Jump to content
Create New...
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    General Motors Announces Job Cuts and Plant Shutdowns in North America

      Five factories are on the chopping block


    This morning, General Motors announced an overhaul of its operations in 2019 which will involve cutting more than 10,000 workers and possibly closing five plants by the end of the year. GM said the cuts should boost cash flow by six billion by the end of 2020.

    “The actions we are taking today continue our transformation to be highly agile, resilient and profitable, while giving us the flexibility to invest in the future. We recognize the need to stay in front of changing market conditions and customer preferences to position our company for long-term success,” said GM Chairman and CEO Mary Barra in a statement.

    The plants up for possible closure are,

    • Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly in Michigan - Home to Buick LaCrosse, Cadillac CT6, Chevrolet Impala, and Chevrolet Volt.
    • Lordstown Assembly in Ohio - Home to Chevrolet Cruze.
    • Oshawa Assembly in Ontario, Canada - Home to Cadillac XTS, Chevrolet Impala, and finishing production of last-generation Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra
    • Baltimore Operations in Maryland (Propulsion)
    • Warren Transmission Operations in Michigan

    Hints of this announcement came out last night when reports from CTV and The Globe and Mail in Canada reported the closure of Oshawa.

    The plant closures also mean a number of models being dropped - including the LaCrosse, CT6, Impala, and Volt. The Cruze will be built in Mexico for other markets.

    It was expected GM was going to make some changes to address the underutilization of its plants. Dara from the Center for Automotive Research says GM represents 1 million of the 3.2 million units of underutilized capacity in the U.S. through October.

    This announcement comes on the eve of negotiations with the UAW next year and Unifor in 2020. The UAW has announced that it will challenge GM's decision "through every legal, contractual and collective bargaining avenue open to our membership."

    The announcement has brought pushback from politicians. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expressed "deep disappointment" with the decision. U.S. Senator Rob Portman, a Republican from Ohio express frustration with the possible shutdown of Lordstown.

    One group not disappointed with the news is Wall Street. GM stock rose 6.18 percent to $38.00 per share at the time of this writing.

    Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), Bloomberg, Reuters, Twitter, General Motors


    General Motors Accelerates Transformation

    • Transforming the global enterprise to advance the company’s vision of Zero Crashes, Zero Emissions, Zero Congestion
    • Taking cost actions and optimizing capital expenditures to drive annual run-rate cash savings of approximately $6 billion by year-end 2020

    DETROIT – General Motors (NYSE: GM) will accelerate its transformation for the future, building on the comprehensive strategy it laid out in 2015 to strengthen its core business, capitalize on the future of personal mobility and drive significant cost efficiencies.

    Today, GM is continuing to take proactive steps to improve overall business performance including the reorganization of its global product development staffs, the realignment of its manufacturing capacity and a reduction of salaried workforce. These actions are expected to increase annual adjusted automotive free cash flow by $6 billion by year-end 2020 on a run-rate basis.

    “The actions we are taking today continue our transformation to be highly agile, resilient and profitable, while giving us the flexibility to invest in the future,” said GM Chairman and CEO Mary Barra. “We recognize the need to stay in front of changing market conditions and customer preferences to position our company for long-term success.”

    Contributing to the cash savings of approximately $6 billion are cost reductions of $4.5 billion and a lower capital expenditure annual run rate of almost $1.5 billion. The actions include:

    • Transforming product development – GM is evolving its global product development workforce and processes to drive world-class levels of engineering in advanced technologies, and to improve quality and speed to market. Resources allocated to electric and autonomous vehicle programs will double in the next two years. Additional actions include:
      • Increasing high-quality component sharing across the portfolio, especially those not visible and perceptible to customers.
      • Expanding the use of virtual tools to lower development time and costs.
      • Integrating its vehicle and propulsion engineering teams.
      • Compressing its global product development campuses.
    • Optimizing product portfolio – GM has recently invested in newer, highly efficient vehicle architectures, especially in trucks, crossovers and SUVs. GM now intends to prioritize future vehicle investments in its next-generation battery-electric architectures. As the current vehicle portfolio is optimized, it is expected that more than 75 percent of GM’s global sales volume will come from five vehicle architectures by early next decade.
    • Increasing capacity utilization – In the past four years, GM has refocused capital and resources to support the growth of its crossovers, SUVs and trucks, adding shifts and investing $6.6 billion in U.S. plants that have created or maintained 17,600 jobs. With changing customer preferences in the U.S. and in response to market-related volume declines in cars, future products will be allocated to fewer plants next year.
      • Assembly plants that will be unallocated in 2019 include:
        • Oshawa Assembly in Oshawa, Ontario, Canada.
        • Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly in Detroit.
        • Lordstown Assembly in Warren, Ohio.
      • Propulsion plants that will be unallocated in 2019 include:
        • Baltimore Operations in White Marsh, Maryland.
        • Warren Transmission Operations in Warren, Michigan.

    In addition to the previously announced closure of the assembly plant in Gunsan, Korea, GM will cease the operations of two additional plants outside North America by the end of 2019.

    These manufacturing actions are expected to significantly increase capacity utilization. To further enhance business performance, GM will continue working to improve other manufacturing costs, productivity and the competitiveness of wages and benefits.

    • Staffing transformation – The company is transforming its global workforce to ensure it has the right skill sets for today and the future, while driving efficiencies through the utilization of best-in-class tools. Actions are being taken to reduce salaried and salaried contract staff by 15 percent, which includes 25 percent fewer executives to streamline decision making.

    Barra added, “These actions will increase the long-term profit and cash generation potential of the company and improve resilience through the cycle.”

    GM expects to fund the restructuring costs through a new credit facility that will further improve the company’s strong liquidity position and enhance its financial flexibility.

    GM expects to record pre-tax charges of $3.0 billion to $3.8 billion related to these actions, including up to $1.8 billion of non-cash accelerated asset write-downs and pension charges, and up to $2.0 billion of employee-related and other cash-based expenses. The majority of these charges will be considered special for EBIT-adjusted, EPS diluted-adjusted and adjusted automotive free cash flow purposes. The majority of these charges will be incurred in the fourth quarter of 2018 and first quarter of 2019, with some additional costs incurred through the remainder of 2019. 

    Edited by William Maley

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    1 hour ago, dfelt said:

    I TOTALLY AGREE with you about the trade, we have not had free equal trade in generations, politicians have always looked out for their own self interest, not that of this country or the citizens. If they did this, we would have proper control over the craziness of gun ownership and idiots that use them to hurt innocent civilians. To correct this we need level heads with negotiation skills, not bankruptcy manipulation skills of the current leadership. 

    In regards to your last paragraph, I will say that we agree to disagree on some points, I still believe you can have a free trade system that also is balanced with a fair minimum wage to get kids some work experience, not this crap living wage of San Francisco. I believe you can have a decent living standard for workers with Free Trade...

    FREE TRADE = SUICIDE
    --
    Countries can make things or buy them from other countries. A country like the USA – with a lot of land, resources, technology and people – can make everything that we need and want. However, for many things it is cheaper to buy from other countries than to make it ourselves. This is because American workers get paid more, and because we have costly social and environmental standards. Let’s get one thing straight… it will always cost less for the USA buy rather than to make most things as long as there are countries in the world where workers make peanuts, while our social and environmental concerns are laughed at.
    --
    When we buy more from other countries than sell to them, it is called a TRADE DEFICIT – an outflow of wealth from our country to others. Right now that stands at about $800 billion every year – eight hundred thousand million dollars with eleven zeroes – a figure greater than we spend on defense, education and infrastructure combined. What that means is that $800 billion worth of stuff are not being made in the USA, tens of millions of workers in other countries are employed to make this stuff and tens of millions of workers in the USA are not. If we keep having a massive trade deficit, sooner or later we’ll run out of money to pay other countries for our favorite stuff.
    --
    With Free Trade we will continue to have massive deficits and lose the ability to make most of the things we enjoy in life. It will NEVER END until wage, social and environmental differences in the world are equalized. With Free Trade we’ll enrich developing nations and transfer to them the wealth past generations had built up in affluent nations. There is no country in existence today, or throughout the annals of history, with consistently high deficits that isn't in decline, and there isn't a country with consistent surpluses that isn't in ascension. That is why FREE TRADE IS SUICIDE!
    --
    Let's set aside subjective opinions on the style and methods of the Trump Administration for a minute. The fact is that it is a good thing that we renegotiated NAFTA to include the most important thing -- an elimination of low wage motivation to move production to Mexico in form of the tax free nature of automotive and auto parts imports being conditional on a $16/hr wage floor in the factories that make them. This stops the bleeding of US industry to Mexico. It is also good that we say no to China which taxes our exports 25~40% whereas we tax theirs at 2.5%, not to mention the state sponsored dumping to kill off major US industries and the exploitation of easily pirated intellectual property. The EU is next and you cannot convince me that the current agreements with the USA taxing German automobiles at 2.8% while the EU taxes ours at 10% is a reasonable deal.
    --
    I am not a believer in Free Trade -- not for affluent, developed, countries anyway. I am a believer in Mercantilism where the objective is not to maximize trade volume or minimize consumer goods prices, but rather to generate a trade surplus or at least achieve a net balanced in trade flow. I believe that tariffs should be high with countries with whom we have a deficit and zero with countries with whom we do not.

    Edited by dwightlooi
    • Thanks 1
    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 hours ago, ccap41 said:

    I wasn't relying strictly on CARGO volume but total volume behind the driver's seat, which includes the 2nd row of seats. 

    Dude U are relying on anything U can to try and belittle a GM vehicle U haven't even seen in the metal yet..let alone driven of checked out. 

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

     how can you justify economic suicide in rejecting the most reliable, most (currently) available energy sources for dubiously green and exorbitant energy?

    #3 is the only one I have to call U out on..  All of the aforementioned stuff aside.. how can U, even as an obvious conservative justify staying that we really shouldn't already be embracing and mass producing alternative transportation modes, moving from a 100+ year fossil fuel addiction that will eventually run out? Gas/diesel is dirty.. its inefficient.. its hot. EV is clean.. cool... and very efficient.. The efficiency is even clearly evident in the fact that its power and torque is ready from 1 RPM.. vs having to turn the engine to the 1000s to really see true power

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    52 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

    Dude U are relying on anything U can to try and belittle a GM vehicle U haven't even seen in the metal yet..let alone driven of checked out. 

    Why do you take anything that isn't blind brand humping as an attempt to belittle them? 

    Those are facts. There is less interior volume behind the driver's seat. That's weird to me for a vehicle this size and it's also weird to others here as well. Are they just attempting to belittle GM? Get pissy with them too.

    Looking at them in person does not change facts about a vehicle. That is why they are facts. 

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    37 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

    Why do you take anything that isn't blind brand humping as an attempt to belittle them? 

    Those are facts. There is less interior volume behind the driver's seat. That's weird to me for a vehicle this size and it's also weird to others here as well. Are they just attempting to belittle GM? Get pissy with them too.

    Looking at them in person does not change facts about a vehicle. That is why they are facts. 

    Agree with you here. Although I do kind of like both the Blazer and the Aviator. I have been feeling kind of hostile (or extremely hostile, to be honest) about our domestic OEMs...both the Blazer and aviator are a breath of fresh air IMHO. 

    1 hour ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

    Dude U are relying on anything U can to try and belittle a GM vehicle U haven't even seen in the metal yet..let alone driven of checked out. 

    He is indeed  free though not to like it for whatever reason. 
    To me, I find the styling on the Blazer a major plus. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    32 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

    Why do you take anything that isn't blind brand humping as an attempt to belittle them? 

    Those are facts. There is less interior volume behind the driver's seat. That's weird to me for a vehicle this size and it's also weird to others here as well. Are they just attempting to belittle GM? Get pissy with them too.

    Looking at them in person does not change facts about a vehicle. That is why they are facts. 

    Cause U are and have always been a hater.. But.. regardless.. its like rationale and reality completely go over your head... cargo space is measured not only lengthwise but width and HEIGHT. WTF!!! would this Blazer, sleek as a mofo in the rear (because we enthusiasts asked Chevy to make a SPORTY SUV and they did) not have a lil less room than say the upcoming Passport which is about as sporty looking as a Subaru Forester.. a possible donor to the whole design of the Honda. The Equinox also has a less Sporty (than Blazer) cargo area design. 

    2018-Chevrolet-Equinox-side-view.jpg

    2019-Chevrolet-Blazer-001-1-980x620.jpg

    2019-honda-passport.jpg661419d474b0c6900f8c619c15e0579d

    • Haha 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

    sleek as a mofo in the rear (because we enthusiasts asked Chevy to make a SPORTY SUV and they did)

    They made one LOOK sporty. They didn't actually make a sporty SUV. 

    3 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

    Blazer is by far the best looking of the above vehicles. 

    Absolutely but it should be compared to vehicles like the Grand Cherokee, Edge, 4Runner, and Murano.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 minute ago, dwightlooi said:

    Because...

    #1 Fossil Fuel has not run out, is not about to run out and the USA has just become the largest producer of coal, oil and gas.

    #2 I have no problems with alternative energies. I do have a problem with the fraudulent claims of androgenic climate change and in subsidizing renewable alternatives that are unaffordable and which has no chance of replacing mankind's energy demands today much less in the future. At some point, fossil fuels will become sufficiently expensive that alternatives will make economic sense. That point is not today or in the forseeable decades ahead. There is no need to subsidize or accelerate that process while rejecting cheap and plentiful energy which we currently have access to!

    #3 I have always said that Hybrid cars like the Prius do not make economic sense. They do not make economic sense because the premium of the hybrid drive train (~$4,500) will take about 13.5 years to recoup via the fuel savings over a comparably sized, equipped and performing ICE powered car. This is longer than the expected life of the battery, hence not one penny will be saved. If driving one makes you feel better or more popular with "green" friends, all the power to you and you should get one. But I do not want to pay taxes to subsidize your purchase.

    #4 I have always said that Battery Electric is the ultimately the future for ground transportation (we'll still burn hydrocarbon combustibles in aviation, be it drilled or farmed). I defer from the tree huggers in that I see Nuclear Power as the future of electric generation, not solar, not wind and certainly not farmed Ethanol. However, I am also pointing out that TODAY the cost of the battery is equivalent to the fuel cost of a 30 mpg car over 125,000 miles; not counting the cost of electricity. I see no imperative to accelerate the adoption of battery-electric transportation, because I am not a subscriber to the Global Warming nonsense and I see no economic advantages to doing so.

    It is seriously estimated that there is about 52 years left.. that's 2070.. oil reserves left on the Planet Earth. Yes.. we have a little time base don current world population.. but what happens if population explodes again.. or there is a massive war? Why are we considering or even talking about neglecting a move into alternative propulsion systems? Furthermore.. where's the harm unless U are a lobbyist or employee of Exxon-Mobil and the like? If still If GM is the only company that breaks away from oil based cars.. which I still don't see happening for more than 20% of their line-up..  for at least another 10-15 years based on their current rate of movement.. then so be it.. U still have many other companies that will gladly continue building liquid fuel consuming ICEs.

    I am no tree hugger by any means.. and wouldn't consider a f@#kin Prius if my life depended on it.. I'm a known car guy.. and high horsepower gas drinkers are my goto..  with 2 S/C V8 cars, and 2 NA V8s in my stable.. 

    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    5 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

    They made one LOOK sporty. They didn't actually make a sporty SUV. 

    Far as I have heard its pretty sporty.. Strong V6 engine with over 305HP and maxing out at 4200lbs. The platform is known to be a great handler.. and even against the GC 360hp V8, which comes in at 800lbs more.. the Blazer should be able to run well against it.

    5 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

    Absolutely but it should be compared to vehicles like the Grand Cherokee, Edge, 4Runner, and Murano.

     

    • Haha 1
    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    6 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

    It is seriously estimated that there is about 52 years left.. that's 2070.. oil reserves left on the Planet Earth.

    That estimation was around since 90's which was 20 years ago.  By that calculation we have only 30 years left.  I think they full of crap.

    However, I am all for electrics because they are much more efficient than ICE and capable of great power.   The two biggest problems are the batteries and the electricity supply.  It is been said many times that current batteries use rare earth elements that are produced with great pollution and damage to environment, and they have very limited life span and long recharge cycle.  The second issue is that our power grid is not capable to support at the moment a great increase in electric power consumption if the electric vehicles will explode and become truly mass market.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

    It is seriously estimated that there is about 52 years left.. that's 2070.. oil reserves left on the Planet Earth. Yes.. we have a little time base don current world population.. but what happens if population explodes again.. or there is a massive war? Why are we considering or even talking about neglecting a move into alternative propulsion systems? Furthermore.. where's the harm unless U are a lobbyist or employee of Exxon-Mobil and the like? If still If GM is the only company that breaks away from oil based cars.. which I still don't see happening for more than 20% of their line-up..  for at least another 10-15 years based on their current rate of movement.. then so be it.. U still have many other companies that will gladly continue building liquid fuel consuming ICEs.

    I am no tree hugger by any means.. and wouldn't consider a f@#kin Prius if my life depended on it.. I'm a known car guy.. and high horsepower gas drinkers are my goto..  with 2 S/C V8 cars, and 2 NA V8s in my stable.. 

    They were saying that 50 years ago. The fact is that the math doesn't add up. US production has doubled from 1.8 billion barrels a year to 3.6 billion a year. Yet, US oil reserves had more than DOUBLED in the last decade from 20 billion barrels to 45 billion barrels meaning that they are finding a lot more oil than they are pumping despite the doubling of production rates during the same period.

    Oil will never just run out one day. That is not how it works. The way it works is that the easily to drill for reserves will be gradually depleted and more and more of the production will come from hard to get to reserves which progressively increases the price of oil and gas. This will in part be offset by advancement in technologies like hydraulic fracking, horizontal drilling and deep sea drilling. 500 years from now there will still be oil available, it'll just be stuff that is really deep in the oceans or small pockets under hills and mountains and the like. And, it'll still be drilled for for applications for in some quantity or another.

    The point is that there is no need to force fuel economy or electrification on the public. If and when oil gets to and stays at about $200 a barrel or more, the alternatives will start to make sense. If there is demand for 60 mpg cars at a $20,000 premium, manufacturers will make them within one or two product cycles. If batteries are cheap enough and/or the price of gas is high enough, people will naturally adopt electric vehicles and put up with the inability to refuel in 5 minutes.

    Turning your argument back on you, unless you are a beneficiary of Global Warming scams like carbon exchanges and lobbyists for corporate welfare concerns like Solar Manufacturers or Wind Turbine vendors, why will you be opposed to the natural and market driven evolution of energy sources?

    • Thanks 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    None of this has anything to do with people buying Traverses instead of Impalas.  The market is driving these cuts.  People don't want to drive anymore because it is such a chore. They would rather Uber or Lyft and play on their smartphone while someone else drives. 

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    21 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    None of this has anything to do with people buying Traverses instead of Impalas.  The market is driving these cuts.  People don't want to drive anymore because it is such a chore. They would rather Uber or Lyft and play on their smartphone while someone else drives.  

    Uber and Lyft has nothing to do with it. Uber and Lyft drivers need to buy vehicles too. There is certainly a trend towards high hip points and a vertical and upright seating position. The problem I see here is GM's over proliferation of models. There is really no justification for a Spark, a Sonic, a Cruze, a Malibu and an Impala. Unfortunately, I think they made the wrong call on the models to keep. Keeping the Cruze and the Impala for a compact and a full size would be a better bet. There is no reason the Impala has to be more expensive than the Malibu. Size doesn't really cost money. Equipment costs money.

    One of the criticism I had for GM was their march towards low displacement, turbocharged engines. if fuel economy is the goal, a better approach is not the 1.4L (now 1.5L) fours. If that is the goal, a 2.5L Aktinson cammed SOHC 2-valve four will make the same 150hp / 170 lb-ft with equivalent or better mpg numbers without the cost of the turbocharger or its intercooler. Basically, what you are doing is keeping the power stroke but throwing away about 25% of the compression stroke (hence effective displacement) with late closure of the intake valves. Since you are also not going for high revs or specific output, an SOHC 2-valve head will not only cost less, but generate less frictional losses. Displacement doesn't cost money; complexity costs money. Displacement doesn't equal gas usage either; power output equals gas usage (at least when it is making power).

    Edited by dwightlooi
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    52 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

    They were saying that 50 years ago. The fact is that the math doesn't add up. US production has doubled from 1.8 billion barrels a year to 3.6 billion a year. Yet, US oil reserves had more than DOUBLED in the last decade from 20 billion barrels to 45 billion barrels meaning that they are finding a lot more oil than they are pumping despite the doubling of production rates during the same period.

    Oil will never just run out one day. That is not how it works. The way it works is that the easily to drill for reserves will be gradually depleted and more and more of the production will come from hard to get to reserves which progressively increases the price of oil and gas. This will in part be offset by advancement in technologies like hydraulic fracking, horizontal drilling and deep sea drilling. 500 years from now there will still be oil available, it'll just be stuff that is really deep in the oceans or small pockets under hills and mountains and the like. And, it'll still be drilled for for applications for in some quantity or another.

    The point is that there is no need to force fuel economy or electrification on the public. If and when oil gets to and stays at about $200 a barrel or more, the alternatives will start to make sense. If there is demand for 60 mpg cars at a $20,000 premium, manufacturers will make them within one or two product cycles. If batteries are cheap enough and/or the price of gas is high enough, people will naturally adopt electric vehicles and put up with the inability to refuel in 5 minutes.

    Turning your argument back on you, unless you are a beneficiary of Global Warming scams like carbon exchanges and lobbyists for corporate welfare concerns like Solar Manufacturers or Wind Turbine vendors, why will you be opposed to the natural and market driven evolution of energy sources?

    I'm not opposed to any of those things for the sake of self gain.. but only a fool will argue that there is no negative aspects to continuing a reliance on fossil fuels. It could easily be argued tho that U are certainly more in league with such conservative organizations than I with any liberal ones. Like, for instance, I own plenty of firearms , and support the 2nd... but I don't need to go around announcing on a car forum that "I'm the NRA." 

    Back to the negative aspects of oil.. drilling for one.. Continuous drilling leads to other problems. Its been seriously discussed by leading scientists that continuous drilling, fracking etc.. are part of the reason why we may be speeding up plate shifts in the Earths outer crust
     

    • Haha 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Just now, dwightlooi said:

    Uber and Lyft has nothing to do with it. Uber and Lyft drivers need buy vehicles too. There is certainly a trend towards high hip points and a vertical and upright seating position. The problem I see here is GM's over proliferation of models. There is really no justification for a Spark, Sonic, a Cruze, a Malibu and an Impala. Unfortunately, I think they made the wrong call on the models to keep. Keeping the Cruze and the Impala for a compact and a full size would be a better bet. There is no reason the Impala has to be more expensive than the Malibu. Size doesn't really cost money. Equipment costs money.

    One of the criticism I had for GM was their march towards low displacement, turbocharged engines. if fuel economy is the goal, a better approach is not the 1.4L (now 1.5L) fours. If that is the goal, a 2.5L Aktinson cammed SOHC 2-valve four will make the same 150hp / 170 lb-ft with equivalent or better mpg numbers without the cost of the turbocharger or its intercooler. Basically, what you are doing is keeping the power stroke but throwing away about 25% of the compression stroke with late closure of the intake valves. Since you are also not going for high revs or specific output, an SOHC 2-valve head will not only cost less, but generate less frictional losses. Displacement doesn't cost money; complexity costs money. Displacement doesn't equal gas usage either; power output equals gas usage (at least when it is making power).

    I agree with all of what you said about displacement. I don't care for small displacement turbo engine either.

    but I'm trying to keep this thread on topic.... 

    Uber and Lyft drivers do need cars too... but they need fewer cars to service their customers than their customers would if each one bought a car.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    12 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

    Uber and Lyft has nothing to do with it. Uber and Lyft drivers need to buy vehicles too. There is certainly a trend towards high hip points and a vertical and upright seating position. The problem I see here is GM's over proliferation of models. There is really no justification for a Spark, a Sonic, a Cruze, a Malibu and an Impala. Unfortunately, I think they made the wrong call on the models to keep. Keeping the Cruze and the Impala for a compact and a full size would be a better bet. There is no reason the Impala has to be more expensive than the Malibu. Size doesn't really cost money. Equipment costs money.

     

    OK>.. finally I can agree to some degree.. THERE NEVER WAS A JUSTIFICATION for Spark, a Sonic, a Cruze, AND VOLT, a Malibu and an Impala.. AND SS. Some one should have proposed 7 years ago that the drawing board should show a Sonic (replacement for the sub-compact Aveo) should be the book end of the car spectrum.. no Spark.. with the TRAX as a Sonic CUV. The CRUZE should have been a Cruze and a Cruze PHEV. The Malibu was fine.. and the Impala and SS should have been a singular car for all intents a Pontiac G8 CLONE (all available HP levels of the Pontiac) on Alpha-L starting in 2014 with the debut of the CTS or on Ep2Premium (XTS-LaX) with available AWD like those two models.. while for the SS model have the LGX detuned for the sake of argument to 380HP. Size cost money due to perception and maximizing profits. In truth.. the Impala, LaX, and XTS are profitable.. but not as profitable without the XTS. 

    Edited by Cmicasa the Great
    • Agree 3
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    @dwightlooi Welcome back again,

    So then we should cut off all of the $88 billion in subsidies the oil companies get here in the US and let natural market dynamics take their place and see the gas prices rise then.

    https://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/09/report-shows-oil-industry-benefits-5-3-trillion-subsidies-annually.html

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surprising-reason-that-oil-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/#112e41f53279

    https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

    Depending on how you want to view it, we subsidies OIL companies still, so why not electric auto's?

    Benefit here is as @Drew Dowdell has pointed out in regards to Uber and Lyft.

    We will not see ICE auto's go away, but there is no reason to NOT move to cleaner, quieter auto's especially for inner city use over the worst polluters, Diesel and old gas auto's.

    • Thanks 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    But why cut ~15,000 jobs?

    I think this is more staging for negotiations with the UAW. GM has also since stated that most will probably get reallocated to other assembly lines where they need additional hands as they idle these plants.

    I also think this is a way to force re-education of job skills and pay as GM moves towards a larger EV product line.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    I agree with all of what you said about displacement. I don't care for small displacement turbo engine either.

    but I'm trying to keep this thread on topic.... 

    Uber and Lyft drivers do need cars too... but they need fewer cars to service their customers than their customers would if each one bought a car.  

    Actually, that is not true on two levels. #1 the total demand for vehicles have not declined. #2 the demand for passenger cars (as opposed to light trunks and SUVs) declining cannot be attributed to Uber or Lyft. The fact is that city dwellers have been major users of public transportation and taxi cabs. People who commute with cars don;t replace it with commuting with Uber or Lyft.

    1 hour ago, dfelt said:

    I think this is more staging for negotiations with the UAW. GM has also since stated that most will probably get reallocated to other assembly lines where they need additional hands as they idle these plants.

    I also think this is a way to force re-education of job skills and pay as GM moves towards a larger EV product line.

    Because the UAW contract is expiring next year in April (why do you think they are shutting down in April not now and not September or any other month? Because Mary Barra is smart and is trying to negotiate from a position of strength.

    From a practical standpoint, those same plants can be building the SUVs currently being built in Mexico or is slated to be built in Mexico. Depending on tariffs and tax breaks (State Level) that may indeed become a consideration.

    1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    But why cut ~15,000 jobs?

    Because over capacity and idle payroll costs money for no good reason?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, dfelt said:

    @dwightlooi Welcome back again,

    So then we should cut off all of the $88 billion in subsidies the oil companies get here in the US and let natural market dynamics take their place and see the gas prices rise then.

    https://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/09/report-shows-oil-industry-benefits-5-3-trillion-subsidies-annually.html

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surprising-reason-that-oil-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/#112e41f53279

    https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

    Depending on how you want to view it, we subsidies OIL companies still, so why not electric auto's?

    Benefit here is as @Drew Dowdell has pointed out in regards to Uber and Lyft.

    We will not see ICE auto's go away, but there is no reason to NOT move to cleaner, quieter auto's especially for inner city use over the worst polluters, Diesel and old gas auto's.

    Except we don't actually subsidize Oil Producers. Allowing them to depreciate their assets sooner, deduct exploration expenses or otherwise pay less taxes is not really a subsidy is it? Part of the reason is that the USA is matching the lower tax burden of foreign oil producers so as to encourage domestic production for the sake of energy independence and reduced trade deficits. You actually have to turn a profit to pay less taxes.

    Put simply, there is a huge difference between me giving you a check for $100,000 and giving you the ability to pay $100,000 less taxes. In order for you to take that $100,000 in tax deductions you must actually have been earning enough money to pay more than $100,000 in taxes. It is actually your money that you earned, I am simply allowing you to keep more of it.

    If you operate a hotdog stand and make $50 a day and paying $15 in taxes. I can give you a $1million tax break and you are not going to benefit by more than $15. More importantly, you need to actually make money with your hotdog stand and sell hot dogs that people actually want to eat. If you are losing $20 a day, no amount of tax credit or break do you any good!

    Edited by dwightlooi
    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 hours ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

    I'm not opposed to any of those things for the sake of self gain.. but only a fool will argue that there is no negative aspects to continuing a reliance on fossil fuels. It could easily be argued tho that U are certainly more in league with such conservative organizations than I with any liberal ones. Like, for instance, I own plenty of firearms , and support the 2nd... but I don't need to go around announcing on a car forum that "I'm the NRA." 

    Back to the negative aspects of oil.. drilling for one.. Continuous drilling leads to other problems. Its been seriously discussed by leading scientists that continuous drilling, fracking etc.. are part of the reason why we may be speeding up plate shifts in the Earths outer crust
     

    I'll say that our air quality has never been better and since I do not buy into androgenic climate change I do not see any reason to refrain from fossil fuel use or to regulate carbon emissions. Let the Europeans be the idiots. We'll reap the economic benefits of cheaper and more reliable energy. I am not convinced that we have the evidence to suggest that oil production or fracking has ANY effect on plat tectonics. In fact, I find the idea laughable. You do realize that oil wells and all the fracking are about 1 to 2 km deep, whereas continental crusts are about 40~70 km thick right?

    I think they pulled that photo from my Facebook profile... I have no problems with it so I never thought to change it.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    55 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

    I'll say that our air quality has never been better and since I do not buy into androgenic climate change I do not see any reason to refrain from fossil fuel use or to regulate carbon emissions. Let the Europeans be the idiots. We'll reap the economic benefits of cheaper and more reliable energy. I am not convinced that we have the evidence to suggest that oil production or fracking has ANY effect on plat tectonics. In fact, I find the idea laughable. You do realize that oil wells and all the fracking are about 1 to 2 km deep, whereas continental crusts are about 40~70 km thick right?

    I think they pulled that photo from my Facebook profile... I have no problems with it so I never thought to change it.

    Plenty of news and science to go with this, but while a portion of wells are shallow, there are many that are much deeper and an example is Oklahoma. No earthquakes before deep fracking and now enough study's have been done that the research does verify that fracking is causing the hundreds of earthquakes that Oklahoma is now getting.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-27/oklahoma-toughens-oil-fracking-rules-as-shale-earthquakes-climb

    In regards to the Oil industry, yes they get trillions in tax breaks but they also do take subsidies. Oil industry companies here in the US took $88 billion in tax payers money and so far I have not seen any oil company such as Exxon Mobil who made who made $52 billion profit on $244 billion in sales for 2017 turn down the billions given to them by the gov. I realize that some companies get more than others and the biggest ones get the least, but plenty of countries subsidize oil / gas including the US. So in fairness we either subsidize both electric and gas auto's or we do none. 

    I am fine with none. Use the money to shore up SS.

    I honestly do not think GM will shrink long term in regards to their head count. They have thousands of openings in self driving to all things EV. I see no reason for those in the plants being mothballed from getting jobs at other plants or taking advantage of their retraining to get new skills and still end up working for GM or any other auto company.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    9 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

    I'll say that our air quality has never been better and since I do not buy into androgenic climate change I do not see any reason to refrain from fossil fuel use or to regulate carbon emissions. Let the Europeans be the idiots. We'll reap the economic benefits of cheaper and more reliable energy. I am not convinced that we have the evidence to suggest that oil production or fracking has ANY effect on plat tectonics. In fact, I find the idea laughable. You do realize that oil wells and all the fracking are about 1 to 2 km deep, whereas continental crusts are about 40~70 km thick right?

    I think they pulled that photo from my Facebook profile... I have no problems with it so I never thought to change it.

    Annnnnnnd THAT'S where I stopped. U are full of information Dwight, but unfortunately talking to U is like talking to the Saints and they don't recognize that Cowboys have Defense. U are one sided.. and that's not a true sign of knowing

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    6 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    Try to get this back on the topic of GM cuts. 

    Agree. 

    I actually see this as a good thing in many ways. Stop building cars you are not passionate about. GM has not been passionate about small cars in its 60 plus year history of building them.  Saturn never made a dime for them. Corvair was a public relations disaster. Cavalier seems to have been un-sexy enough to induce involuntary celibacy into every owner who bought one, save one member here who owns one and has a son.  Cobalt lacked the styling and finesse of its competition. The current Cruze falls light years behind the Mazda 3, Civic, Golf, Imprezza, and Hundai offering. 

    2 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

    Annnnnnnd THAT'S where I stopped. U are full of information Dwight, but unfortunately talking to U is like talking to the Saints and they don't recognize that Cowboys have Defense. U are one sided.. and that's not a true sign of knowing

    Off topic again...I really like you...please...please...please tell me you are not a Dallas fan.  Please. 

    • Haha 2
    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    32 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

    Stop building cars you are not passionate about. GM has not been passionate about small cars in its 60 plus year history of building them.  Corvair was a public relations disaster.

    There's no way one can rightfully claim GM was 'not passionate' about an air-cooled, rear-engined full line of small cars AND trucks that introduced (along with the Olds Jetfire) now-ubitquitous turbochargers (and was one of the very early bucket seat cars too) to the market, and kept being marketed another 3 years past 1 book that was published in '65 and only succumbed to a changing market (musclecars). The 3rd generation had a ton of development work going before the project was shelved, so they didn't give up in '65, either. The Corvair may be the most passionate, dedicated small car project in history.

    Edited by balthazar
    • Like 1
    • Haha 3
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    43 minutes ago, balthazar said:

    There's no way one can rightfully claim GM was 'not passionate' about an air-cooled, rear-engined full line of small cars AND trucks that introduced (along with the Olds Jetfire) now-ubitquitous turbochargers (and was one of the very early bucket seat cars too) to the market, and kept being marketed another 3 years past 1 book that was published in '65 and only succumbed to a changing market (musclecars). The 3rd generation had a ton of development work going before the project was shelved, so they didn't give up in '65, either. The Corvair may be the most passionate, dedicated small car project in history.

    Assuming that was so, explain the 1971 Chevy Vega.

    • Haha 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    5 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

    Assuming that was so, explain the 1971 Chevy Vega.

    Or the '62 Chevy II Nova.   It was rushed to market since the Corvair wasn't cutting it, is what I've read.  The Corvair was an expensive failure for GM.  

    Edited by Robert Hall
    • Like 1
    • Agree 1
    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    7 minutes ago, ykX said:

    The fact that you guys talk about last "good" GM small cars from 60s and 70s says a lot.

    At least Ford had Focus, Fiesta, Mondeo in Europe.

    Do not forget their best one yet, the 1991 Escort GT, that was the best Ford built as it was Built by Mazda for Ford. Insurance industry went to task over the GT Pocket Rocket. That was a solid reliable long last car. Ford has gone down hill ever since they stopped that car and decided to build their crappy replacement.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, A Horse With No Name said:

    Agree. 

    I actually see this as a good thing in many ways. Stop building cars you are not passionate about. GM has not been passionate about small cars in its 60 plus year history of building them.  Saturn never made a dime for them. Corvair was a public relations disaster. Cavalier seems to have been un-sexy enough to induce involuntary celibacy into every owner who bought one, save one member here who owns one and has a son.  Cobalt lacked the styling and finesse of its competition. The current Cruze falls light years behind the Mazda 3, Civic, Golf, Imprezza, and Hundai offering. 

    Off topic again...I really like you...please...please...please tell me you are not a Dallas fan.  Please. 

    Me? I'm loyal to one.. 

    thumb.jpeg

    • Haha 1
    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    5 minutes ago, dfelt said:

    Do not forget their best one yet, the 1991 Escort GT, that was the best Ford built as it was Built by Mazda for Ford. Insurance industry went to task over the GT Pocket Rocket. That was a solid reliable long last car. Ford has gone down hill ever since they stopped that car and decided to build their crappy replacement.

    The performance versions of the current Focus and Fiesta (ST, RS) were highly regarded.   

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think GM not only knows what is best for them, but is doing the right thing in mothballing low utilization plants, moving where needed assembly line workers and reducing the thick layer of management so that they can be more reactive to the market.

    One thing that the Tech industry has shown us is that the largest companies die if they stay fat and thick with mgmt and slow changing manufacturing. This is something DC does not understand.

    GM should not have more than 8 or 9 levels from the assembly line worker to the CEO.

    Dell Technology now as the biggest tech company now in the world, to stay nimble, they need thin mgmt. and lean manufacturing along with nibble engineering to quickly change to market conditions and I love knowing there is only 4 levels between me a worker bee Engineer and our CEO Micheal Dell.

    GM will benefit big time with reduced white collar levels and faster nimble assembly on a global platform that does not require additional assembly sites to build the products.

    I see problems coming for the German brands as they are fat with union labor, assembly plants that are under utilized and a socialist environment that will hinder change.

    GM will be the American auto company along with Asians that will change to the market dynamics and survive.

    I hope Ford survives, but I do not see it in it's current form. They have hard times ahead.

    GM did the right things now!

    5 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

    The performance versions of the current Focus and Fiesta (ST, RS) were highly regarded.   

    Yes they are highly regarded, but they also have some serious power train issues.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Corvair was awesome.. Especially the Spyder. Either way.. The Cobalt SS is still a car to run.. And my daughter's Cruze has been awesome and looks great. While I am cool with the current looks of the Cruze.. Her Cruze is much "sexier" and GM could have continued with the look for another 5. Hell the Verano's turbo power train would have fixed a lot of perception problems in it not having an SS model. 

    • Like 1
    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    20 minutes ago, ykX said:

    The fact that you guys talk about last "good" GM small cars from 60s and 70s says a lot.

    At least Ford had Focus, Fiesta, Mondeo in Europe.

    Yeah, with GM pretty much any small car they have had since the 70s has been unrelentingly mediocre...the Vega, the '80s-90s J-cars, etc.. the Cruze may have been decent, but it didn't seem to catch on in the market. 

    Edited by Robert Hall
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 minute ago, Robert Hall said:

    the Cruze may have been decent, but it didn't seem to catch on in the market. 

    I truly believe auto's like the Cruze never had a chance with the poor marketing that GM has done for auto's. 

    They seem to as is now clear with Cadillac advertise the hell out of a single auto. XT4 and then I doubt in a year we will hear anything about it. Mercedes-Benz and Kia coping them seems to understand the need to market the family of auto's and point out the performance, family hauler, date night, etc. cars in the family and start and end with an overview of the whole family of choices.

    Why does GM not get this, XT4 can be the highlight, but why not show off the full family of CUV/SUV and give them all some lime light.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    47 minutes ago, dfelt said:

    Do not forget their best one yet, the 1991 Escort GT, that was the best Ford built as it was Built by Mazda for Ford. Insurance industry went to task over the GT Pocket Rocket. That was a solid reliable long last car. Ford has gone down hill ever since they stopped that car and decided to build their crappy replacement. 

    I remember thinking how refined my driving instructor's Mazda 323 felt compared to my dad's Ciera in the late 80's.

     

    • Haha 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

    Off topic again...I really like you...please...please...please tell me you are not a Dallas fan.  Please. 

    And I thought we butt heads on Ford... I'm a Dallas fan. 

    • Haha 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Just now, ccap41 said:

    What powertrain issues has the Fiesta ST had?  Or Focus ST? 

    Transmission issues from what I have read and gasket issues. As long as the gaskets are holding and the transmission has not gone loony the cars seem to drive well according to what I have read on forums and in the media.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Just now, dfelt said:

    Transmission issues from what I have read and gasket issues. As long as the gaskets are holding and the transmission has not gone loony the cars seem to drive well according to what I have read on forums and in the media.

    The transmission issues were not on the ST cars and the gasket issue was RS only. 

    • Thanks 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

    The transmission issues were not on the ST cars and the gasket issue was RS only. 

    OK, that is good to know, things can get confused on the various forums on how people post, so if that was it, then that is good to know.

    Currently this forum where members have the Fiesta ST seem to have clutch issues, front mount inter-cooler issues and interior noises / rattles.

    https://www.fiestast.org/forum/fiesta-st-discussions/4117-what-common-problems-issues-new-fiesta-st.html

    Of course according to this site: http://www.fordproblems.com/models/fiesta/

    Fiesta owners are having the most trouble with the transmission (52%), interior (8%), and the engine (7%).

    Glad I do not have the Focus as it seems to have plenty of Transmission issues for the 2018 model year and there are lawsuit websites setup already.

    http://2018fordfocustransmissionproblems.com/

    Anyways, I hope that this helps secure GM's long term life as I think the plant closing and headcount reduction is the right thing to do. Ford should be doing this faster too as they really need to address that debt issue.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    14 minutes ago, dfelt said:

    OK, that is good to know, things can get confused on the various forums on how people post, so if that was it, then that is good to know.

    Currently this forum where members have the Fiesta ST seem to have clutch issues, front mount inter-cooler issues and interior noises / rattles.

    Do you want me to go to any forum for any car and LOOK for issues? 

    I could probably find issues with your Escalade if I went to a forum and looked for them. 

    Yes, Ford is taking care of the buyers of past models, at least. They extended the warranty, if the issue isn't fixed after three visits to a dealership they buy it back, they cover towing and repairs on it.. big fck up to let it get to that point. 

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, Robert Hall said:

    Yeah, with GM pretty much any small car they have had since the 70s has been unrelentingly mediocre...the Vega, the '80s-90s J-cars, etc.. the Cruze may have been decent, but it didn't seem to catch on in the market. 

    Cruze was/is an awesome car.. at one time led the market in sales... led the market in fuel economy.. led the market in content.. GM as always when it comes to low profit vehicles... chose not to advertise it. U can bet one thing.. if GM is advertising it.. it is either BRAND NEW.. or HIGH PROFIT.  Now.. I like how suddenly the idea that MAZDA is so great just because they are keeping the 3.. NEWSFLASH!!! MAZDA is about a 1/5 the size of GMNA.. Also.. the market line-up looks better.. again.. I just wish that the CRUZE name would have have simply moved to the Sonic. As it stands

    Chevy will have: Spark, Sonic, Trax, Bolt, Malibu, Equinox, Blazer, Traverse, Tahoe, Suburban, and Trucks.  There is also another suv coming from what I hear

    Cadillac by 2020: CT3, CT5, XT4, XT5, XT6, Escalade.. and if they are still doing the "new product every 6 months and U still count the CT3 and 5.. there are at least two-three more vehicles being intro'ed by '20, one of which is obviously the XT6

    That being said.. some else has pointed out that Cadillac will have no performance vehicles.. when at the worst case they will have EXACTLY the amount of performance vehicles they have RIGHT NOW.. as the CT6-V is not out for another 6 months

    again.. this is a sexy lil whip.. and she actually got rid of her Equinox to get it. I actually contemplated finding a wrecked Verano turbo and snatching the engine to supe this lil thing up.. It gets around with just 138HP, and I swear more if U use Premium gas.. but with 250 it would be crazy fun

    20171227_120207.jpg

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • google-news-icon.png



  • google-news-icon.png

  • Subscribe to Cheers & Gears

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001 we've brought you real content and honest opinions, not AI-generated stuff with no feeling or opinions influenced by the manufacturers.

    Please consider subscribing. Subscriptions can be as little as $1.75 a month, and a paid subscription drops most ads.*
     

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Community Hive Community Hive

    Community Hive allows you to follow your favorite communities all in one place.

    Follow on Community Hive
  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • I am surprised that GMC is making these owners buy their adapter, but then I guess if you can afford to pay $150,000 for an EV, you can afford the price of the adapter.  @Drew Dowdell Does GMC say what the cost of the adapter is?
    • GMC Hummer EV drivers can now charge their gargantuan EVs on Tesla Superchargers, according to an announcement on GMC's website. Enabling Supercharging requires an update to the myGMC app; however, users can use the Tesla app and register temporarily as a Rivian R1S until the app update completes. Drivers who expect to use the Tesla Superchargers network regularly may wish to sign up for a $12.99 subscription through the Tesla app, which grants a 10c/kWh discount.  With a 200 kWh battery, just two charges from 20% - 80% per month would cover the membership fee. The myGMC app will also allow owners to purchase an official NACS to CCS adaptor.  While third-party NACS to CCS adapters are available for purchase, they are not officially approved for use on Tesla's network. With this change, GMC says that Hummer EV drivers now have access to approximately 195,000 charge points across North America.  Most Tesla Superchargers are of the 250kw variety, and while not specified in GMC's announcement, we suspect that the Hummer EV is not eligible to charge on the 150kw chargers, much like the Ford EVs, which cite the same 15,000 number for eligible Superchargers.  Limited to 250kw charging speeds, Hummer EV drivers may wish to limit the use of Tesla stations to a last resort while traveling as they will not reach the full 350kw charging speeds their vehicle is capable of. GM has also partnered with Flying-J / Pilot to offer 350kw charging at truck stops nationwide and is a founding member of the new IONNA Network that will offer both CCS and NACS charging without an adaptor. There is no announcement yet on Tesla Supercharger Access for their other EVs.  Drivers can identify 250kw chargers by the black collar at the end of the charging cable. View full article
    • COST, Apartment owners are very stingy even here in Liberal PNW, there is city mandates now to get apartment owners to install chargers as renters are complaining. Yet up north by my area where I live around Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Edmonds and Mukilteo Apartment owners who have installed L2 chargers rarely have vacancy so yes, it is valuable I believe and of course the Tesla Supercharger stations are packed all the time. Workwise, Seattle has been very progressive in having building owners install chargers and I had at one time posted pictures of all the chargers at my work where 2 years ago, there were 4 and now there is 20 and still they are filled up, so demand is truly there, but resistance to change is still very hard among older folks. With GOP Trump having control of the Rural he has them sold on Toxic Diesel is the life and EVs need to die, so I doubt rural will get chargers without the Feds forcing the install and then we have to deal with the idiots cutting the cables or icing the chargers. I hope there is a future way to have the cables shock the idiots that attempt to cut the cables as it is just stupid.
    • That's hella ugly, but people will buy it because it says "off road"   Look at how it tackles that gravel road that a Nissan Sentra could easily navigate.
    • True, but some larger apartment complexes or parking garages could put in level 2 chargers, maybe even level 1 for places like an airport extended parking.  If people have their car sit 12 hours at their apartment, or 8 hours in a parking garage while at work, there is opportunity there also for charing without having to build out expensive super chargers. And really it is rural America that should be embracing EV's way more because there aren't many gas stations when you get into farm country, you might have to drive 30-40 minutes to find a gas station in some parts of rural America, but they have houses with electricity and can easily charge.  
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search