even have one car over 30MPG combined..at any price.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byMPG.htm

di·lu·tion
Pronunciation: di-loo-shuhn
Function: noun

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:46 am

It looks a lot like the Chevrolet Traverse. It is a good looking vehicle. I like the mileage also. This would be Chevrolet’s entry into the two-mode hybrid for a small CUV, it looks like. Good for you, GM.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:54 am

I would like to mention that of my list, if they would AFFORABLY ‘hybridize’ any one of them…or two mode…or E-Rev, whatever you call it, that would be a huge winner.

GM has yet to prove they can do that though, they keep putting the ‘fanciest tech’ on the highest end of these models. A stripped down bare one of these Equinoxs with two-mode would be a real winner…if they would do it.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:01 am

I totally agree with BillR (#4). This is a step in the right direction. Now, GM needs to take the next step and put the two-mode into it for the 2010 model year (fall of 2009). They need to state the intended purpose of putting a Volt-like power train in it by 2012. Good going, GM, and keep it coming. We need all the good news we can get. The naysayers are out in force and we need some good news to counter them.

(Quote)
Zach Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:08 am

If GM isn’t 100% confident in the performance of the batteries or other systems in the Volt, then they will raise the price to compensate for the issues that expect to arise.

With that being said, that means that the initial release of the Volt will then be a test.

As a manufacturer, if you aren’t 100% confident in your product, then it’s not the real deal. They know there will be thousands of people standing in line, no matter what the price be, so they will sell and when next model comes around, GM has had an additional year of testing and the price will go from 37k down to 30k. Additional advancements in technology will likely bring that price down even more.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:12 am

#17 Statik

Your link says only the Honda Civic has 40 or more combined mpg. So, there are a lot of other auto makers who lack the same thing. I think you are right in your accusations, but a little too harsh by not pointing out that no one else really has one either, except Honda.

Edited: The only one at 35 combined mpg was also the Honda Civic. Only a few had 30, but many had 25 combined, including several GM cars. It is still a good step in the right direction. One more step for GM, a giant leap for auto kind.

(Quote)
Eclectic Dan Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:16 am

I’m with Arch (14). My 2007 Forester gets better mileage 23 city 29 hwy while having all wheel drive and it only cost $22K 2 years ago. It’s sad to see that with all the energy GM has spent on redefining itself that it still hasn’t been able to match what other companies have been doing all along.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:17 am

#19 Statik

I agree. GM needs an entry level car with very high fuel mileage. This car would be bought by the tens of thousands as a commuter car. Add a good hybrid system to it and it would fly off the dealer’s lot.

(Quote)
+1 N Riley Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:21 am

This new engine could be a good one for GM to build their hybrid systems onto. GM has world class engineers. Turn them loose GM to produce a real hybrid system that matches or beats the Prius, the Insight and the upcoming Ford Fusion. You can do it.

(Quote)
jabroni Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:25 am

21 mpg in the city is not exactly “delivering it”.

(Quote)
+1 Sean Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:28 am

This vehicle would be perfect with a mild hybrid. That would probably add about 10 to 20 percent to the city fuel milage and the cost is minimal.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:34 am

No interest here.

I do have to say that GM better get on the ball and introduce a economy hybrid that can compete with the likes of the new Honda Insight. I really think Honda has it right on this one. They can deliver a hybrid with a cost adder of less than $3,000. Once you start cranking up the cost to incorporate a hybrid, any consumer looking for a vehicle, they can afford will look else where.

The Volt would insert into a specific market segment, but for the penny pincher, it will not fit. The Volt will fit for those who have other motives, but we need a economically viable product for the masses.

My hope is the Volt technology improves and proliferates, and will someday be packaged into a more affordable package.

GM, I hope your working on the Insight competitor, and can introduce it soon.

(Quote)
Dan Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:37 am

That is a amazing vehical. Will it still be made in Canada?

(Quote)
MetrologyFirst Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 am

GM needs to sell a full line of vehicles. An enormous number of people NEED SUV/crossover type flexibilty. They would also LIKE 30 mpg avg. If someone could meet those requirements, They would not be able to keep them in stock. Turn that into an E-REV and it becomes a revolutionary vehicle.

It facinates me how people see the auto market as they want to, and not as it is.

BTW: 4 people I know recently bought new vehicles. 1 small car and 3 trucks. Lets not forget people need and want trucks! Whether you all like it or not.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:51 am

#22 N Riley said,

#17 Statik

Your link says only the Honda Civic has 40 or more combined mpg. So, there are a lot of other auto makers who lack the same thing. I think you are right in your accusations, but a little too harsh by not pointing out that no one else really has one either, except Honda.
=====================

Well, that was the ’small cars’ section I linked to, you have the Prius at 46MPG as well…but I know what your saying.

You are certainly not wrong that I am being harsh, and they probably all deserve my scorn to some degree. (Although there are currently 11 vehicles north of 30MPG and GM doesn’t have any of those either…I probably should have used that link when I mentioned 30MPG, not 40MPG).

The fact is that no one has the right product mix right now, and no one makes money (not that it is even possible in this current economy). However, GM is much worse off. GM has the deadly combination of having the 2nd worst lineup in terms of the class of vehicle people want to buy (Chrysler I would say occupies spot 1) and the worst financial situation, this vehicle does not help steer the ship away from the rocks.

The other companies, as you point out don’t have hardly any 40 mpg vehicles, and very few 30+ MPG…but they have a lineup up much closer to ideal and have the time and money to adjust their portfolio, which they are doing even right now.

GM has almost nothing in the pipeline and mostly it is stuff like this. Really only the Cruze is hitting the sweet spot in the future, and we really don’t know its blended MPG number…but we do know that GM has already said they are pricing it a good deal higher than the Cobalt, so their is a problem if the increased price negates the increased fuel efficiency.

I guess the whole thing just bums me out when I see stuff like this. It just feels like this is a release of something that was conceived a long time ago.

What is so hard for them to realize the market wants them to make stripped down hybrids, what is the point of making two-modes and electric vehicles if they cost double the base? I think GM still thinks ‘hybrid’ means ‘premium $$$’
——————————————
(Personally, I think Honda has the best fitting lineup of anyone at the moment:

Accord, Civic , CR-V, Element, FCX Clarity, Fit , Odyssey, Pilot, Ridgeline, S2000, Insight

5 cars (2 hybrids, 1 hydrogen, 1 CNG)
3 crossovers/SUVs
1 truck
1 van
1 sports car

11 vehicles total…not getting into the premium lineup. I think this would be a ideal number/mix for GM to shoot for.

(Quote)
Jason Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:59 am

21 city MPG is a joke. GM will never learn. Their stock has given back nearly all the gains after the bailout bounce. People are sobering up to the fact they will not make it.

(Quote)
Justchuck Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:04 am

For a small SUV I’d rather get the Ford Escape Hybrid. 34 miles per gallon + no bailout = win.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:05 am

#7 john1701a says “Only 250,000 tax credits are available industry wide.”

The cost of the Volt is largely dependent on the number that are sold because you allocate the fixed costs across that number. If GM sells that many Volts they should dramatically reduce the cost both because the fixed costs will be allocated over a larger number of vehicles and because they’ll move up the learning curve. Also the number might be increased. I would not be surprised given the make-up of the new congress and with Waxman replacing Dingell.

#17 statik and #28 JEC

You guys have nailed it. A hybrid version of this would be fine but this is at most a single and, as they admit, they need home runs. This vehicle is terminally boring, a bit late to the party, and will appeal mostly to GM’s base — those folk who say they need and probably already have a GM SUV. As such it will just cannibalize sales from its other vehicles.

If this is what a “restructured” GM is going to produce then we can put a fork in it, it’s completely done. No amount of cost cutting is going to make up for this type of design.

PS: Is it just me or do other people think “Crossover SUV” is just another name for “station wagon”?

(Quote)
DaV8or Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:06 am

Most of you guys here seem to live in a bubble. The thinking seems to be that if GM just makes a low cost high mileage vehicle, the world will beat a path to it’s door and all will be saved. Rubbish. There is a market segment for the fuel miser types and I agree that GM needs to be more aggressive in addressing this segment because it is lacking in this area and it’s good for it’s image. However, what GM really needs to save itself is high quality, reliable, high resale, stylish and functional cars in all segments. Yes Virginia, people are still willing to by cars and trucks that get less than 30mpg. They just want them to be trouble free, safe and have some value when they go to sell it or trade it.

I’m not a huge SUV or truck fan, but this Equinox looks fine. I see nothing in the pictures that is offensive. That’s more than I can say for the Volt. If this car can deliver on the quality and reliability, achieve the stated mileage and retain some value years later, then it will do well. I too agree that it should have a hybrid 2 mode plug in as an option. I’m sure this is in the works as this shares the platform with the Saturn Vue. I believe that the marketing strategy has been to let Saturn go first, but with Saturn’s future uncertain, an announcement of a hybrid Equinox could be coming soon.

(Quote)
Paul-R Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:07 am

Let’s see…

GRIPES about styling of a vehicle that has never been seen.

GRIPES about design that are so vague and non-constructive as to be useless.

GRIPES about fuel mileage of GM “gas guzzlers”, of course while ignoring all the equivalent Japanese gas guzzler.

GRIPES about Volt pricing because (gasp!) it may cost more than a regular old (non-plugin) Prius.

Ahh … just like old times. To quote George Costanza … ‘I’M BACK BABY!”

(Quote)
KUD Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:08 am

A lot of people here seem to missing the point. If they release this XUV in 2010 then they started working on it in approx. 2007. So they are on the right track. MPG will creep up.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:10 am

#29 Dan

That is a amazing vehical. Will it still be made in Canada?
======================

Yes. As far as I know only the CAMI automotive plant (that is 50/50 split company between Suzuki and GM) in Ingersoll, Ontario can make them, as they are exclusive to the extended Theta platform. The design came out of CREC in Oshawa, Ontario.

I believe there is a standard Theta platform operating out of South Korea (not 100% sure about that), so I guess it could be converted if they had to (although I don’t know why they would do it), I think the SK operation make the smaller Opel/Daewoo cousins.

(Quote)
nataraj Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:11 am

I thought major efficiency increases were impossible. What changed ?

(Quote)
Ray Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:12 am

I think that GM should bring back the Malibu MAXX. (04 – 07 run). I currently have an 07 MAXX LT. 3.5 V 6. and most of the options..
I did about $900. in modifications to the Air intake and exhaust..
Under normal driving (not now when we have had 2 weeks of -25 C- – 30C weather).. I have been averaging 32 mpg (Canadian) combined city/highway.. If I stay on the highway I am up to 41 (ish). And it seats 5… could easily be adapted to accept the Volt Power train.. I am with Arch # 14 . Most of the new 09 and up vehicles should be doing at least 35 MPG in town and closer to 45 – 50 MPG on the highway..and at a decent price. Thus said … the Volt is going to have to be either very competively priced.. or up it’s current forcasted milage by at least 30 %.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:12 am

#31 statik says “Personally, I think Honda has the best fitting lineup of anyone at the moment”

No doubt Honda has stayed close to its mission of producing fuel efficient cars. Far more so than Toyota. The lineup you enumerate demonstrates this. However, to be fair to GM, Honda has the Acura line just as Toyota has the Lexus line. So those vehicles need to be included as well.

If you add those the lineup becomes more complicated but still effective.

(Quote)
Mark Bartosik Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:16 am

No plug no sale =D~~~

It is unclear what will survive the chopping block over the next few months. So any new product announcements should be viewed skeptically.

I think Statik makes a good point with Honda’s line up.
GM execs often say how they have X models (11 I think) that get more than 30 mpg (probably highway). However, I wonder what the total product lineup is? Maybe 30 models? I would rather they see X percent of lineup gets Y mpg combined, but I guess that wouldn’t be a good figure to quote.

How about ditching this vehicle and going straight to the plug-in?
That would be something worth announcing.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:44 am

Too big. Too Heavy. Aerodynamics of a brick. No thanks.

I am really sick of the constant references to the “highway” mileage. It’s insulting. How dumb do they think we are?

10-88.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:51 am

#41 DonC

#31 statik says “Personally, I think Honda has the best fitting lineup of anyone at the moment”

No doubt Honda has stayed close to its mission of producing fuel efficient cars. Far more so than Toyota. The lineup you enumerate demonstrates this. However, to be fair to GM, Honda has the Acura line just as Toyota has the Lexus line. So those vehicles need to be included as well.

If you add those the lineup becomes more complicated but still effective.
===============================

I did put a little disclaimer at the bottom about not getting into Honda’s premium lineup.

Honda has a very distinct and seperate entity with Acura, most don’t even equate the two (unlike GM). The entire Acura brand only has 5 vehicles, mostly reworked Hondas. So you could say that Honda has 16 vehicles if you like. I think the Acura brand is probably one of the strongest luxury brands going from a potential for future profitability standard.

As, DaV8or in #35 says, not everyone wants the high MPG, utility vehicles, so they all have to offer some vehicles to also service this market.

Obviously, in this economy, this segment is bad news regardless…the market just can’t justify pricing, regardless of the product (well, in a select few cases it can…but you know what I mean).

Acura lineup:

Acura RL (known as the Honda Legend to the rest of the world)
Acura TL -only the BMW 3 series is a better seller in foreign luxury
Acura TSX (Civic based)
Acura MDX (rebadged Honda MDX, cousin of the Pilot)
Acura RDX –this was/is by all accounts a failure

Year to date sales of Acura are 133,824 units, down 17.9 percent. In the November ‘Car-Apocalypse’ they were off 38%.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:57 am

#31 Statik

Good response. I agree Honda is positioned to be a leader in the market. Toyota has invested too much capital in making big gas guzzlers to compete with GM’s gas guzzlers. Toyota’s marketing purpose of the last decade was to build cars and trucks that could directly compete with GM and knock them off being the number one auto manufacturer world wide. Just as Toyota was positioned to do just that, the fuel crisis and financial crisis hit one after the other. Now Toyota is feeling the pain just like GM. They just have so much more capital than GM and the complete backing of the Japanese government.

But, yes, GM needs to be pointing their gun more at Honda than anyone else. If they make a commitment to compete against Honda, they could see some progress. That takes delivering fuel economy and quality in all their vehicle line-up and reducing the vehicle line-up to the bare minimum to match competition.

This new vehicle, shown here, could get them on their way if they build it right and put in real economy numbers into it.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:03 pm

#34 DonC

“PS: Is it just me or do other people think “Crossover SUV” is just another name for “station wagon”?”

—————-

You may be correct, but no station wagon could deliver the flexibility of the modern SUV or CUV. These are just superior vehicles to the old station wagon design. Station wagons were great during their times, but times are a changing.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:07 pm

#42 Mark Bartosik said,

“GM execs often say how they have X models (11 I think) that get more than 30 mpg (probably highway). However, I wonder what the total product lineup is? Maybe 30 models? I would rather they see X percent of lineup gets Y mpg combined, but I guess that wouldn’t be a good figure to quote.”
====================================

Best I can tell GM currently offers 93 ‘different vehicles’ for sale in the the US.

Of those 93 vehicles there are 55 unique ‘name’ plates, 47 if you count 1500/2500/3500 series trucks as the same.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:09 pm

#36 Paul-R

All good thoughts. We see this stated in every post and I guess it will continue. Some people can only be negative. Just being negative does none of us any good. At least Statik gives us good, sound analysis with his post (which are not all negative). And his negative opinions are based on facts, in most cases, that he can back up. The rest of us just like to sound off and being negative comes out naturally, sometimes.

(Quote)
Jason Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:13 pm

“MPG will creep up”

Mileage hasn’t crept up in the last 100 years since the Model T. It’s still around 20.

(Quote)
Jim in PA Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm

I rented a Colbalt recently and according to the on-board computer got an average of 37 mpg over the 3-day 500-mile trip. Folks who complain that GM has no affordable cars with very good fuel economy don’t know what they are talking about. By the way, the difference in gas consumption between a 37 mpg vehicle and 40 mpg vehicle over 500 miles distance is exactly 1 gallon. One gallon! So who cares about the magical 40 mpg goal post. Enough with obsessing about mpg specs that are essentially identical! Really, people.

Our energy shouldn’t be spend arguing about the nonexistent efficiency differences between a 37 mpg and 40 mpg car, our energy should be spent trying to get people out of their 20 mpg vehicles and into EITHER of the high efficiency models! But also, understanding that some people will continue to drive larger models, a socially responsible position is to develop hybrid trucks as well. GM has done this, Toyota hasn’t. A 3 mpg improvement on a 15 mpg Silverado has a greater net gas savings than a 3 mpg tweak to the Prius. And yet, “green” Toyota’s hybrid Tundra truck is nowhere to be found, while hybrid GM trucks are selling (sort of) right now. That’s why you will not catch me ridiculing GM’s mild hybrids on large vehicles.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:28 pm

#50 Jim in PA

Thanks and well stated. You said some of the things I have been thinking about but never got around to stating it on this site.

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Still pushing the SUV’s guys?
With GM & Chrysler nearing bankruptcy, have they learned anything?
I see now why the Europeans laugh at us.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm

#48 N Riley said,

#36 Paul-R

All good thoughts. We see this stated in every post and I guess it will continue. Some people can only be negative. Just being negative does none of us any good. At least Statik gives us good, sound analysis with his post (which are not all negative). And his negative opinions are based on facts, in most cases, that he can back up. The rest of us just like to sound off and being negative comes out naturally, sometimes.
===============================

For the record, I bum me out too, lol. I’ll try to lighten up. Oil is down a buck today, that is good…in some ways.

(Quote)
Schmeltz Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:49 pm

#50 Jim in PA:
Well said. We get so hung up on a couple of mpg difference like it is the be all and end all sometimes. I think if GM can get vehicles like this Equinox, and Cruze, and of course, the Volt to market soon, we may start to see a good recovery coming forth. These are good looking machines that have the fuel efficiency numbers to back them up. They seem to be genuinely trying to do the right things these days. I wish them the best.

(Quote)
THOM Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:52 pm

What is this doing on the volt website??

(Quote)
16falcon Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:02 pm

#30 MetrologyFirst Says:
An enormous number of people NEED SUV/crossover type flexibilty. They would also LIKE 30 mpg avg. If someone could meet those requirements, They would not be able to keep them in stock. Turn that into an E-REV and it becomes a revolutionary vehicle.
======================================================

2009 Ford Escape Hybrid: 34 mpg city, 31 mpg hwy.

I started shopping for a 2008 in January, I couldn’t find one anywhere in Texas. The 2008 production run was sold out so I couldn’t order one either. I had to wait until April for the 2009 model year order book to open. I took delivery the end of July. Rumor was the 2009 production run was sold out by October 2008. No deals available on the Escape Hybrid either, so I would think Ford makes some profit on theses. They are not cheap though, $34,755 for the “Limited” with the navigation system (FWD). I paid $33,725 for that model, price has gone up since I ordered in April. Even the base model Escape Hybrid (FWD) is $30,030.

So all that to say I agree and apparently Ford can’t keep them in stock either. I don’t know why they don’t produce more of them since they are so hard to find, it may be battery availability (Sanyo NiMH, 330 volt, 6 amp-hours).

Also a lot of complaints on this site about Volt costs, but they are not that far out of line with other Hybrids and the Volt offers a lot more technology.

From Toyota’s web site:
Prius starting at $22,000 (48 city, 45 hwy) I don’t know if you can really get one for that price?
Camry Hybrid starting at $26,150 (33 city, 34 hwy)
Highlander Hybrid starting at $34,700 (27 city, 25 hwy)

A loaded Ford Escape Hybrid SUV is the same price as the starting price for the Toyota Highlander SUV and gets much better mpg. Obviously the $22k Prius is the car to beat but early adopters of the PHEV are going to have to pay a premium for the privilege of being the first on the block with an all AER of 40 miles. Hopefully over time with larger economies of scale the price will come down.

NPNS

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:03 pm

#55 THOM

This site has become as much about GM in general as it was about the Volt. We can’t talk about the Volt without talking about GM and if we talk about GM, then reason says we have to discuss what GM is offering on the market. This vehicle is very much on target for this site.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:12 pm

#56 16falcon

I know the Ford Escape is hard to find anywhere because of production runs. I believe Ford is going to increase the production run and they are planning to release a Fusion Hybrid soon. Good things are happening with Ford. GM needs to pay attention.

The Prius at $22,000 can’t be found anywhere because the dealers add so much to it. The closest I could find this October was a Prius with cloth seats for around $26,500. The ones with leather seats and a couple of extra features were selling for $29,500 appx. I wanted one, but not at that price. Since the prices were that high, I chose a 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 with Navigation for $30,000. I get 23 mpg city and 35 highway. The highway mileage is for a very short trip. I think it will be better than that. I am very pleased with my Honda. I am thinking of buying my wife a hybrid in a couple of years unless there is a city electric available that meets our needs. We will use the electric for around town and the Accord for trips. I will be retired by then.

(Quote)
Jake Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:13 pm

#46 N Riley says –

“You may be correct, but no station wagon could deliver the flexibility of the modern SUV or CUV. These are just superior vehicles to the old station wagon design. Station wagons were great during their times, but times are a changing.”
—————-
Personally, I beg to differ here. No question that an SUV or CUV may be more capable off-road or towing compared to a station wagon, but the reason that I am not considering an SUV/CUV for my first car is one of the most important factors mentioned on this site: FUEL ECOMONY. This Equinox looks good in this respect, but in general a lower car-based vehicle will do better. Taken to the logical extreme, my favorite example (and I know this is a different engine type) is VW’s new Jetta Sportwagen TDI. It’s rated by the EPA for 29 mpg city, 40 mpg highway with an automatic transmission. Too bad the Equinox is not available with a clean diesel!

Worth noting, the Equinox does compare favorably to the 5-cylinder gas Jetta’s fuel economy, just about tying it. However, the Jetta Sportwagen is currently in production and has an official EPA mileage rating. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Equinox comes in lower than its current “estimated” mileage. Furthermore, its only the FRONT-DRIVE Equinox that is rated for 21 city/30 hwy, making it basically a taller Jetta. So besides towing capacity, you’re giving up the actual “utility” in “Sport Utility Vehicle” in order to get this mileage.

Speaking of utility, a wagon can offer as much cargo space as an Equinox or similar. Again, take the Jetta Sportwagen. With the back seats up, it comes in at 32.8 cu. ft. of cargo space, compared to 31.4 for the Equinox. Fold up the rear seat, and you get a cavernous 66.9 cu. ft.

So, I submit to you all that the station wagon is NOT dead! For those that don’t need the beefiness of an SUV, but still want cargo capacity, flexibility, and efficiency, a wagon is a worthy choice.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:18 pm

The closest I could find this October was a Prius with cloth seats for around $26,500.
_____________________________________

The one just down the street from me has several available for $24,095. Dealer prices & packages differ depending on location. Though, it is important to note how well loaded even the base model is.

(Quote)
Lurtz Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Honestly: what sense does it make to stick it to a bunch of auto workers while letting the financial executives off scot-free? How can Richard Shelby get all upset about the fact that some blue-collar workers have, gasp, health care, and not about the fact that financial executives, on whom we have spent a lot more money than the Big Three ever asked for, get financial planners and chauffeurs? Just imagine the furious oratory we might have heard had the UAW succeeded in negotiating benefits like the ones people get at Goldman Sachs. (I’ll bet chauffeurs would help auto workers concentrate more on their jobs…)

(Quote)
Bingo Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Ridiculous car. Bulky. > 30mpg on gas only just proves the point GM does not get it.

(Quote)
J Man Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:28 pm

This is a nice looking vehicle. It will be a great vehicle for those that need it for commuting and have no need to tow or anything like that. The 30mpg keeps it inline with the Malibu and G6 and will possibly attract some of those buyers.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Unbelievable!

I just saw an ad for an Hummer HT3! This is a truck version of the Hummer.

Talk about image problems….I cannot imagine many people would even look at this, by name alone. Even if it turns out to be a decent truck.

GM are you serious?

Maybe this was “in the queue” but your timing could NOT have been worse. I suggest sweeping this bad boy under the proverbial rug.

(Quote)
Paul-R Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Toyota Braces For First Operating Loss In 70 Years

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98591709&referer=sphere_related_content

“Toyota Motor Corp. warned Monday that it expects to post its first operating loss in 70 years — an estimated $1.7 billion — during the fiscal year that ends in March.”

Figures. Toyota management is so greedy and clueless. Their CEO should be forced to resign. When are they going to stop making crappy gas guzzlers and make vehicles that people actually want. Toyota deserves this. If they get a bailout, I’m never buying anything from Japan. I hope they go out of business.

Sound familiar?

(Quote)
Lurtz Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:32 pm

The UAW has been given the opportunity of a generation to explain to the American people the real problem with compensation in our society today: the immoral differential between the exorbitant average pay of a CEO of an S&P 500 company, and the pay of an average worker.

In 1950, the average pay of an S&P 500 CEO was less than 30 times that of an average U.S. worker; by 1980, prior to the “Reagan Revolution, the average pay of the S&P 500 CEO was approximately 50 times higher than that of an average U.S worker. But by 2007, the average pay of an S&P 500 CEO had soared to more than 350 times as much as that of an average U.S. worker.

This is both immoral and unsustainable in a democracy. By way of comparison, in Europe, an average CEO only makes 22 times as much as an average worker, and in Japan, only 17 times as much.

If America wants to be competitive again, we need to reduce CEO pay to a level comparable to CEO pay in Europe and Japan. I know exactly how to accomplish this feat. The UAW should agree to immediately lower U.S. union worker pay to a level equal to the level paid by their non-union, non-American competitors. In return, auto CEO’s must agree to permanently lower their compensation to only 20 times that of an average union worker.

Once this has been accomplished, Congress must move to apply the same pay standards to AIG and all of the financial institutions that took one penny of taxpayer money from the TARP fund.

(Quote)
Casey Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:38 pm

2010?, GM is going backwards, That’s not the future, you can get better mileage now why go back to 30 mpg. And why is GM still pushing gas cars in the future? is this what out tax bailout money is for, more gas cars?

NO PLUG NO SALE, DBANGCMEMEV, LJGTVWOTR,(my house)=D~~~~(my volt

(Quote)
MarkA Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Paul-R.

You are really making that comparison?

1st operating loss in 70 years is a little different than operating losses year after year. GM would love to have only had one loss. And Toyota won’t be asking taxpayers to bail them out now.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:51 pm

#59 Jake

But isn’t the Jetta Sportwagen only a wagon in name? Isn’t it more of a mini-van? Other than that I don’t disagree with your comment. Wagons had their day and you can still find some small vestiges of a wagon in some offerings, but the market has moved on to SUVs and CUVs and the wagon design is not as predominate as it once was. That may change with the right mix and conditions. Never say never.

(Quote)
BiodieselJeep Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Yawn.

My 2005 Jeep Liberty gets 23mpg on a bad day and 28 mpg loaded up for camping on the highway, 2 kids, dog and stuff on the roof and tail-hitch rack. Oh, and it has 4 wheel drive and can hual 5k lbs.

Oh, it is a diesel, but the big 3 wouldn’t know a diesel car if it bit them in the ….

(Quote)
GM Volt Fan Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:58 pm

I think this new Equinox looks pretty good. I like the side view and the rear view. This ought to be a good selling crossover.

However … since I’m a bit of a perfectionist, I think GM ought to think about tweaking the “signature grille” that’s going on several Chevy vehicles. Something about it just isn’t quite how I’d like it. The designers might think about scaling the edges of the grille down a bit (to 90% of current scale) and making the horizontal “bowtie” bar coming across the middle a bit thinner. The Chevy logo doesn’t need to be all that large for smaller vehicles.

The “signature grille” looks good on some of Chevy’s vehicles but not on all of them. I like how the grille looks on the ‘09 Chevy Traverse. It should be a bestseller once this economy picks up a little more … especially if GM prices it right.

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2008/02/06/076804.1-lg.jpg

Like a lot of people, I think how the front end of a vehicle looks is probably the most important. Gotta get those headlights and the grille to look just right. It’s kind of like how guys evaluate how women look. Their faces, curves, etc.

The headlights are a bit like eyeglasses or sunglasses to me. Certain frames look better on some people than others. You need to pick just the right style for the person. For example, I think the signature Chevy grill for the Traverse looks “just right” with the headlights and the rest of the design. On some Cadillacs the vertically stacked headlights don’t seem to look as good to me. I prefer headlights more like the new Camry.

Sometimes the signature grill will “work” with some vehicles and not with others. The designers just have to look at a few hundred tweaked versions until they find the design that most people agree looks the best. It’s an art thing. You know good art when you see it.

For future exterior/interior designs, maybe GM could get some experienced car magazine reviewers to work with the design teams before they finalize their designs. Get them to sign a legal agreement if necessary. It’s good to get feedback from outside, independent reviewers not associated with the company. Think of car magazine reviewers as like the movie critics who’ve seen hundreds of movies. They probably have a good feel for excellent exterior/interior design when they see it.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:59 pm

“Equinox” should be the name of a solar powered car. That car isn’t solar powered, it has an ICE that produces NOx.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:06 pm

#70 BiodieselJeep

“Oh, it is a diesel, but the big 3 wouldn’t know a diesel car if it bit them in the ….”
——————–

And who, pray tell, made the Jeep?

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:15 pm

#71 GM Volt Fan

I had been thinking along those same lines. Not as deeply as you have apparently thought. I am not too sure GM’s plan to use this type grill on all Chevrolet vehicles is very well thought out. I agree it will not work as good on some as on others. GM should really re-consider this plan. Use it when it makes sense and don’t when it does not make good sense. One or two vehicle lines in Chevrolet may look OK with this grille, but not all of them. It may be a little overkill. Plus, I wonder if sticking to a design like this for all Chevys doesn’t stifle the creative spirit. Let the designers have the freedom to make design changes that accentuates the car or truck’s look. Each car or truck is an individual and should have some things that make them stand out from all the other lookalikes.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:29 pm

To take the issue of the new Chevy grille a little further: The grille looks good on the Cruze (as far as we have seen) as well as on the Traverse. The Equinox pictured here looks good with the grille. The Malibu looks OK with the grille, but not sure it would not have looked better with a sleeker grille. So, we are batting pretty close to 1000 so far. Now we come to the real heart of my comment and where we lose points on the batting scale. The Volt, I believe could have used an entirely different grille that should have been used to really set this car apart from all the other run-of-the-mill cars offered by GM. I am only calling the others that because they are not in the same class as the Volt. Well, not as far as most of us are concerned.

So, yes, the grille looks good on most of the cars with the proper sizing to match the car’s design, but no, not on the Volt. IMO.

Trucks are another story. But, let’s leave that for another time.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:39 pm

The big news today seems to be that Toyota can no longer make money in NA because the dollar\yen rate has dropped. Making Lutz something of a seer, it turns out that the Prius is a money loser because it’s too expensive to make and profit form other vehicles can no longer cover that loss.

Note that the dollar\yen rate is only at this level because the BOJ has not been able to manipulate it, as it has in the past. So perhaps Toyota’s superiority has something of a Wizard of Oz quality, built on artificial costs.

(Quote)
Casey Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:41 pm

My wife (who doesn’t believe in this crap like I do) has a 2009 Toy. Cor. S (sport), with a gps, power steering and Cruise cont. seats 5 has large trunk and goes really fast, looks and runs great, she loves her car, says its the best car she’s ever had, and it gets 33/40, I ask, why go back to 30 in 2010?

do you really think GM is on the right track?

Mine is a Dodge 1ton diesel (I’m hoping GM and chr. merge)

NO PLUG NO SALE, DBANGCMEMEV, LJGTVWOTR,(my house)=D~~~~(my volt
=====(except for my wife)======I have no control ====

(Quote)
Zack henery Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:43 pm

People comparing gas mileage of a station wagon to a suv.

First of all suv rides higher so has more air drag.

Second this car has to meet 5 start ratings making it heavy.

The Subaru or what ever you compared it to is not as safe as this car.

When you make a car safer its heaver with more steal.

So you can have thin light metal cars that get great mileage but I think GM is doing a balance with safety and mileage.

It’s a formula you don’t want to mess with because you life is worth more than a couple gallons of gas.

Think like engineers and remember that the millage of this vehicle might be amazing considering its saftey and build quality.

Some light cheap cars when they get old creak and rattle.

(Quote)
Jake Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:48 pm

N Riley –

You be the judge. I definitely consider the Sportwagen a true wagon, pretty much a baby Passat (though cargo space is not much less actually). “Crossover” definitely seems to be the hot term these days, though. I noticed that Honda has started calling their Pilot a crossover in their TV ads, even though it began its career as an SUV and doesn’t appear to have gotten any less SUV-like since then. I am all for people trading their bigger/thirstier SUV’s for more reasonable crossovers. It’s a good shift away from the 90’s and early 2000’s. I just wish more people might consider wagons instead, for that extra bit of efficiency.

http://www.vw.com/jettasportwagen/en/us/

(Quote)
Mitch Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:49 pm

The electric mini still has some bugs it seems…5 per 100 breakdown…OUCH

http://en.autos.sympatico.msn.ca/GreenCentre/article.aspx?cp-documentid=15735816

GMVOLT!!

(Get My Volt On Line Today)

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:58 pm

#77 Casey

No doubt the Toyota Corolla is a very good car. But this comparison ends there. Comparing these two would be like comparing apples to oranges. They are two entirely different types of vehicles with completely different weight and size constraints. To have a vehicle like the Equinox get 30 mpg on the highway is a good accomplishment. Your wife will be satisfied for many years, I am sure, with the Corolla. Good luck with it.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:05 pm

#79 Jake

Thanks for the link. The Sportswagen looks good, I agree. My wife has a Honda Odyssey and the Sportswagen looks to be not too far off in size, etc. It does look more like a “wagon” with the lower roof line, the longer hood and the four doors. So, I will grant your position of it being more wagon than van. It is a smart looking car. I have been watching the Volkswagen commercials lately and they have some good looking vehicles for a change. I used to own a 1978 Volkswagen Rabbit diesel four door. My wife loved it until it started wearing out after about six or seven years.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:36 pm

The 7500$ tax credit everyone talks about is kind of lame IMHO. When you buy the car with a sticker of $37500.00, you are financing thw whole thing. That $7500 tax does not come off your loan at the end of the year. Yeah it comes off your gross income but you still have tha $7500 accruing interest against you for the term of your loan.
Now if that $7500 came off when I purchase the car and all I have to finance is $30000.00 then it’s a good deal, otherwise the tax incentive is CRAP and is only designed to get Americans further in debt.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:40 pm

The more I look at this Equinox, the more I can see it with an Extended Range Electric Vehicle option one day. Plug-in and all. Makes sense for GM to do this with this type of vehicle for the Chevrolet brand. Especially if the Saturn line is sold or shut-down (neither of which do I want to see happen). This is the right size for the battery capacity now available. This vehicle has been in planning for more than two years to be ready for the Detroit auto show and production as a 2010 model. Maybe GM didn’t have an E-REV version in mind at the start, but I got to believe they are thinking about it now. Aren’t you GM????

(Quote)
Muhammad Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:40 pm

I know we are really excited about the future of electric vehicles, but the car companies still need to make cars for everyone else. In that light, the numbers here on the Equinox are impressive.

For those who don’t appreciate it, here is a quick comparison of 2009 models.
- CR-V: 166 hp, 20/27 mpg
- RAV-4: 179 hp, 19/27 mpg
- Equinox: 182 hp, 21/30 mpg

To have that much more horsepower with that much better mileage in equivalent cars is impressive. The Forester and Suzuki are in different classes.

(Quote)
maharguitar Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:48 pm

It’s pretty easy to see the difficulty GM, or any car company for that matter, has in designing a lineup of cars and trucks. While those who post on gm-volt aren’t exactly a cross section of the market, they do seem to represent spread.

The comments here range from “GM missed the boat. They didn’t even try to improve MPG” to “GM nailed it! This is the right car for everybody.” What I find interesting is that everybody seems to think that the “market” thinks exactly the same way that they do. I want a 50MPG city sedan. therefore, everybody wants a 50MPG city sedan. Well, guess what, not everybody wants that and if GM were to make it, they would sell a bunch but it wouldn’t turn the company around.

Static is right in that it is the whole lineup that has to be well thought out and coordinated. I agree, also, that GM has been competing with itself for too many years. (Just like Diet Coke didn’t steal market share from Pepsi but did from regular Coke) To make the same car under 3 different brands (Chevy, Pontiac, and Buick) is silly and confusing. It also make whole brands completely redundant and unnecessary.

If I were CEO and had absolute powers in GM, I’d force the dealers to become GM dealers instead of Chevy or Pontiac. If that means that a town has two dealers, than fine. Let them fight it out.

(Quote)
Paul-R Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:49 pm

MarkA said…

“You are really making that comparison?

1st operating loss in 70 years is a little different than operating losses year after year. GM would love to have only had one loss. And Toyota won’t be asking taxpayers to bail them out now.”
———————————————-
I was just repeating the same nonsense I see repeated about GM over and over and over and over again, both here and in the mainstream media. Since when do facts and reality matter?

But I agree that Toyota probably won’t be asking for any bailouts. Why would they? Their government already protects their home markets by preventing competition from most foreign markets. And the Japanese governments already pays the health care costs for a majority of Toyota employees. And the Japanese government doesn’t take bribes from unions in exchange for strengthening those unions so as to bleed Japanese industry dry. In other words, there is no need to ask for bailouts when you’ve already been getting them for 50 years.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:50 pm

#83 CaptainJackSparrow

That is the only way the congress can issue the credit to the buyer. If they paid the dealer directly, there would be more of a chance for dealers to fudge the sale numbers and collect more money from a fat, lazy and inefficient government bureaucracy. It is pretty easy to cheat our government out of money. Just look at our congress and the job they do and all the contractors who are cheating us taxpayers. No use adding another way to cheat. Sure, some people do cheat on their income tax reporting, but not like it is done everyday through government purchasing and congressional lobbying and pork-barrel projects.

I wish there was a good clean way also. Maybe the manufacturer could get a rebate for every E-REV vehicle they produce, but that would lead to the auto company cheating (maybe).

Maybe some smart congressman will come up with a bullet-proof way to do it and be cheat-free. Yeah, and social security will not run out of money without more taxes being poured into it.

(Quote)
Bingo Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm

To 87
Paul-R:

Can you show me how much the Japanese government has spent on national car makers?

(Quote)
Fahrvergnugen Fanboy Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:58 pm

#79 Jake writes: ” I definitely consider the Sportwagen a true wagon”

Yes, this is correct by my definition also: the Jetta wagon is completely identical to the sedan from the back of the back seat forward. (Unless they’ve changed something with the new model, which I doubt; I’m basing this on the ‘99 Jetta sedan and ‘04 Jetta wagon, both of which I’ve owned at the same time.)

Another advantage of the Jetta wagon: at least as of ‘04, the wagon was made in Germany, while the sedan was made in Mexico. I really think I noticed some differences in general build quality, e.g. the door lock on one went “tunk”, while the other went “THONKK”.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:07 pm

#86 maharguitar

It would be better if GM did not have all the different, competing brands and all of the various dealer networks. There are only two ways that GM can remove competitive brands and dealers. One is to slowly close down brands and buy-out those dealers (like they did with the Oldsmobile brand). That is a slow process and can be very expensive, as GM discovered with Oldsmobile. The other way is to go through a “real” chapter 11 where they can remove extra brands and dealers without all the time and cost associated with the first option. GM does not want to do this for a number of reason of which “customers will not buy a vehicle from a bankrupt company” seems to be the primary reason. I don’t know if this is true or not, but I suspect very strongly it is. But, on the other hand, they aren’t selling too many vehicles now either.

Definitely, GM needs to do something. They would be better off, in my opinion, if they had just Chevrolet cars and trucks, Cadillac and Saturn in the U.S. market. There is some argument to be made for not keeping Saturn since Chevrolet could take up the slack there. Buick has been GM’s upper-trim vehicles right under Cadillac with Pontiac being the “sport” division. GMC is the upper-trim version of the Chevrolet truck. Well, these days the Chevrolet car is as good in trim as the Buick and as sporty as the Pontiac. Sometimes Pontiac has really missed their mark in “sportiness”. And there is really no difference now between the Chevrolet truck and the GMC truck. Not enough difference between all these divisions to warrant all of them staying in production. I say it is high time they cut some of them loose. That’s my opinion.

(Quote)
Mitch Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Finally an AMERICAN News source actually supporting Detroit!!!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/18/tech/cnettechnews/main4675616.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._4675616#ccmm

#89

“Can you show me how much the Japanese government has spent on national car makers?”

Like Canada and many other places with Social medicine, the amount is indirect via health care. In the USA, the big 3 have legacy costs for health care that the Japanese manufacturers do not. In addition, I doubt they are going to have them in the US plants they have now either, meaning that those employees will have to plan for and shoulder those costs themselves.

It is unfortunate the Unions in the USA have such a black eye. The core idea was actually very good,and created a middle class standard of living, but what has become of it is not so good. In the good years, they asked for and got generous terms, but NEVER EVER gave back..it was rule, it was mantra, until this year..

you will see that the USA will be forced to create social medicine to compete, or it should become law, that companies in the USA MUST cover retiree benefits on a scale matching the other comparable costs of retiree benefits.

The Japanese, Europeon and Korean companies will never have those costs, , free trade unfortunately is not fair trade, and this is where the imbalance starts to show. I doubt that in the 60+ years Toyota / Honda (etc) have been in business that their legacy costs to retirees is a mere FRACTION of any 1 Detroit automaker..because they have Government programs to cover that.

Be prepared America..the Japanization of your middle class is happening…and I promise..that is NOT a union problem…

BTW I am not pro union nor do I belong to one…

(Quote)
User Name Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:16 pm

Whatever Rick Wagoner has, I want it, because he’s got the good s h i t.
His stuff is so strong it causes one to lose all common sense, I gotta try it.
Can’t wait to see what the 2010 Hummer will look like.

(Quote)
Mitch Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:20 pm

oh….and quit bashing GM for hummer sales..it is less than 1% of all sales….

(Quote)
Mark Bartosik Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:25 pm

RE #47 Statik:

Best I can tell GM currently offers 93 ‘different vehicles’ for sale in the the US.

Of those 93 vehicles there are 55 unique ‘name’ plates, 47 if you count 1500/2500/3500 series trucks as the same.

—–
Wow that really puts it in perspective! I’ll take the 47 number.
Rather than asking UAW to take the same hourly rate as Toyota workers, how about telling GM to have the same number of models as Toyota. Better still tell them that they have to increase the number of fuel efficient vehicles while cutting the number of models, and thus they can only cut the gas guzzlers.

Toyota models:
Cars:
Yarus
Corrola
Matrix
Camry
Camry Solara
Prius
Venza
Avelon

Trucks:
Tacoma
Tundra

SUV/MiniVan
RAV4
FJ Cruiser
Highlander
4Runner
Sequioa
Land cruiser
Sienna

Of which 3 come in hybrid models (Prius, Camry, Highlander)

Lexus:
LS GS ES IS
GX RS LX
CS

Scion
xB tC xD

I count that as 17 models for Toyta, 8 for Lexus, 3 for Scion total 28 across 3 brands.

Compared with 47 for GM!!!! Across how many brands!

and the difference between an Accardia and an Equinox is what, one is GMC and the other Chevy? They look like they both target the same market to me.

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Seeing as how the Hummer accounts for less than 1% of GM’s sales, ending that model seems like agood idea after all.

(Quote)
Mitch Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:30 pm

#94 continued..

All the California, Detroit bashing, tree huggin nutcases need to remember that your governator AHHHnold..was the main force to get GM to MAKE the Hummer a brand that can be sold to the public (before that it was a military vehicle only) AND was instrumental with the H2..

Irony…wake up people…I am almost suprised that proctology is an actual profession..so many people have their head up their….why have it? second opinion?

GM VOLT!

(Quote)
Paul-R Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Bingo (#89), I’m not sure I understand your question. I think you probably mean one of the following two questions…

1) How much does Japanese government spend to help Toyota’s operations in Japan? I already described that in my previous post, but I don’t know the dollar amount. And I don’t think Japan wants us to know. That’s because they would like us to believe that Toyota’s success is entirely due to their superior people and superior product.

2) How much does Japanese government spend to help Toyota’s operations in the US? Probably nothing. But keep in mind (according to auto-industry experts here), for a Toyota assembed in the US, only say 15% of the cost of that vehicle is accrued in the US. So the other 85% of what it takes to make that vehicle (far more than just assembly) happens in Japan where it’s subsidized by the Japanese government.

(Quote)
Mitch Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:32 pm

#96 Guy

Yep the actual number for 2007 was 0.91%.

And yes..axing it is a good idea so the osteriches will see that as a green move…rather than actually thinking for themselves…

(Quote)
GM Volt Fan Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:40 pm

For people new to this blog who are thinking about buying a car pretty soon, this is good place to start. Lots of good videos on this website about GM’s latest technologies and cars.

http://gmtv.feedroom.com/

GM really HAS improved a lot since the last time you bought a GM car. In the last few years, they’ve really come on strong.

I just hope they can KEEP the pedal to the metal with the new cars they are designing right now for the future. They have very tough competitors. The mission? Beat Toyota and Honda.

If they can build cooler looking cars than Toyota and Honda and match them on reliability, quality, and price they should be just fine in the years ahead. Beat them in every key market segment. Get those rave reviews from the automotive press and the reviewers like Consumer Reports and JD Power. That’s “the target” they need to aim for. Having a clear, unambiguous goal in mind of where you want to end up is critical. Then develop the plan backwards from there … being flexible with the details of the plan as necessary. Hopefully, GM will blow everyone’s minds in 2011 or so with amazing new cars like the Volt and the rest of the cars in their lineup.

(Quote)
Jaime Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:41 pm

Even with the bailout, GM lost 21% of their value today. Investor and consumer confidence is totally gone. Sadly, these cars will never see the light of day.

R.I.P Volt

(Quote)
Adrian Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:42 pm

We will have gas cars for 10+ years, since it could take that long before electric cars turn a profit.

I like the car. I rather not have Saturn go away but if Chevy takes on Saturn’s customer service and sales approach, then I won’t be sad.

Would this I-4 need premium gas like the current high end 4 banger?

Future GM idea:
This hurts to say but Buick needs to go. Combine Caddy and Buick into one brand. You don’t need two luxury car lines.

Keep Chevy (duh)
Oh yeah, no more double dipping on trucks. Either Chevy makes trucks or GMC. It is silly to have both sell the same thing.
Then if Chrysler goes under, buy Jeep name and move any Hummer to Jeep. So maybe the end of GMC?

But what to do about Pontiac and Saturn…

I would keep both but they must be together at the same dealer, and can’t be split up. Saturn goes all green and Pontiac continues to give us (me) muscle cars like the G8 to drive. No more lame G5. Saturn keeps bringing in Euro cars but everything must be Hybrid. The Saturn name would be of better use that way than Chevy to be honest.

So Arcadia and Equinox are completely different. BUt GM once gain, has the highly popular family crossover across too many brands.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:47 pm

hi Mitch #97,

“… suprised that proctology is an actual profession..so many people have their head up their….why have it? second opinion?”

_________________________

I have to agree with you Mitch. We left coasters have our heads so far up …. that we can’t see! But let’s face it, America wouldn’t be the same without barbarian Arnold and his Hummer. And let’s not leave out his pretty wife Maria.
_________________________

How about the price of oil today? Light, sweet crude for February delivery fell $2.45, or nearly 6 percent, to settle at $39.91 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Crude prices have tumbled 70 percent since peaking above $147 in July.

GM has some bailout money to work with AND a healthy environment with lower oil prices. If not this time around, there will be little pity to be found.

Yes we can?

=D~

(Quote)
Paul-R Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Jaime said “Even with the bailout, GM lost 21% of their value today. Investor and consumer confidence is totally gone. Sadly, these cars will never see the light of day.”

In my opinion, one day’s change is not so relevant. And it seems like the market always hurts the whipping boy first. As evidence, most news stories today blame GM’s stock decline on Toyota (down over 5%) and a few others, but not on GM.

In my opinion, Toyota is still viewed to be as untouchable as Obama and Superman put together, so their stock priced hasn’t been hurt much yet. Give it time.

(Quote)
Mitch Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:58 pm

#103 Dave

I am not really trying to offend anyone in truth, and I hope I don’t but uninformed ignorance is so DAMN rampant these days (the obvious trolls not counting..they are obviously here to show that they are idiots!!(who killed the EV1 lol…god that slays me..).

Some people that post here think that GM sells nothing else!! and that 95% of allsales inthe USA are Japanese? sorry, but the fact is GM makes and SELLS more than any JApanese maker inthe USA. THe last full year tally (2007) was GM 19.3% of ALL sales in the USA, Toyota 18.4..not huge..but still, and the detroit companies sold more than 50% of all vehicles…

(Quote)
GM Volt Fan Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:13 pm

I think the price of oil is going way down because all the hedge funds have been trying to artificially jack the prices up in the past few years. A LOT of hedge fund money in these sophisticated derivatives and options tied to the price of oil are unraveling. Hedge fund investors are bailing out. We need to switch to E-REV cars like the Volt so they can’t mess around with everyone’s transportation budgets anymore. It would be a lot harder for them to manipulate the supply and prices of electricity … er, I hope.

Now that freakin’ Bernie Madoff was busted for his insane Ponzi scheme along with his “feeder hedge funds” it may be a LONG time before people trust the hedge fund industry again. Even super rich people won’t trust them unless they are audited by a different reputable accounting firm every year or two.

I also think the SEC ought to have “random audits” of hedge fund companies even if they aren’t under suspicion. Do it kind of like the NFL Commissioner does with their Substance Abuse program. That will deal with the scumbags and scam artists on Wall Street pretty quick.

(Quote)
Bob McGovern Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:25 pm

DonC;
I think Crossover SUV is what we used to call a Hatchback. Smaller than a Station Wagon. Also, long after GM blows the bailout money we and our grandchildren will be paying for it in taxes.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:34 pm

The current GM Red Tag Sale is getting people’s attention. The U.S. economy will slug along at a slow pace for the first quarter of 2009. People will enjoy relatively low gasoline prices and be able to get around to shop, to work, and to vacation.

GM will change it’s advertising tone as we get move closer to summer. We will see “final days of the GM Red Tag Sale”. I believe this will foam the consumer up into a buying frenzy.

GM has some eye catching winners out there. And I believe sales will catch fire in late Spring. And GM will announce that they DO NOT need additional loans.

I saw a brand new Saturn Sky last Friday. It was yellow with “Sky” lettering embossed into the racing style seats. 2008 left overs are priced under $24,000. 2009’s will cost $5000 more.

http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/Saturn_Sky_Yellow.jpg

http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/Saturn_Sky_Red.JPG

=D~

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:34 pm

#107 Bob McGovern

Not that it will matter to you because you seem to have your mind made up that we are throwing money away at the auto companies, but the “bail-out money” as you termed it is actually a loan. If GM pulls their act together, we should get our money back plus interest. If not, we will get assets that can and will be sold on the market. So, it is some of a gamble, but what isn’t. GM deserves help and I suppose so does Chrysler. They provide a lot of jobs and products that are purchased around the world. The financial markets bail-out is probably where we will never see any money back. That in truth was really a give away program from congress to the financial markets for their support in election campaigns. The financial market managers are very closely related to every administration and every congress. They usually get what they want every time.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:48 pm

…it turns out that the Prius is a money loser because it’s too expensive to make and profit form other vehicles can no longer cover that loss.
__________________________________

2009 brings a new model, one that delivers a lower cost system.

Toyota invested profits to make that happen, back when money was available. That research and new design is already complete. Now they have a high-efficiency vehicle to sell which costs less to produce, when money is no longer available.

Looks like a case of reaching the finish-line just in the nick of time.

(Quote)
D'Artagnon Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:05 pm

#38 statik Says:

The design came out of CREC in Oshawa, Ontario.
_________________________________________

I assume that CREC is the old CPC (Chevy/Pontiac/Canada)? If so, what does the “RE” stand for?

Best regards,

D’Artagnon

(Quote)
gil Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:13 pm

I want to get off the petro thing all together, I do not need a lot of bells and whistles (no power windows needed)- just a good, practical non -gas GM, Ford or Chysler car with great service.

I am not impressed with any new car that uses gas – I am waiting and waiting and waiting…for anyone of them to bring their car to market (I put 110 miles a day on my car)

By the way my, the mileage I get now is not much better than 25 years ago.

1978 -I had 78 chevy monza hatchback 30 -35 hwy – mpg.
1999 – I have a 99 VW Passat and get 35 on the hway.( bought this after taking back a Saturn) I had 4 Saturns in total
2004 – Saturn IOn around 30 mpg

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:27 pm

#78 Zack henery Says: “The Subaru or what ever you compared it to is not as safe as this car. When you make a car safer its heaver with more steal. So you can have thin light metal cars that get great mileage but I think GM is doing a balance with safety and mileage.”
————————————————————————————–
I don’t know why, but this is a very common misperception in America. If you look at crash test results, smaller ligher cars actually do better than SUVs.

Cars that are designed to crumple in a crash absorb more impact, keeping the passengers safer. The lighter car itself will sustain more damage than the bigger heavier car, but the people in a big SUV are likely to have more injuries than the people in the smaller lighter car.

SUVs are designed for off-road use. They must be more rigid to in order to take this kind of abuse, so they don’t crumple as well. That’s why they are not as good in a crash.

(Quote)
Len Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:27 pm

SUVs are also top heavy and will roll over easier. They aren’t as nimble meaning fewer crashes can be avoided. The drivers, thinking that mass makes right drive less carefully and try to bully other drivers often changing lanes with no warning and forcing other drivers to brake to avoid accident. Their size blocks other drivers view. Basically they are hazards that should never have been allowed on the highway. They definately should be taxed by weight to help pay for all the road damage they do.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:58 pm

Stations wagons have 2 big advantages over CUVs:
1) More floor cargo area.
2) Better fuel efficiency.

Two years ago, we went looking for a something to replace our Subaru Outback. The Subaru mileage sucked, and it had just blown a head gasket, so we were staying away from Subaru. We ended up buying a CUV because that’s all that was available. We wanted a station wagon, but nobody seemed to be making them.

I wish they would start making station wagons again. They don’t have to look the same. Call them “sport wagons”. Advertise them for mountain climbing, rock bands, skiing, home improvement, … anything but moms and kids. People will buy them!

(Quote)
Nelson Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:10 pm

If trying to unload vehicles like that Equinox is how GM plans to become viable they haven’t learned anything. 30 mpg is the 2001 mantra. If it doesn’t’ get 40 mpg or better they shouldn’t bother making it. That’s what the White House should have stipulated.

Of course to the millions waiting for a vehicle with a plug it make no difference.

NPNS!

(Quote)
noel park Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:19 pm

#83 CaptJackSparrow:

I don’t think that’s really a problem. Nobody can get a loan anyway.

#97 Mitch:

Leave me out. I didn’t vote for the stupid SOB.

(Quote)
ccombs Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:26 pm

#114, apparently you do not have a large family. A bit harsh even though some parts of that are true. Our best hope is an E-REV SUV, not trying to get rid of them or tax them (both impossible, in my opinion). This sort of vitriol is exactly what alienates the everyday person to environmental causes and and is a major hindrance to progress. Only when we stop name calling and start working on solutions that benefit everyone while helping the environment can we succeed. Otherwise, it will just be “us vs. them”. Our only hope is to innovate, telling people that the way they live and things they like suck only makes them mad and less likely to change their ways. In my opinion, the excessive materialism and lack of concern for others characteristic of many Americans today is reprehensible, but no matter how much we try to tell people to recycle, not litter, and conserve fuel, it really hasn’t made much of a difference. The only way to go forward is to work together to innovate, not to sanctimoniously point fingers.

PS. Why does everyone on this site seem like they’re PMSing all the time!?! This car is a good thing! Sure it isn’t 100+ MPG, but every step counts.

Go Volt, Go GM (as long as you actually make good on your fuel-efficiency promises this time ’round)

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:52 pm

#111 D’Artagnon said,

#38 statik Says:
The design came out of CREC in Oshawa, Ontario.
_________________________________________

I assume that CREC is the old CPC (Chevy/Pontiac/Canada)? If so, what does the “RE” stand for?

Best regards,
D’Artagnon

====================================
Sorry about that…CREC stands for Canadian Regional Engineering Center.

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:10 pm

GM/Chevy already has a car that gets 67/41 mpg. It’s called the Matiz, but not for sale in the US.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:19 pm

#101 Jamie

Even with the bailout, GM lost 21% of their value today. Investor and consumer confidence is totally gone. Sadly, these cars will never see the light of day.

R.I.P Volt
=================================

Actually the move today can be attributed to the readjustment/dilution of common (non voting shares) that GM must tender to acquire loans from Canada starting next monday:

Dec 29th 800 million
Jan 2010 1.2 billion
Feb 2010 1 billion

Thats a total of 3 billion in ‘loans’…but part of the deal is that the Canadian gov’t gets 20% of the value of the loan in equity…which is 600 million. (The Chrysler deal is structured differently because they are private, they are putting leans on land, plants, etc).

There are 610 million shares outstanding and it fell .97 cents today…or 592 million dollars (and Credit Suisse gave them a nice downgrade too)

This is only the first wave of this sort of thing. If by some miracle the bailout/’bankruptcy threat’ plan works you are looking at the following occuring:

1/2 VEBA committment paid in equity (6 billion-ish)
2/3 of bondholder debt converted to equity (about 24 billion)
20% of 13.4-17.4 billion + any new loans (3 billion-ish)

So if you are ‘mathing’ that out, we have another 33 billion being crammed in there. GM future share price after these triggers in the next 3 months is probably (and very conservatively) pegged at about .20 cents, if not totally gone. That is why the day the bailout was announced I was surprised to see GM tick up.

So, I’ll say again (for the millionth time over the last 18 months here) ‘DO NOT BUT’, this is not a buying opportunity, it defies logic that it is even at $3.50. If the bailout goes through and the UAW/bondholders capitulate, there will be north of 10 billion shares outstanding…GM’s market cap would have to be over 35 billion to just get back to today’s share price. (Currently its cap is 2.1 billion).

GM has the opportunity to surivive here, but not the shareholders. This is also why it is sooooo unlikely that you will see the bondholders agree to the ‘debt for equity’ swap, they might as well just ask them to rip the debt up…and most debt holders only paid pennies on the dollar for it, and would rather see what they get in bankruptcy.

/and thats the ‘good’ scenario if they meet all the criteria and get to be gov’t sponsored

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GM-equity-may-be-wiped-out-rb-13893944.html

(Quote)
Bob McGovern Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:21 pm

N Riley Says:
Not that it will matter to you because you seem to have your mind made up that we are throwing money away at the auto companies, but the “bail-out money” as you termed it is actually a loan. If GM pulls their act together, we should get our money back plus interest. If not, we will get assets that can and will be sold on the market.
======================================================
As I have said before, with a good faith loan you have collateral. Not once have I heard this mentioned by GM or Chrysler. As far as putting GM’s assets on the market to recover the Loan you need a buyer. With today’s economy as it is, it could take a long time to get a buyer for any of it. We can’t rely on foreign buyers since they are in the same bind we are in.

(Quote)
nuclearboy Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:25 pm

This is a cool little SUV. I would definitely consider it.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:27 pm

#121 Statik (me)

All that post and no spell check, sigh.
That should have read:

“So, I’ll say again (for the millionth time over the last 18 months here) ‘DO NOT BUT’, this is not a buying opportunity…”

/”DO NOT BUT”…lol

(Quote)
JEC Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:04 pm

124 Statik

So did you convince your dad to sell when it was near $5/share?

“DO NOT BUT”, maybe a Freudian slip? lol

I am not a financial person, but I have been reading up a little on whats going on with GM.

This appears to be BAD. Now the share value is dropping because they are diluting the heck out of them. Like, buying a Jack and Coke, and they fill the glass with ice.

(Quote)
MarkyMark Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:05 pm

I have a 91CapriceWagon that gets 28mpg hwy with the air on at 75mph.My 91Buick LeSabre 3800v6 gets the same mph.Both are paid for.I am 62xx on the Volt list so you can tell I am not “new” to this site.General Motors can make terrific cars and trucks,but to copy that “Statik” guy “no plug no sale” I don’t care if its a friggin tank,”no plug no sale” can you hear us GM?

(Quote)
JEC Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:17 pm

126 MarkyMark

One thing you need to consider about the mpg ratings, is that they have recently changed the ratings method. All vehicles are rated with what is supposedly more “real world” conditions. This has caused many people to thing mpg’s are decreasing, but in reality that is not the case.

I expect that I would get better mpg than the new stickered numbers, since I know I already squeeze more mpg out of older vehicles, that had the more liberal mpg ratings.

So, comparing old mpg and new mpg numbers is now more difficult than ever. I, personally wish they would have just kept the old mpg method, since I could compare older models with new ones. Now its not so easy.

For example this X-over is rated at 21/30, but with the old ratings it would likely be closer to 24/35 (guesstimated). I bet I would get near or better then 24/35, just by the way I drive. if you drive like hell, have several passengers, the 21/30 is probably about right.

(Quote)
MarkyMark Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:19 pm

Sorry,I think Casey does the “NO PLUG NO SALE” deal

(Quote)
The Grump Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:20 pm

#118 ccombs “Why does everyone on this site seem like they’re PMSing all the time!?! This car is a good thing! Sure it isn’t 100+ MPG, but every step counts.”
—————————————————
Everyone is “PMSing” because they are cracking up. They have been waiting almost 2 years now for the Volt, and they have to wait – at least – 24 more months to have a remote chance to purchase one of a very limited 1st year Volt production run.

They have had their hopes built up, dashed, built up again, dashed, over and over – the concept, the grill, the console, the glass roof, the battery tests, the mule tests, and worst of all, the infuriating glacial pace at which Bob Lutz seems to be working on the Volt schedule – Bob is fiddleing (around) while GM burns. But GM has a shiny new SUX, er SUV, which gets 21 MPG – big news !

The posters continue to rub salt into everyone’s wounds when they say stupid things like “hurry up with the Volt”, and the every annoying LJGTVWOTR, when these otherwise intelligent posters know very well that they cannot hurry up old “Glacier” Bob Lutz. All it does is makes waiting for the Volt even worse, especially with GM having one foot in the grave, and the other is on the rain-slick edge of bankruptcy liquidation.

Of course, as a professional grump, I am enjoying watching everyone get upset and tearing up each other out of sheer frustration. It’s an interesting social experiment – the greens vs the liberitarians, the GM cheerleaders vs the pessimists, the UAW proponents vs, well, everyone else. God, how I miss the great hydrogen wars in previous years. Good times, good times.
—————————————————-
I pretty much gave up on the Volt a while ago, back when the concept Volt died, and 2 years is too long to wait. GM needs a prius-fighter now, and they’re still messing around with SUX’s, I mean SUV’s. The world is not exactly beating a path to GM’s door to buy the SUV’s they have, and they’re making more. Sigh. I guess you really can’t teach an old CEO new tricks. If I was GM’s CEO, I already would have had the Prius and Civic Hybrid models reverse engineered, and I would also reverse engineer the new Insight.

I’m waiting to see the new Insight’s MPG in Spring 2009. I have to have a new car this year. Sorry GM, sorry Rick, but my new policy is – no vehicle that gets +40 MPG city, no sale.
——————————————–
We now return you to your regular schedule of rants, raves, and trolls – already in progress.

(Quote)
John Rullo Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:23 pm

I hope it is smaller than the current model. It needs the dimensions of the VUE to seperate it from the Trailblazer

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:29 pm

#125 JEC

124 Statik

So did you convince your dad to sell when it was near $5/share?

“DO NOT BUT”, maybe a Freudian slip? lol

I am not a financial person, but I have been reading up a little on whats going on with GM.

This appears to be BAD. Now the share value is dropping because they are diluting the heck out of them. Like, buying a Jack and Coke, and they fill the glass with ice.
==========================================

You have quite a memory JEC…and no, I can’t convince my own father to ‘not buy’ GM or to ’sell it now’.

He is ‘old school,’ he believes in the ‘too big to fail’ mantra.

“GM has always been here, always will be, and I have time to wait for it to come back,” he says…I guess he is not alone in that sentiment. I tell him that he could be right and they may indeed be ‘too be too fail’, but that doesn’t mean they are worth anything. (and he is 65, he isn’t going to live forever)

I’m not too worry about it, he is only dabbling, $600 bucks or so. I think he did it just to drive me insane.

(Quote)
Bingo Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:51 pm

Regarding the article below, I agree that the phrase “The Big 3 are not making cars that Americans want”. It should be “The Big 3 are not making cars Americans want when the gas is over $4/gal.”.

The truth being told, is that many Americans kept the tradition to drive bulky cars which were popular in America roads in the 50’s and 70’s and enjoy that. That taste or tradition is not necessarily a problem, it happens that at $4/gal bulky cars become unsustainable and given that is the profitable niche for The Big 3, that’s how they failed.

People has failed to produce evidence showing reliable sources showing how the Japanese governemnt is helping Japanese auto makers.

92.

Mitch Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Finally an AMERICAN News source actually supporting Detroit!!!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/18/tech/cnettechnews/main4675616.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._4675616#ccmm

#89

(Quote)
MetrologyFirst Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:52 pm

TheGrump @ 129 is wrong answering ccombs question.

The reason many here are “cracking up” is that the fall of gas prices has brought the march towards “green cars” to a stumbling halt, right or wrong.

Those who thought the US was gaining a moral commitment to greener cars have realized its nothing but a pocketbook issue for most people.

Those who drive Priuses here can’t giggle at the rest of us who are now only spending an extra 10 bucks a week for gas and get to drive something with a lot more style.

The oil/gas headlines aren’t in their favor anymore. The only way a lot of folks here will be happy again is when gas gets back to 4 bucks a gallon.

Be patient…..:)

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:03 am

Those who drive Priuses here can’t giggle at the rest of us who are now only spending an extra 10 bucks a week for gas…
__________________________________________

Oil dependency isn’t funny.

(Quote)
Unni Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:05 am

its snow till my knee, I see F150 and other big guys goes like gem, Which small is going to take me out today ( once again thanks for 2 folks who pushed my car when we were drown in snow ).

(Quote)
JEC Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:07 am

131 Statik

I have no room to judge his decision to hold GM. If you saw some stocks that I still have you would cry….(or laugh)

PS: I have decided I will live forever, my wife was not happy about this decision

Just finished watching the Packers blow another game to that team to the south…I have had about enough for one day.

Good night to all.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:35 am

#118 ccombs,

SUVs are for off-road driving. That’s what they’re made for.

If you have a big family, you’re better off with a mini-van, micro-van, or sport wagon. That’s what these cars are made for.

(Quote)
stas peterson Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:11 am

Bingo,

You want an example of subsidization? Have you ever heard of a VAT Tax Rebate? Japan refunds to every product exported,the entire Vlue Added Tax it imposes on any product manufactured there and consumed there. So an exported Toyota is thousands of dollars less in cost than a domestic Toyota in Japan.

What is the exact VAT rate, I don’t know. But you can look it up if you wish. Typically they are about 10-15% though. So 10-15% on every one of the millions of cars that Japan sends to America receive that rebate. Now Toyota may chose to reduce the price of the exported Toyota by all or only some of the difference and pocket the rest as “found money” or subsidy, call it what you wish.

(Quote)
Laura Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:16 am

137 Dave G

“SUVs are for off-road driving”:

1. It could be. However, the vast majority of people at work who own SUV’s don’t use them for off road drive. They tell me all the time they buy bulky cars because they “want to drive on a high horse, feel tall and mighty”.

2. If people really wanted off road driving, they could accomplish same or similar with excellent Subaru wagon, Volvo wago, Audi All Road, etc with AWD.

Regardind:
MetrologyFirst Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:52 pm

Those who drive Priuses here can’t giggle at the rest of us who are now only spending an extra 10 bucks a week for gas and get to drive something with a lot more style.

—–
That is subjective. For many Europeans like me living in the US, style is not something associated with SUVs or bulky trucks. For a number of people with European background, SUVs and trucks really gives the perception of rough, rural, unpolished taste (for those very big trucks with big wheels). I learned that some people like that and I am by no means intending to offend anyone. I used to love the VW old Beattle years ago. I love my small Audi now. Some folks out there like small, compact cars. Just a preference.

(Quote)
funny Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:15 am

100 years from now we will find a way to live on Mars, and we are still going to rely on 2 things: oil and the internal combustion engine.

isn’t it funny? battery technology has been around for decades yet they still can not figure out how to get cars run on them.

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:53 am

Very nice looking vehicle. I like the fenders, wish they had them on the Volt.

(Quote)
David L G Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:54 am

# 137 Dave G

For the record an off road vehicle usually needs decent ground clearance and a low range transfer case. A Subaru isn’t going to take you where a Jeep will. But then again, most crossovers don’t have much meaningful off-road capability either, so that’s probably a fair comparison.

Bottom line though, an AWD station wagon isn’t really going to cut it if you’re seriously talking about off-road capability or towing.

And neither will a crossover…

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:56 am

funny #140

That’s because battery development was stifled by oil companies for most of that 100 years.

(Quote)
GXT Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:38 am

44. Statik,

“Acura TSX (Civic based)”

The TSX is not Civic-based. That is the CSX. The TSX is based on the European Accord.

The important point with Acura re fuel economy is that they have no V8 in any of their models.

(Quote)
Cashen Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 5:46 am

#17
statik Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:43 am

Yippee, another whale from GM. They are saved. This will fit nicely into their current lineup of:

Vue
Torrent
Traverse
Trail Blazer
Outlook
Envoy
Acadia
Enclave
Avalanche
Tahoe
Yukon
Suburban
SRX
9-7x
Escalade
H2
H3
2010 Terrain

/lesson not learned

Slipping a 4 banger into a 30K SUV is not going to get it done. Don’t get me wrong it is nice. It looks nice…I really like the interior, but this is not going to turn the ship around at GM.

Note to GM: Under 20K, over 40MPG please…you got none of those. Heck you don’t even have one car over 30MPG combined..at any price.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byMPG.htm

di·lu·tion
Pronunciation: di-loo-shuhn
Function: noun
—————————

List what vehicles are under 20K and over 40mpg.

(Quote)
Cashen Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 5:52 am

#23
#
Eclectic Dan Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:16 am

I’m with Arch (14). My 2007 Forester gets better mileage 23 city 29 hwy while having all wheel drive and it only cost $22K 2 years ago. It’s sad to see that with all the energy GM has spent on redefining itself that it still hasn’t been able to match what other companies have been doing all along.

———————

That is with the old MPG rating. The estimate with the new rating is 20/25.

Keep talking about stuff you really know nothing about.

(Quote)
Cashen Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 5:56 am

#32
Jason Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:59 am

21 city MPG is a joke. GM will never learn. Their stock has given back nearly all the gains after the bailout bounce. People are sobering up to the fact they will not make it.

—————————

Most of Toyota’s Car have trouble getting 21 mpg for city rating. Really the only way to increase your city rating a lot is by some kind of hybrid mode. you have to regenerate lost energy. 21 for non-hybrid is actually really good. if it was that bad why is the ‘09 CR-V only at 20?

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 8:17 am

#144 GXT

44. Statik,

“Acura TSX (Civic based)”

The TSX is not Civic-based. That is the CSX. The TSX is based on the European Accord.

The important point with Acura re fuel economy is that they have no V8 in any of their models.
====================================
Oops, yes, you are right. Also, a good point about the V8. I believe they also just dropped plans to re-introduce the NSX with a 10 cyclinder.

(Quote)
Paul-R Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:06 am

Cashen accurately stated … “Most of Toyota’s Car have trouble getting 21 mpg for city rating. Really the only way to increase your city rating a lot is by some kind of hybrid mode. you have to regenerate lost energy. 21 for non-hybrid is actually really good. if it was that bad why is the ‘09 CR-V only at 20?”

Cashen, unfortunately the GM-hater is like an angry bull, and your facts are merely a red flag that serves to confuse and anger the beast.

Merry Christmas

(Quote)
Jake Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:46 pm

“Really the only way to increase your city rating a lot is by some kind of hybrid mode.”
———

Or with a diesel engine (VW Jetta TDI, EPA rating 29 mpg city, and EPA ratings actually tend to short-change diesels).

What about equipping non-hybrid vehicles with the engine quick start feature found on hybrids? Then when you’re parked at a long red light you aren’t burning any gas. Is that not good enough because there’s no electric power train to “get things rolling” while the engine is starting up?

(Quote)
noel park Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 3:52 pm

#150 Jake:

Yeah, LOL. I use the carbon unit semi-automatic engine shutoff device in my S-10. I turn off the engine when I stop, and start it back up when the light turns green. I don’t know if it makes any difference to the gas mileage, but it makes me feel better. Plus, it’s so nice and quiet.

Of course sometimes I forget and start gazing at the scenery, or fiddling with the radio, or pouring a cup of coffee. Lots of horn honking from behind. Well bleep ‘em if they can’t take a joke. I’m saving the world!

Of course I did have to replace the starter a couple of weeks ago. but it was almost 9 years old, and had done over 215K miles, so it was entitled.

25 mpg in mixed driving, every tank. I don’t think there’s a pickup available today which can match that. Certainly not the Colorado.

(Quote)
Leroy The Cable Guy Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 5:46 pm

Mama says “Outlaw all SUVs”.

What is GM thinking ???

It’s time for small 40+ MPG autos NOW !!!

Can you engineer that puleeeeeeeeeeeez.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 6:57 pm

It’s time for small 40+ MPG autos NOW !!!
_______________________________________

What do you consider small?

Ford’s Fusion is way bigger than Cruze/Cobalt, yet the hybrid is rated 41/36 MPG.

(Quote)
Jake Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 9:51 pm

noel park – I bet it does help mileage. I hear that shutting off the engine for anything more than a few seconds (call it several seconds or more) is worth it. As for wear and tear on your starter, I don’t know about that.

john1701a – I’m guessing that Leroy was talking about conventional cars, not hybrids. The theory being that there should be more trimmed-down compacts that simply maximize the efficiency of the standard gas-powered auto without throwing all that fancy hybrid stuff in there. Can’t argue with that I guess, though personally I’d want more space than that sort of car would offer. Good for commuting I suppose. Better make it diesel if you want to reliably beat 40 mpg though.

(Quote)
jbfalaska Says:
December 24th, 2008 at 12:41 am

I’m a believer in the Volt. The Volt should be a national security priority of our government to move us all away from Middle-East anarchy oil. Like many here, I believe electric is the future of the auto industry, and the saving solution to need to transport using domestic energy.

Gas (NCG)? T Boone’s insincere attempt to rest the nation from the Oil monopoly and move it over to a gas monopoly took flight today. Russia, hardly friendly to free nations, introduced GPEC, the equivalent of OPEC led by Russia setting world prices for natural gas. Soon we’ll be gaggled over natural gas prices.

Only electric offers promise. Let’s hope the Oil president departing includes those policies so damaging to our nation’s freedom.

US Air Force retired.

I see the frustration building in the blogs here. Agree. Once Bob Lutz said this (Chevy Volt) was the surest thing to a sure hit he had seen in his long life. Well, now oil is down to $38 a barrel and the Volt can’t compete with the Chevy Cruze on value. We should do as the Swiss and subsidize 50 percent of the vehicle price paid not with tax dollars but with a MPG tax. Lower the MPG, the higher the tax. Implement the GET US THE HE )) OFF OIL NOW TAX.

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
December 25th, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Already starting to advertise GM all-gas trucks, eh? As the years roll by, and GM sabotages the VOLT, more and more “clean diesel” and other hoax ‘green’ cars will be pushed by the liars at GM.

(Quote)
Jake Says:
December 25th, 2008 at 4:52 pm

GM’s not pushing clean diesel at all…I think they should be, but we don’t need to get into that. Nor do we need to get into the realm of “sabotage,” “hoaxes” or “liars.” Let’s leave that talk to the less civil forums out there.

(Quote)
Ames Tiedeman Says:
December 26th, 2008 at 10:14 pm

This is a superb crossover. It looks great. If you want bigger buy a Tahoe. This is made to compete with the BMW 3 series suv, the Honda Pilot and others. It is better looking than both of those. Ya’ll are conditioned to just bash GM at will. This is a damn good looking auto. Wake up a bit.

(Quote)
Ben Goddard Says:
December 28th, 2008 at 12:35 am

(1) The Volt should be priced very reasonably to entice the first users. If cost concessions are achieved all of GM’s vehicles should come down in price and be competitive on the world market. (2) The Equinox should not be built AT ALL if it can’t be done in some alternative fuel source; e.g., hydrogen/electric. If GM introduces any “new” line of vehicles it must be required they get over 40 mpg, if gas or diesel, or utilize some alternative fuel source (and I don’t mean ethanol or cooking oil!). Violation of this “rule” should require immediate repayment of the money WE are loaning them.

(Quote)
Ben Goddard Says:
December 28th, 2008 at 1:02 am

Also, I see a lot of ICE diehards. I hope people will really do some research and compare a well built electric vehicle motor to a well built internal combustion engine. When they do (1) they will see that an electric motor will out last its petroleum powered competitor many times over. (2) No matter how old it gets it will retain its designed level of performance. (3) And, when necessary, repairs to an electric motor should be much cheaper than rebuilding an ICE after 200k miles. (4) An electric motor should out perform an ICE on a comparable horsepower basis in any application.

In 50 years Internal Combustion motors will probably only be seen in museums and people will wonder why they were ever used. (Like the Stanley Steamer now).

(Quote)
Rochelle Says:
February 15th, 2009 at 5:52 am

OK GM Looks like you got it right. I was sorry to hear you won’t be producing Saturn Vue’s in a couple years but it looks like the Equinox will be taking it’s place. It’s to bad American’s who don’t live in Detroit realize there are alot of good American cars. Instead they sell out and buy Japanese cars that have just as many recalls or more. You just don’t hear about it or it’s in tiny print in a corner of the last page of the newspaper. Let’s help ourselves and buy American!!!

(Quote)
jmls Says:
March 8th, 2009 at 11:03 am

Maybe the american auto industry isn’t rocket science, but it is the backbone to the economy. Some of you bashers of ford, gm and chrysler will never let yourself admit it is a good product while you drive your foriegn products. I hope, when you lose your american job you don’t go asking for an american handout in your foreign car. Its very sad that some people are so against the american products and rely on the american economy for there income, but thinks they would be lowering themselves if they buy an american auto.

(Quote)
TK Says:
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:35 am

I just bought this car after trading in my gas guzzling Dodge Durango that got 14 mpg!! I am absolutely loving the 2010 Chevy Equinox with its 32 mpg!!! The ride is sooo quiet & comfortable with such spacious leg room in the back! It drives like a car with all the benefits of storage & good looks of an SUV.

(Quote)
ch Says:
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:00 am

Just bought the 2010 Equinox and I am trading my Dodge Charger for it. I liked the Charger but it lacked some creature-comforts that I want in a car. I really wanted the Volt but gave up on waiting for it.

I see alot of mention about gas mileage and the need to get off of foreign oil. I agree with the thought. I think the best way to get there is to heavily tax oil and use those taxes to reduce our income tax. We Americans, including myself, react to the price of oil. When gas is cheap ($2.50 per gallon in US versus an equivalent of about $8 per gallon in Europe) we will not change our driving habits or our choice in vehicles. The only reason I went with a higher mileage vehicle is that I think gas prices are going to shoot back up soon.

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009
This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]
BigCityCat
Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009
I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]
omnimoeish
First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009
The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]
admin
Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009
- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]
Texas
New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009
Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]
srschrier
New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009
November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]
srschrier
New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009
From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]
srschrier

Preview: 2010 Chevy Equinox Will Get 30 mpg Highway Even Without a Hybrid Drivetrain

164 Responses to “Preview: 2010 Chevy Equinox Will Get 30 mpg Highway Even Without a Hybrid Drivetrain”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts