Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Dsuupr

Could/Would GM use the Cruze as a way to introduce BAS II?

11 posts in this topic

The Cruze is being introduced to the US in 2010 and so is BAS II. GM has stated that BAS II is platform flexible, unlike BAS I. The press release and interviews about BAS II seemed to focus alot around the use of a turbo with the system. Could GM be "smart" enough to introduce BAS II with the Cruze? What about the Orlando?

If the combined gas mileage for a 1.4L Turbo Cruze was 32 mpg, which is not unreasonable considering statements made by the company, than a Cruze with the 1.4L Turbo, with flexfuel capability, and BAS II could/should be 38 to 39 combined mpg. That would provide some major help to GMs EPA #s and would be great PR.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something else to consider. GM could increase product they have beyond the government requirements by making BAS II standard equipment in every vehicle. At a cost of $1600 to $1700, they would be able to make up the loss by eliminating incentives, which would be easy to do when every product you have eliminates the competition in gas mileage. GM could easily have a 3 to 5 year advantage by doing this.

Also consider that the government is stating it should cost automakers $1300 to improve the mileage and with GM building BAS II in bulk, I'm guessing they could quickly get the cost below the $1300 mark.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hasn't GM had some supplier issues with the batteries for the BAS I? If the issues are sorted out, and they can get the volume, it would be an interesting idea. Personally, though, I would rather have a car that gets awesome gas mileage because that extra cost was invested in some better, safer, and more lightweight materials. Put the cars on a diet, GM! :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hasn't GM had some supplier issues with the batteries for the BAS I? If the issues are sorted out, and they can get the volume, it would be an interesting idea. Personally, though, I would rather have a car that gets awesome gas mileage because that extra cost was invested in some better, safer, and more lightweight materials. Put the cars on a diet, GM! :)

Why not both? Also BAS II gives us the opportunity to keep cars like the Camaro and G8 while still achieving the EPA requirements.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hasn't GM had some supplier issues with the batteries for the BAS I? If the issues are sorted out, and they can get the volume, it would be an interesting idea. Personally, though, I would rather have a car that gets awesome gas mileage because that extra cost was invested in some better, safer, and more lightweight materials. Put the cars on a diet, GM! :)

+1

Granted, BAS II would be a huge help...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. BAS II makes a lot of sense - if it's cheap. There's no reason to burn fuel when you're not moving, and the initial assist will compensate for any turbo lag. The only problem with the current BAS system is that it's priced like a full-hybrid.

I can see stop-start technology becoming the next airbag or catalytic converter. BMW plans on having their version - which uses a jumped-up alternator and one battery - on every car they sell.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I just wonder what the result would be if GM purposefully made a car lightweight, including the use of like $1500 of carbon fiber or similar material. At least with carbon fiber, there is a "cool" factor involved that's previously only been in high-end sports cars and the like.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather pay $2000 extra for a lightweight car than $2000 for a heavier mild hybrid whose batteries i would eventually have to replace. Lightweightness rarely is damaged, and if it is damaged it just makes it lighter :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd rather pay $2000 extra for a lightweight car than $2000 for a heavier mild hybrid whose batteries i would eventually have to replace. Lightweightness rarely is damaged, and if it is damaged it just makes it lighter :P

I fully agree. I'm not anti hybrid, but I do recognize that they have an inherent higher purchase and maintenance cost, and lightweight materials should only have the higher purchase cost.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fully agree. I'm not anti hybrid, but I do recognize that they have an inherent higher purchase and maintenance cost, and lightweight materials should only have the higher purchase cost.

The other thing is that if EVERYONE started using carbon fiber that technology would quickly gain economies of scale whereas hybrid systems tend to be proprietary and thus more resistant to coming down in price compared to carbon fiber panels.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The other thing is that if EVERYONE started using carbon fiber that technology would quickly gain economies of scale whereas hybrid systems tend to be proprietary and thus more resistant to coming down in price compared to carbon fiber panels.

Another good point, and the same thing applies to other materials. GM has stated that they have some really good plastics that they could use to make things like body panels, and even hinges and other parts that are traditionally thought of as needing to be metal. And as the body panel thing goes, the materials don't have as notable expansion/contraction properties as the polymer used for Saturn body panels, so they could eliminate one of the top reasons the Saturn polymer panels were phased out - panel gaps.

0

Share this post


Link to post
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.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0