GXT

For each idle European worker they would have one less idle American worker. They may as well show some allegiance to the USA. As for the $ to retool, it wouldn't be cheap (not as cheap as just whining and lobbying, that is for sure). But if they made the magical $2,000 - $3,000 profit/vehicle by building in the US, they could theoretically make an extra $4B - $6B in profit per year based on their 2006 European volume. That pays for a lot of retooling... especially when you already have plants that are idled. Not only would they be able to take advantage of the USD/Euro "advantage" they would also be able to make their "higher-quality" small cars more easily available for sale in the US. If the Japanese are making such a profit off of this, then why doesn't GM stop whining and start doing it as well?

Well it is the same people whining. All I ever hear from BWM and Mercedes is how the cheap Yen is unfair. :AH-HA_wink: Here's a thought for you. US automakers and their economists are calling for a 25-30% increase in the valuation of the Yen. http://www.autospectator.com/modules/news/...hp?storyid=8759 The US dollar is approximately that far behind the Euro. Why doesn't GM make more cars in the US (instead of laying off US workers) and sell them in Europe?

It might be a bit bland next to cars like the new G, but I don't think the TL "looks derivative". They still stand out. With a new TSX this year, TL the next, and whatever coupe Acura is going to put together, Acura's car sales should start going up again.

I saw my first Avenger on the road the other day. It was a rental. This car seems strangely analogous to a direct-to-DVD movie.

If they are losing the publicity war, it is because they have no weapons with which to fight it. While it may be true that Toyota and GM are duking it out to see who can be the most efficient of the least efficient, in terms of the most efficient of the most efficient GM isn't competivie with Honda, let alone Toyota. I can't find the paper anymore, but it had the average fuel economy in various countries in the world. I believe the US was just over 10L/100KM. Canada was in the mid 9s. Australia the mid 8s. And Japan was in the mid 5s. It is no wonder the Japanese do so well at fuel efficient cars.

Much of the healthcare costs/liabilities are due to the lack of socialized medicine in the US. Personally, I'd rather not pay more for things. The PS3 is too expensive already.

I'm not a fan of Toyota. I'd never buy one. But I'm realistic. They are the leader in the area of hybrids. GM is the worst (of those that are in the game). As for Honda, they make a 4cyl that GM needs a hybrid just to match. Again, I am being realistic. 25MPG city is very poor for a hybrid. In the face of the other choices available, only the uninformed will buy this car. But it is clear now why GM was downplaying hybrids. Even years later they still aren't yet able to make a good one. I hope those who though it had something to do with buses finally sees that as the PR that the rest of us saw it as from the beginning. I hope the upcoming two-mode hybrids are at least competitive.

They can... you just need to buy a Honda with a manual Accord 4cyl 5MT: 26/34 As it is not a hybrid it will not suffer from the "hybrid EPA drop" that this Aura will suffer from. And it is less expensive. If those are the 2008 numbers for the Aura then things get a bit better for the Aura; for a 4cyl hybrid it would go from "brutal" to "not very good". We need some real-world numbers to get a better sense of how all of this compares... perhaps the GM system more closely hits the EPA numbers than Honda/Toyota's. Or perhaps we are seeing why GM has taken so long to get in the game. Or perhaps we are seeing what happens when you give your competitors a ~9 year lead in a tech.

There is a difference between mitigating expectations and drumming up hype. The media (and many on this site) are acting like Hydrogen cars are just a few years away. I've read "Hybrids are just a stop-gap for Hydrogen" on this site more than once. Honda, in spite of having a street legal fuel cell car some 4 years ago, and already having leased hydrogen cars starting over two years ago, and likely being the leader in this technology, is saying 2018 to downplay expectations. On the other hand, GM, who hasn't even put out a hybrid sedan, and who's hybrids to date have been completely uncompetitive (perhaps due to the fact that they have been downplaying hybrids and have barely registered a pulse in this 8 year old market), has announced a vehicle which they have no idea when it will ever be feasible. GM isn't alone in this because they have some unique technology (as we have seen, their technology roadmap involved components already being used in Toyotas and Fords... and probably would be in use in GM vehicles as well if their hybrids weren't so poor), they are alone in this because everyone else knows this isn't feasible. Anyone who can do simple math can demonstrate it. Even GM isn't denying it.

I agree. But it has to be reasonable, doesn't it? http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...st&p=260052

Yeah, the same person who noticed that this Prius battery is a lot smaller than the one claimed for the Volt. Definately the batteries will get cheaper. But it will take quite the combination of expensive gas, cheap batteries and cheap electricity to make a car like the volt more cost effective than a hybrid like the Prius.

Actually, plug-in hybrids are already available with A123System's batteries. It is called a "Prius". You can already buy the converstion kits for the Prius from Hymotion using the A123Systems batteries: http://www.hymotion.com/index.htm The Prius kit is $9,500. Range is 30miles (shrinks to ~20 with the AC on high). 5kWh capacity. Cost to charge would be ~$.50 where I live. Assuming 12,000 miles per year and 100% electic operation (which isn't likely with that small a range), cost for electricity would be ~$200 ($300 for the escape). Cost at $3/gallon for a Prius that gets 45MPG would be $800/year. Net savings for the plug-in hybrid is $600/year. It would take 16 years for the system to pay for itself (keep in mind there is only a 2 year warranty). The interesting thing is that these plug-in hybrids become more cost effective as the batteries get smaller.... until eventually you have a hybrid such as the Prius. The ironic part is some of the loudest Volt proponents are some of the same people that have been maligning the Prius, even though the Prius offers a cost-effectiveness that the Volt could only dream of. As I said in another post, this is not unique GM technology. GM has no special advantage in this area except for their ability to radically preannounce (which is par for the course when it comes to GM and hybrids). And it most certainly isn't cost-effective technology. It is time for GM to stop promising and start delivering.

He is deceitful or incompetent. Either way, he certainly doesn't deserve a prize.

So is this author biased on incompetent? The author states: +3,000 jobs from the imports in 2007 -43,000 jobs from the domestics in 2006 I guess that is a net loss of 40,000 "headquarters jobs". Seems like a lot of "headquarters jobs" to support 3,000 front line workers. The Level Field Institute, which the author quotes, claims that the domestics use ~2.7 times the number of employees/car as compared to the imports: http://www.levelfieldinstitute.org/docs/lf...FINAL090706.pdf That should put the loss of domestic jobs at ~8,000 to offset the 3,000 new import jobs. So where are the other 35,000 jobs going? The writer would have you believe that the delta between job losses with the domestics and job gains with the imports comes down to lost white collar jobs. However they are actually being lost to selective statistical manipulation by the author. 2006 was hardly the average year of job losses for the domestics. Nor should it be expected that in 2007 the imports will magically hire in such a way as to be equivalent to the 2006 domestic job loss. According to the International Trade Administration of the US Department of Commerce, the domestic portion of the US motor vehicle assembly industry employment dropped by ~65,000 from the peak in 1995 to 2005. That is an average of 6,500/year. 43,000/year is 7 times the 10 year average. Also, the imports will have added about 23,000 jobs during that same time. This roughly represents the 2.7 times number of the LFI, and directly contradicts the sensationalized 14 times number from the false manipulations of Gary Witzenburg. http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/auto/domestic/st...rts/Jobloss.pdf And of course the 2.7 number cannot be entirely attributed to corporate jobs. Perhaps the imports will become sufficiently inefficient to get to the disastrous levels of employment that the domestics managed to achieve in their successful bid to lose money while being uncompetitive in terms of design, quality, materials and R&D. Thanks Gary Witzenburg, for your very thoughtful critique.

So what would you say if GM wasn't in shrink mode and this was a GM plant that was being built? Perhaps you will get your way and Toyota will open their next plant in Canada or Mexico.

You showed a couple of models that might do better than the GM ones I included. That is fine, but neither would do better than the competing Honda models, so it really doesn't change anything. And let’s say one did do better than the competing Honda model, then GM would win 2 categories instead of 1. Again, it doesn't make your claim even close to correct. I did the legwork. Next time you make a clearly false claim, you do the legwork. Better yet, do it now. I HAVE proven you wrong. Find some comparisons in each of the categories that show that GM has the more fuel efficient vehicles. Before you start, I will remind you that cars drive in the city too, and therefore fuel economy comparisons should include a portion of city driving. No, you made the claim, so YOU explain why it matters. Prove that you aren't the lemming you malign others to be by explaining how it invalidates CR's numbers. If you claimed a unicorn flew out of your butt then the burden of proof would be on you, not me. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I had a BAD experience but the survey made my experience sound GOOD. If I had submitted that survey the dealership would have given themselves a pat on the back when in fact I was angry at them. This is one of the limitation of JD’s methodology. Again, you criticize CR with points that apply to JD. JD exists to sell results to big companies. CR exists to sell magazines to consumers. But only one of them allows companies to use their ratings in advertisements. No, I don’t recall that. But I looked it up, and like your other claims in this thread you either haven’t actually investigated what the truth is or you are purposely being misleading. “Rollover safety per se has concerned safety experts since the 1950's and 1960's, beginning with the controversies surrounding the Jeep CJ's. Consumers Union's concern was acutely heightened in 1988, when the Suzuki Samurai tipped up abruptly on two wheels during a non-routine sequence of our emergency handling tests. In order to properly evaluate the phenomenon we had observed, our auto engineers adjusted the course to determine whether that Samurai tip-up was an anomaly, and equally important, to determine how the other three SUVs in the test group would perform when traversing the same path as that of the Samurai's first tip-up. The adjusted course is slightly shorter; the steering reversal is sharper; and the speed is slower (35-45 mph rather than 45-55 mph), as might be required in a suburban or urban setting. This is now known as our "short course" and has been in use by us since 1988. In subsequent test sequences during that 1988 test, the Samurai tipped up severely, while the other three SUVs in the group remained stable throughout this "short course" avoidance-maneuver testing. As a result of its performance in all of these tests, Consumer Reports rated the Samurai "Not Acceptable." We believed then-and continue to believe today-that such performance is unreasonably dangerous for consumers.(3) Since 1988, we have tested 85 SUVs in the short course. In addition to the Samurai, two other SUVs, the 1995-96 Isuzu Trooper and the 2001 Mitsubishi Montero Limited, tipped up severely and were rated Not Acceptable. There were six other SUVs whose emergency handling was rated Poor because of their performance in this test. Based on the 1988 test results, CU petitioned NHTSA requesting the establishment of a stability standard to protect against unreasonable risk of rollover in all vehicles. In granting CU's petition, NHTSA noted that the petition is "consistent with the Agency's steps to address the rollover problem." “ http://www.consumersunion.org/products/pittle402.htm What exactly is your complaint here? Looks like CR is pretty valuable to the public in their own right.

I don't see it in the CR stats. Wouldn't it be similar to the 3.5 on the Aura? Again, CR hasn't rated it. Unfortunately I can't find any sites that have reviewed it and the S2000. (Car and driver got 18MPG, but as I am sure you know they are generally pretty hard on the vehicles they test.) But it is the same engine as the Cobalt, right? The Cobalt SS gets 23MPG with the turbo 2.0. So yes, the Solstice GXP could probably get a few more MPG. But I really doubt it could get 28 MPG or more. It weighs 3625 lbs. The TL weighs 3565. The CTS 3,725. I threw it in as it was kind of interesting that even though it lacked the luxury features of the other vehicles, the performance was in the same ballpark and the fuel economy was relatively poor. Perhaps I shouldn't have. Feel free to ignore it, it really doesn't change the outcome. I believe you said, "It IS true the that Honda's corp. avg. is lower than GMs but many GM models will out do competeing Honda models.". This is yet another competition where the GM vehicle does not out do the Honda. In the sedan category GM has one vehicle that matches the Accord (if you ignore the hybrid), and over half a dozen that are 10% or more behind. I'm going to call that a win for Honda. Honda also wins the mini-van, roadster, compact, subcompact, near-luxury, and small SUV. The large SUV is a bit of a wash. GM wins the pickup by 1 MPG. "Opinion" is when someone writes, "It IS true the that Honda's corp. avg. is lower than GMs but many GM models will out do competeing Honda models." and is unable to back it up with facts. I have provided numbers to the best of my ability. I guess I missed that part in your original claim, "It IS true the that Honda's corp. avg. is lower than GMs but many GM models will out do competeing Honda models." But let's not get into a discussion about whether the price of a car is the cost of a car. As I said, most of the criticism is from people don't understand statistics. That is just plain incorrect, but in a very ironic way. What you wrote is true of JD Powers, not CR. Don't you remember the stories of how poor the scions did in the IQS and then it turned out that the major complaint was that the ride was too stiff, there was some interior noise, and the AC took too long to get cool? According to JD Powers, that is equivalent to if the engine, transmission, and brakes all failed. CR breaks out their complaints into categories and does weight an engine failure more heavily than a squeak. JD decides what a problem is and isn't by the questions that they ask. I took a JD Powers survey on dealership experience. I had a bad experience on which I was looking forward to nailing the dealership. But I couldn't because the survey didn't ask questions that allowed me to show my dissatisfaction. By the end of the survey I had actually filled out a positive review of the dealership. I never sent it in. Can't you see how strange it is that you continue to defend JD when they are in fact guilty of the complaints that you attempt to use to villify CR? But the point is really moot, JD has already demonstrated beyond a doubt that their results are inconsistent to the point of being meaningless. If you continue to defend JD over CR, it may become apparent that you favour it only because of the results. Perhaps now that CR rates Buick higher than JD you might change your mind? Or do you think it is true that Buick is one of the poorer automakers as JD (now) contends?

Well I guess I shouldn't have deleted that sentence about how obvious it is that Honda doesn’t sell that many trucks. :AH-HA_wink: 43% of the vehicles Honda sells are "trucks" compared to 57% for GM. So you are correct, but it isn't quite as lopsided as one might initially think. As for the vehicle to vehicle comparisons, take the Malibu, which I gather is the jewel in GM's fuel economy crown (all numbers are from CR, fuel economy is real-world): Accord Hybrid: 25MPG, 0-60: 6.9 Accord V6: 23MPG, 0-60 7.3 Malibu V6: 23MPG, 0-60 8.1 Malibu Maxx: 21MPG, 0-60 8.2 Accord 4Cyl: 24MPG, 0-60 9.0 Malibu 4Cyl: 24MPG, 0-60 10.1 So yes, here is a case where GM can match Honda for fuel economy (although at lower performance). Now consider some of the other vehicles they offer in the class: Buick LaCross CXL 3.8 V6: 18MPG, 0-60: 9.0 Pontiac Grand Prix 3.8 V6: 20MPG, 0-60: 8.3 Pontiac G6 4cyl: 22MPG, 0-60: 9.4 Pontiac G6 V6: 20MPG, 0-60: 7.7 Chevy Impala 3.9 V6: 20MPG, 0-60: 7.8 Aura XE (3.5, 4AT): 20MPG, 0-60: 8.1 Aura XR (3.6, 6AT): 20MPG, 0-60: 6.6 None are comparable to the Accord in terms of fuel economy. The Aura XR is the only car that has better performance. Consider other classes: S2000: 28MPG, 0-60: 5.8 Solstice (2.4, 5MT): 23MPG, 0-60: 7.2 Honda Odyssey V6: 19MPG, 0-60: 8.6 Saturn Relay V6: 17MPG, 0-60: 10.2 Honda Fit 5MT: 34MPG, 0-60 9.9 Chevy Aveo 5MT: 27MPG, 0-60 11.2 Honda Fit 5AT: 32MPG, 0-60 12.4 Chevy Aveo 4AT: 28MPG, 0-60 11.7 Honda Civic Hybrid: 37MPG, 0-60: 11.7 Honda Civic EX (5MT): 31MPG, 0-60: 8.6 Honda Civic EX (5AT): 28MPG, 0-60: 10.1 Acura RSX Base (5MT): 28MPG, 0-60: 9.1 Cobalt LS (4AT): 23MPG, 0-60: 8.8 Honda Civic Si (6MT): 27MPG, 0-60 7.0 Cobalt SS (5MT): 23MPG, 0-60 7.3 Acura TL (3.2V6 5AT): 23MPG, 0-60: 6.7 Cadillac CTS (2.8V6, 5AT): 19MPG, 0-60: 8.5 Cadillac CTS-V (5.7V8, 6MT): 17MPG, 0-60: 5.3 Mote Carlo (V8, 4AT): 17MPG, 0-60 6.3 Honda Pilot: 17MPG, 0-60: 8.2 Acura RDX: 18MPG, 0-60: 7.4 Cadillac SRX (V8): 16MPG, 0-60: 6.4 Chevy Trailblazer 4WD, 4.2 V6: 18MPG, 0-90 9.1 Hummer H3: 14MPG, 0-60 11.5 Honda Ridgeline RTS: 15MPG, 0-60: 8.6 Chevy Colorado: 16MPG, 0-60: 9.6 Chevy Avalanche: 13MPG, 0-60: 10.1 Honda CRV: 21MPG, 0-60: 10.6 Pontiac torrent: 18MPG, 0-60: 9.1 Honda Insight: 51MPG, 0-60 11.2 GM: Nothing to compare Aside from midsize SUVs and trucks (which are close, and which I really don't know enough about to say if I am using comparable modesl), Honda wins in every category. I have no doubt that GM will show much better once they get rid of their pushrod/4ATs that are so common. Consider the Aura with the 3.5 V6 & 4AT vs the 3.6 V6 and 6AT. Identical fuel economy, but 20% better 0-60 for the 3.6/6AT. In the meantime, it is not true to say that "many GM models will out do competeing Honda models"; "a couple, barely" would be more accurate. I can't speak for what the "import guys" did for years. I do know that the "domestic guys" tend to dismiss CR and quote JDs. I also suspect that is due to GM's relative performance between the two. I gather from your post that you are one of those people. But allow me to correct some misconceptions on the quality of the IQS, and also to point out that GM is actually no longer doing so well on the IQS. It does not change my view of the IQS; it was bad before and it is bad now (although it is interesting that the movement in the IQS seems to be tending towards the CR results). But I wonder how it will affect your views? So please, read the rest of this post in detail so that you can correct others who might also believe as you do. First, I guess it is important to stress that CR is measuring reliability and JD Powers is measuring "quality". How JD Powers measures "quality" involves questions that catch a limited subset of all "quality" issues. They revamp their methodology from time to time. When they do so, their scores change radically. It shows the limitations of their system and indicates that the results are not really accurate. Take, for example, the changes in 2006. They added a metric involving design and layout. This made the results even less about reliability than they were before. BMW went from 3rd to 28th. So let me ask you, which was right? Is BMW one of the best or one of the worst in terms of initial quality? Who knows? JD Powers certainly doesn't. If you look at their methodology, JD Powers misses a lot of issues due to targeted questions. The 2006 methodology does improve on the ability of their survey to catch issues (now 217 questions instead of 135), but the fundamental problem still remains. And now that the design and layout metric has been added, the perception that the IQS measures reliability is only further confused. If you don't like that example, how about these: Buick went from 4th to 23rd. Hummer went from 10 to 35 (3rd worst). Mercedes went from 5 to 26. Buick's initial quality may have gone down because their old buyers were confused by the power windows. Or maybe the seats were too hard? Who knows. You don't, unless you pay JD Powers for the results (that is why they exist, after all). All you can say for sure is that what the IQS told you in 2005 could be the opposite of 2006. At least one of them is wrong, and likely both are. I'm not sure why you think the CR's "methods are not statistically reliable". From the criticisms I have seen it is more true to say that they are statistically reliable but the average person cannot understand statistics. CR is by no means perfect, but JD Powers makes it appear so. I would like to see the warranty information provided to the NHTSA for recall purposes was made public. But that will never happen. So in the meantime, it is CR.

Honda has the highest fuel economy of any automaker. I don't have the exact numbers, but I believe the industry average is 25MPG and Honda is just shy of 29MPG. As for the article, it is pretty laughable. Anyone who quotes JD Powers numbers is ignorant or biased.

I heard an interesting story about the Heaven's Gate cult. They bought a $4,000 telescope to try to view the alien spaceship that they were expecting to see in the tail of the Hale-Bop comet. When they didn't see the spaceship, they assumed the telescope was broken and returned it. Take a look at their plans for the plug-in View: http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...showtopic=13786 Even in the very PR piece in which GM is trumpeting the plug-in hybrid, they have no idea when they will be able to create one with even 15% of the range of the Volt. They laid out their plans until 2009 and there is no plug-in hybrid shown. And if you read the piece closely, you can see that GM is stuck with their poor-performing hybrid sedans until 2008. Take, for example, the Aura, which GM won't even announce the specific fuel economy of (probably because the vague percentage improvements that GM has indicated put the hybrid 4cyl Aura in the same fuel economy league as a non-hybrid 4cyl Accord). Let's be clear, even in the highly inflated fuel economy numbers of hybrids, GM can't break the 27MPG city mark (Hybrid Vue, and based on GM's numbers the Aura will not even make that). Even Ford managed 32 (Hybrid Escape). GM is failing dismally, and in return they distract you with promises of future cars that they know full well they cannot build. And you assume that even if they could be built, GM would do so better than the other auto-makers? What possible reason would there be to believe that? You can blame the "haters" all you want, but I'm letting you know that there really is no spaceship in the tail of that comet.

But market cap has nothing to do with sales. New Sentra + New Altima + New G35 = Big Sales Increase. And Ford will likely drop more than their production cuts show. They still seem to be in denial. Renaming the 500 to the Taurus is one of the more futile and telling acts I have seen in some time.

Last time I checked Chrysler was offering near $4,000 in incentives per car. How much more does a good interior cost over a crappy one? Would $500 cover it? $1,000? And if they did that, could they get by with "only" $2,000 in incentives? Can anyone point me to a good document showing how the yen translates to an unfair advantage for the asian automakers? With facts, please.

Yes. http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...showtopic=14931

As GM implied and as I suggested in an earlier post, the idea of a plug-in hybrid isn't new or novel, just unfeasible. GM was being disingenuous when they presented the Volt concept. They have been bad-mouthing and passing over hybrids on economic reasons only to present a concept of a less economically viable option. I would agree that this isn't news. However I took quite a beating in the other thread for not running out and putting a deposit down. Therefore for some it will be news. I value reason. Here is the ACEEE website: http://www.aceee.org/ You already have the link to the Honda presentation. The calculations are reasonably trivial. Feel free to show how the numbers are wrong. (I would suggest using GM's numbers, but they haven't provided any. In fact, all they have done is confirm that it isn't possible. Now we have numbers that show just how impossible it is.) Honda and the ACEEE have no reason to lie about this. They are both promoting alternative to gas-only vehicles. Plus it isn't like GM has any sort of insight or technological advantage in this area. If anything, Toyota and Honda would be better equipped to build such a vehicle. If it were feasible, everyone (especially Honda and Toyota) would just build and sell them. I liked the idea, and I am a little disappointed at just how unfeasible it is.

GM and Honda presented before the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Honda's presentation had some interesting items (http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/germantestimony.doc), but buried deep inside are some stats from The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) on plug-in hybrids. According to a report from Sept 2006, a plug-in hybrid with a 40 mile range would require a $17,500 battery. As the Volt can go 64 miles, that would equate to roughly a $28,000 battery (a hybrid, by comparison, currently has a $2,000 battery) Currently, according to the ACEEE and Honda, the payback for the hybrid portion of a hybrid is 7.3 years. The current payback for the plug-in hybrid portion of a car like the Volt would be roughly 42 years. (Assumptions: 12,000 miles/year, conventional vehicle fuel economy 30MPG, hybrid fuel economy of 50MPG, 50% of plug-in miles on electricity, $3.00/gallon gas, 4.0 miles/kWh, $0.09/kWh, no fuel economy penalty for the additional weight of the plug-in batteries, no battery replacement) If they manage to cut the cost of the battery by 1/5, then the payback for a Volt would be ~9.4 years (and a hybrid would then be 2.9 years). Even if the driver could stay under the 64 miles per day and use $0 in gas, the payback for the Volt would be ~32 years at today's battery costs, or ~7 years if the cost of the batteries was cut by 1/5. The other item that was pointed out was that plug-in hybrid batteries will likely wear out more quickly than hybrid batteries as they are under less advantageous load conditions. If a hybrid battery only lasts ~7(?) years, then a plug-in hybrid battery would last perhaps 5(?) years. In other words, expect a $20,000+(?) maintenance stop after 5 years (which, of course, would be long before the break even point of the original battery, putting you that much father in the negative). So, even if one were to travel only on electricity, and the cost of batteries were to be cut by 1/5, and they were able to extend battery life significantly, only then would you have a vehicle that is as cost effective as today's much-maligned hybrids.