• Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0

    General Motors Announces Fuel Economy For The EcoTec 4.3L V6



    William Maley

    Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com

    June 20, 2013

    General Motors has been doing a slow drip on specifications for their new pickup trucks. Yesterday, the company announced the fuel economy numbers for the EcoTec 4.3L V6 that will be the base engine in the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra.

    For 2WD models, the 4.3L V6 will return 18 City/24 Highway MPG which puts right in line with the Ram 1500 equipped with the Pentastar V6. 4WD models see fuel economy numbers of 17 City/22 Highway. The city number makes the Sierra and Silverado 4WD models best in class.

    Not bad considering the EcoTec 4.3L V6 is packing 285 horsepower (@5300 RPM) and 305 foot-pounds of torque (@3900 RPM), and can tow up 7,200 pounds.

    Source: General Motors

    William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at william.maley@cheersandgears.comor you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

    Press Release is on Page 2


    4.3L EcoTec3 V-6 Offers Best-in-Class Capability

    • New engine gives Silverado and Sierra unsurpassed city fuel economy

    DETROIT – The all-new 4.3L EcoTec3 V-6 powering the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra will be the most capable standard V-6 in any full-size pickup truck – leading the segment in city fuel economy and helping customers save money through a host of fuel-saving technologies.

    EcoTec3 engine technology matches Ram HFE’s 18 mpg city, while 4x4 Silverado and Sierra models achieve 17 mpg city, the best of any full-size pickup. EPA highway estimates are highly competitive: 22 mpg for 4x4 versions, and 24 mpg for 2WD models.

    The 4.3L V-6 also help Silverado and Sierra will offer the highest-available payload rating of 2,108 pounds and the highest available towing rating of 7,200 pounds.

    0


    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0


    User Feedback


    Let's compare the Dodge Ram and the Silverado...

    Dodge Ram 1500 2WD

    Engine: 3.6L DOHC 24-valve V6

    Transmission: 8-speed Automatic

    Output: 305 bhp / 269 lb-ft

    0-60 mph: 8.5 secs

    Towing Capacity: 6,500 lbs

    Fuel Economy: 17 (city) / 25 (hwy) mpg [4x4 = 16 / 23 MPG]

    Chevy Silverado 1500 2WD

    Engine: 4.3L Pushrod 12-valve V6

    Transmission: 6-speed Automatic

    Output: 285 bhp / 305 lb-ft

    0-60 mph: 7.9 secs

    Towing Capacity: 7,200 lbs

    Fuel Economy: 18 (city) / 24 (hwy) mpg [4x4 = 17 / 22 MPG]

    Even with the significant gearing advantageous of an 8-speed transmission, the DOHC 24v equipped Dodge is out performed and out towed by the Pushrod 12v powered Chevy. Not only that, but it didn't even manage a fuel economy advantage. If both vehicles had the same transmission, the differences would have been even more pronounced.

    What does that say about using four cams, four valves per cylinder for performance or downsizing displacement for the sake of fuel economy? Does it really pan out? Not in this case obviously...

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    i've had our company's dodge journey quite a few times and have probably logged about 3k miles on it. Nearly all the time I have averaged high twenties with it. Now i would be curious to know the weight diff and such between the journey and ram. i can't help but think the ram will be true to its epa numbers ...

    there is a lack of torque in the low to mid, and they purposely put a delay on the downshift to force you to wind it up.. likewise it has aggressive throttle cut off and the sixth gear is way high. 1600 rpm at like 70 or something. I wonder how many rpm the ram runs at that speed.

    I think if the ram engine were retuned, it would haul out harder but of course its tuned for FE. I am guessing the larger displacement and torque tuned 4.3 feels faster on roll on acceleration.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I can say with complete authority the 3.6L Pentastar is horribly underrated on fuel economy. I know it isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison considering we're talking trucks here, but with that said, my Charger routinely returns numbers in the mid 30s on the highway and has never averaged less than 24 to 25 mpg. That's also using regular unleaded gas. I'm sure a 3.6L Ram will do better than advertised; hell, my dad's 5.7L Hemi-powered Ram Express returns an average of about 18 to 20 mpg and returns somewhere in the mid 20s on the highway (you'll get that only if you use mid-grade unleaded, but even still).

    The new 4.3 does have better towing capability, but on the other hand, it's just a few hundred pounds better than the Ram. I also know Chrysler can still do way more with the Pentastar than what they currently have.

    I'll say this, with the next-generation Ram and F-150 just on the horizon, I don't expect GM to keep in the marginal lead they have right now.

    Edited by black-knight
    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Here's the fundamental issue...

    (1) The ONLY advantage a 4-valve DOHC valvetrain has is that it is able to flow more air and hence produce more power. Everything else about a DOHC valve train is a disadvantage -- four times as many cams, twice as many sprockets and valves, higher friction, bulkier packaging, heavier weights and greater complexity.

    (2) In order to capitalize on the ability to flow more air you have to be at high rpms and wide open throttles. At anywhere south of about 4000~5500 rpm depending on the valve lift employed, a 2-valve head is able to achieve 100% volumetric efficiency so the additional flow capacity is moot. At partial throttle, the engine is choked by the throttle butterfly not the valve or intake, so it is also moot. In other words, unless you wind it out a DOHC engine has no advantage.

    (3) Between a DOHC engine and a Pushrod engine of the same displacement, the Pushrod engine will have better fuel economy because it has less parasitic frictional losses, it is smaller and it is lighter. However the DOHC engine will be able to maintain its torque output higher into the rev range and hence make more power. You can also use a smaller displacement DOHC engine to equal the pushrod engine's power production. However, because it is smaller in dispalcement it'll make less torque and must be revved higher to achieve the same power output. Lower torque and higher revs before hitting the same power levels is contrary to the duty cycle of trucks.In order to have a similar pulling power, you have to gear it with a lower gearing and lose efficiency.

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Based on the numbers GM has posted, I have to really question why a V6 is superior over a V8. I get this with a V8 and no one drive a truck gently so this V6 will suck like all V6's in trucks and SUV's and really give nothing other than a numbers game due to Stupid EPA regulations on MPG.

    Idiots in all of them for thinking smaller is better. Just like the ugly Fiat 500 POS, I am really not happy with GM, FORD or RAM for giving into this smaller is better for everyone garbage.

    Every where I search it is amazing to see that people love the V6 turbo from ford and it is a blast to stomp on, but for those that are driving it a so called conservative style and have 3-5 thousand miles, they all admit to only 13-14mpg and none believe they will hit the 21mpg Ford claims.

    Looking at other V6 non turbo engines, we still only see teen MPG. So I have to really doubt the V6 will properly replace the long living V8 engines for those that expect to own and drive 500,000 miles. I see plenty of V8's last this, but I have yet to see a 4 or 6 banger last this long and for a truck that gets far more abuse than a car.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    My Local Dodge dealer has 33MPG plastered across the side of some new Rams, i don't get how they can get away with it

    I am sure there is a fine print some place that says this is for the Dodge Dart or some other auto and they are just using the Rams for a street sign considering how big they are.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I can say with complete authority the 3.6L Pentastar is horribly underrated on fuel economy. I know it isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison considering we're talking trucks here, but with that said, my Charger routinely returns numbers in the mid 30s on the highway and has never averaged less than 24 to 25 mpg. That's also using regular unleaded gas. I'm sure a 3.6L Ram will do better than advertised; hell, my dad's 5.7L Hemi-powered Ram Express returns an average of about 18 to 20 mpg and returns somewhere in the mid 20s on the highway (you'll get that only if you use mid-grade unleaded, but even still).

    The new 4.3 does have better towing capability, but on the other hand, it's just a few hundred pounds better than the Ram. I also know Chrysler can still do way more with the Pentastar than what they currently have.

    I'll say this, with the next-generation Ram and F-150 just on the horizon, I don't expect GM to keep in the marginal lead they have right now.

    that would be the only reason I would ever buy a chrysler, this good gas mileage on the pentastar. I wonder what the vans are pulling with it.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Most cars get above EPA ratings when you put it on cruise control and drive 30 miles at 65 mph. I get 25.6 MPG on the Jaguar XF Supercharged in that condition even though the EPA rating is 15/21 MPG. This is a 470 bhp / 4300 lbs car with a blown 5.0L V8. BTW, a Corvette C6 is over 30 mpg in that scenario with it's NA Pushrod 6.2L.

    That said... most of the time you don't get to drive like that. And, most of the time people are lucky to even match EPA numbers much less exceed them.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Most cars get above EPA ratings when you put it on cruise control and drive 30 miles at 65 mph. I get 25.6 MPG on the Jaguar XF Supercharged in that condition even though the EPA rating is 15/21 MPG. This is a 470 bhp / 4300 lbs car with a blown 5.0L V8. BTW, a Corvette C6 is over 30 mpg in that scenario with it's NA Pushrod 6.2L.

    That said... most of the time you don't get to drive like that. And, most of the time people are lucky to even match EPA numbers much less exceed them.

    I don't typically drive with a light foot, I almost always use the air-con in the summer, and I never use the Charger's cruise control. My time driving is spent roughly 60 percent of the time on the highway and 40 percent in the city for distances up to 40 miles one way.

    As always, individual results may vary, but I'm still of the opinion the Pentastar V6 has very underrated fuel economy. It's rare that I hear of someone getting poor fuel economy with it.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    My Local Dodge dealer has 33MPG plastered across the side of some new Rams, i don't get how they can get away with it

    I am sure there is a fine print some place that says this is for the Dodge Dart or some other auto and they are just using the Rams for a street sign considering how big they are.

    It slipped my memory that they had done this before: Using Canadian gallons for MPG ads (i live just north of the border and most people understand MPG better than L/100Km)

    2012 09 03 16.23.04

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    post-12-0-11398200-1371912798_thumb.jpg

    Amazing the prices I got in an email from the local dealership today. Guess it gives great advertising but wish they would just drop the big discounts and sell it on how good the product is as a real life reasonable price.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Yep

    33MPG for the pentastar

    29MPG for the 5.7 4X4

    according to my dealer

    I want to see real certified proof as these engines cannot really deliver that MPG in real world driving.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Yep

    33MPG for the pentastar

    29MPG for the 5.7 4X4

    according to my dealer

    I want to see real certified proof as these engines cannot really deliver that MPG in real world driving.

    http://gallonstoliters.com/index.php?q=1&from=imp&to=us&result=0.83267384

    one Canadian gallon is equivalent to 1.20095042 US gallons so it will be twenty percent higher numbers in MPG

    So just proving that these are not real world figures and that it does take far more gas to get these miles.

    Like Cubical, these figures are lies and 50% higher than real world numbers of what people are posting.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Guest Paul D. Donovan

    Posted

    The Vortec V6 was a 50/50 prospect to all who own one, I speak from personal experience, I own a 2003, S10, 4.3. This engine never ceases to embarras me. Since 29,000 miles, stab the throttle and #3 Cylinder misses badly. Merge into traffic and set the cruise ontrol, half a mile later the missing stops it runs fine. The only reason I continue to drive this Vehicle is the 28 MPG or better, all the time, on the freeway and the very large trunk. A huge plus in the SFBA, California. If this new engine over-comes the failings of the Vortec design, I plan to purchase one to replace the engine in my truck. Then, I'll finally have 'Pride in my Ride!'

    I drove a 2010 Dodge Mini-Van in Hawaii, comfortable enough and good power, crappy MPGs.

    I drove a 2012, turbo Ford F150, for three months, while in the job. AMAZING power, crappy MPGs.

    Squires Turbo Systems has a Turbo Module adaptable to my truck, I never bought it because of the motor I currently drive. When I purchase the new Ecotec 4.3, for my Truck, I plan to install the STS Turbo at the same time. That will change the 285 horse motor into a 350+ horse motor. This is the first OR last time I own a GM product. This is the only Chevy I have ever owned, I am 57y.o. I like the mini-truck, hate the motor. I hope GM gets it right this time, I'm tired of 'Missing-out' on Performance!!

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

      Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor




  • Popular Stories

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. 1990Suburban
      1990Suburban
      (28 years old)
  • Similar Content

    • By dfelt
      G. David Felt - Staff Writer Alternative Energy - www.cheersandgears.com
      Tesla Officially in Trouble, Business Insider Says!

      To quote Business Insider final comments on Tesla and the Chevy Bolt:
      "Clearly, Tesla would be in less trouble if the Chevy Bolt were a bad car. But it isn't. Teslas have always blown me away. The Bolt blew me away for different reasons. I just hope Tesla is prepared to take this into account." 
      Matthew is a Business Insider senior correspondent who covers transportation and as a fan of Tesla was excited to check out a Chevy BOLT as comparison to the Tesla. On a recent trip to california he took time to visit the closet Chevrolet Dealer to his hotel and this is what he found.
      He states that to borrow Barkley's line, "Tesla is in trouble." You have one of the world's biggest auto companies that is known for killing the electric auto stepping off the sidelines and actually committing considerable resources to building a long range EV where it can afford to lose money on it long term till the market changes. Tesla has 400,000 plus pre-orders, but is burning through cash by the billions and while the launch of the Tesla 3 is near and Tesla still has Sexy much like Apple to an iPhone. Tesla does not have the depth of customer auto experience to pull from and as the author points out, Tesla balance sheet is precarious as it is based on raising funds on a growth story. The author goes onto say that no one will cross shop a Tesla S or X with the Chevy BOLT. They will due to limited options cross shop the Tesla 3 to the Bolt.
      To pull some interesting statements from the story, the author had the following to say:
      "I found it more fun to drive than both the Tesla Model S and the Model X, but not the original Roadster, a much smaller vehicle."
      "The Bolt is plenty fast for most people."
      "GM isn't going to overwhelm Tesla with Bolt sales. I actually think the Model 3 will greatly outsell the Bolt once Tesla's car arrives. However, it's also possible that if the Model 3 is delayed or is slow to ramp up, Chevy will be preparing a mid-cycle refresh of the Bolt before Model 3 sales start to achieve some major momentum. In other words, GM will always be ahead, and the company — barring another massive financial meltdown — will never stop putting the Bolt up against the Model 3."
      BI covered the BOLT in follow stories with the next one being more of an official review that starts off with covering the auto with the following statement: "A platform, not business as usual!" 
      From ride-hailing to ride-sharing, self driving Chevy has delivered an auto for the future that gives GM options on how they build and expand their EV lineup. BI took delivery of their white Premier BOLT just before the blizzard that hit NY. Clearly a compact-crossover-hatchback look, design is what the magazine employees felt it was and is. Surprising the BI reviewers was the amount of cargo the auto can hold and how well it handled 4 people and grocery getting. BI states that GM has told them the next addition to the BOLT lineup will be a larger auto that can accommodate 5 or more people. An exceptionally well executed minimalist design that comes with an interior that feels more premium in comparison to auto's this size in the past from GM that felt clearly parts bin cheap. The review goes on to talk about how setting the front seat for a 6'4" tall driver and getting in the back with room ahead of the knees for the same size person is a nice welcome addition to such a compact auto. Heated steering wheel was welcomed by all. Apple CarPlay and Android Auto kept everyone happily connected to their phone while driving.
      The final statement to quote from the review is as follows:
      "We were impressed with the Bolt, as a car, as an electric car, and as a mobility concept. In many ways, it is GM's post-bankruptcy masterpiece, a real feather in the cap of CEO Mary Barra and her executive team, who took what the company had achieved with its ill-fated EV-1 back in the 1990s and turned it up to 11. 
      I also flat-out loved driving it. I blasted in and out of New York City twice, rocketed around the streets of Gotham, darting through traffic, and cruised along the highways of New Jersey. I also enjoyed just driving it around the quiet streets of the suburb where I live.
      The steering is quick and responsive, and the handling is sharp enough to provide the confidence you need when surfing that sweet EV torque.
      The single-pedal mode is also very cool — I dug not using the brakes at all for extended excursions in my town. After a bit of practice, you get into a kind of Zen state with it. 
      Not a single person asked me about the car, and that can be chalked up to the ho-hum design. But I didn't care. I was lovin' it. Plain and simple, the Bolt is fun."
      Here is where we have overlap between story #2 and Story #3 which covers the 7 Killer Features:
      Dual Screens- 10.2" touch screen infotainment center & an 8" drivers console display which are totally customizable. Auto's wireless charging console. BOLT App allowing you to be connected to your auto at all times. Five cameras: front, rear, side mirrors and their 360 camera. 9hr full charge time from a 240 volt charger. 25 miles per hour, faster with Level 3 DC charging. Lane Keep assist feature. Modern Seat design allowing for maximum space inside. Over all these writeups show that GM has delivered a superior auto to the Prius, Leaf, 500e, etc. The future will be bright for the BOLT as GM move the platform forward.

      BI Story #1
      BI Story #2
      BI Story #3
    • By William Maley
      Last week saw the PSA Group (parent company of Citroen and Peugeot) purchasing Opel and Vauxhall from General Motors for $2.3 billion. This move would make the PSA Group the second-largest automaker in Europe. We already know some of the plans that PSA Group has for their new brands such as setting operating profit targets of 2 percent in 2020 (jumps to 6 percent by 2026) and the next-generation Opel/Vauxhall Corsa being the first new product developed with PSA. But as we alluded to in the original news story, there are a lot of questions that remain unanswered such as possible job cuts or what happens to Buick and Holden as they share products with Opel. I have been doing a bit of thinking on these and some other questions. The end result is this piece.
      1: Will there be job cuts and plant closures?
      In 2016, PSA Group employed 172,000 people worldwide. With the acquisition of Opel and Vauxhall, they will be adding close to 42,000 workers (the majority of those from Opel). The number of plants will also increase to 28 due to this purchase. Sooner or later, PSA Group is going have to make cuts. During the press conference announcing the deal, PSA Group CEO Carlos Tavares said the company “would honor existing labor agreements and closing plants is a “simplistic” solution.” That may be true for now, but this might change within the coming years. Some analysts believe PSA Group will close two to three plants within five years.
      The most likely place where the closures and layoffs could take place is in Great Britain. The reason as we talked about in a story back in February deals with the decision made by British citizens last year with leaving the European Union.
      “By leaving, the country would lose access to the EU Single Market which guarantees unconstrained trade across the member states. It would mean various countries would be leveraging tariffs on British-made goods, making production in the country less competitive.”
      Former British member of parliament and business secretary Sir Vincent Cable outlined how bad this decision looks for Vauxhall in a recent interview on BBC Radio 4.
      There could be a way that the British Government could at least stall the possible closures. Back in October, the British Government worked out a secret deal with Nissan to keep them investing in British car production at their plant in Sunderland. This deal caused an uproar as the details were kept as many believed the British Government would be handing over money to keep Nissan happy. But sources told British newspaper The Independent back in January that the deal had no mention of money.
      It could be that the British Government could do something similar for PSA Group to keep jobs, but it is too early to say if this will happen or not.
      2: Will this affect PSA’s plans of entering the U.S.?
      Probably not. Let’s remember that PSA Group is working through a ten-year plan that may or may not see the return of the Citroen and Peugeot, along with the introduction of DS to the country. Already, the first part of this plan is gearing up for the launch of a car sharing service next month. There is also extensive research going on into the U.S. marketplace. 
      But could there be a possibility of Opel or Vauxhall vehicles being sold here? It would not be surprising if there isn’t talk about this at PSA Group’s HQ. But there is a slight complication to this idea. As part of the sale, PSA Group cannot sell any Opel vehicles developed by GM anywhere in various markets outside of Europe (China and U.S. for example) until they transition to PSA platforms. That means a number of models such as the Astra, Insignia, and Mokka are out of the question for the time being. If Opel was chosen to be one of the brands PSA would sell in the U.S., they might not have a full line of vehicles to sell due to this clause.
      3: What does the future hold for Buick and Holden?
      If there are some losers from the sale of Opel, it has to Buick and Holden. Buick has found some success with Opel products as the Encore (rebadged Mokka) has become one the best-selling models for the brand. Holden is getting a shot in the arm as the Astra will hopefully help their fortunes in the compact space, and the new Commodore (rebadged Insignia) has a tough task ahead of it with living up to an iconic name. For the time being, Opel will continue supplying models to both brands. It is what happens in the future that many are concerned about.
      During the Geneva Motor Show, GM President Dan Ammann said something very interest to Australian journalists about the future of Holden’s products.
      This makes sense as the Astra was only launched and the Commodore is getting ready to go on sale. But I wouldn’t be surprised if talks begin very soon about this very topic. The same talks are likely to begin at Buick soon where they face the same issue for the Regal and Encore. Our hunch is Buick might have the easier time of two. The Encore would continue on since it shares the same platform as the Chevrolet Trax. As for the Regal, it could leave Buick’s lineup once the next-generation model runs its course.
      4: Does GM lose anything with this deal?
      There has been a lot of talk about how much money will be freed up from the sale of Opel/Vauxhall for GM, along with making a bit more profit. But it comes at a cost that could hurt GM down the road. The recent crop of compact and midsize sedans from GM owe a lot to Opel’s engineering knowledge. Vehicles that excel in driving dynamics and fuel economy are worth their weight in gold when it comes to the European marketplace. As we know, one part of why GM went into bankruptcy was the lack of competitive small and midsize cars that got good fuel economy. Opel would prove to be GM’s savior with this key knowledge.
      Right now, compacts and midsize sedans aren’t selling as consumers are directing their attention to crossovers and SUVs. This is due in part to lower gas prices. But sooner or later, the price of gas will go back up and cause many to go back to smaller vehicles. With talk about GM scaling back on their small and midsize car lineup, this decision could have consequences down the road. Plus with Opel out of the picture, GM doesn’t have someone it can rely on to get these models back to the forefront. We can hope GM’s North American office has learned some stuff when working with their European counterparts.
    • By William Maley
      Last week saw the PSA Group (parent company of Citroen and Peugeot) purchasing Opel and Vauxhall from General Motors for $2.3 billion. This move would make the PSA Group the second-largest automaker in Europe. We already know some of the plans that PSA Group has for their new brands such as setting operating profit targets of 2 percent in 2020 (jumps to 6 percent by 2026) and the next-generation Opel/Vauxhall Corsa being the first new product developed with PSA. But as we alluded to in the original news story, there are a lot of questions that remain unanswered such as possible job cuts or what happens to Buick and Holden as they share products with Opel. I have been doing a bit of thinking on these and some other questions. The end result is this piece.
      1: Will there be job cuts and plant closures?
      In 2016, PSA Group employed 172,000 people worldwide. With the acquisition of Opel and Vauxhall, they will be adding close to 42,000 workers (the majority of those from Opel). The number of plants will also increase to 28 due to this purchase. Sooner or later, PSA Group is going have to make cuts. During the press conference announcing the deal, PSA Group CEO Carlos Tavares said the company “would honor existing labor agreements and closing plants is a “simplistic” solution.” That may be true for now, but this might change within the coming years. Some analysts believe PSA Group will close two to three plants within five years.
      The most likely place where the closures and layoffs could take place is in Great Britain. The reason as we talked about in a story back in February deals with the decision made by British citizens last year with leaving the European Union.
      “By leaving, the country would lose access to the EU Single Market which guarantees unconstrained trade across the member states. It would mean various countries would be leveraging tariffs on British-made goods, making production in the country less competitive.”
      Former British member of parliament and business secretary Sir Vincent Cable outlined how bad this decision looks for Vauxhall in a recent interview on BBC Radio 4.
      There could be a way that the British Government could at least stall the possible closures. Back in October, the British Government worked out a secret deal with Nissan to keep them investing in British car production at their plant in Sunderland. This deal caused an uproar as the details were kept as many believed the British Government would be handing over money to keep Nissan happy. But sources told British newspaper The Independent back in January that the deal had no mention of money.
      It could be that the British Government could do something similar for PSA Group to keep jobs, but it is too early to say if this will happen or not.
      2: Will this affect PSA’s plans of entering the U.S.?
      Probably not. Let’s remember that PSA Group is working through a ten-year plan that may or may not see the return of the Citroen and Peugeot, along with the introduction of DS to the country. Already, the first part of this plan is gearing up for the launch of a car sharing service next month. There is also extensive research going on into the U.S. marketplace. 
      But could there be a possibility of Opel or Vauxhall vehicles being sold here? It would not be surprising if there isn’t talk about this at PSA Group’s HQ. But there is a slight complication to this idea. As part of the sale, PSA Group cannot sell any Opel vehicles developed by GM anywhere in various markets outside of Europe (China and U.S. for example) until they transition to PSA platforms. That means a number of models such as the Astra, Insignia, and Mokka are out of the question for the time being. If Opel was chosen to be one of the brands PSA would sell in the U.S., they might not have a full line of vehicles to sell due to this clause.
      3: What does the future hold for Buick and Holden?
      If there are some losers from the sale of Opel, it has to Buick and Holden. Buick has found some success with Opel products as the Encore (rebadged Mokka) has become one the best-selling models for the brand. Holden is getting a shot in the arm as the Astra will hopefully help their fortunes in the compact space, and the new Commodore (rebadged Insignia) has a tough task ahead of it with living up to an iconic name. For the time being, Opel will continue supplying models to both brands. It is what happens in the future that many are concerned about.
      During the Geneva Motor Show, GM President Dan Ammann said something very interest to Australian journalists about the future of Holden’s products.
      This makes sense as the Astra was only launched and the Commodore is getting ready to go on sale. But I wouldn’t be surprised if talks begin very soon about this very topic. The same talks are likely to begin at Buick soon where they face the same issue for the Regal and Encore. Our hunch is Buick might have the easier time of two. The Encore would continue on since it shares the same platform as the Chevrolet Trax. As for the Regal, it could leave Buick’s lineup once the next-generation model runs its course.
      4: Does GM lose anything with this deal?
      There has been a lot of talk about how much money will be freed up from the sale of Opel/Vauxhall for GM, along with making a bit more profit. But it comes at a cost that could hurt GM down the road. The recent crop of compact and midsize sedans from GM owe a lot to Opel’s engineering knowledge. Vehicles that excel in driving dynamics and fuel economy are worth their weight in gold when it comes to the European marketplace. As we know, one part of why GM went into bankruptcy was the lack of competitive small and midsize cars that got good fuel economy. Opel would prove to be GM’s savior with this key knowledge.
      Right now, compacts and midsize sedans aren’t selling as consumers are directing their attention to crossovers and SUVs. This is due in part to lower gas prices. But sooner or later, the price of gas will go back up and cause many to go back to smaller vehicles. With talk about GM scaling back on their small and midsize car lineup, this decision could have consequences down the road. Plus with Opel out of the picture, GM doesn’t have someone it can rely on to get these models back to the forefront. We can hope GM’s North American office has learned some stuff when working with their European counterparts.

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      General Motors seems being in a cutting mood as it drives to improve its profit margins and stock price. Last week saw the sale of Opel and Vauxhall to PSA Group and it's only the beginning said GM CEO Mary Barra.
      Automotive News reports that GM is considering reducing investments in North American cars and "select" international markets according to a chart that was shared during a conference call with analysts last week. The chart says these two earned a spot on the chopping block due to low profit potential and weak strength in franchises.
      "There's a little bit more work that we're doing in the international markets. Our overall philosophy is that every country, every market segment has to earn its cost of capital," Barra said on the conference call. 
      Barra and GM President Dan Ammann declined to go into details about these plans.
      GM has already made significant changes in terms of their international operations by ending or reducing operations Australia, Indonesia, Russia, and Thailand. The automaker has also scaled back plans in India. The comments made during the call suggest more cuts could take place here and possibly elsewhere.
      As for 'reducing investments in North American cars', this likely means GM is taking a hard look at various segments in passenger car segment. With consumers trending towards utility vehicles and trucks, sales of passenger cars have been falling precipitously. As of March 1st, dealers had four month's worth of inventory of cars, compared to an 81-day supply for light trucks and less than 60-days for full-size SUVs. GM could walk away from certain segments such as compacts or full-size sedans, or delay investments in certain models.
      These moves will allow GM to funnel money into models that make more money, and returning capital to shareholders.
      "That's an immediate opportunity for us to reward shareholders without changing the risk profile of the company or our ability to manage through a downturn," GM CFO Chuck Stevens said.
      Analysts are mixed on GM's plans.
      "It takes a lot of discipline to shift away from a volume-is-king kind of mentality," she said. "In the end, that's going to make a better GM -- a longer-standing company that's not only more profitable but more relevant," said Rebecca Lindland, a senior analyst with Kelley Blue Book to Automotive News.
      John Murphy, an analyst with Bank of America Merrill Lynch isn't so sure about this plan.
      "It appears that GM's recent decision-making has become much more short-term-focused and, in our opinion, could create challenges for the company in the coming years," Murphy wrote in a report.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      General Motors seems being in a cutting mood as it drives to improve its profit margins and stock price. Last week saw the sale of Opel and Vauxhall to PSA Group and it's only the beginning said GM CEO Mary Barra.
      Automotive News reports that GM is considering reducing investments in North American cars and "select" international markets according to a chart that was shared during a conference call with analysts last week. The chart says these two earned a spot on the chopping block due to low profit potential and weak strength in franchises.
      "There's a little bit more work that we're doing in the international markets. Our overall philosophy is that every country, every market segment has to earn its cost of capital," Barra said on the conference call. 
      Barra and GM President Dan Ammann declined to go into details about these plans.
      GM has already made significant changes in terms of their international operations by ending or reducing operations Australia, Indonesia, Russia, and Thailand. The automaker has also scaled back plans in India. The comments made during the call suggest more cuts could take place here and possibly elsewhere.
      As for 'reducing investments in North American cars', this likely means GM is taking a hard look at various segments in passenger car segment. With consumers trending towards utility vehicles and trucks, sales of passenger cars have been falling precipitously. As of March 1st, dealers had four month's worth of inventory of cars, compared to an 81-day supply for light trucks and less than 60-days for full-size SUVs. GM could walk away from certain segments such as compacts or full-size sedans, or delay investments in certain models.
      These moves will allow GM to funnel money into models that make more money, and returning capital to shareholders.
      "That's an immediate opportunity for us to reward shareholders without changing the risk profile of the company or our ability to manage through a downturn," GM CFO Chuck Stevens said.
      Analysts are mixed on GM's plans.
      "It takes a lot of discipline to shift away from a volume-is-king kind of mentality," she said. "In the end, that's going to make a better GM -- a longer-standing company that's not only more profitable but more relevant," said Rebecca Lindland, a senior analyst with Kelley Blue Book to Automotive News.
      John Murphy, an analyst with Bank of America Merrill Lynch isn't so sure about this plan.
      "It appears that GM's recent decision-making has become much more short-term-focused and, in our opinion, could create challenges for the company in the coming years," Murphy wrote in a report.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)